Vaughn La Force

I disagree with the premise and the logic perched thereon; both with the video and the justification of unclean speech. I acknowledge any speech can be made unclean by malicious intent and tone. But it is a non-commutable equation. Speech that owes it's existence to express malicious bitterness, resentful anger, disrespect, denigration, etc. cannot be purified by intention. To paraphrase the principle attributed to Albert Einstein, "One cannot simultaneously plan for peace and prepare for war."

That having been said, it is a personal responsibility to avoid polluting or being polluted by said speech, and others should not be forced to live by my standards anymore than they should force me to live by theirs. So, I miss out on all the podcasts. It is a dear wish of mine that all the podcasts had been, or will be, made kid friendly/family friendly. Still, my choice to listen or not. Definitely not my place to resist in any way their production, distribution, or enjoyment by others.

Whether that happens or not, I do wish the euphemism "full beauty of the english language" be exposed for justification for lack of restraint or consideration that it is. I have trouble seeing the difference between that and rhetoric justifying smoking. It's harmful. To some it is beautiful, and to others it is filthy. It's not kind to force someone to not smoke, and it's not kind to force someone to be affected by smoking. If every expletive was removed from every piece of media produced by and for this community, not one particle of the great and important knowledge of permaculture would be lost; not one atom of beauty of the knowledge of permaculture would be diminished. Paul, in a recent talk gave evidence of the trouble caused to certain groups by those self identifying as "vegans" or "proponents of universal love". The full beauty of the english language movement seems to me to be a mild form of the same coercion.

Thank you to the moderators for providing a topic specifically tailored to allow me to share my feelings and opinions on the matter without attacking the content, ideas, opinions, or people of this very valuable site and community.

I really enjoyed your Ted Talk and the Full Plane House documentary. Thank you!

I'm very curious about the urban forestry planning from the perspective of harvesting and replanting. For example in your Ted Talk you showed a picture of a park with well developed mature trees. It doesn't seem ecologically healthy or esthetically pleasing to harvest all the trees there at the same time. So what would a good succession strategy be at that location? How would proper succession (harvesting replanting) be applied to the Intel forest or the Plane House? How is a cycle of all trees then all stumps avoided? I imagine some trees are harvested before they have reached maximum growth, some at maximum growth and some after with replanting immediately following, but how does one pick the correct trees to harvest with replanting in mind?

Thank you for making yourself available to answer questions.