[at-l] Kennebec Bridge

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

Weary wrote:
>Ah, Jimmie. Lets see if we can figure this out. We are all citizens of a 
>great,
>wise, and powerful country. We can criticize whatever we want, whoever we 
>want,
>especially when it involves the Appalachian Trail, which is almost all
>government owned.
>
>  I felt totally free, for instance in 1993, to criticize the maintenance 
>of the
>  trail in the PATC sections as I worked my way north. However, I didn't 
>free
>  comfortable criticizing how they made their trail maintenance decisions, 
>since
>  I didn't have a clue as to how they made such decisions.
>
>  Being a liberal, I instinctively support volunteer decisions and resist 
>those
>  who criticize those decisions, especially in the absence of any evidence 
>that
>  the decision was wrong.


Ah, Bobbie-boy -
Hmm - $8,500 vs $14,500 -- not "evidence" but it does raise some questions. 
Has nothing to do with instinct - only logic.   Once more,  I've asked for 
information - but all you're giving me is opinion and instinct, neither of 
which is relevant here.


>  TJ offered no such evidence. Just the disgruntled comments of those who 
>felt
>  discriminated against by the decision. Being a liberal, I instinctively 
>support
>  the little guy against the "big corporation."

Hmm - NEOC vs input to the local economy.   A "big corporation" vs local 
people with a stake in the Trail (the "little guy").  But you support the 
decision.  Is this "liberal" logic?  I'm underwhelmed.


>  But being a rational human being (is that an oxymoron for a professed 
>liberal?)

Evidently, by the available evidence (see above).


>  and having met, talked with and listened to their discussion of the 
>complexity
>  of the Kennebec River ferry decision, I concluded that the MATC canoe 
>ferry
>  committee members had probably made the most rational decision possible, 
>given
>  the great unknowns.

But after all the useless words you've written on the subject, you still 
haven't provided any information about the rationale for the decision.  
Were's the beef, man?  All we've gotten from you so far is carping about TJ 
(and me) and a lot of the end product of that bull.


>  My objection came when TJ concluded, "I guess it's better to pay a 
>corporation
>$14,500 than to pay local hiker-friendly folks $8500." That may have been 
>the
>reason for the decision, though I doubt it, since I could quickly think of 
>a
>score of other possible reasons for the committee's decision.

So could I - but I asked for more information.   I didn't ask for your 
opinion - just information.  You have yet to provide anything even 
resembling real information, but you seem to be  perfectly willing to 
continue with a useless pissing match.  Why?


>My suggestion is that it is proper to criticize the service provided by
>volunteers -- as I criticized PATC -- but it is not useful to criticize the
>facts behind PATC decisions and MATC decisions without doing far more 
>research
>than TJ had given evidence of having done.

See the above comment.  Also consider that it's not very bright to defend 
decisions unless you have the facts.  Do you?  If so, why haven't you 
presented them here?


>I urge everyone to watch the new  contractors. If they are slow, late, tip
>hikers into the Kennebec flood waters, or do other bad things by all means
>complain.
>
>But with the season just beginning and with the limited knowledge that both 
>I
>and TJ and most others have on the details of the decision, it is unwise to
>criticize that decision, quite yet.

More "liberal logic"?  The decision and the performance are two entirely 
separate issues.  Are you really that confused?  The question raised here 
was about the rationale for the decision.  As I said before, we'll all find 
out about the performance later.


>Since he is both an engineer and a scientist, I'm sure Jim agrees. One 
>should
>explore all known facts, at least, before criticizing the decisions of 
>those who
>make decisions based on those facts. I would even argue that we should give 
>even
>greater flexibility, when the decision makers are volunteers dedicated to 
>doing
>their best for the trail.

Flexibility is great - but it's not the subject here.  Where are the facts, 
what was the rationale?  Unless you can answer those questions, you're 
wasting my time as well as yours.  And that of anyone else who bothers to 
read this drivel.


>For evermore, the trail will be a fragile institution, beset by bureaucrats
>suspicious of relying on volunteers, and willing to usurp those volunteers 
>on
>any excuse. Those conservative/liberals among us who think volunteers can
>overall do a better job than bureaucrats, should be leary of giving 
>bureaucrats
>excuses to displace our volunteers.

I wouldn't argue with that - but you miss the point that that's specifically 
why the decision-making process should be open - and squeaky-clean - and 
rational.  I have no evidence that it's any of the above because apparently 
nobody is willing to provide any information about either the process or the 
decision.  That, in itself, can have it's own odor.

I know about those odors - it's my business.

So far, Bobbie-boy, you've provided a lot of personal opinion - now how 
about answering the question?  The question was - What was the rationale for 
the decision?  A simple, straightforward answer with some actual facts would 
be welcome.

Or have you become, in your own words -  "one of those people who once they 
shoot off
their mouths, can't bring themselves to retract."

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail