Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (266471)	12/29/2005 5:14:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576949

Who said wetlands are not important? No one, which was precisely my point. Your response implies that I said such a thing. I said that some areas defined as wetlands are more valuable then others. You responded saying that they are important. Your response would only be relevant to my statement if I said they where not important. You suggested that some wetlands are more important or valuable than others. All I said in return is that ecologically speaking, all wetlands are equally valuable as far as their local region is concerned. Wetlands are not like shopping malls where a better location means more value for the mall and its shops. Wetlands are an intrinsic part of insuring that the particular ecology to which they are attached is viable. To the local ecology, one wetlands isn't superior to another, again speaking ecologically, because they all have the same value. ted