OUCH! Harsh words Russ. Your reaction to creative debate smacks of an ad hominem attack.. From your comments and tone in the "Be Reasonable" thread it is clear that the issues I have raised are outside of your comfort zone. It is also apparent that you wish to focus upon the mechanics of arboricultural tree valuation as opposed to the philosophical and sociological aspects of the valuation process. Unfortunately the issue of value can not be separated from these elements. If you chose to limit your examination of the underlying assumptions of this process by deferring to dogma and claiming that you are operating " in a framework already established by society" then so be it. But then, who is truly guilty of "empty words"?

Do I have all the answers? Hell no, but I certainly know some of the questions. I would much rather sail the seas of uncertainty than be mired in the concrete of dogma. The questions I raised were designed to inspire some creative feedback and debate. Although I do not always agree with Scott (and I unfortunately do not have the time to post responses of that volume and detail) I have enjoyed the opportunity to learn from his real estate appraisal perspective. It has definitely helped clarify certain issues.

Esoteric opinions? Hardly. The issues I have raised are familiar to a much larger audience than will ever utilize a horticulturaly based tree valuation. Environmental ethics and moral extensionism are rapidly becoming institutionalized policy in land management. Remember Russ, all opinions are not created equal. The opinion that is best supported by a logical argument carries the day. Unless of course the ruling oligarchy decides to silence opinions which conflict with the perceived status quo. I would have gladly detailed the philosophical rational for an alternative approach to tree valuation but the debate never moved in that direction. In fact, I did begin to offer the definition of value as a preference ranking involving scarcity but was met with a response similar to your post - defensiveness.

I know you Russ, and therefore I am not truly concerned about the disapproving comments. I will however, respect your wishes to limit the parameters of debate and shall look elsewhere for intellectual discussion. My posts here are completed. Remember however, "castles made of sand, fall into the sea - eventually". (Now if Scott didn't get the Dirty Deeds reference he will never identify this one).

Okay - last word is yours. Enjoy your discussions.

Kevin - H

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on April 18, 1999 at 00:55:50:

Kevin, the words may seem harsh, but are not directed personally, regardless of how you chose to accept them. Andmy comments were NOT made as host to this forum, but as a serious reader of the board.

My "complaint", if you wish to call it that, is that I have seen a lot of words that seem to stir things up, to provoke, without the real substance of definition or backing by other than what I perceive to be your opinions. You keep saying that this stuff is becoming policy, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that. I don't have time to spend researching for hours or days on the topics your are proclaiming, so a few references would be extremely helpful.

The discussions are enlightening, and thought-provoking, as you intend. However, you seem to take it beyond beyond debate, and want to make this your own dogma- that's the tone I hear, but will grant that it may not be your intent. Plain and simply, this type of discussion is welcome here (speaking as the webmaster). You obviously have a different perspective from most arborists on this topic. But I think it needs to be clearly indicated that it is not a discussion of the practice of valuation and appraisal as currently used, but rather of theory of where we should be headed, as arborists, as an industry, and as society (speaking as a user of The Knothole).

I have known you, Kevin, for many years (although perhaps not as well as I thought). I am surprised that you would choose to stop visiting here because someone objected to your comments. I simply disagreed with the direction of your discussion, and you are going to pack your bags? You are not being censored, merely challenged.

Russ Carlson
arborist and reader of The Knothole