Posted by:
rodmalm
at Mon May 3 14:21:24 2004 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by rodmalm ]
This is beginning to sound like apples and oranges. You seem to be concentrating on the number of trees per acre...While to me the important point is square miles of forested land
Again, I agree completely.
I clearly stated "more trees" when talking about global warming and global water vapor. (my apples) To me, when talking about more worldwide water vapor from more trees, it can only mean an increase in total worldwide tree population. While trees per acre is a part of this (there must be more trees per acre somewhere if there are "more" trees), to me, "more" means "more"--period.
How you ever got off on interpreting "more trees" to mean the distribution of trees (your oranges), is beyond me!
I made the original statement "apples, or more" and you countered with that is not true, I'll prove it by saying "oranges, or distribution". Why did you start talking about oranges?
To me, "more" has always meant an increase in number and never an indication of the location of those numbers. Again, a failure to understand the definition of a word.
If I said there are more cars today that rely on gasoline, than 10 years ago, would you assume I meant only on one particular continent? Or in one particular country? Or would you assume that more meant total cars in the world?
Frankly, I don't see "more cars in the world" to be an assumption, but exactly what the original statement said. Just like my "more trees statement" meant exactly that, MORE trees.
Do you know a different definition of more that I haven't heard of?
Rodney
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Do definitions really matter? They do to me! - rodmalm, Mon May 3 14:21:24 2004