Re[3]: [at-l] A Question Of Trail and other inanities

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

Bob C. wrote:
>>reports Jim in claiming I misquoted him when left out parenthetical 
>>material.
>
>Well,  I'll  admit  that  Jim  tries to put too much into a single sentence 
>that makes  it  confusing,  but let's try to break it down. First he claims 
>RnR is an ignoramus.  Which  isn't  true. RnR can be wordy, preachy and 
>irritating, but he knows a lot about the trail.

Still playing games, Bob?  RnR got mentioned only peripherally in the 
original version and you wrote whole paragraphs about a mythical attack on 
him.  Are you really that confused - or just pointing at the sky again?  
When I have something to say about RnR, the world will know it.

The "ignoramus" was your own invention - remember that idiot on the 
"Legislative committee" who supposedly said "Public land is 
unconstitutional"?  "You" are the one who asked the question about him - and 
I answered.  Sometimes it's hard to remember your own creations, isn't it?

>As  the  English  language  is  used  by most people, material in 
>parentheses is parenthetical to the point of the sentence and not essential 
>to the meaning.

Really??  Maybe that's how "you" use it - but you should really pay more 
attention to how others use it.


>Omitting  the  gratuitous  slam  at  RnR which I think the list is grossly 
>over
>doing,

Babe, RnR hasn't gotten half what he deserves.

>and  the parenthetical information, the sentence reads, "(H)is ignorance
>is  no  dumber  than  the idea that ALL private land should be subject to 
>public
>taking  at  the  whim  of  the  government  particularly without 
>compensation or justification."
>
>I  don't  know  of  anyone  on  the list who believes this is true and I'm 
>quite confident that RnR doesn't believe this.

Uh - Bob? Read that again.  It says that one of those ideas is no dumber 
than the other.  What's your problem here?  And remember where YOU started 
this line of crap.  Do I have to explain that to you?

This is what you previously 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.

Do I really have to explain that that's entirely different from both your 
latest version - and the original?  How stupid do you think I am?  How 
stupid do you think the list is?


>As  for  the  other points Jim makes, I once fell into the trap of 
>answering his
>many  questions.  It  served  only  to bore the list and lead to more 
>rhetorical questions. So I try not to play that game any more.

I'm not gonna mess with this a lot - mostly I'll  repeat what I said 
yesterday -

Almost a year ago, you came to at-l from atml, claiming that the membership 
of at-l was made up of "atml refugees".  And that actually became true when 
you and RnR (and others) subscribed to at-l.  You then spent a lot of time 
beating up on the list for its unwillingness to "debate serious subjects".  
But, even when invited to do so, you failed to introduce those "serious 
subjects" for open discussion on the list.  Well - now you've got your 
"serious subjects" - and your response so far has been to slide into 
personal attacks and misdirection, ignore the questions and retreat behind 
RnR's rhetoric.

You've spent a year looking for this discussion.  You've badgered, whined, 
carped and complained about how nobody would get into this kind of 
discussion with you. Well, now you've got it.  So where are you?  Where's 
your argument?  Where are your answers to the questions?

You and RnR are the ones who have a "Message" for the list - and an agenda 
to push.  You've said in the past that you wanted "discussion" - and yet you 
refuse to "discuss" anything?  You refuse to answer legitimate questions?  
RnR?  Hell, he doesn't have the faintest clue about what "discussion" means.

LOL!!!

What the hell are you doing here, Bob?  And if you bring up your "quiz" 
again, I may well answer it.  You wouldn't like that.  I let it go the first 
time - don't tempt me again.


>Obviously,  not  all  land  in  Maine  sells  for  $200 an acre. But land 
>in the
>uuorganized  townships  far  from  any  public roads routinely has sold for 
>this
>amount.  The  National Park Service bought most of the 30,000 acres it 
>purchased in Maine to protect the trail for around that price.

Really?  When?

>Lately  the  price  has  gone  up  as  speculators  have  discovered  the 
>state.

Bullshit - try the price of land in Maryland - or New Mexico - or Kansas.  
Don't blame "speculators" - go look at what's happened to the rest of the 
world.  Why do you think Maine is so different?  Or that "speculators" are 
the only answer?  That's called an "unwarranted assumption".


>All  kinds of acreages were bandied about during the 20-year Saddleback 
>dispute.
>The  final  settlement  involves some fee lands and some easement lands. I 
>don't
>have the figures at hand, but I'll look them up if anyone is interested.

Don't bother.  According to the ATC it was 1115 acres sold to NPS and a 320 
acre easement.


>But  I  am  not amused with the "confrontational
>asininity"  you rightly report on the list.

Nor am I. But it can get a lot more confrontational if necessary.

>I think you should stop being one of the perpetrators.

Really?  Are you getting tired of the game playing?  Are you ready to stop 
the personal attacks and misdirection, stand on your own instead of 
retreating behind RnR's rhetoric and have some "real" discussion instead of 
the evasive bullshit for a change?  That last would involve actually 
answering questions instead of blowing people off as "private property nut 
cases" or other political bullshit labels so you can conveniently ignore 
them.

Let me know, Bob - I'll be back on Monday.  Unlike some people, I actually 
have something productive to do with my weekends.

Jim





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