[at-l] Sense of Wilderness and Town Stops

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

RnR wrote:
>Jim said that that Wingfoot had nothing to do with Putnam
>Mine. Mr Leutze clearly provided that he very much did. That's all in the 
>archives Jim, don't make me dig it up.

Just Do It. If you find it, that would be the first time you've actually 
backed up any of your assertions.  If you find it, I'll be damned surprised. 
  And I'll apologize.


> > >He chose not to respond to the
> > >Putnam Mine letter by J. Leutze calling it a "waste of bandwidth"...
> >
> > I did respond to your presentation of Wingfoot's letter - how did you 
>fail
> > to understand how little I respect that kind of fluff?
>
>
>     *** No you didn't. Eventually you posted some name-calling and
>indifference after it was clear you were disproven. There's a lot you 
>clearly disrespect. Much of it isn't "fluff".


Uh - RnR?  I didn't answer you?  Really????  Then who wrote this post?  And 
don't tell me you didn't know about it -- you responded to it.

>[at-l] the Putnam Whine.... Jim and/or Ginny Owen spiriteagle99@hotmail.com 
>Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:58:29 +0000
<snip>
>As an example - I have a box full of awards, plaques - and letters of 
>commendation from NASA, private companies - even the President.  Just like 
>the one the RnR believes is so important.  Mine are so important that I 
>keep them in a cardboard box in the sump room in the basement. They're part 
>of the "water dam" - the "sacrifice material" if the sump pump ever fails.  
>  I think his letter is of the same level of importance.  And that the 
>debate has the smell of very old, nasty mold.


>     *** Shane accusing me of rambling? Hmmmm... No, actually you seemed to
>proffer a complacent view on global warming in a previous discussion. A 
>Rhode
>Island-sized chunk of Antarctica disagrees, as does the atmosphere and
>glaciers... At what point does the reactionary knee-jerk approach look 
>silly Jim? (And a nasty one at that)

The subject here wasn't global warming, RnR - or are you incapable of 
sticking to the subject under discussion when you're not "winning"?  
Changing the subject is a child's ploy -


>*** There could be no greater insult to MacKaye than to gloss over and
>minimize his profound wilderness views and AT intentions as represented in 
>his writings.

Get serious - you haven't read his writings.


>Jim's view of the AT is
>'a-dimensional' and an insult to clearly elaborated plans by MacKaye and 
>the wilderness task he hoped we would take up enthusiastically instead of 
>seeking to discredit...

Again - get serious - neither you nor Weary have a clue about my view of the 
AT.  You've both spent a year "telling" me what my view is -  but neither of 
you have ever had the wit to "ask" me about it.

Oh yeah - I don't want to forget this little gem - you've spent a year 
resorting to the "Jim wants the Trail lined with condos" as your final line 
of defense.  I've ignored it until now cause it's so patently ridiculous.  
As you said recently -

>    ***   It's just plain amazing what some people will say when their 
>internal political bent won't let them admit that condos are counter to the 
>Trail and will destroy it.

Uh - RnR?  You're the only one who's ever suggested the condos lining the 
Trail crap.  Is there a repressed desire on your part to own one of those 
condos?    :-))

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx