|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 10, 2008 22:29:40 GMT -5
cloned trees don't count.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator 
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on May 21, 2008 7:43:21 GMT -5
Just another of a milllion stories about thousands of trees being planted, adding to the melange. Just think about the high concentrations of trees about. This was from an internal newsletter.
More than 165,000 customers and employees signed up for paperless billing last month during our tree-planting promotion. As promised, T-Mobile donated a tree to the Arbor Day Foundation on behalf of each and every customer.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBC Guy on May 21, 2008 8:10:45 GMT -5
This thread is hilarious.
I have between 18 and 22 trees on my property and I've actually seen one seashell in my garden. (Don't know how or why?)
I'm thinking of removing some of the trees.
Even after that - I still think there are more trees then seashells on the planet.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on May 21, 2008 9:08:00 GMT -5
Of course there are.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on May 21, 2008 9:12:28 GMT -5
There are more shells.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBC Guy on May 21, 2008 9:18:42 GMT -5
There are hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of protected forests on this planet.... I've never heard of a protected seashell.
Coral yep but not seashell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 21, 2008 9:41:53 GMT -5
This is a rigged contest.
Seashells underwater, AND broken seashells aren't allowed to participate. If I have 10 once-whole seashells smashed into 232913829138 pieces on a sandy beach somewhere, the shells ought to get credit for the 10.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on May 21, 2008 10:27:29 GMT -5
AND broken seashells aren't allowed to participate
Hey, dummy, do you want to count STICKS too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 21, 2008 10:55:26 GMT -5
No, but if you have a partially fallen tree, I'm sure you get credit for that as well.
Anyway, seashells are exponentially more fragile than trees, and it's a foregone conclusion that once a shell makes it's way out from under the protective barrier of the sea, it's going to be broken, and thus disqualified from your competition. That shit ain't right!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on May 21, 2008 10:55:48 GMT -5
sticks are part of trees. 10 pieces of one shell only count as 1 shell. If you can't count broken shells, you can't count trees with limbs missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 21, 2008 11:02:01 GMT -5
This competition should employ a DNA testing of sorts, so that all broken shell pieces can be attributed to a single shell, then taking all of those shells into account. That would make the competition a much closer race.
BTW - the other day, I bought my daughter a bag of seashells at a little stand on the pier. That bag is in my house, within the confines of my property, containing at least 50-75 little shells. I have about 6 or 7 trees on my property. Hell, I probably enough shells to account for all the trees on my street.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on May 21, 2008 12:45:19 GMT -5
That bag is in my house, within the confines of my property, containing at least 50-75 little shells. I have about 6 or 7 trees on my property. Hell, I probably enough shells to account for all the trees on my street.
So what? On my block I probably have 1000 trees and 0 seashells.
A stick is a broken piece of tree, just like a cracked piece of shell is a broken piece of shell. If you count pieces of shell one by one, you need to count sticks as well. So enough already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 21, 2008 13:10:45 GMT -5
".... and 0 seashells."
I bet that's not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on May 21, 2008 13:31:46 GMT -5
no, you said a broken seashell doesn't count. I say the piece that is 51% of a seashell counts as one seashell, and the broken pieces don't count for anything.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on May 21, 2008 13:57:19 GMT -5
I doubt there are 1000 trees on the block.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jericho on May 21, 2008 18:40:26 GMT -5
There aren't. The whole street probably doesn't even have 1,000 trees on it and it is a fairly long street.
Emma also has several seashells in the house including a big conch shell that Grandpa Brown gave her. So there are some seashell on the block.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on May 21, 2008 18:56:34 GMT -5
Browns, please come up with one story.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on May 22, 2008 7:57:56 GMT -5
There you go. Sounds like there are more seashells than trees on the Brown property.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jun 14, 2008 17:46:34 GMT -5
So there's a commercial in regular rotation on Nick, blurting out by helping go green you can save "100 million trees a year." Folks, obviously ads overinflate a bit, but if there are even a fraction of that many trees needing saving anually, well, it tells you the overwhelmingly staggering amount of trees. Just sayin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jun 14, 2008 21:04:42 GMT -5
and how many clams are eaten daily?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jun 14, 2008 22:10:23 GMT -5
Clams which are plucked from underwater. Underwater shells do not count, nor do shells that are in a garbage can or buried under a mound of refuse in the city dump.
