>"Fellin' thim big trees wuz hard werk but we erned us all an onest week's wages."
how do you respond?
>>364302
That's a really big tree
>>364305
yes it is
>>364302
Good for you.
Giant redwoods aren't extinct so they didn't go overboard. Good work suspenders guy.
I would be happy for the man and glad he made me happy.
I would be thankful I don't have a job that entails cutting logs because I don't enjoy it as much as he does.
Would you pity him?
I mean in the Nietzsche sense of pity
I don't think I would.
>>364305
There were much bigger ones destroyed.
>>364344
Felling the bastard is the easy part. Cutting the fucker up and getting it to market, there's the real challenge.
>>364302
i reckon down yonder them's there's a fishin'
I can't understand I the OP made this thread unless the OP mistakenly thought redwoods were rendered extinct by logging.
They weren't.
OP is probably dumb.
t. the Lorax
makes me wish they practiced controlled clear-cutting so trees that size were more common in national parks
Nice job but please don't cut all trees down.
Fine, so long as you understand that it's a perishable resource and your grandchildren are probably going to need the products we get from trees too.
More than even we today need them, what with the end of cheap oil coming in our lifetime and all.
If they aren't planting at least as many trees as they're felling, and they don't have a plan for where their grandchildren will get their trees from, then I'd say they're all idiots.
