Headwaters Forest Video Available
dstaples at livingston.net
Fri Oct 10 17:16:49 EST 1997
catherine yronwode wrote:
Have you heard the expression "cant see the forest for the trees"?
> Both of you are correct in your statements. However, earlier
> statements were that EF! no longer spikes, yet both of you admit that
> they announce after spiking.
I wrote "announced." Past tense. Don, get used to usenet. You cannot
twist a person's words around. It is all archived and filed in dejanews.
Here is what we wrote:
We were all speaking in the past tense, a 1988 spiking to be specific,
6 years prior to
EF!'s alleged announcement they had seen the light and stopped spiking.
> > Don S., i agree with Don B. on this point. Earth Firsters ALWAYS
> > announced their spiking -- to prevent the cutting of the trees. And
> > they only were concerned with saving old-growth treres at that time.
It is plian that i am speaking in the PAST TENSE. Later in the same post
1988, I know, I was, also.
> > Remember, their reason
> > for spiking was to STOP LOGGING (specifically of old-=growth), not
> > to harm mill workers who sliced and diced already-dead pecker poles.
Again, the PAST TENSE.
>And, if that is not enough proof, go back and re-read the article i
posted from 1993, tthat ran in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, where
Judi Bari formally announced that northern California Earth First no
longer endorsed tree-spiking.
After the 1988 incident.
>> And are you saying that NO EF!er has spiked and gone on
> >about their business without telling some one?
>If they did, it was not an Earth First action. By definition.
Ah, innocent by decree. "Do you beleave me or your lying eyes?" sort of
> The weak statments "we don't do that anymore",
Again, we were in the past tense, 1988, and I repeat, a defence of past
offenses by saying
"We don't do that anymore" is a weak statement.
>No one here said "we." I used the word "they." No Earth Firsters have
t>aken part in this discussion. I have been telling you with virtually
e>very post that i am not a member of Earth First, that they are far too
>radical for me to join. However, i will defend them from misinformation
>about them. I would defend you if someone posted misinformation about
>you too. I have explained over and over again that they published formal
r>enunciantions of tree-spiking in 1993, that they referred to the
a>s "misguided," that they entered heavily into non-violence training,
>and that everyone who went to the 1997 rally they sponsored had to sign
>a card (with name and address) pledging to not engage in any violence,
>not drink alcohol, not use any illegal drugs, and so forth. You can call
>that "weak," but from where i stand, it looks VERY STRONG.
Opinions, we differ.
I'll drop that we were talking about 1988, and ask as I have several
times. If EF!ers have
dropped violence from their agenda, why were they arrested, tried, found
punished for a 2 year old operation in California?
>They do not engage in "terror." That charge is ludicrous.
The conviction says otherwise.
>They do not engage in "sedition." That charge is REALLY ludicrous.
Sedition, n., "incitement to rebellion", the acts that lead to
conviction were individuals
that admitted on the stand they had been instructed on methods of
"silting" (sanding gas
tanks) on company operations on federal lands.... somebody incited
>They do not engage in "political deviciveness" either, any more than the
Replublicans and Democrats do (a tweo-part system -- how devicive!).
Actaully, from what i have seen of them, they hold rallies and hand out
flyers and about ionce a year they engage in a civil disobedience action
to draw media attention.
O.K., so how about propaganda instead of "political devicivness"?
>> You say they have stopped terror,
>I can't "guarantee" anyone's behaviour except my own, but i can say that
anyone who advocated tree-spiking would be tossed out of their group at
once -- they've said so, many times. Their long term goal is to preserve
old-growth forests, not to harm loggers. Why is this so difficult for
you to comprehend?
I comprehend all to well what their goals are, it is their methods I
disagree with. I may
agree with their goal, but the end doesnot justify the means.
>cut a bunch on snow, climbing trees, etc.
I was discussing other alternatives other than spiking in the yard. I
thought we were
talking spiking in general, not the specfic 1988 case.
> Your legitimate protests may change the way the big trees are
> managed, if so, it will have been done in the legal methods, not
> through spiking and silting.
>>What is "silting"? (Around here, that;'s what clearcutting does to our
streams.) As for legal methods, i personally support the boycott on
old-growth that the Sierra Club is organizing and i believe in BUYING
out forests as a way to protect the old-growth trees,
> Stop protecting the illegal methods as
> being justified.
>>I have never defended tree spiking. Stop saying that i have. Saying i
>>did this once may have been a mistake. The second time looks like a
>>deliberate lie on your part. Lying about what i wrote is a tactic that
>>will not work, due to the archiving of our entire series of posts in
I did just that, and I stay the same. I was discussing the chain of
envolved both you and Don Baccus. Not all my comments were to or in
response to you,
Baccus holds more of a target. Perhaps you need to go back and reread
the series. I
printed out all of them and am going to use them as reference to future
should I get back into them on spiking.
>Dont cloud the issue with "mights, possibly, could
> have, may be's, probablies", anything can happen, but we are
> discussing the overt/covert acts of EF!ers that endanger the
>>Your failed fantasies about "snow" and folks rappelling down a 12 inch
>>pole. only strengthen the fact that there is no evidence that a member
>>of Earth First spiked that tree -- or even that it WAS spiked while
Again, I was discussing other methods, similar to either yours or
Baccus's "skinned dog"
smoke screen as a source of the spiking. You or Baccus went into a long
series of "ifs,
ands, maybes" for alternatives. Apparently I cannot offer alternative
>>You owe me an apoology and you owe the
>>readers of this thread an admission that either you are incapable of
>>coherently following the text of this discussion or you are lying about
>>what i have written.>
Darlin, I'll apologies to you for getting you upset, but not for my
position on spiking, EF!,
Baccus's position, or opposing the methods of EF! and their
appologizers. Nor will I
appologize for the basic conversation that got us this far down the
road, i.e., Headwaters,
Maxxum, Horwitz, spiking, mill accidents, etc. You check deja.news on
my postings on
the same. Consistent.
The foresters and environmentalist that read and write here follow the
dialogue and need
no appology. Perhaps, if you fear the sensibilities of some of the
groups that are
crossposted with this line of correspondence are offended, you should
not cross post to all
of them. I am in this conversation only on bionet.agroforestry, and
cross post in reponse
to comments, questions, etc, that appear on agroforestry.
My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
More information about the Ag-forst