In a message dated 3/23/2001 7:27:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > ".... if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to make a house out > of > it, does that make it less useful as house-building material? > > Now, could you take this one more step? And if its not useful as a house-building material then it can only be considered as authentic compost? But only, of course, after it has lost its integrity as a fallen tree. And does it matter who owns it? Or what the owner's intentions were when he/she decided to leave it where it lay? Maybe the owner intended that it become authentic sculpture created by natural forces rather than handwork and that loss of integrity over time would be part of the creative process? Or maybe the ax handle just broke. -- MSP