se/. It would seem to me that, in the same way, forestry science can only inform the debate, by, for example, telling us about a limit which it is safe to take (note that I do not say /nothing/ must be taken). But whether 'not-logs' are to be 'harvested' /right up to that limit/ is a /moral/ question; is it right that so much timber should go from publicly held land for private profit? "The second is, 'Their case is at least as factually well-founded as his own...' Have you analysised 'their' case as well to be able to make this comparison?" When I say that, what I mean is that on one side there exists a claim by Mr Poytner of -- oh, let's see it again -- "some 70 'deliberate or inexcusably negligent errors of fact, selective citing of fact, or twisting of facts'" in Mr Flanagan's article which have never been substantiated in any way whatsoever, even after repeated requests to do so which have been repeatedly ignored by Mr Poytner and all the other 'pro-un-logging' posters. Given that these claims have not been substantiated, whereas I did find what I regarded as errors of fact in Mr Poynter's article, I must regard the case represented by Mr Flanagan as better-substantiated until proven otherwise. Zibethicus : 09 Dec 2008 8:32:39pm "As I see it, on the basis of 'fact', Mr Poynter's article still stands unchallenged in any meaningful way, as I think you would agree you concluded