[at-l] put a cork in it

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

In a message dated 9/6/2003 11:37:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:


> I'm gonna do something "nearly" unprecedented here and quote RnR -
>     " I can't see the useful purpose in establishing an atmosphere of
> government bullying as an established model and reference point to the AT. "
> 
> The quote applies here.
> 
> My God - saying something good about RnR - twice in less than an hour - I'm 
> not sure my heart (or my sanity) can handle it.  <VBG>
> 



     Cute, but not very clever. What Jim is suggesting here is an inherent 
double entendre which backs his thoughts with my words. 

     But in doing so he dodges the entire point of my message and reinforces 
it at the same time. Notice he avoids the entire remaining qualifying 
information contained in my post in order to make a lame attempt at turning my words 
on me. What he avoids is the part saying it is not only untenable, but 
irresponsible, for a Trail person to use a pet lands rights perspective as his sole 
means of approaching difficult Trail matters. Jim responds to that by, once 
again, referring to that sole perspective while avoiding any responsible 
follow-through detailing how the Trail and its mission will proceed under his plan. The 
obvious, unstated, suggestion is that abandoning further acquisition is only 
right, lest continued AT protection harm any land rights ideologies 
(perceived, actual, or theoretical).

      There's a reason Jim doesn't answer that...









       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20030907/c67300bb/attachment.htm