Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument

"D Steck" wrote in message
news
Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument


Sounds to me as the SOB is using it as blackmail, holding the tree hostage
for taxpayer welfare. I'm willing to fire up the chainsaw.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"D Steck" wrote in message
news
Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument


Sounds to me as the SOB is using it as blackmail, holding the tree hostage
for taxpayer welfare. I'm willing to fire up the chainsaw.

Me, too. He wants government funds to help out his church. Faith based
woodcutting.

Bur oak is a great wood, by the way, looks a lot like QS white
oak,makes great veneer I'm told, and it would really be a shame to see
a tree that size fed to the shredders. But it would be a much bigger
shame to see this guy succeed in blackmailing the town.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:0ouBe.3638$WA4.2531@trndny04...

"D Steck" wrote in message
news
Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument


Sounds to me as the SOB is using it as blackmail, holding the tree hostage
for taxpayer welfare. I'm willing to fire up the chainsaw.

"Hey Mama, is it true what they say,
that Papa never worked a day in his life?
And Mama, some bad talk going around town
saying that Papa had three outside children and another wife.
And that ain't right.
Hey, talk about Papa doing some store front preaching.
Talked about saving souls and all the time leeching.
Dealing in debt and stealing in the name of the Lord."

The Temptations

Charlie Self wrote:
Me, too. He wants government funds to help out his church. Faith based
woodcutting.
Bur oak is a great wood, by the way, looks a lot like QS white
oak,makes great veneer I'm told, and it would really be a shame to see
a tree that size fed to the shredders. But it would be a much bigger
shame to see this guy succeed in blackmailing the town.

I think I see a use for that obscene court ruling on eminent domain. He
must have learned his ethics from Sharpton.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use: daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:06:48 -0500, "D Steck"
wrote:

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument

Quote: The Rev. Johnnie Wilson gave the people of Centralia, Ill., an
ultimatum: Come up with $75,000 in 30 days or he would chop down a
giant bur oak tree on his church's property to make room for parking
spaces.

Sounds like good Christian attitude to me.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:14:51 -0400, Guess who
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:06:48 -0500, "D Steck"
wrote:

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument

Quote: The Rev. Johnnie Wilson gave the people of Centralia, Ill., an
ultimatum: Come up with $75,000 in 30 days or he would chop down a
giant bur oak tree on his church's property to make room for parking
spaces.

Sounds like good Christian attitude to me.


I wonder if he'd let me chop her down and keep the lumber.....

That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way. A bunch of who-knows-who got
their panties in a wad about "saving the tree" and he gave them an
alternative. How is that blackmail? He stated his position, gave them the
option. If they choose not to follow it, he'll cut the tree down, which is
perfectly within his right's it seems to me.

Hopefully he'll be smart enough to sell the tree to a lumber company that
will mill it into nice wood and he'd probably even make a profit for his
church. Good for him if it works out that way.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"D Steck" wrote in message
news
Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it
into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down
and
turn them into firewood.


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...ory/92D05CB4C3
9BDF8C8625703E00149753?OpenDocument


Sounds to me as the SOB is using it as blackmail, holding the tree
hostage
for taxpayer welfare. I'm willing to fire up the chainsaw.

Me, too. He wants government funds to help out his church. Faith based
woodcutting.

Bur oak is a great wood, by the way, looks a lot like QS white
oak,makes great veneer I'm told, and it would really be a shame to see
a tree that size fed to the shredders. But it would be a much bigger
shame to see this guy succeed in blackmailing the town.

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way.

If what you say is correct, then at the very least he could have stated his
case a little clearer. If there's any confusion about his intent, then it
looks like it was his own fault.

Upscale wrote:

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way.

If what you say is correct, then at the very least he could have stated his
case a little clearer. If there's any confusion about his intent, then it
looks like it was his own fault.

One should never underestimate the ability of the reporter to confuse an
issue,, either...

Mike in Mystic wrote:
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way. A bunch of who-knows-who got
their panties in a wad about "saving the tree" and he gave them an
alternative. How is that blackmail? He stated his position, gave them the
option. If they choose not to follow it, he'll cut the tree down, which is
perfectly within his right's it seems to me.

You got it, Mike! If this was a private citizen instead of a pastor, he
wouldn't be catching this flak.

"Upscale" wrote in
:


"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking
lot for a church, and this tree is in the way.

If what you say is correct, then at the very least he could have
stated his case a little clearer. If there's any confusion about his
intent, then it looks like it was his own fault.


You have to admit that there is the possibility that the person writing
and/or editing the story induced a little spin...

"Patriarch" wrote in message

You have to admit that there is the possibility that the person writing
and/or editing the story induced a little spin...

Yeah. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. There isn't too
much in the media these days that can be taken at face value. Seems like
everybody is out for themselves these days. Everybody except the few like
the person who handed me the $20 bill I didn't know I'd dropped at the
grocery checkout a few days ago.

