1000Pks wrote:There isn't one picture of the fall of the Alamo

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

1000Pks wrote:Condors and eagles do get shot, it's an impossible job to protect them, but more patrols and eyes help.

Quote:
no large or noticeable amounts of trash, garbage, and litter...no one shooting eagles out of the sky.

Do you see those things in any national monument, including Pinacles with its current status?

Yes, you can go with the MLC SC and see all those things. While they haven't been seen shooting eagles or condors, by me exactly, many would drool at the chance.

I call BS...



The last I could find a shooting of an eagle was in NY in 2006. Hardly a need for more rangers to keep eyes peeled. I read on a fed site about condors that the leading cause by them is lead poisoning. "Accidental" shootings were near the bottom of deaths, which are few, and in Pinnacles, there has never been one shot; only one death of a young condor, with an unknown reason (not a shooting).

http://www.nps.gov/pinn/parknews/417.htm

C'mon Pete, quit making shit up. Your conspiracy theories about hate and enviros wanting to shoot wild animals is ridiculous, and makes even more people think you're a nutjob, without ANY help from the MLC SC

In the past, I could take you straight to such people, high officers included. I would give you phone numbers so you could talk directly with such people, but I allow for privacy. That people love to kill, and hunt whatever, is widely known and accepted, esp. in MLC SC. They are not PETA.

Sad to see, but it is supported by the National Office, well known by them. You can speak with SF anytime by me, and go over why they do that, I have, and you will quickly see that they consider arguing about animal murder (in a negative way) a waste of their time. That you cannot have members going out to shoot animals or even people, violates First and Second (?) Amendment rights, by them. Do the world and SP a favor and confirm for yourself and all that they are indeed nut cases, the real ones.

AGAIN...



Show me something from a website that says anything near what you are claiming. I'm sure you could find something on the interwebs to support your claims. There must be at least one other person with the same evidence or feelings in the world.
And please don't provide me with some weak link about the SC supporting general hunting practices. I'm sure they may support some, as it is necessary sometimes, but to accuse them of openly supporting their members going out and shooting eagles and California Condors is called something in legal circles. I think it's called slander. And only the truth (which you can't seem to offer up) is a defense to it.

Put up or shut up, or continue to look like a freak who is going senile slowly and openly in the public eye, losing more credibility along the way, day by day (if that is possible).

(in 5..4..3..2..1...along will come the claims of racial hatred and conspiracy for my comments)

A good defense attorney will inject doubt into everything a prosecutor will accuse a client of. I didn't have the cameras running, so I have no solid proof of anything. They are smart enough not to get on TV, radio, or the Net or what, being the way that they are. Criminals often evade the Law for a long time, sometimes forever.

Their newsletter gets edited with some overview by the National Office. Similar with their website. You can putter around their meetings or activities, get names and check it all out yourself. I hear what I hear and see what I see. That they prefer to become ineffective, so goes them. You can look at their schedule of hikes, gone from great to pitiful, all starting from 1987. That "climb the mountains and get their good tidings" gets no shrift in their circles, please ask them why is that.

Yes, but a prosecuter has evidence, you don't.

I have puttered around several SC meetings, and they don't come anywhere close to talking about what you say they do, and now you say you have absolutely no proof. That sir, is slander, and you could be sued for that.

Day by day towards senility...so I guess you could claim an insanity defense.

Give it up Pete, or I will have a helicopter come pick you up and take you for a ride. You'll know it when you see it. Distinctive color and all...

So, somehow by you, I'm supposed to go back in time, with hidden microphones and cameras, catch these people in their act, and report back to you? Even if possible, that would be surveillance, and you could go to jail!

I'm not the police or FBI. If no one particularly cares that hate, crime, and terror is inputting into government decisions and policy, so be it. I bring this up only as prompted. I tire of seeking justice, and as a prominent scientist of the LA chapter said, even with five Panavision cameras rolling, with all nine Supreme Court Justices as witness, "That is still not proof!"

