And that's a good thing. Because:

rapidly growing forests fix more carbon from the atmosphere than a climax/mature woodlot. And

therefore clearcutting is a CF-reducing action, and therefore

Ridge landowners should be clearcutting their properties.

So I guess we are thankful that they are not environmentalists. It's just unfortunate that they want to preserve their right to become one, or live next to one.

[/logical sarcasm]

While I don't care to respond to personal attacks, I didn't say it turned me into an environmental saint. Shall he or she without a carbon footprint cast the first stone.

I will say that climbing truly did "expose" me to caring for the environment. I came from a suburban Long Island mall-shopping culture, where the only outdoor sport I did was sunbathing on Jones Beach, and where the crowd I was in saw nothing wrong with throwing their trash out of their car window. Through climbing and my college outing club, I learned to love nature. I stand by my statement.

Jannette

Shall he or she without a carbon footprint cast the first stone.

Only coal miners have carbon footprints.

I stand by my statement.

And most of us by you.

I regret the insult Kent. I'm sorry.

Kent, I'm guessing this was one of those posts when afterwards you smack yourself in the head wondering "what was I thinking?"

Indeed. How ... embarrassing.

Not at all. I just haven't had tme to post. But I will.

There are many people such as I who are frequently on this message board reading posts but rarely posting. Many of us have been following the land debate, wondering if Kent is simply an eccentric person with valid issues, or just plain nuts.

This post where two respected members of Gunks.com are personally and spitefully attacked will not help convince the reading public that Kent is simply an eccentric person.

In general, I agree with Climb_On. The original post is not quite a personal attack, yet it seems to be close to an accusation of environmental sanctimony, even hypocrisy.
The accused didn't reply with a personal attack or recrimination, to her credit. The flames came from third parties -- and that is reprehensible.

I have not made ad hominem attacks on either Jannette or Terrie, nor have I called them names. I've merely pointed out the inconvenient truth that their carbon consumption patterns are not exactly enlightened, at least not in the prevailing view of environmentalism. As they both seem to espouse the prevailing view of environmentlism there does seem to be a conflict between their conduct and their speech.

Normally I wouldn't discuss anyone's personal consumption patterns online or anything else about their lives that's even remotely personal. It seems fair game here because they have each posted extensively online here and on Supertopo about their travels, their carbon consumption patterns. They have also posted publicly about their environmental views.

I don't have a personal axe to grind with either one of them. Aside from the issue of the Nears, as I said in another post, Jannette's efforts on behalf of climber access are to be commended. I don't know Terri at all, and we certainly disagree on much, but I'll respect her right to support the zoning law and the tactics of the preserve as long as she respects the landowners right to close their land.