"Forest Protection" and sex
dvank at michweb.net
Sat Mar 6 19:19:01 EST 1999
> DVK <dvank at michweb.net> wrote:
> >I can imagine a far worse scenario if big brother was involved in
> >destroying, er, I mean managing ALL of OUR properties.
> Who's talking about giving Big Brother control? Besides, isn't that pretty
> much what we have now in the form of Big Corporations aided and abetted by a
> doormat Big Brother?
> >feel confident that by allowing landowners to continue managing their own
> >properties (some DO use foresters) at least SOME forests will thrive into
> >the many generations to follow.
> Right. Some will survive. But how many and in what form? Those are the
> real issues. If we leave it up to rapacious timber corps, loggers and doormat
> burros, the chances are it will be few forests and those will be degraded.
> >If anything political, perhaps a "truth in logging" statement similar to
> >"truth in lending" stating the possible detriments of allowing logging
> >without professional assistance.
> We have something like that here in MA. Problem is, it's up to the burros to
> tell the landowners, and they never do.
> >Besides, in our political stage of today (U.S.A.) Rape is OK-- at least if
> >you are a liberal democrat, "feminist", or goon.
> And it's not OK if you're a right-wing, male chauvinist pig? <G>
Well, I don't know, you throw in "male chauvinst" and perhaps it is ok to *them*.
Rape is usually NOT OK to right wingers in general, is it? I guess I'm the wrong
guy to ask. I've always hated such stereotypes, honestly.
More information about the Ag-forst