Your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Jun 15, 2008 11:35:05 GMT -5
The real question should be how man clam shells are visible on the earth whilst on their way to be eaten daily.
And how many trees are cut down every year worldwide? The Science Website Ecology.com says: "Nearly 4 billion trees worldwide are cut down each year for paper, representing about 35% of all harvested trees. Fortunately, many of the trees used for paper come from tree farms which are planted and replenished for that purpose"
That means that over 10 BILLION trees are cut down each year............wait, which side of this was I on again??
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 15, 2008 23:14:47 GMT -5
Again, rigged.
Why do trees have the luxury of being counted in their natural habitat (on land) while shells only get to be counted while residing in a state completely unnatural to them.
Might as well compare trees and martians visible on land.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jun 16, 2008 6:47:24 GMT -5
Chris has a point. Tom changes the rules to suit his purpose. Shells in their natural habitat should indeed count. That said, there are more seashells than trees, no matter how Tom tries to rig it.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jun 16, 2008 7:40:42 GMT -5
Why do trees have the luxury of being counted in their natural habitat (on land) while shells only get to be counted while residing in a state completely unnatural to them
Because that is the question I asked. I asked what is more visible to the naked eye hovering over the visible Earth surface. That was my question.
Funny, seems like the seashell crew has admitted defeat. You went from fighting that there were more shells even under my guidelines to now complaining openly about the rules. So I guess I got what I was looking for, an admittance that there are more trees on the visible surface of the Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 16, 2008 9:54:20 GMT -5
I don't think anyone admitted defeat.
The problem is that not only have you excluded the bulk of seashells on the planet (residing in their natural habitat) but due to the fragile nature of these shells once they make their way out of the water, you have further narrowed down talent pool even more by declaring broken shells ineligible to compete. I would venture a guess that of the million upon millions of shells that come ashore, the overwhelming majority of them are broken.
So, if your question is: Are there more intact trees (in their natural habitat where they flourish) than there are intact seashells on land where they are highly susceptible to breakage....well then yeah the trees win it...but again, with my martian analogy it's kind of a pointless thing to compare.
I think we, in the seashell camp, didn't take your question so literally, but rather in the spirit of the competition of mere numbers of seashells vs. trees...period.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Jun 16, 2008 10:20:32 GMT -5
I admitted defeat long ago in this thread (based on info I found on AMNH.org)....but I will argue on! For the eternal struggle of Molluskian recognition will never end until they have a homeland of their own.
Tom really didn't change any rules. It was always what was more visible (numerous) from a vantage point "hovering above the ground"
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jun 16, 2008 10:20:46 GMT -5
you have further narrowed down talent pool even more by declaring broken shells ineligible to compete
You're absolutly wrong here. I specifically said a broken shell counts ONCE. The bulk of the shell counts, the pieces broken off do not. And again, if you want to count all the little pieces of shells, lets count the little pieces of trees....you know, they're called STICKS.
Where did I ever say broken shells dont count? They count one time, the main body of said shell. Trees still win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jun 16, 2008 10:26:02 GMT -5
They crush shells and use them as lawn decorations and the like. I think there would be more seashells than trees based on that alone.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jun 16, 2008 10:30:31 GMT -5
And you would think wrong.
And, again, irregardless of that fact, it strays from my ORIGINAL question...which are there more of, visible to the naked eye if one scanned the surface of the Earth - shells or trees?
They make sawdust out of trees, by the way. You want to count each speck too?
|
|
