Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
You seem to jump in and lump all treeworkes in theith the bucket buthcers as a rhetorical tool. I feel that gets in the way of the discussion and leads to arguments.
Gee, here I was, confused about being a lumper or a lumpee. Glad you cleared it up. Who would know better than the censor/moderator about the writing habits of his charges?
Looking to verify your observation, I ran a search on this site for posts with me calling people butchers, and guess what? In all my reprehensible writing, I only said this:
<center><i>Additionally, why butcher a tree or cut it down and waste the time it's spent
in growing at the site? That's the creepy disposable society crap carried on into
innocent creatures who don't look at all to me like a tin can or a bottle.</i></center>
That was in <u>Trimming Evergreen Trees</u>, a post where I again talked about alternatives.
I appear not to be your pernicious lumper, but I had to waste my time responding to the dim bulbed RockyJ, who apparently had a rat up his ass because he stopped smoking. In another thread, the bretheren gather around, patting this poor little puppy on the head, and saying, "There, there, it'll be better."
That's fine, but I had to listen to his unsolicited diatribes about me being on drugs, when he's got the problem of addiction. Oh, it was humor? Yeah, like a guy licking an ashtray for nicotine residue has time for humor.
So, that's your conclusion? I'm the one that <i>gets in the way of the discussion and leads to arguments.</i>?
An interesting number of authors here run their engines with the spark plug out--that makes it hard to keep up any intellectual compression and power.
Rhetoric belongs to those what can spell it, With spell-checkers, everyone here ought to be an Emerson..
<hr>
I've not been arguing against it [Bob's technique], and I've "admitted" to doing it in the past.
Well, that's nice. How does it work? What do you do? Where have you written or lectured about it? I'm happy to have your contributions and independent comments.
<hr>
I've been a counterpoint to your "pruning is bad" diatribes. I agree that the saw should not be the only tool we use and that kneejerk dogmatic methods gets in the way of common sence.
I agree. Counterpoints are essential to a healthy discussion. Notice, however, the presence of the word, <u>point</u>, in your choice of services you provide me. Please stick to points, not sloppy, generalized, purposeful, misinterpretions of what I say. It's a cheap shot, and I'm sure Mario has a figure of speedh for it..
I simply say that pruning is wounding--and trees suffer from far too much pruning without thinking. Is that my basic sin; that I believe people should think?
<hr>
I disagree that trees in urban settings can survive to thier species maturity without proper thoughtful management.
Well, there we have it. I believe, in an honest overview, that trees in urban settings struggle greatly. The consequence of limbing up, pruning cycles that require a tree be pruned even if it doesn't need it, and privatizing work based on bids for pounds, guarantee the early death of urban trees.
If you add the external issues of sidewalk replacement and root rot, or a civil or traffic engineer's general distaste for accommodating trees, to mention only two; it's really a matter of planting most trees, and kissing them goodbye well ahead of their species maturity.
Somewhere in my no-longer-available writings of a few years back, is a series titled, <i>Is Urban Forestry an Oxymoron?</i>
I don't think it's a question any longer. It's here, solidly here. I'd like to fix that as a steward,,,
Coffee, tea, or me?
Bob Wulkowicz
PS: Some people would like to hear about the new ideas. I'll give Stumper's answer in the starup of another thread, where I don't have to be distracted and mutter about offering Remedial Thinking 101.