"Dhakala" wrote in message
oups.com...


Mike in Mystic wrote:
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way. A bunch of who-knows-who got
their panties in a wad about "saving the tree" and he gave them an
alternative. How is that blackmail? He stated his position, gave them
the
option. If they choose not to follow it, he'll cut the tree down, which
is
perfectly within his right's it seems to me.

You got it, Mike! If this was a private citizen instead of a pastor, he
wouldn't be catching this flak.

He would if the goal was extortion.

We may not be getting the whole story, but how do you interpret:
"The Rev. Johnnie Wilson gave the people of Centralia, Ill., an ultimatum:
Come up with $75,000 in 30 days or he would chop down a giant bur oak tree
on his church's property to make room for parking spaces."

Perhaps a lot of the story was left out, perhaps a lot of facts are missing.
But what I read does not come across very well. If it was in fact, an
ultimatum, not a request for help.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
We may not be getting the whole story, but how do you interpret:
"The Rev. Johnnie Wilson gave the people of Centralia, Ill., an ultimatum:
Come up with $75,000 in 30 days or he would chop down a giant bur oak tree
on his church's property to make room for parking spaces."

Perhaps a lot of the story was left out, perhaps a lot of facts are missing.
But what I read does not come across very well. If it was in fact, an
ultimatum, not a request for help.

Good point. I dunno which came first, the public outcry to save the
tree or the pastor's offer to spare it for $75K. The story is cunningly
ambiguous.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:15:32 -0500, the opaque Duane Bozarth
clearly wrote:

Upscale wrote:

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way.

If what you say is correct, then at the very least he could have stated his
case a little clearer. If there's any confusion about his intent, then it
looks like it was his own fault.

One should never underestimate the ability of the reporter to confuse an
issue,, either...

After reading her "balanced and neutral reporting", the odds appear
fairly high that Georgina Gustin is a tree-hugging liberal.

The fact that the living tree might be worth a lot of money in timber
never got covered by the newspaper. I wonder why. (No I don't.) sigh

-
- Let Exxon send their own troops -
-------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:15:32 -0500, the opaque Duane Bozarth
clearly wrote:

Upscale wrote:

"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
That's not how that story read to me at all. The guy needs a parking lot
for a church, and this tree is in the way.

If what you say is correct, then at the very least he could have stated his
case a little clearer. If there's any confusion about his intent, then it
looks like it was his own fault.

One should never underestimate the ability of the reporter to confuse an
issue,, either...

After reading her "balanced and neutral reporting", the odds appear
fairly high that Georgina Gustin is a tree-hugging liberal.

The fact that the living tree might be worth a lot of money in timber
never got covered by the newspaper. I wonder why. (No I don't.) sigh


Nonsense Larry. Not many sawmills are going to want to cut a tree that
stands next to a parking lot of any kind. Too, there's no knowing
what's inside that "200 year old" tree without a look at it, at least.
It could be about half rotted or it could be perfect.

It's also quite possible the reporter, like many people, does not look
at a tree as a valuable resource, or, really, has any idea it could be.

But you know the answer: the reporter was out to get the preacher.

Not everyone is a wood expert, or interested in becoming one. For that
matter, why didn't the pastor check into the possible value of the
tree? If he did, he didn't bother to mention it. Should we extrapolate
and say he was going for a double payment because it wasn't mentioned?

The guy comes across as a horse's ass based on his words and actions,
and you guys blame the reporter.

Jesus wept.

"Upscale" wrote in
:

You have to admit that there is the possibility that the person
writing and/or editing the story induced a little spin...

Yeah. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. There
isn't too much in the media these days that can be taken at face
value. Seems like everybody is out for themselves these days.
Everybody except the few like the person who handed me the $20 bill I
didn't know I'd dropped at the grocery checkout a few days ago.


And there are good, honest, helpful folks in churches around the world,
whatever your personal experience with some folks and/or churches may have
been.

Unfortunately, like 200 year old oak trees, you're never quite sure what's
really inside. People or churches or news stories.

Patriarch,
hopeful as always...

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:

But you know the answer: the reporter was out to get the preacher.

Not everyone is a wood expert, or interested in becoming one. For that
matter, why didn't the pastor check into the possible value of the
tree? If he did, he didn't bother to mention it. Should we extrapolate
and say he was going for a double payment because it wasn't mentioned?

The guy comes across as a horse's ass based on his words and actions,
and you guys blame the reporter.

Also, consider that at the end of his first deadline, he had received
only 10 cents with a note stating God is watching. Apparently no one in
the church congregation is even motivated to donate to the cause. There
are enough slash'n'burn folks out there that he should have gotten at
least something more than 10 cents - unless his horse's assness is well
known and his ultimatum is felt by the locals in the same tone as the
news report comes across.

