CTD wrote:

Quote
So would one be incorrect to conclude that you're posting this because you also would like to divert attention from the subjectivity of the trees?



I haven't yet seen any acknowledgment that the "objective" tree claim is false.


Hi CTD. I think "one" would be very much incorrect in making the conclusion you allude to, yes. You see, I'm not trying to divert attention from "the subjectivity of trees" -- nor much of anything else -- because I wasn't discussing that in the first place. Other posters may be but that's not why I've posted. I only had one question (which I happened to quote from LinearAq since he asked it before me) and, as of yet, it still stands.

I would greatly appreciate your taking the time out from other points in the discussion to answer. Thank you kindly.

Blessed be.