Headwaters Forest Video Available

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Fri Oct 10 18:45:06 EST 1997


In article <343EA951.6F2D at livingston.net>,
Don Staples  <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:
>catherine yronwode wrote:

Staples:
>> However, earlier 
>> statements were that EF! no longer spikes, yet both of you admit that 
>> they announce after spiking.  

catherine:
>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: 

Staples:
>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.

Staples:
>1988, I know, I was, also.

Staples:
>Yeh, 1988.

Staples, when you said "earlier statements were that EF! no longer spikes,
yet both of you admit they announce after spiking", you were clearly stating
that you believed we were admitting they still spike.  The second clause
clearly is an attemp to refute our "earlier statements that EF! no longer
spikes".

Quit trying to lie your way out of this.

Staples:
>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
>sceenarios.  

First, I offered no "skinned dog" smoke screen.  This came from the article
written by Judy Bari.  I didn't post that.

Second, you aren't offering alternative scenarios.  You've been claiming
flat-out that EF! *did* the spiking.  That's not a statement of an
alternative scenario, that's an accusation.  An accusation for which you
have no proof.  An accusation which is only supported by your hatred of
EF!.  Your personal feelings about EF! aren't sufficient to back up your
accusation, you need some proof, buddy.

>You check deja.news on my postings on
>the same.  Consistent.

Yes, consistent.  You consistently rant that EF! was responsible, with no
proof to back up your allegation.

That's consistent, but not fruitful.

>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. 

If we didn't have you to make a fool of yourself in the name of forestry,
Staples, we'd have to invent you.  It's a lot easier to just encourage
you to post over and over again.
-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list