Here's another article on the story:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...t/story/A6BE5B
6D9064426A86257020001DA78D?OpenDocument

Centralia City Manager Grant Kleinhenz says he's offered Wilson alternatives
- including the possibility of leasing a strip of city-owned land for angled
parking just outside the church. Kleinhenz has also suggested that Wilson
talk to the state about using a state-owned lot two doors down from the
church. The lot is not used on Sundays.

But Wilson says those options won't work: He says the state-owned lot is too
far away, and the city's lease offer would present too many complications.
Who, he wonders, would pay the tab if the city needs to dig up the asphalt to
access water pipes under the leased land? And what happens when the 99-year
lease the city is offering expires?

"Our children, and their children, shouldn't have to worry about this,"
Wilson said.

Seems the pastor really just wants one thing and isn't willing to give
alternative solutions a try - the city is willing to lease the strip of
city land at $1 for 100 years. The church has been at this location 1 &
1/2 years and this guy's got his panties in a bunch about an issue 101
years down the road.

That he didn't have the tree cut after the first deadline also sounds as
though he's got dollar signs in his eyes - according to another news
item on the story there's a feeling that the donations might not
ultimately go to saving the tree. It could end up that if $75,000 isn't
reached the money could be used to pay for the tree's removal.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

On 14 Jul 2005 13:08:35 -0700, the opaque "Charlie Self"
clearly wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
After reading her "balanced and neutral reporting", the odds appear
fairly high that Georgina Gustin is a tree-hugging liberal.

The fact that the living tree might be worth a lot of money in timber
never got covered by the newspaper. I wonder why. (No I don't.) sigh


Nonsense Larry. Not many sawmills are going to want to cut a tree that
stands next to a parking lot of any kind. Too, there's no knowing
what's inside that "200 year old" tree without a look at it, at least.
It could be about half rotted or it could be perfect.

True, but we haven't seen any of those estimates.


It's also quite possible the reporter, like many people, does not look
at a tree as a valuable resource, or, really, has any idea it could be.

Yeah, they probably see it as either a temple or a stack of firewood.
Sad, ain't it?


But you know the answer: the reporter was out to get the preacher.

Hey, I'm usually the one railing -against- religion. But my read of
that story was that the guy was trying to find ways to save the tree
since the townfolk had put up such an uproar.


Not everyone is a wood expert, or interested in becoming one. For that
matter, why didn't the pastor check into the possible value of the
tree? If he did, he didn't bother to mention it. Should we extrapolate
and say he was going for a double payment because it wasn't mentioned?

The guy comes across as a horse's ass based on his words and actions,
and you guys blame the reporter.

Ever stop to think it might have been the reporter's calculated
wording which made it sound like the preacher was an ass? Reread
that story and show me her balance. ANY balance or openmindedness.
It didn't give her question, only his answer. Much is hidden in that
story, I'm sure, and it felt awfully one-sided.


Jesus wept.

??


- - -
Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever.
---
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming for YOU!

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

Ever stop to think it might have been the reporter's calculated
wording which made it sound like the preacher was an ass?

Lary, I've worked in newspapers for more than 25 years and your
suggestion that a reporter would write a story, or that an editor would
let one go to print, that was anything less than totally objecti...

Nope. Can't finish that sentence. Not with a straight face.

"Run that baby!" /bloomcounty

djb

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

"D Steck" wrote in message
news
Looks like there might be some oak available if you want to cut it into
boards.

I hate to see old trees cut down but what's worse is to cut them down and
turn them into firewood.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...3?OpenDocument




WOW! You all took that about 16 different directions!!! Here I was
thinking about the wood and we went down the path of the newspaper. What I
should have mentioned is that the St. Louis Post Dispatch is considered a
very liberal rag for a fairly conservative town. There was a paper years
ago - The Globe Democrat that was conservative but after numerous attempts
to reformat the paper, it went under. I sure to miss that paper - it kept
the Post Dispatch in check. They are most certainly anti-church and
anti-war.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 13:08:35 -0700, the opaque "Charlie Self"
clearly wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
After reading her "balanced and neutral reporting", the odds appear
fairly high that Georgina Gustin is a tree-hugging liberal.


It's also quite possible the reporter, like many people, does not look
at a tree as a valuable resource, or, really, has any idea it could be.

Yeah, they probably see it as either a temple or a stack of firewood.
Sad, ain't it?

But common. Probably 97% of the people you meet are that way.


Not everyone is a wood expert, or interested in becoming one. For that
matter, why didn't the pastor check into the possible value of the
tree? If he did, he didn't bother to mention it. Should we extrapolate
and say he was going for a double payment because it wasn't mentioned?

The guy comes across as a horse's ass based on his words and actions,
and you guys blame the reporter.