It's not that we don't, or wouldn't, care if this was happening, but you offer no proof. If (and a HUGE if) this was happening as regularly as you say, and this mindset is as deeply seeded as you state, you would not need to travel back in time and break the two party surveillance law, you could simply type search parameters into this wonderful interwebs thingy that you keep using to slander the MLC SC, and you could provide me with AT LEAST one link to someone around the entire world who shares your view, and would publicly state so. You have not, and refuse to. I'd be willing to assume that this would be an impossible task to carry out, because it's all Black Helicopter BS; again, supporting my earlier claim.



Just for shits and grins, I searched Google for MLC SC, and you'll never guess what was on top!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&q=mlc+sc&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

There isn't one picture of the fall of the Alamo, but does anyone dispute that? In Sierra Magazine the exclusions of the pre-1950's SC is discreetly admitted. Most here have little or no sympathy for the hatred and discrimination that many will complain about, some saying it never happens, a 90% majority view, btw. There is Holocaust denial, and there is 2010 race hatred denial. Speak with them, you can get at the truth, by me. It's there.

I'm finished with this, pursue this further and you will find a bad post complaint to SP.

This is getting funny. So now I'm a denier. Oooooh.

One problem Pete. There are thousands of photos of the Holocaust, and those deniers are ridiculed. Daily. Of course there are no photos of the Alamo, but many written accounts, and much written history, and...nobody denies it because of that. Now, in the 1950's, there was racism all over this country, mostly towards blacks, but yes, even against (gasp!) Japanese. Can't figure out why, being only a few years after WWII. Weird, huh?

But again, that was 60 years ago. You claim it is the same today, and openly supported by the leadership of the MLC SC, but again, you can find nothing written, no photos. Nothing. Anywhere. Big difference.

And complain if you like. Show me a "bad post." One that is worse than your legal slander of the SC. That is more of a liability than me pointing out your apparent disease. If you threaten me again, I will make a complaint too. Neeener, neeener. If I were you, I'd be more worried about being sued by the MLC SC for slander, libel, or defamation, as I'm sure you've committed all three.

Strangely enough, when they were still into eep, I supported the MLC SC First Amendment rights when several members of their Ex-Comm were accused of conspiring against a developer trying to build a new subdivision or what. The developer actually wire tapped their private phone lines and came up with their discussions on how to stop McKeon (the developer).

This became a cause celebre among local MLC SC and speaking with my Assemblyman, he declared the conspiracy charge ridiculous. I donated some $25 or so, to the subsequent defense fund, and they got $25,000 apiece for harassment or something like that. I never got any thank you for my support, not even a card or letter, and though all those people are now long gone, it would be notable for them now to stifle Freedom of Speech to do as you say.

Ironies.

As far as the Alamo, all those witnesses are dead, so by BIADH, it never happened.

It happened, because many, many of those dead witnesses helped write the history down somewhere. Show me your written history. Show me proof of what you claim above. Any proof. Something even close. You are internet saavy (somewhat), so I'm sure you could find something. Why have you not? C'mon Pete. Do it.

As far as your conspiracy noted above. WTF are you saying? Please make it coherent, because you are rambling and not making sense (not to mention avoiding answering any of the challenges to your position). Your anecdotes are nice reading, but nobody believes them without proof of any kind.

Again, put up or shut up.

How have you not been sued by now for libel, slander and defamation? If you claimed what you do here, in a court of law, you'd be required to offer up proof, a preponderance of it in civil court, beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.

A simple quote from wikipedia:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.

also:

"the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

Do it. Prove us all wrong. I'll send you a thank you card if you do, since it is so important.

rice wrote:UHHHHHHH WASN'T THIS ABOUT THE PINNACLES? WENT THERE SUNDAY AND SAW THE CONDORS. MADE ME KINDA HUNGRY, MMMMM CONDOR TACOS COOKED ON ANCIENT BRISTLE CONE PINE WOOD.