in the forest, then seeks confirmation from a bunch of obscure anti-logging websites, finds what he is looking for, and propagates the alleged tree felling to suit their own anti-logging bigotry, should anyone even bother to argue the "facts" thus giving them more opportunities to spread their anti-logging bias?
If someone thinks a tree falls....
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
Interesting question. Obviously I bother but it seems to me the anti-logging types will continue with or without comment. I also have in the back of my mind that some who know little about the logging issue will start to believe what the anti-loggites post.dcbogey said:
All this crptic talk of logging has me stumped.
it is clear this cuts across many areas
woody will likely comment as he is anti-bush.
.
it is clear this cuts across many areas
woody will likely comment as he is anti-bush.
.
I understand the "shine a light under the rock (or log, in this case)" argument. Two points come to mind: 1) Anyone that actually starts to believe the sources the anti-loggers cite are a lost cause; 2) one a site like this, where the predominate focus is the search for a great sexual experience or great puns, IMO if the anti-loggers were ignored, they will eventually get bored and leave.basketcase said:
The politics forum, to me, used to be much more interesting, much less one dimensional. It has (or had) great potential to be an enlightening exchange of ideas but it has degraded into name calling and insults.
You are easily stumped, that is clear.....most likely a result of you being so anti-Obama...LancsLad said:
But posting less means reading terb more which means I spend a hell of a lot more money.dcbogey said:
y2kmark said:I don't find any threads. The closest is "Tree man stumps doctors"
That's knot it.
Root around some more.
.
