Changes

::::*Ah. Still haven't pinned it down, but the issue was whether Reagan said that trees cause 80% of all pollution (ludicrous), that trees cause more pollution than automobiles (ludicrous) or whether trees cause ''certain kinds of'' pollution (true and never disputed). See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20030323/ai_n10851446 . The Reagan defenders tend to say things like "Reagan was right: trees do cause pollution," but that's silly, because that was never in dispute. (I believe I've read--probably in a Nevil Shute novel, but, hey--that in Australia under some conditions one can see visible plumes of ''flammable'' fumes coming from eucalyptus trees). But the whole thing is stupid, because assuming that Reagan had done his homework, did not misspeak, and was not misquoted, it was still a ''tendentious'' and somewhat dishonest thing to say. It's a phony argument to say that because X is not the only source of pollution, we shouldn't try to control pollution from X. And if, as I suspect Reagan simply misspoke slightly (or forgot a qualification to the statement that he had meant to include) then it was phony and dishonest to portray it as a patently stupid remark. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::*Ah. Still haven't pinned it down, but the issue was whether Reagan said that trees cause 80% of all pollution (ludicrous), that trees cause more pollution than automobiles (ludicrous) or whether trees cause ''certain kinds of'' pollution (true and never disputed). See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20030323/ai_n10851446 . The Reagan defenders tend to say things like "Reagan was right: trees do cause pollution," but that's silly, because that was never in dispute. (I believe I've read--probably in a Nevil Shute novel, but, hey--that in Australia under some conditions one can see visible plumes of ''flammable'' fumes coming from eucalyptus trees). But the whole thing is stupid, because assuming that Reagan had done his homework, did not misspeak, and was not misquoted, it was still a ''tendentious'' and somewhat dishonest thing to say. It's a phony argument to say that because X is not the only source of pollution, we shouldn't try to control pollution from X. And if, as I suspect Reagan simply misspoke slightly (or forgot a qualification to the statement that he had meant to include) then it was phony and dishonest to portray it as a patently stupid remark. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because a true understanding of events is lacking, does not mean that they did not take place. Kennedy's reference to the Berliner (whether real or imagined) is, without any doubt, the '''most important''' Berliner-related event in history. For all mention of it to be removed makes a mockery of this article. A short factual (and ideally non-speculative) summary of his remark, at the very least, is absolutely required here. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because a true understanding of events is lacking, does not mean that they did not take place. Kennedy's reference to the Berliner (whether real or imagined) is, without any doubt, the '''most important''' Berliner-related event in history. For all mention of it to be removed makes a mockery of this article. A short factual (and ideally non-speculative) summary of his remark, at the very least, is absolutely required here. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::When first I saw it, the article made no mention of the Kennedy speech, nor do I presume to guess what the creator had in mind when they made the page. But any 'Berliner' article that omits this event is necessarily a hopelessly flawed and incomplete article. One short paragraph detailing the facts of the incident would suffice (in my opinion) to set things straight here; denying such a paragraph, on debatable grounds of 'silliness', seems just the wrong thing to do. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::When first I saw it, the article made no mention of the Kennedy speech, nor do I presume to guess what the creator had in mind when they made the page. But any 'Berliner' article that omits this event is necessarily a hopelessly flawed and incomplete article. One short paragraph detailing the facts of the incident would suffice (in my opinion) to set things straight here; denying such a paragraph, on debatable grounds of 'silliness', seems just the wrong thing to do. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed "may be considered a donut"==

== Removed "may be considered a donut"==