[at-l] Re: at-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 36

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

RoksnRoots wrote:
>            ***   Let's not split hairs, but the central message has 
>actually
>been a warm sort of detailing of personal drinking habits associated with 
>the
>Trail. All this stemming from an incident originating from current
>alcohol-related Trail problems. I find it interesting that the thread 
>evolved from people
>being shocked over a violent alcohol-caused Trail incident to sort of
>light-hearted banter over personal drinking likes.

What I find interesting is your continuing lack of reading comprehension.


>           ***  As with MacKaye, when the real evidence arrives the "Roxy"
>stuff starts (isn't that against list rules btw?)

The  list didn't set those particlar "rules" - I did. They have nothing to 
do with the list - it's personal between me and thee.  Deal with it. The 
"rules" were published several times on TA - Do you need them to be 
published here?


>The real root of this was when I was asked to reconsider my land 
>acquisition views because of an unrelated canoe contract incident.

Nobody asked you to reconsider anything.  Your inconsistent logic was 
highlighted - no more, no less.  If you can't deal with that, then learn 
some logic.  Your choice.


>I then pointed out that those focusing on a 6 thousand
>dollar over expense vs the 4 million dollar cost on Saddleback should 
>perhaps
>be the ones who should be reconsidering.

In your own words -
>[at-l] Kennebec Bridge   (Thu Jun 12 00:22:05 CDT 2003)
>      The real question here is what would have precluded the better bid 
>from doing the job. 6 grand would have really boosted the Maine 
>Conservation Fund...

That's the same question that I repeatedly asked  - and to which I got only 
evasions, opinion and speculation - until "I" called to get the answers.


>These persons were standing up for the owners land rights.

Yep.  And I'll do that ever time - it's one of the basic concepts on which 
this country was founded.  Your failure to understand that is a major 
barrier to your desire to be taken seriously.   Breen had the right to ask 
ten times what he got for the land if he wanted.  ATC and NPS had the right 
to pay it or not - or to negotiate.  And if they negotiated badly, that 
wasn't Breen's problem - nor his fault.  It was  theirs.


>After all, if Breen dropped his price for his propertyby half, then perhaps 
>the huge price on some unprofitable mountain slope could realistically be 
>considered to be worth half as well? In this case the amount would be close 
>to 2 million dollars that was over spent.

You're the one who claims the AT is "priceless".  And yet you continually 
whine about the price.  Make up your mind.



>Weary was accused of
>"attacking TJ" in his response that received many posts of several 
>paragraphs
>from Jim. My post, however, received no such answer from Jim, who then 
>somehow
>considers his own somewhat personal response differently.

Weary's attack on TJ has been well documented. My lack of response to you 
has also been well dcumented.  Unless you talk about hiking, you rarely have 
anything useful to say - or anything that's worth answering.  But not 
"always."  At one point, you said -
> >The lesson being that NPS
> >strength and backing comes at the cost of importing larger national park 
> >concerns and methods into the Trail.

To which I replied -
> >That's a wonderfully succinct statement that has far more meaning than >I 
>think you realize.

At which point, you reverted to your "Punxatawney Phil" role - you got 
frightened by the unexpected light and retreated back into your dark hole 
(dogma).  And once again, you failed to learn anything.


>This isn't "picking
>a fight" Jim, it's open conversation on legitimate Trail topics. Shame some
>have to resort to breaking list tone in response (or to avoid answering the
>real points [6 thousand vs 2 million - and the reaction there over])...

Unless you're talking about hiking, you're nearly always "picking a fight", 
Roxy.  That's your style.  And it's why you get so few answers.

As for the $2 Mill - yeah, it was more than the land was worth.  But I also 
find it ridiculous that some people can't get over it and move on to present 
concerns rather than continually "pickin' on old bones."  Your constant 
harping about it is simply dumb - and does your cause and your credibility 
no good.  And THAT, Roxy, is all I've ever said about Saddleback.  I've 
never "approved" of the deal - or considered it a "fair price" - that's just 
one of the many lies you've propagated about me.  But I most certainly HAVE 
found some people's reaction to the whole affair to be ridiculous - and 
laughable.

And that "answers the real point", Roks. Deal with it.

Jim

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail