''The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed."

kjackson,
I read the above statement as implying that people who are against Bush policy are also against all logging and mining. This implies that they are radicals or extremist. The only purpose that I can see for a false statement like this is to solicit an emotional negative response toward a group of people you disagree with.

"If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has."

Ah, the define every word game. You can use any definition you feel comfortable with. I don't think you will find any quotes from anyone here on this board or from environmental groups stating " all logging and mining is bad", as you put it. Could it be that quotes don't "come to mind" because they don't exist rather than being some " diatribe" that you "tun off".