[at-l] Snodrog Revisited

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

In a message dated 4/2/2002 11:56:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Snodrog5@aol.com writes:


> You go on and on trying to convince people that the truth about the Putnam 
> Mine issue is a lie. However, contrary to your delusion, the facts remain 
> that 1) the permit was issued in error 2) the State announced it's intent 
> to 
> revoke the permit that was issued in error, and 3) months later WF started 
> his email effort. Those are facts. Deal with it.


    *** Did you have a problem understanding Leutze who was there and 
witnessed it when he described how Wingfoot's campaign saved the day with 
Putnam? You seem to be convinced that this feeble-minded return to the time 
line proves that Wingfoot wasn't involved. And you call *me* delusional? (You 
also call Leutze a liar, btw)


> You say I wasn't on ATML during Putnam, but I was. I was on ATML from the 
> time Dan left this list until TP went belly up. It was *you* who wasn't on 
> ATML during the Saddleback days you pretend to be an expert on. Find some 
> reality. Grasp it.


     *** This cutesy ending line business isn't working TJ. First, I was on 
Trailplace up to the end. Did you think I somehow wouldn't be? I won't dig up 
the dates when I participated in the TP Saddleback campaign because evidence 
doesn't seem to have an effect on you. Second, since you were on ATML, you 
should have understood that, although the state had stated intention to 
revoke, it hadn't done so formally. I believe it was you who said the Trail 
depends on rule of law instead of emotion. It is the law which requires a 
showing of public interest in order to justify revocation. The actual legal 
revocation came after the Trailplace campaign. That is what the letters were 
for and why the government officers were impressed. This was all explained on 
TP while it was happening... 




> You posted a long, phony quote ("Personally I don't care..." etc.) and then 
> argued with yourself about the words you invented. That's pathological. 
> Seek 
> help.


     ***   If you could go back and retrieve that quote, I believe you would 
find that it was your own my good fellow...



> You call Jay Leutze "AT disconnected," and then schizophrenically said *I* 
> should give him some credit. Just for your information, Jay is a leading AT 
> 
> advocate in the area, and he lives less than a mile from the trail. Hardly 
> "disconnected" as you mistakenly think him to be. While you thumped his 
> letter as your gospel, you never even knew who he was. "Disconnected"? Not 
> quite to the extent that you are...  from reality.


    ***   More desperate grasping. I don't know J Leutze. When I heard he was 
the head local organizer against the mine I assumed he was extra-AT. This 
doesn't prove anything about the deliberate lies you were telling about 
Trailplace before on AT-L. If anything, being an AT member increases Leutze's 
credibility. To this point you still refuse to acknowledge his words telling 
how timely and effective Wingfoot was. Instead you offer this silly reasoning 
despite having heard otherwise from many credible persons. You seem to argue 
from the mixed up internal structure of your own scatterbrained logic -yet 
refuse to acknowledge the plain facts as stated by Leutze. In that way -you 
still *don't* give him credit...



> You keep saying I never acknowledged Jay's letter. That's not true, no 
> matter 
> how many times you repeat it on and off list, it's still not true. I 
> posted, 
> saying it's clear that Jay credits Dan. It's been reposted. Twice. Learn to 
> 
> read.


     ***  What you said is simply an unclever way of avoiding the context in 
which this originated. That was, that you and some others were taking 
pleasure in saying Wingfoot had no role in the Putnam revocation and that you 
told him the e-mail form was ineffective. Both of those turned out to be 
completely untrue. Saying "it's clear Jay credits Dan" (as do others in high 
AT positions) is to avoid acknowledging what you said and why this came 
about. It's the dishonest method of a naysayer who will never acknowledge the 
truth nor live up to his own words. Leutze was there. He witnessed and 
described how the Trailplace campaign won the day for the AT and how 
government members were impressed with the e-mail letters to the point of 
wanting to copy the style. In relation to what you were previously saying 
about Trailplace, this is somewhat more than "it's clear Jay credits Dan"... 
(and please don't bother to reply with "I don't care") 


> 
> You are speaking for Rick? You can disagree with my opinion if you'd like, 
> but don't presume to speak for others. If they disagrees with my opinion, 
> let 
> them say so. I still say what I think about email v. mail is correct.


     ***  and will probably continue do so even if the Putnam owners came up 
and &*% you on the @&&...

               Only a fool would question what Rick was saying. He clearly 
said that Pam Underhill, a credible NPS/AT person, wrote an endorsement of 
Wingfoot and his Trail efforts and that you were too far outside the loop to 
have any serious opinion. In any case TJ, you have thoroughly destroyed your 
own credibility in both your pathetic refusal to acknowledge the obvious and 
childish logic. I'm satisfied with this because if anybody was following they 
could no longer take your words seriously when smearing Trail advocates 
effectiveness...

  

> 
> The State announced that the permit was issued in error, and therefore 
> would 
> be revoked, months before Dan began his Trailplace email effort. In my 
> opinion it appears that Dan saw the inevitable outcome, and jumped on the 
> bandwagon. A simple google.com search will provide you with many facts, if 
> you've finally decided you can handle them.
 

     *** I suppose this stubborn clutching on to this feeble view, even 
though firm proof has been otherwise shown, is a particular form of 
self-deception. But alas, I suppose it's the same sort as those who are 
dragged away in shock mumbling to themselves still holding the smoking gun. 
     Dan is a person who, although he doesn't shy away from self-promotion, 
has a genuine concern for the Appalachian Trail and likes to encourage others 
to do the same. He has a proactive image of what Trail participation should 
be and tries his best to be a part of what makes the Trail and its future. To 
imply that Dan is a credit seeker who jumps on already sealed deals to gain 
personal credit is just plain wrong and goes against admirable, genuine 
efforts derived from the Trail's background. Again, even though many credible 
sources were quoted as saying otherwise, TJ continues to sell his 
anti-Wingfoot propaganda for personal reasons. J Leutze clearly asks any 
doubters to mail him if they have questions about his endorsement of 
Wingfoot's involvement with Putnam Mine. TJ, although he sits far away behind 
a keyboard, apparently says he doesn't need to go that far and finds google a 
more reliable source for naysaying Trailplace than the involved, credible AT 
members who witnessed it first hand...

     Sorry TJ, but you have proven even better than I could have that your 
opinion doesn't mean very much... 


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