$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 2, 2006 22:31:11 GMT -5
I am sure you are all thrilled. But here's the deal.
First, a refresher - I am convinced there are more trees on the face of this Earth than seashells. We can go into semantics if you want, but most of you already know this argument, its been pounded into sand at this point.
But in todays USA TODAY state-by-state feature, I saw more confirmation of my staid view on this. Check this out...
"CALIFORNIA - LOS ANGELES - Officials gave away 3,000 trees to homeowners to kick off a multi-year initiative that aims to plant A MILLION TREES in the city. "Los Angeles, the dirtiest big city in America, has an opportunity to be the greenest." Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said. Officials hope Government grants and private donations will cover the estimated $70 million cost, as "money does not grow on trees."
So, my point. They are adding ONE MILLION TREES, just like that, in time. Consider how many trees are already in the environs around the city. Multiply this by every city, hillock and burg in this country, and you have a massive quantity of trees that can not be topped by some shells on the fucking beach.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 5:58:21 GMT -5
There are more seashells.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 3, 2006 7:44:30 GMT -5
I'm going with shells. Two-thirds of the Earth is covered by water, and the other third used to be covered by Bernie Williams.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 8:15:22 GMT -5
You are missing the point here, 9. We are not talking about under the water...that does not count. We are talking about on the Earth's surface, as could conceivably be seen from the sky.
To say nothing of the fact that the further you go from shore underwater the less shells there are anyway, but that is not part of this argument.
There are more trees dotting the landscape than shells dotting the beaches.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 8:28:38 GMT -5
Why wouldn't underwater count? The question is seashells v. trees. Period. And on a cloudy day, you can't see the trees from the sky.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 3, 2006 8:31:04 GMT -5
i agree with balls on this. You stated on the face of the earth. Under water is on the face of the earth.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 8:36:31 GMT -5
What's next? Limit this to the amount of trees in a forest? What happens if one big tree hides a bunch of little trees?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 8:39:12 GMT -5
Why wouldn't underwater count? The question is seashells v. trees. Period
The question is what I asked. I ASKED THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. Stop trying to sway it in whatever direction you choose to tweak me.
The fact you guys keep pushing to count underwater proves my point, that you agree with my original theory that there are more trees on the visible dry surface of the Earth than seashells.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 8:44:16 GMT -5
That's not necessarily so. Seashells wash up on shore at a far greater rate than new trees are formed. But that said, underwater most definitely has to count, because seashells naturally come from the sea.
Seashells>trees
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 8:46:49 GMT -5
Balls, the argument all along did not count under the water, and people still insisted there were more shells. And I am not counting underwater, or interested in arguing about that, so I am done with the thread until you drop it.
Obviously you agree that there are more trees if you do not count the water. As I am not counting the water, and you agree with me, my point here was made. Thanks. See ya in the other threads.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 8:49:43 GMT -5
I am not agreeing to anything of the sort. There are more seashells than trees on the face of the earth. And when I get to Club Med, I intend to dive in the ocean and bring some more shells to the surface. Then I will piss on one of your precious trees.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 9:00:19 GMT -5
There are more seashells than trees on the face of the earth
But NOT on dry land. And that is the point I am making.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 9:02:29 GMT -5
With all the beach erosion, more seashells are appearing on land all the time. Meanwhile, trees are being cut down just because it's a fun thing to do. Seashells win.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 9:04:49 GMT -5
Wrong. Most seashells are under sand. You act like beaches are completely dotted with shells. And you know that is not true. You get more trees in a thicket alonside the parkway than you get shells on a big stretch of beach. Stop arguing for the sake or arguing.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 9:20:50 GMT -5
Many seashells are peaking up at the surface, and on any given day, a rainstorm will expose thousands of shells to the world. Seashells are much smaller, and more plentiful.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 3, 2006 10:04:21 GMT -5
even if you only count visible, there are still more shells, plus the tide is always going out, thus revealing more shells.
I have about 20 shells in my house, only about 5 trees....
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 10:28:35 GMT -5
And there are about 75 trees on my block , and ZERO shells.
So there goes your point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2006 12:25:01 GMT -5
Most of the seashells on the beach, are actually fragments of what was once a whole shell. Those of you in the seashell camp don't get to count all those fragments, unless you want to let those in the tree camp count all of the fallen branches - same thing.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 13:01:24 GMT -5
By that logic, and tree with a broken branch doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2006 13:04:14 GMT -5
No, the tree counts, the broken branch(es) don't.
It's just like a dollar bill. If you tear the corner off you can still spend the bill, but the little piece you tore off doesn't all of a sudden constitute another dollar.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 13:05:52 GMT -5
Balls, stop getting ridiculous. You know damn well what he means, and what he says is fact on this. We already had this whole discussion on the other board.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 13:10:03 GMT -5
Keep in mind that there are certain definitions of trees. There is a minimum height requirement. If it isn't at least 20 feet tall, it is not a tree. It is a shrub, and we will not let you add to your falsity by including shrubery. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trees
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2006 13:15:01 GMT -5
20 feet tall AT MATURITY! Don't turn this into a Giambi Sucks argument...you can't ignore the facts that don't fit your argument.
If I plant 10 trees that are 10 inches tall because of their age, there are still 10 more trees on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 3, 2006 13:18:58 GMT -5
You must cut down the largest tree in the forest, with......... A herring
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2006 13:19:27 GMT -5
a RED herring?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 3, 2006 13:21:30 GMT -5
Obviously my original point was made, and Balls has conceded that point.
There are more trees than seashells. Thank you! We can all leave this thread now.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 3, 2006 13:24:38 GMT -5
There are more seashells than trees.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Oct 3, 2006 23:04:37 GMT -5
It's simple. If you count the entire world, seashells. However there are more trees visible from the sky on the earths surface. It depends on where you set the restrictions.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 4, 2006 6:55:05 GMT -5
More seashells. Period.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Oct 4, 2006 10:01:46 GMT -5
Yeah, to me how much unknown space is there underwater, there's so much ocean floor no one will ever see that has to be full of seashells. Also, no matter where you see sand, you see shells. There are tons of places in the earth that have no trees so I gotta go with shells.
|
|