[at-l] Cost to remove a blowdown

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/10/2002 12:31:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
orangebug74@yahoo.com writes:


> Ron, Ron, Ron...
> 
> Stop while you are ahead. Yes, he is inconsistent and one of the best
> examples of situational ethics/ends justifies the means.



     *** Just like your total violation of the list rules here OB, except 
that I argue from valid Trail logic rather than resorting to defamation 
tactics as my sole means of operating on AT-L. I was engaged in a productive 
AT conversation with Ron, which I feel conforms to the objectives of this 
site. Unfortunately, OB feels obliged to offer nothing but a stream of 
negative snips having nothing to do with the topic and violating the List 
theme of open conversation. I would encourage others not to let 
uncontributing, spiteful list nannies control their freedom on AT-L... 
     It's obvious that OB's comments originate from inexperience or 
indifference in the topic rather than educated opinion and his posts are 
motivated mostly by personal animosity rather than respect for the list. If 
you follow his submissions on philosophical Trail issues he mostly doesn't 
have much to say and usually ends up submitting a flame in place of any 
respectful comments. I've seen myself accused of "poison", but if you compare 
posts I think you'll see who is talking Trail and who is injecting the 
toxins...


>  
> A wilderness area is exactly what it is termed. The shelter near Bird
> Gap is near that zone in No GA. This made creating the shelter harder,
> and the location less convenient. Changing the rules for our
> convenience only opens the door to other special interests. 


    ***   I would take this seriously if OB mentioned that ANWR is also a 
"wilderness" and showed equal concern over it. He doesn't because his post is 
a means of attacking me more than a seriously held view. I don't think OB 
fathomed that I was questioning the legitimacy of connecting our use of 
chainsaws to destroying huge swaths. Of course his response sounds good and 
is the simple answer, but it doesn't analyze the situation to the depth I was 
suggesting. If you understood my comments, instead of impulsively opposing 
them as you prefer to regularly do, you would see that my suggestion was to 
secure a simple exemption which precluded others hanging their agendas on it. 
This could be written into the rules and lock-out those who would use it to 
compromise wilderness preemptively...


> 
> Open that door, say goodbye to the Blue Ridge Swag and hello to Sunday
> Drivers. Drop this thread now before someone thinks it is credible.
> 


     ***  The only lack of credibility here is someone who seriously suggests 
those highways would ever be built into today's environmental age. OB needs 
to learn to support his views without relying on personal contempt as their 
mode of delivery. OB - the master of the frivolous point disguised as 
venerated opinion tolerating a poor lister's ineptitude. BTW OB, since you 
pose yourself as a judge of credibility, I'd like to hear your comments on 
the Putnam Mine letter vs what you said? If you can't debate honestly, then 
follow your own advice...


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---