Re[2]: [at-l] A Question Of Trail and other inanities

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

Weary wrote:
>As  for  the ellipses, I was simply saving bandwidth that some keep urging 
>us to do. If I distorted your meaning, say how. Don't make unsupported 
>accusations.

And then you wrote -
>Not that I know of.  "...ALL private land should be subject to
>>public  taking  at  the  whim  of  the  government  ...without 
>>compensation or justification." is what Jim O. claims some of us believe.
>
>I've  never  seen any evidence that anyone believes that. But I suppose 
>someone, someplace may do so.


Y'know, Bob -
I've called you a liar before so this should be nothing new.

You're supposed to be an "expert" with words - and you want us to believe 
that taking words/phrases out of the middle of a sentence doesn't change the 
meaning?

C'mon Bob - you're smarter than that.  And so are we.

The original (as I wrote it - not as you re-wrote it) read -
>The guy is an ignoramus, but his ignorance is no dumber than the idea that 
>ALL private land should be subject to public taking at the whim of the 
>government (in particular for the creation of "wilderness") particularly 
>(as RnR seems to believe it should be) without compensation or 
>justification.

Now -- what was that about unsupported accusations?  "Saving bandwidth"?  I 
think not.  Deliberate mis-quoting?  I think so.  Y'know - you do a LOT of 
that - to a LOT of people.  And the curiouser thing is that you have to WORK 
at it.  How have you escaped learning that being straight-up honest is a lot 
easier?

Just for reference, in another post I wrote:
>And third - your post was in support of RnR whose ideal world would be for 
>land owners along the Trail corridor (meaning at least a 20 mile corridor 
>on each  side of the Trail) to give their land up without compensation.

To which neither you nor RnR made any protest or comment, and with which, in 
fact, RnR privately concurred - although he did modify the numbers.


Moving on here, in another post you wrote:
>I have a sense of humor. But I don't see humor in the taxpayers spending as 
>much for 300 acres than an entire 12,000 acre ski ares is worth. I didn't 
>even think it  funny  when  the  Pentagon -- in the name of National 
>Security -- was paying $9,000 for hammers.

And now I know why you're so enamored of WF.  Neither of you can handle 
numbers - and neither of you have a "real" sense of humor.

Unless you know something that the rest of us don't, the acreage involved in 
that deal was 1435 acres - NOT 300.  Was that a deliberate mis-quote?  Or a 
simple inability to keep the facts straight?

As for the "worth" involved - there's been a lot of discussion about that - 
but what it comes down to is that the roughly $200 per acre initially 
offered by NPS was ridiculous.  As I said - a blatant and unscrupulous land 
grab.  If you KNOW where all that $200 per acre land is that you've claimed 
is out there - why don't you let all of us know.  Personally, I'd be on the 
phone Monday morning to get a piece of it.  And I'd bring some of my 
friends.  You don't believe that?  -- Try me  :-))))

Oh yeah - your claim about 5 Mil acres for $200 per -- that's what Rick B 
called a "half-truth".  What was the rest of the deal, Bob?  How much stock 
changed hands?  What other "considerations"?  "IF" the cash involved was 
$200 per, then you know as well as I that there was more to the deal and the 
"real" cost was a lot more than that. Watch out for the accounting tricks, 
Bob - they'll getcha every time.

No - I'm not an expert on Maine real estate.  But if $200 per acre land were 
that available, I know some of the people who'd be snapping it up like 
cookies - including myself. I have friends who own land in Maine.  They 
bought it in 1988 - and they paid more than $200 per for it.

Oh, yeah - someone else asked how fast Breen would get his $12 Mil price.  
Who knows?  It may take him a while - he may not get his price - but 
eventually he WILL sell it.  The "real" question is - WHO will be the new 
"neighbor"?  Unless someone out there comes up with some money (or some 
other reasonable deal), we'd better start thinking about being "friendly" to 
the new owner rather than the confrontational asininity I've seen on this 
list lately. Who's chasing that one?

But let's move on - there was no $9000 hammer, Bob.  Another emotionally 
loaded mis-statement on your part?  Another "half-truth"?  Or a simple 
inability to keep the numbers straight?  It was a $600 hammer.  Expensive?  
Yeah.  Overpriced?  Yeah.  But try this on for size --

>The only problem, Freedberg noted, was that there never was a $600 hammer. 
>It was "an accounting artifact," said Steven Kelman, former >head of the 
>Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
>
>Unfortunately, it's difficult to explain exactly why the hammer wasn't as 
>expensive as it's been made out to be. (It has to do with the fact >that 
>the hammer, originally $15, was assigned the same amount of >research and 
>development overhead as other highly technical components >on a particular 
>spare parts list.)

That short excerpt came from http://www.govexec.com/

It says things that the "popular press" never bothered to deal with.  Maybe 
because so few of them actually understand what they're writing about.  
Anyone ever have a story written about their thruhike?  You know what I 
mean, don't you?.

Another VERY oversimplified completely non-technical explanation (from 
another email list) went like this ----

>the hammer, was part of some system to put something into an F-14 so that 
>it would not be deformed. of course had to be engineered so it would fit 
>the part it was whacking into whatever.

Not exactly highly explanatory, but certainly humorous. No sense of humor, 
Bob?  I'm glad that's your problem and not mine - you wouldn't last long in 
my job.

Incidentally, that referenced email list is moderated - this was a comment 
from the moderator in response to a post in this particular thread:

>Lets keep your political thoughts to yourself and not spouting off in this 
>group.

I wonder how this list would respond to that kind of moderation?

Finally - I've asked a lot of questions, Bob.  And you haven't answered a 
single one.  So I'll make it easy for you.  I'll go back and cull the 
questions and re-post them periodically (like once or twice a week) so you 
won't forget about all those questions that you'd rather play 
"mis-direction" with than answer.

That WAS the purpose to this exercise (the "Jim said" thing), wasn't it?  
Mis-direction?  If Jim is busy answering your inane mis-quotes and innuendo, 
then he won't have the time to pursue "real" questions that you don't have 
answers for?  And you won't have to answer them?  That WAS the purpose, 
wasn't it?  :-)))

Or was the purpose to tell the list that Jim's not a credible person and 
whatever he says should be discounted?  You've been working that one for a 
while too, haven't you?   :-))

Oh dear - more questions that you can't answer <VVVBSEG)

Oh shoot - almost forgot.  I've had 3 conversations in the last 2 days with 
people who've said "Who is this  character?  He has answers to everything, 
but he doesn't know what he's talking about."  I'll give you a clue, Bob - 
they were talking about you. One of the subjects was about weather in the 
South and the use of crampons.  Truth is that I didn't even pay attention to 
the subject so I've got no personal stake in it.  But others noticed.  Free 
advice - if you don't know what you're talking about, don't make a damfool 
of yourself (and incidentally, put others at risk) by giving bad advice.  
Another thing you have in common with WF?  Are you SURE you're not WF?  
Naaah - Even I know better than that.  :-))

Have a good day, Bob.  And think about those answers - the questions will be 
comin' back atya - soon.  :-))

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com