[at-l] Keeping it a hiking discussion?

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

Weary wrote:
> >"... And it imparts no useful information - or even entertainment value<
>
>Ah. Jimmy. I was just using an attempt at humor to head off another 
>diatribe
>between you and R&R, a diatribe I had hoped that upon reflection you would
>recognize as being both counter productive to the interests of the trail -- 
>and
>boring. But I seem to have been wrong.

Aahh, Bobby-boy --
More nasty innuendo and attempts at character assassination, huh?  So now 
you think any answer I might make to Roks is a diatribe, huh?  It figures.

And you know better, too.   I haven't engaged Roks in extended debate for 
two years - it's against my religion and I'd have to get special 
dispensation for it.   <G>

On the other hand, if your purpose were really to avoid discussion on the 
subject, then you wouldn't have put out your largely illogical and factually 
challenged post on eminent domain.

By the way, if you think eminent domain is so great, then why don't you 
explain why it's acceptable to take private homes and give the land to 
developers to build shopping centers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19375-2003Jun21.html

In any case, you have a choice as to whether you're confused or 
prevaricating.  I'll even leave the choice to you.

Regardless - the bottom line is still the same -  it imparts no useful 
information - or even entertainment value - and was a waste  of Ryan's 
resources and a lot of peoples time.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail