[at-l] OT -- Forgive me --- BUT I MUST GET THIS OFF MY CHEST . . .

[s.landis at comcast.net (Steve Landis)]

RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/10/2006 4:07:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> s.landis@comcast.net writes:
> *
> *
> *
> Unless you can find someone else on this list to agree to that 
> outrageous statement you should edit out the *we*
> 
> I wonder what the logical consequence of calling for a jihad on the list is?
> *
> *
> *                         
>                   If we analyzed government funding in the last decades we 
> would see a large buffer for the AT was well-within affordability of the 100's 
> of billions (trillions?) allocated. There are also philanthropists who have 
> trouble giving away millions. So, the statement that AT protection is too 
> expensive isn't really true. The more you look at available funding, and how little 
> the AT gets in comparison, along with the excuses government has conditioned 
> the public to accept, the more you realize the lack of adequate AT protection is 
> deliberately political. I've read about expensive defense contracts being 
> given for projects that weren't even requested.  If I were to worry about 
> consequences, I'd be more worried about the consequences of AT members unconsciously 
> backing that politic over those who challenge it for the sake of the AT.

I'm sure that in Crazytown this seems like a cogent response and a well 
reasoned analysis, but the point is that you advocated violence as a 
method of Trail protection.