[at-l] put a cork in it

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

Amber -
First - of the five posts you've put on the list this month - four of them 
are indeciherable to me.  As they are to anyone who tries to read the 
archives or who, as I do, "only" reads the archives.  For example, try - 
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2003-September/020983.html

Now -

Amber wrote:
>You missed my point sir, or maybe I didn't make my point clear. It is not
>just the Shuttle posts, it is all the posts you two use to go after each 
>other.

We oughta get some things straight here - let's start with the fact that if 
you have something to say about the conversation at hand, then maybe you 
should contribute to the conversation.  Then maybe you wouldn't be so bored 
with it.  Or maybe you could just delete the whole thread.  But truthfully - 
I think that Jack is the only one around here who has a lick of sense - if 
he really blocked the thread that he objected to.

I used to think that shouldn't be necessary.  And at one time it wasn't 
necessary on this list.  That was pre-Weary.  But this is post-Weary - and 
contrary to OB's wishes - most of the people who made this list what it was 
are no longer here.  While I agree with OB's sentiments, it ain't what it 
used to was - and it likely won't go back there as long as Weary has 
anything to say about it.  The present altercation is the direct result of a 
private conversation that I had with Weary in which I told him that the list 
WAS drifting back toward where it had been 3 years ago.  He doesn't like 
that.


>Since joining this list I have deleted many of your posts when both
>of you start up and forget what you began talking about.

One of Weary's favorite tactics is to change the direction of the 
conversation so he won't have to answer questions that he doesn't have 
answers for.  Or haven't you figured that out yet?  Witness the latest 
exchange where I asked questions - and he changed the subject.  Without 
answering anything, of course.

I don't believe either of us has ever forgotten what we started talking 
about.  <G>

>I was telling Felix OL that:  "People reveal a lot in their writings. It
>is obvious Weary is the good guy here and he is basically a good person.

Really??  If you think so ---- but you really should learn to read more 
critically.

>But they are both guilty -- equally. I guess I don't give a shit but I 
>wanted  to
>say something. Maybe it will slow things a bit."

Nope - not a bit.  Witness his recent post ---


>You have the ammunition of being in the publishing business during your 
>life
>and know how easy it is to have the last word. Letters to the Editor
>can always be minimized by the Editors response.

Yup - he learned a few word games (i.e.- mind games), didn't he?  You oughta 
learn to see those games for what they are.  For example - in his latest 
post, he writes:  "the source Bryan cites is a notorious so called property 
rights group prone to errors, exaggeration and distortion."

Hmm - "notorious" - "so called" - "prone to errors, exaggeration and 
distortion"

Really??

All designed to "discredit" Bryan - but Weary offers no explanation, no 
rationalization - no evidence that the organization is anything of the sort. 
  Only a bald, unsupported statement.  Do you believe him?  Why?  What 
evidence can you offer for your opinion - or his?   Especially since he 
doen't seem to be able to offer any evidence to support the contention.

Enough - Weary's purpose on this list and in life, is, in his own words, to 
"discredit the conservatives."  And that's a direct quote from him.  It 
sometimes seems to be his main purpose in life.  The are two ways to do that 
- the first is to prove their points invalid by facts and logic in open 
debate.  He consistently fails to do that.  Witness the previous several 
paragraphs in which he offers only personal opinion as fact.  It's not.  Nor 
is he likely to offer anything else.

The second method is what Weary's been doing for the last two years on this 
list - I wonder if you can figure it out.  Maybe you should try actually 
reading what I've written in the past - I've told you repeatedly and in 
detail about what he's done - and is doing.  And I'd really like to not have 
to say those things again.


>To your credit, I haven't really observed you calling names like Jim does. 
>Except for the liberal/conservative positioning. Amber.

Maybe you'd like to detail a few of those names you object to?  But while 
you're at it, maybe you'd like to tell me why those names don't apply?

Regardless of how you see it, what I write is what I see.  I don't sugarcoat 
some things.  And I dont "call people names" without backing those names up 
with facts.  If I've somehow missed providing the facts to back up those 
names, then please point out my omission.  Otherwise, I'll stand behind what 
I've said.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now! 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_general