[at-l] Snodrog Revisited

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

< I've missed some posts, did R&R ever find & post?(just I thought I'd 
ask...)TJ>


    ***   Hello...


<And the Putnam mine issue? It was settled before WF belatedly jumped on the 
bandwagon. Ah, the Truth. Ain't it grand?>


    ***  Wingfoot himself publicly stated that he joined an already existing 
campaign by Leutze. Snodrog wasn't on ATML when it happened and couldn't know 
that. The Leutze letter makes clear that Wingfoot's Trailplace intervention 
was key in raising government interest towards the mine and galvanizing 
public support that the state couldn't ignore. If you read Leutze's letter, 
it made clear that TP's influence was timely and effective, gaining remarks 
of praise from officials.
     If you read TJ's assertion you would be made to believe Trailplace was 
late, uninvolved, had no influence, and fibbed about it. Snodrog's comment 
was completely wrong and gave a wrong impression for personal reasons, yet 
its maker seems to still harbor an attitude of being correct for some reason 
he can't clearly explain. He later tried a feeble attempt to save face by 
claiming he was taken out of context, though, I don't see how that could be 
possible.
     Yes, Snodrog, the truth *is* grand...    


<I typed up a really scathing 500 word bitch-slap of a retort to his 
hit-and-run,but I hit delete instead of send.Ya live, ya learn...>

 
   ***  I was trying to impress our responsibility towards MacKaye 
myself...(you should have done that with your Putnam gaff also)


    <- Now that you no longer have WF's butt up which to stick your head, 
please take the time to clean the chit out of your ears.>


 
     ***   Of course, Snodrog also accused me of trolling the List with 
insults and snide remarks etc etc...


    <My opinion, little that it matters, is that the attempt to 'shame' us is 
based on intentional misrepresentations. The 2 at-l haters continue to post>


   
     ***   You mean like the intentional misrepresentations you did with 
Putnam and others? Which List is being hated here is obvious... 


    <WF's errand boy is just posting more revisionist falsehoods in his 
pathetic attempt to disrupt this list that he and WF are so jealous of. Go 
back to the list of typists, R&R. You don't belong on the list of hikers.>



     ***   "Revisionist falsehood" is when a credible organizer details 
Trailplace's direct effectiveness and a naysayer comes in and says he still 
thinks he's right. Even with the man telling him otherwise right in front of 
him. 
     My progressive, methodical purpose was to prove that MacKaye's writings 
supported what TP was doing and gave good cause for asking others to do the 
same. Your version of that is, well, let's say, woefully unappreciative of 
that...

 

    <But the true shame of it is that R+R is *not* genuine in his opinions. 
He only posts in the manner that he does in his ongoing attempt to disrupt 
our campfire. Please don't mistake him for a serious person, Red. He is not.>



    *** Let's see... "If I get caught red-handed smearing Wingfoot's Trail 
efforts and someone makes me look foolish with credible proof, I can always 
gather us together as a group being attacked in order to dodge having to own 
up to my own words..."
     So far, Snodrog, I don't think you are in a position to question the 
genuineness of other's words -especially after the Leutze letter. To clarify, 
I confronted what I saw as a mistruth being peddled as fact in order to 
undermine the reputation of a contributing Trail advocate. If establishing 
the truth is "disrupting the List", well...

 

    <He just spouts his disinformation more aggressively when unchecked. If 
you don't respond, he'll fabricate material to post about. If you do respond, 
he whines that everyone is picking on him...I've used up my tolerance for 
such juvenile behavior.TJ>


    ***  TJ, word of advice- when getting caught telling lies on a list it is 
sometimes wise to refrain from accusing others of deliberately propagating 
disinformation. The result could be risking appearing like a person who is 
out of touch with reality... 


