[at-l] This 'n that....

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Yep - typical Jack.  He used to come in, drop a load of crap in the living 
room and run back to the other list.  We'll see what he does this time since 
the "other list" is now --- what is it, Jack?  Basecamp?  Thebackpacker?  - 
I've forgotten which - I don't go there very often.

I might not have bothered with this one, but you upset Ginny, Jack - sooooo 
- let's hit a couple high points here.

You said:
"if I mistakenly thought your recent rude comments were directed at me"

to which the Proper ending is:
"it's because I wasn't bright enough to figure out the context and thereby 
understand that you weren't talking about me".

But you didn't bother to actually "think", did you?  That would have been 
too much like work, wouldn't it?

Then the question arises - why would you get all bent about that particular 
context anyway --- unless you've been doing something you don't want us to 
know about?  What I said was that there are those who use "cyber-egos" to 
mask their nastiness - on this list, on atml, on pct-l - and other places.  
It was nothing more than the truth - and a lot less than ALL of the truth.  
What's up, Jack - you can't stand "truth" now?  Or are you one of those who 
do that?  That's not a "cheap shot", Jack --- under the circumstances, and 
given your overreaction, it's a legitimate question.

Then you said:
"you're frequently bitching about something I've done, and never
lose an available opportunity to cheapshot me"

I don't bother to "cheapshot" you, Jack - I don't even bother to think about 
you much. If I say anything about you, it's right up front and it's because 
you've said or done something good -- or something dumb. If you think I'm 
doing that, then come up with specifics.  Otherwise you're just blowin' 
smoke.

And somehow you managed to conveniently "forget" that you'd mis-quoted me, 
didn't you?

Now - we haven't gotten past the first paragraph in your little piece of 
sewage - and I'm not gonna wade through the rest of it.  Frankly, there may 
even be a grain of truth in there - but I'm not willing to spend that much 
time in the middens, so let's just get a couple things said -

First, that I answer those things that "I" think are worth answering or need 
to be answered or want to answer - and that's not your business.  If you 
don't like what I say - or how I say it, that's tough.  You've got a delete 
key just like everyone else.  Use it - or get involved in the conversation 
and tell me where I'm wrong.

If you've got something specific to say, then say it.  You don't like what I 
say?  Cool - then get your opinion out here, but don't bitch about what I 
have to say unless you're willing to come up with facts.
And I haven't seen any "facts" in your "discussion" yet.  You've put out a 
couple good posts about the AT in the last couple months - that's cool.  
Keep up the good work - but unless you've got something useful to say, don't 
bitch about what others (including me) have to say.

Yeah, I know - you don't like me telling "anyone" that they've got their 
"facts" wrong - or that I think their ethics suck swamp water. Again - 
tough.  If you've got better information or another viewpoint, then put it 
out here.  If not, then quit yer bitchin'.  Tell me - have you looked at you 
own posts lately?   Four out of eight this month have been personal attacks 
on - guess who?

You were an ignorant, opinionated blowhard when I first ran into you, Jack.  
And you apparently haven't learned anything in the last 4 years.  The last 
time we "talked", you called me a liar - and then it turned out I wasn't a 
liar - you were just ignorant and opinionated.  Remember that?

Yeah - I know - I'm opinionated, too.  But the differences are 1/ that I'm 
willing to learn if anyone has better information/facts, 2/ that I've got 
experience/knowledge that you don't have a clue about.  I don't know 
"everything" - and I do sometimes make mistakes - but not nearly as often as 
you'd like to believe.

Finally - you said:
>Can we please make some kind of an effort to all be, well, a little less 
>angry?

So far, the most anger I've seen is in YOUR post.  As a general comment, 
this last "political" go-round has been one of the more civil ones I've ever 
seen on any list.

>Whether, it's some Act of Congress, or hunting accidents, or some other 
>damned thing, do we hafta spend so much time bickering with each other?

Damn - something we agree on.  I objected a couple months ago to having the 
list head in this direction, but there are those who decided they weren't 
gonna play nice - they were gonna talk about what they wanted to talk about 
and they wanted to talk about politics.  Well, this is the result - I don't 
particularly like it either.  But contrary to your assertions, I don't 
control the list or what gets talked about. Nor do I want to.  But when 
someone starts a conversation - like guns or unethical attitudes - then I 
might have some things to say.  The fact that you don't like the subject - 
or what I have to say - is YOUR problem.  Deal with it.

The bottom line is that if you've got a specific complaint, then let's hear 
it.  But the generalized "I don't like what you're saying, so shut up" crap 
- well, let's just put it this way --- put it where the Sun don't shine, 
boy.

Walk softly through that sewage,
Jim


PS - damn, I almost forgot --- your use of the " Mr Owen" stuff.  If you 
intend it to irritate me, you missed.  I just think it's funny, cause the 
implication is that I'm your superior.  I've never claimed that, but if you 
want to do so, have fun -- that would be your problem, not mine.


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com