Healthy Southern Forests

Larry Harrell lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 22 11:21:10 EST 2004


"Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<sVPZb.24110$Cd6.991730 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7a90c754.0402210631.3fcb3e26 at posting.google.com...
> > wolfbat359 at mindspring.com (Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message
>  news:<b9eb3efe.0402201548.258599b at posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > http://www.safc.org
> > >
> > >
>  http://www.safc.org/campaigns/heatlhy_forest_restoration_act.php?PHPSESSID=b862d4b04c081d3e40afdaf1f9d04fbc
> > >
> > > Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003
> > >
> > > The so-called "Healthy Forests Restoration Act," HR 1904, is a
> > > seriously flawed bill that recently passed the House (256 to 170).
> > > The Senate came up with a 'compromise' that was no better than the
> > > original, and which passed 80-14. (Please call and thank your
> > > Senator's who opposed the compromise and voted no to tabling
> > > amendments.)
> >
> > It's good to see that you and Ian are on the same page with your
> > ancient articles of misinformation and lies. For your information,
> > this was not the HR 1904 that was signed by the President. What WAS
> > signed was the bipartisan compromise created by Congress that has
> > several key portions of the original bill omitted, a demand required
> > by Congressional Democrats.
> 
> You seem to be having problems with reading the post by Donald which is
> quoted above and which says exactly that. However, it is unclear what you
> are trying to rebut as there is not statement in conflict.
>

Of course, you can continue to think that Bush and Rey's original
"Healthy Forests" plan was signed into law but, that would be untrue.
The Senate compromise, referred to in Donald's post, was not part of
the signed bill. I shouldn't have to explain this in a history lesson.
Donald was trying to misdirect and misinform about what really was
signed into law.

Anyway, it's a moot point and a pathetic attempt to discredit me and
my opinions about eco-forestry on our National Forests. "Healthy
Forests" is LAW and go ahead and bring in that blathering, lies and
misinformation to a court of law. I'm definitely hoping that a judge
will levy court costs to plaintiffs with ludricrous claims and
frivilous lawsuits.
 
> >
> > Try posting stuff from 2004, bud! HR 1904 is LAW! See you in court,
> > where lies don't fly.
> 
> The fact is that HR 1904 is now law and is relevant to 2004. And if lies
> don't fly in court, I suggest you stay out of them or you will be grounded
> for life..
>

Maybe you should look at what really is in "Healthy Forests" again and
compare it to what Donald posted. The are MAJOR differences,
especially in the NEPA rules.
 
> >
> > Larry,   defender of logging and forest extraction everywhere.

Again, you rely on the childish ad homineum attacks. No wonder
Americans don't believe your lies.

Larry,    Federal eco-forestry rules!

BTW, (almost all) Canadians are wonderful people, in my book.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list