     "Personally I don't care. I sort of wonder why you do? After all WF 
doesn'tcare about the trail, if he did, based on what you say of Putnam Mine, 
WFwould know how important Trailplace was ( according to you and Leutze).So 
what does this mean R&R, you have convinced me that WF really 
wasn'tinterested in protecting and bettering the AT, if he had been, he 
wouldn'thave taken Trailplace down, with the intention of turning it into a 
PersonalWeb page where he publishes his personal views and sells his 
stuff."Trailplace became anti-AT (by R&R's definition) long before WF finally 
shut it down. When the actual, but denied, focus became clear to all it's end 
was inevitable.


     ***   It's amazing what embarrassing public lengths some will go to to 
avoid acknowledging Wingfoot's Trail achievements. This post is important 
because it concedes that Trailplace did have an acknowledged positive effect 
on Putnam -something Snodrog avoided at all costs before. If you read his 
claim on Trailplace above, "belatedly jumping on the bandwagon", you would 
see he has now changed that without admitting he was wrong. So, we have gone 
from: "WF had nothing to do with Putnam" to; "I still think I'm right", to; 
I'm being taken out of context, to; "Personally I don't care". See a pattern 
Teej? 

    

    <TP's email campaign started months after the State announced it's intent 
to revoke the Putnam Mine Permit. The Permit was issued in error, so any 
appeal had no chance. Legal appeals are based on rule of law, not public 
sentiment. Spamming the state goverment with belated emails from 
trailplace.com had doubtful, if any, value.Remember how TP's anti-ATC 
Saddleback spam effort failed, but WF still got a letter thanking him for his 
effort.>


    *** These are base terms designed to undercut a fruitful endeavor for the 
Trail for personal spite. It's really sad to see such pathetic reaching, 
especially when credible authorities have already credited the campaign. 
    TJ wrote this even after he had seen Leutze describe how government 
officials were impressed with the e-mail medium. Snodrog cites rule of law 
but fails to recognize that the law necessitates a public show of interest. 
There were legal AT viewshed reviews the state failed to consider when 
granting the permit. Once again, TJ is far from the facts yet firm in his 
denials.
     Leutze summed it up. What TJ does above is just desperate grasping in 
the face of unavoidable proof. When do you give Leutze some credit TJ?

 

    <I disagree. The ATC, and the opposition Land Rights people working to 
'support' the Breens, not only worked harder but presented their positions 
better. The debate was between them, and little or no mention of WF was ever 
made to my knowledge.TJ>


    ***   Pam Underhill, the head of the NPS AT department managed, as did 
others. Deny WF, then figure out the facts later, huh Snodrog?
     WF and others in the know saw what happened on Saddleback. Don't dignify 
the boondoggle in hindsight. I felt he was the only one to see it in advance. 
Things he said two years ago are coming to be now...

~~  Rick: There was a book written fairly recently.  I am not sure of the 
name but it was written by a woman thru-hiker and published by the AMC.  It 
quoted Pam Underhill (Top NPS Trail big-wig)regarding WF's campaign.  Suffice 
it to say that the NPS had a much higher opinion of the Trailplace effort 
than does TJ.  Of course, she knows a bit more about it.~~

 
    ***  Well, she probably doesn't exert most of her efforts offhandedly 
discrediting Trail advocates. How many credible references does it take 
before it sinks in TJ?


    <Hi Rick, nice to see you posting.Sorry to have confused you by 
mentioning in passing WF's anti-ATC Saddleback campaign, but we were talking 
about Putnam. The paragraph of mine you quoted is, on second look, pretty 
good. Care to disagree?TJ>


     ***  He's so polite! Either one Snodrog, take your pick ("taken out of 
context" again Snodrog?) If you care to look at the quote above you WERE 
talking about Saddleback. As usual you seem confused yet confident about the 
facts. Caught again Snodrog, don't make it worse by trying to wiggle out of 
it. If you read what Rick says he IS disagreeing with you. There's a clownish 
avoidance of the obvious that makes this almost comical if it wasn't so 
pathetic...


     There's more but it would fill too much space. I think the rest is 
clear...

         And thank you for your interest in my response TJ...

          









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