on facts is an entirely different topic." Mr Poynter's original assertions were that "wood production is planned and controlled by foresters on a scientific basis" and that "[t]his over-the-top and largely irrational support for environmental causes is increasingly being enhanced by enthusiastic, but ill-advised celebrity activists with ready access to a fawning media." My examinations were made in the light of these claims of Mr Poynter; the claims being, in essence, that his pro-un-logging position is 'rational' and that opposition to that position is 'illogical'. Mr Poynter has repeated these claims in subsequent postings, and they relate to the debate as a whole, not the question of forest management per se. I would have thought that that was entirely self-evident, but if you want me to quote chapter and verse I will reluctantly do so. 'you will find that I am doing little or nothing other than talking about "the topic in hand"' Really? 'Firstly, I am not, in these comments, discussing the question of forest practice ...' What I actually wrote was this: "Firstly, I am not, in these comments, discussing the question of forestry practice in Australia in and of itself. My comments are primarily about Mr Poynter's article." This was mentioned in the introduction to my 'twenty-five points' in order to separate the issues of forest management and Mr Poynter's use of logic. I have already repeatedly explained why I believe that Mr Poynter's claim to exclusivity of 'logic' makes his use of that property supremely relevant