In article ,
Peter Hansen wrote:
Leon wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
rvers.com...

In all seriousness, probably because they WEREN'T _TOLD_ it was a
"5-year-old

ash" that they were to remove

You are making an assumption here. It was specifically stated that the they
mistook it as a 5 year old Ash.

Robert is, I think, quite correct that they *probably* weren't
actually told what we've heard they were told. Note the emphasis,
because this is all just about probabilities, and opinions, unless
one of us was there...

(And thinking it's more likely that it happened exactly as
stated is putting much more credibility and accuracy into the
media than is reasonable.)

The reportage looked entirely credible to me. As long as you read it
_carefully_. A description of 'what happened' is not indicative of _how_ it
came to happen. Tree 'A' _was_ mistaken for tree 'B' (which was no longer
there). *HOW* the mis-identification happened, and _what_ identification
information was available to those who made the mistake is *NOT* specified.

It's easy to 'read into' the "description" of trees A and B, that _that_
*was* the identifying information available to those who made the mistake;
but such an 'assumption' is *unjustified*.

If the removal crew _had_ been given the description of a '5 year old ash',
*and* the reporter knew that for a fact, the story line would have been
much more along the lines of "the crew, having been told to remove a 5 year
old ash, removed a 400 year old oak instead".

The actual language in the story conveys the reporter's _lack_of_knowledge_
of the *causative* events, while accurately describing the _results_ of
the actions.

The story _is_ lacking in 'depth', as far as "how" the screw-up came to
pass -- _why_ did the 2nd crew get sent? _what_ were they told? etc.,
etc.

However, what _is_ there, looks to be an *accurate* description of the
facts of the occurrence. Far higher quality reportage than is the norm in
the U.S., today. wry grin