Hyperion: Tallest Redwood: Heard hide or hair? Scuttlebutt? (middle school, live)

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer

If a tree stands in the forest surrounded by aesthetically pleasing foliage and no one is around to see it, do the aesthetics matter at all?

No, no they don't.

.

Yes they do. Vegetation holds soil. Held soil prevents erosion. All plants that most people never saw in redwood national park would have kept the 10 foot thick layer of sediment out of redwood creek that requires decades to shift downstream. And even then, whether Salmon recover the same is a question mark. Feel free to heap more ignorance on the growing mountain of uninstruction. Maybe I can quote some of it on the new page:

Cypber Herbicide Attack. Killing Native Plants in the Coast Redwood Forest

There was an older article online that already dismissed your question.

Also, since any part of it can be seen, aesthetics can matter anywhere. But in the case of the redwoods related to this, people visited them before my first visit. And I know Fish & Wildlife people passed by some before those others.

I don't think your problem is that you can't see ferns in places. Its more that you can't see the full scope of information.

[mdvaden]

To other readers, you know who totallyawsome who is posting reminds me of?

The guy David who leaked GOT a few years ago. He had a huge deficit regarding horticulture or soil education, but an overload of opinion. He would constantly post or say stuff that was wrong or uninstructed. Then when correct information was presented, he would just go on to the next mistake or incomplete thought.

[OldManWinter]

Are you talking about David Mickelson from Medford Oregon the one who does the church youtube videos?

https://youtu.be/bLWnlp4bY3E

I heard that he put the Grove of Titans info out on the internet and now that place has been trampled to death with some of the redwoods slowly dying now.

[totallyawesometruthsayer]

Originally Posted by mdvaden

And even then, whether Salmon recover the same is a question mark.

It's a good thing that salmon being able to go up a particular stream or not has absolutely no impact on people being able to see tall trees.

Originally Posted by mdvaden

Also, since any part of it can be seen, aesthetics can matter anywhere. But in the case of the redwoods related to this, people visited them before my first visit. And I know Fish & Wildlife people passed by some before those others.

There is no reason the forest should be kept pristine for the benefit of a handful of park rangers and nature photographers when more joy can be brought to more people by letting them know where to find superlative trees.

If you were really serious about erosion you'd be in the park right now laying sod on the bear trails. You just hate letting people have access to the wonders of creation and are looking for any excuse to play gatekeeper.

[bigdumbgod]

Hmmm...getting a pretty good example of the utilitarian, Gifford Pinchot perception of habitat "use" by humans. Seemed a bit quaint way back in Muir's day, but apparently still mysteriously carries some weight among the short-sighted. The use of the term "creation" is a bit suspect as well.
Next up: "Dude, do you know how much one of those things is worth?"

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer

It's a good thing that salmon being able to go up a particular stream or not has absolutely no impact on people being able to see tall trees.



There is no reason the forest should be kept pristine for the benefit of a handful of park rangers and nature photographers when more joy can be brought to more people by letting them know where to find superlative trees.

If you were really serious about erosion you'd be in the park right now laying sod on the bear trails. You just hate letting people have access to the wonders of creation and are looking for any excuse to play gatekeeper.

Your whole confusion can be summed up in pointing the finger about people being kept from trees.

We already corrected your error for the sake of readers, noting that the redwood forests are open to everyone, including all the trees out there.

Since we already corrected you once, there's not need to correct your same error said in different words. You just keep repeating your mistake and error.

That's why the new page I'm working on has a "Galactically" confused section to record the corrections just one time. Most other readers figure it out with one reading. And most are not confused the same way you are where you try to introduce something that isn't happening more than once.

I call it the shine light in one ear and out the other ear syndrome.

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by OldManWinter

Are you talking about David Mickelson from Medford Oregon the one who does the church youtube videos?

https://youtu.be/bLWnlp4bY3E

I heard that he put the Grove of Titans info out on the internet and now that place has been trampled to death with some of the redwoods slowly dying now.

That looks like the same David. I doubt he's the same as the totaltruth person posting here, but the ideology and lack of information has a lot of overlap.

But yeah, I saw an email direct, and a forwarded email with his name, where I think he's open to people contacting or visiting him. Whether for religion or to talk about the redwood stuff. Almost guaranteed though, he will not listen. He does similar to what happened on there the past week. Someone rambles. Their point is dismantled and answered correctly. They they move on to another argument to try and win someone over to a side that is non-existence.

But contact could be worth it for benefit of other people.

On the new Cyber Herbicide page, I just included a paraphrased quote from that same David and put answer corrections afterward for readers. I will including some photos later today for him and other. David's statements were virtually self-contradictory.

[totallyawesometruthsayer]

Originally Posted by mdvaden

We already corrected your error for the sake of readers, noting that the redwood forests are open to everyone, including all the trees out there.

And you keep trying to frame the argument as being about the redwood forest being open to anyone, when the issue is specific great trees being hidden from everyone but a handful of people, and the means of finding those great trees being made either prohibitively difficult or illegal for people not in your sewing circle.

[totallyawesometruthsayer]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

The use of the term "creation" is a bit suspect as well.

Yeah, I felt it better to use "wonders of creation" rather than "natural wonders" to keep mdvaden from going off on a rhetorical tangent about what "nature" means and how humans and their actions in the world are somehow not completely natural.

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer

And you keep trying to frame the argument as being about the redwood forest being open to anyone, when the issue is specific great trees being hidden from everyone but a handful of people, and the means of finding those great trees being made either prohibitively difficult or illegal for people not in your sewing circle.

After you stated people in hiding are "brave", everyone here has you confined back at square one. Your first post was in error, and hasn't gone anywhere since.

Your anonymous voice means zero.

From several places in the parks several of us can see the trees you claim are hidden, from places others often stand. So there are two choices. The reality that redwood trees in the forest are in plain sight. Or your fantasy that a Klingon cloaking device makes the obvious invisible. With those two choices, about all we can do now is transfer the dialogue to other pages and mock the fantasy of trees in hiding.