andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
#R:ihuxj:-35300:uokvax:5000057:000:472
uokvax!andree Jan 19 22:05:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.politics / ihuxj!amra / 7:28 am Jan 13, 1984 */
9) "There is today in the United States as much forest as there
was when Washington was at Valley Forge." (3-5-83)
/* ---------- */
Sounds good to me. Since there wasn't a US back then, there's GOT to
be more forest in it today than then. Even if you include the
signatory bodies of the D. of I., there's more forest now than then -
probably more forest now than LAND then.
<mikeamra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (01/21/84)
Mike,
I believe you missed the point, correct me if I'm wrong, Reagan
was implying that the amount of forest and woodland areas, on the
contiguous 48 states, is equivilant to what it was 200+ years ago.
He wasn't talking about the colonies alone. He meant the entire
area that was to become the United States,not just the original
13 States (or colonies if you prefer). In light of this I believe
you are in error in your statements,based on your assumptions. I
agree that the land area covered by the original 13 States is smaller
than the area covered with forest of the continental U.S., however this
isn't the main point Reagan was trying to make. He claimed there was
as much forest land,in the entire land mass of the U.S.,as there was
over 200 years ago, not just the colonies themselves.
PEACE & BEST WISHES
From the ever curious mind of
Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihuxj!amra)andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/24/84)
#R:ihuxj:-35300:uokvax:5000061:000:836 uokvax!andree Jan 22 04:39:00 1984 You are, of course, right in what Reagan thought he was saying. I knew that, and thought things were obvious enough that I left off the :-). [I'm not even sure that it's appropriate, in any case.] On further thought, Reagan may even be right in what he was saying. True, large areas have been deforested. But areas have been FORESTED (reforested?) in that time. If I travel south out of OKC on I35, I am travelling through some truly beautiful land, especially in the fall when the trees - wait a minute! TREES! In the middle of GREAT PLAINS?!? Something has definitely changed. I don't think reagans comment is correct. I wouldn't bet against it, though. It would take more research than I'm willing to do, especially considering that many things going into it are debatable, themselves. "With wobbly to fill in the chinks" <mike
amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (02/01/84)
I thought I'd canceled the article in error and posted the corrected
version to the net. Evedently it didn't work,so I beg your forgiveness.
Thanks for calling attention to the error, but you have to admit it
is a minor error, especially considering the numerous major errors
that Ronald W. Reagan has made. After all he is our leader so he should
really be held accuntable for his continued onslaught of mis-information.
It's interesting that you make NO mention of the obvious idiocy that
continues to flow from Ronnies lips. If Ronald Reagan were merely a
contributer to the net, instead of President of the U.S., he'd be
inundated with flames about his grasp of reality, and his lack of real
facts and/or information. But,since he's our fearless leader he can
do,say,and speak no wrong!! When will he wake up and smell the coffee?
I noticed you don't have any comments to make other than pointing out
MY error. Could it be you actually believe these statements to be true
and accurate? Or is there another reason?? I openly admit I'm a lousy
speller, but other than that do you have any meaningful comments to make?
PLEASE SEND ALL REPLIES TO IHNP4!IHUXJ!AMRA or post to the net.
PEACE & BEST WISHES
From the ever curious mind of
Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihuxj!amra)