Re: Boycott CBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan Clore  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberta Hatch wrote:
>> Tim May  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Dan Clore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Roberta Hatch wrote:
>>>>>Fredric L. Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>Strider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
>>>>>  Since ya'll brought 'ecologists' into the picture, there
>>>>>have been numerous cases of tree huggers spiking trees, knowing
>>>>>full well that doing somthing like that could cause harm to someone
>>>>>putting a chain saw to the tree.
 
>>>>Except that the treespikers put the spikes far higher on the 
>>>>tree than anyone would use a chain saw. Not a single 
>>>>documented case of injury has ever occurred due to treespiking.
 
>>>A silly comment, even for an ALFer.

>So who here's an "ALFer"? You?

        Exactly who are you addressing?

>>      No Tim, it's not a silly comment.  It's a stupid comment.

>>      The fact of the matter is that Clore doesn't know where
>> all the spikes are placed, therefore, he cannot say that 
>> treespikers place them where they cannot be hit by a chainsaw.

>The fact is that you don't have a bloody clue what you're 
>spouting off about.

        Really?!  Okay, since you made the claim that spikes are
placed high in the trees so they won't be hit by a chainsaw, prove 
it.  Prove that all the nuts insure that their spikes are placed just 
like you've claimed.

        If you can't prove it, admit you're wrong.

>>>They put the spikes where they expect the chainsaws to be, else why
>>>bother?

>The purpose is to prevent logging of the trees. 

        You mean attempt to intimidate loggers.  If placing a spike
in a tree prevented it from being cut just because it was in the tree,
I wouldn't doubt that the nuts would attempt to place a spike in every
single tree on the entire planet.

        The fact is that the hope is that if the tree is cut the spike
will do damge to equipment or people.

>To do so, 
>they must warn the loggers of the placement of the spikes. 

        Which does not in any way prevent logging, even if the loggers
are warned.  We all know that.  Therefore, spiking is done for
intimidation -- an act of terrorism.  

        Simple stated, "Fuck with the trees and you just must find 
yourself pushing up daisys, 'cause they've been booby trapped."

>If you look at the how-to guides on tree-spiking, you'll see 
>that they specify that the spikes should be placed too high 
>for chainsaws to hit them. 

        Un huh.  Just like speed limit signs prevent people from 
speeding, those guides prevent the nut-jobs from placing spikes 
that would be in the path of a chainsaw.  Yeah, I believe that one.
Honest injun.

>If the trees are logged anyway, 
>the spikes would interfere with the sawblades at the sawmill.

        Causing damage to the equipment and the possibility
of murdering a worker.

>>      If the chainsaw misses, they blades that rip the logs apart
>> will hit them.  There's no way of knowing where the spikes will be
>> placed, contrary to Clore's claim.

>If you don't know how to tell, then you don't a damn thing 
>about the subject. Do some research before you spew on about it.

        Well of course one can, and companies do use, metal
detectors.  But that doesn't mean that one can tell just 
by looking at a tree where the spike is located.  The spikes
are intentionally driven into the tree so that one cannot
see it.  Nor do the trees have any sort of marking so that Mr 
Wood Cutter will know where they are located.

>>      As far as Clore's claim that not a sigle person has been
>> injured (a lie), or no person murdered by the spiking of a tree,
>> it doesn't hold water. 

>So document all of these cases, then. You can't find a 
>single one. (Save for George Alexander, in which case the 
>spiking was not done by an environmentalist, so it is not 
>relevant to the issue at hand.)

        It doesn't matter one bit if one or one-million people
are injured or murdered, or not.  The intent is do exactly that.

        Also, it doesn't matter if the person was an 'environmentalist,'
it's the act that was being disucssed.

>> The intent is to harm people or equipment.

>Wrong: the intent is to prevent logging. If logging takes 
>place, and someone is injured, then the tree-spiking has 
>failed in its purpose.

        No I'm not wrong.  As Tim implied, those spikes are not
there for dectrative reasons.  They are there to cause harm.
The intent by warning is intimidation.  Tree spikers booby trap 
trees.  They  are terrorists and should be dealt with in the same 
manner as all other terrorists.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch                                           '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA                       (This space for rent)