<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Don’t buy Kimberly-Clark’s latest ruse]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-10-kimberly-clarks-latest-ruse/ Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:47:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-10-kimberly-clarks-latest-ruse/1 So, this seems misplaced. While I understand that some people, especially of the type to have a first name like Ginger, are extremely opinionated about things they do not know very much about, I do not understand why they use their opinions as truths. Dude, that's like... your opinion, man.

I actually fully agree that there is no reason to use 100% virgin fiber, but the fact is, paper cannot be made with 100% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper can, but it will be of inferior quality. I am not sure about tissues, but I would assume that if tissues were 100% recycled, they would fall apart in your hand with a sneeze.

Furthermore, touching campaign about boreal forests, but judging by the size of the logs in the youtube video, they are no older than 80-100 years of age, plus no forester in his right mind would want to sell a high quality sawlog (read: older than 100 years old) for pulpwood. So, unless you consider your grandparents as being ancient, your statement is just full of umm, excrement. These are not 'ancient' forests, and to be honest, I am not even sure what an 'ancient' forest is. After formally looking through several textbooks (I knew it to begin with, but these are the textbooks: general bio, general ecology, forest ecosystems, silviculture), not one of these contains the word 'ancient' anywhere with any relevance to forests. I think the word that you are striving for is 'old-growth'.

So, like I said: misplaced and full of holes. I am not an apologist for Kimberly-Clark, but know your case and your reasoning as to how you go about your case. Which, in my opinion, is going to be full of holes, unless you educate yourself from a neutral standpoint.

]]> So, this seems misplaced. While I understand that some people, especially of the type to have a first name like Ginger, are extremely opinionated about things they do not know very much about, I do not understand why they use their opinions as truths. Dude, that's like... your opinion, man.

I actually fully agree that there is no reason to use 100% virgin fiber, but the fact is, paper cannot be made with 100% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper can, but it will be of inferior quality. I am not sure about tissues, but I would assume that if tissues were 100% recycled, they would fall apart in your hand with a sneeze.

Furthermore, touching campaign about boreal forests, but judging by the size of the logs in the youtube video, they are no older than 80-100 years of age, plus no forester in his right mind would want to sell a high quality sawlog (read: older than 100 years old) for pulpwood. So, unless you consider your grandparents as being ancient, your statement is just full of umm, excrement. These are not 'ancient' forests, and to be honest, I am not even sure what an 'ancient' forest is. After formally looking through several textbooks (I knew it to begin with, but these are the textbooks: general bio, general ecology, forest ecosystems, silviculture), not one of these contains the word 'ancient' anywhere with any relevance to forests. I think the word that you are striving for is 'old-growth'.

So, like I said: misplaced and full of holes. I am not an apologist for Kimberly-Clark, but know your case and your reasoning as to how you go about your case. Which, in my opinion, is going to be full of holes, unless you educate yourself from a neutral standpoint.

]]> Comment #2 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-10-kimberly-clarks-latest-ruse/ Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:50:02 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-10-kimberly-clarks-latest-ruse/2 So, this seems misplaced. While I understand that some people, especially of the type to have a first name like Ginger, are extremely opinionated about things they do not know very much about, I do not understand why they use their opinions as truths. Dude, that's like... your opinion, man.

I actually fully agree that there is no reason to use 100% virgin fiber, but the fact is, paper cannot be made with 100% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper can, but it will be of inferior quality. I am not sure about tissues, but I would assume that if tissues were 100% recycled, they would fall apart in your hand with one sneeze.

Furthermore, touching campaign about boreal forests, but judging by the size of the logs in the youtube video, they are no older than 80-100 years of age, plus no forester in his right mind would want to sell a high quality sawlog (read: older than 100 years old) for pulpwood. So, unless you consider your grandparents as being ancient, your statement is just full of umm, excrement. These are not 'ancient' forests, and to be honest, I am not even sure what an 'ancient' forest is. After formally looking through several textbooks (I knew it to begin with, but these are the textbooks: general bio, general ecology, forest ecosystems, silviculture), not one of these contains the word 'ancient' anywhere with any relevance to forests. I think the word that you are striving for is 'old-growth'.

So, like I said: misplaced and full of holes. I am not an apologist for Kimberly-Clark, but know your case and your reasoning as to how you go about your case. Which, in my opinion, is going to be full of holes, unless you educate yourself from a neutral standpoint.

]]> So, this seems misplaced. While I understand that some people, especially of the type to have a first name like Ginger, are extremely opinionated about things they do not know very much about, I do not understand why they use their opinions as truths. Dude, that's like... your opinion, man.

I actually fully agree that there is no reason to use 100% virgin fiber, but the fact is, paper cannot be made with 100% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper can, but it will be of inferior quality. I am not sure about tissues, but I would assume that if tissues were 100% recycled, they would fall apart in your hand with one sneeze.

Furthermore, touching campaign about boreal forests, but judging by the size of the logs in the youtube video, they are no older than 80-100 years of age, plus no forester in his right mind would want to sell a high quality sawlog (read: older than 100 years old) for pulpwood. So, unless you consider your grandparents as being ancient, your statement is just full of umm, excrement. These are not 'ancient' forests, and to be honest, I am not even sure what an 'ancient' forest is. After formally looking through several textbooks (I knew it to begin with, but these are the textbooks: general bio, general ecology, forest ecosystems, silviculture), not one of these contains the word 'ancient' anywhere with any relevance to forests. I think the word that you are striving for is 'old-growth'.

So, like I said: misplaced and full of holes. I am not an apologist for Kimberly-Clark, but know your case and your reasoning as to how you go about your case. Which, in my opinion, is going to be full of holes, unless you educate yourself from a neutral standpoint.

]]>