🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
> 
>Sigh. Once again, "destructive" is a subjective term of meaning only to a 

>volitional entity. An "ecological system" is NOT, repeat NOT alive. 
> 
>It is not, and can not be, a volitional entity. 
 
Every term we use, in that they are terms of the English language is a
subjective term of a "volitional entity". If we are to avoid such terms we
are to avoid discourse in general. 
 
An ecological system is in fact a system of living entities. 
 
 
>Hence, the phrase you wrote "Destructive certainly has a meaning to an  
>ecological system" is meaningless and stupid. 
 
 
Since an ecological system can cease existing it can be destroyed. This
means something.  
 
As far as my expousing notions that can be construed as "stupid" I would
hope that you could set up some objective criteria to make such a
determination and then show how my arguements or statements fit this
description. My intent is to engage in intellegent discourse. If you wish
to do the same, we can continue. 
 
 
 
 
>Using just one example, you claim that clear cutting is not positive to
"other  
>parts of the ecosystem". 
> 
>You are dead wrong. There are whole systems of plant species that thrive
in  
>clear cut areas -- a clear cut area is most positive for their growth. 
 
Just because another species will grow quickly in an area that has been
clear cut does not constitute it being postive to the ecosystem. There are
many examples where destruction of preditors has caused uncontrolled growth
of other species. This may increase the number of one species but is not a
benefit to the system. An ecosystem is an interrelation of many species. 
 
 
>In short -- you understand almost nothing about ecology 
 
You have not proved under any logical system that I understand almost
nothing about ecology. In fact I have a degree in Biology as well as a
number of years experience in environmentally related occupations. In
addition I have a post graduate degree in Math and by most objective
criteria am considered to be knowlegeble in both science and logic. (This
is starting to sound like a resume.) 
 
> and seem to persist in  
>regurgitating the current PC arrant nonsense on the subject. 
> 
 
I am certainly persistant. 
 
PC is now dominated by the Republican party I am sure. The discourse of the
day has been on there terms. 
 
>Think before posting ... 
> 
 
 
I am a living thinking being and I always think before posting.