Ever stop to think it might have been the reporter's calculated
wording which made it sound like the preacher was an ass? Reread
that story and show me her balance. ANY balance or openmindedness.
It didn't give her question, only his answer. Much is hidden in that
story, I'm sure, and it felt awfully one-sided.

You obviously don't know much about small town papers and those how
write for them. Ours is fairly conservative, but tries for balance, but
the editor and writer (one of each, plus a sports writer who does about
78% of the paper) are unable to communicate particularly well in print.
Mostly, what gets printed is what they manage to get up on screen
without losing large chunks during a save.

I note that someone down the line said the paper has the reputation of
being liberal in a conservative area. I've also noted that EVERY
newspaper in this very, very conservative area where I live is classed
as liberal. It seems that if you ever disagree with Bush, Cheney and
Rove you're a liberal. That's life.

None of us know anything more about the story than what was present on
the story. Speculation on motives is just so much bull**** in such
cases.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:46:23 -0600, the opaque Dave Balderstone
clearly wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

Ever stop to think it might have been the reporter's calculated
wording which made it sound like the preacher was an ass?

Lary, I've worked in newspapers for more than 25 years and your
suggestion that a reporter would write a story, or that an editor would
let one go to print, that was anything less than totally objecti...

Nope. Can't finish that sentence. Not with a straight face.

Do newspapers still HAVE editors? I catch so many simple grammatical
errors in our local paper that I've given up hope. Hell, they don't
even run spel chuckers there, let alone check grammar. sigh


"Run that baby!" /bloomcounty

Good cartoon!

- - -
Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever.
---
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming for YOU!

On 15 Jul 2005 02:01:30 -0700, the opaque "Charlie Self"
clearly wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
After reading her "balanced and neutral reporting", the odds appear
fairly high that Georgina Gustin is a tree-hugging liberal.


It's also quite possible the reporter, like many people, does not look
at a tree as a valuable resource, or, really, has any idea it could be.

Yeah, they probably see it as either a temple or a stack of firewood.
Sad, ain't it?

But common. Probably 97% of the people you meet are that way.

Shouldn't reporters be in that 3%, or is objective fact-finding no
longer a requirement for employment in that field? /rhetorical Q


Ever stop to think it might have been the reporter's calculated
wording which made it sound like the preacher was an ass? Reread
that story and show me her balance. ANY balance or openmindedness.
It didn't give her question, only his answer. Much is hidden in that
story, I'm sure, and it felt awfully one-sided.

You obviously don't know much about small town papers and those how
write for them. Ours is fairly conservative, but tries for balance, but

I should. I live in a town of 23,000 in rural OR.


the editor and writer (one of each, plus a sports writer who does about
78% of the paper) are unable to communicate particularly well in print.
Mostly, what gets printed is what they manage to get up on screen
without losing large chunks during a save.

-See my post to Dave Balderstone regarding editors.-


I note that someone down the line said the paper has the reputation of
being liberal in a conservative area. I've also noted that EVERY
newspaper in this very, very conservative area where I live is classed
as liberal. It seems that if you ever disagree with Bush, Cheney and
Rove you're a liberal. That's life.

Sorry for using the "L" word in front of you. I've disagreed with
nearly everything the current president has said and done, but someone
would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to think of me as a liberal or
a potential Democrat, though some really conservative types do. g
I'm sick to see what our political system has become and can't, in
good conscience, ever vote for another Rep -or- Dem.

Our local paper consists of a mix of radically conservative and
radically liberal writers, with maybe one moderate thrown in for
good measure. (I would have said balance, but I know better.)


None of us know anything more about the story than what was present on
the story. Speculation on motives is just so much bull**** in such
cases.

Granted. But I tried to read that article with an open mind, and what
I read sounded more like a subjective tirade than an objective report.

- - -
Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever.
---
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming for YOU!

At an ATM the man ahead of me walked away from it muttering something
and was mad. I had to call him three times to get him back to remove
the $60.00 in the machine. Nary a "Thanks" or "Go to hell" did I get.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:33:55 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Patriarch" wrote in message

You have to admit that there is the possibility that the person writing
and/or editing the story induced a little spin...

Yeah. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. There isn't too
much in the media these days that can be taken at face value. Seems like
everybody is out for themselves these days. Everybody except the few like
the person who handed me the $20 bill I didn't know I'd dropped at the
grocery checkout a few days ago.

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

Do newspapers still HAVE editors? I catch so many simple grammatical
errors in our local paper that I've given up hope. Hell, they don't
even run spel chuckers there, let alone check grammar. sigh

Hell, at our paper almost everyone in the "stringing words together"
department has "editor" in their job title.

What most newspapers lack are "proofreaders" and "fact checkers".

;-)

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
What most newspapers lack are "proofreaders" and "fact checkers".

;-)


And "headline writers" who read the article first....