Love a NATIONAL PARK?

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document. The editorial referred to says:
"The draft removes language that refers to the 1916 law as beginning with
a "mandate to conserve park resources and values" and proceeds from there
to reduce, remove or de-emphasize the duty to protect park resources for
future generations as the primary purpose of the National Park Service."

In reallity, the new wording is much better and strengthens the document
for conservation:
""to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations." Through this mandate, Congress established the
overarching mission for national parks, which is to protect park resources
and values to ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as
good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of present and future
generations."

It appears the poster and the editor "Bush Haters" who will stoop at
anything to discredit his administration, even lie as indicated above. I
didn't have time to read the whole document yet, but so far I've only seen
things that improve the conservation of our National Parks. In any event,
President Bush did not write the document.

Read it, and make up your own mind, don't take someone elses word for it,
and make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Gene Cottrell


You have read the entire document then and have the expertise to fully
comprehend the legal wording and the full impact those changes have on the
NPS? I'm impressed - considering that some of the best legal minds in the
country are wrestling over those very words.

You may want to read this opinion before saying the document changes are for
the better.

http://www.georgewright.org/ Click on the link for the PDF file - top,
center.

I did not read the entire 296 pages of the comparative summary written by
NPS but only about 100 pages but I certainly got the flavor. The original
document has been weakened and GWS makes excellent points in their summary
that you may want to consider. It can be argued - and most certainly will
be - why are these changes necessary in the first place?

As for Bush, I don't hate him - just wish he would leave quitely. We can
get by quite nicely without him...

Bob S.

Much snippage below


On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:08:13 GMT, "none" wrote:


"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document.


I didn't have time to read the whole document yet, but so far I've only seen
things that improve the conservation of our National Parks.

Read it, and make up your own mind, don't take someone elses word for it,
and make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Gene Cottrell


You have read the entire document then and have the expertise to fully
comprehend the legal wording and the full impact those changes have on the
NPS? I'm impressed - considering that some of the best legal minds in the
country are wrestling over those very words.

You may want to read this opinion before saying the document changes are for
the better.

http://www.georgewright.org/ Click on the link for the PDF file - top,
center.

I did not read the entire 296 pages of the comparative summary written by
NPS but only about 100 pages but I certainly got the flavor.

Bob S.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).

Fellas, if y'all aren't semi-retired. marginally successful civil
litigators now devoted to your positions in major political party
leadership roles, you've missed your calling...thankfully...

....and ya just gotta love the premise that bureaucrats are gonna ****
things up by not allowing more bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats
trying to **** up the bureaucracy by cutting down on bureaucracy...

Well, good luck and all,
R

wrote:
Much snippage below


On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:08:13 GMT, "none" wrote:


"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document.


I didn't have time to read the whole document yet, but so far I've only seen
things that improve the conservation of our National Parks.

Read it, and make up your own mind, don't take someone elses word for it,
and make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Gene Cottrell


You have read the entire document then and have the expertise to fully
comprehend the legal wording and the full impact those changes have on the
NPS? I'm impressed - considering that some of the best legal minds in the
country are wrestling over those very words.

You may want to read this opinion before saying the document changes are for
the better.

http://www.georgewright.org/ Click on the link for the PDF file - top,
center.

I did not read the entire 296 pages of the comparative summary written by
NPS but only about 100 pages but I certainly got the flavor.

Bob S.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).

Fellas, if y'all aren't semi-retired. marginally successful civil
litigators now devoted to your positions in major political party
leadership roles, you've missed your calling...thankfully...

...and ya just gotta love the premise that bureaucrats are gonna ****
things up by not allowing more bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats
trying to **** up the bureaucracy by cutting down on bureaucracy...

Well, good luck and all,
R

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it. If it's being done by a
lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act. If it looks
like a duck, quacks etc.
The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.

On 8 Feb 2006 06:43:52 -0800, "BJ Conner"
wrote:


wrote:
Much snippage below


On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:08:13 GMT, "none" wrote:


"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document.


I didn't have time to read the whole document yet, but so far I've only seen
things that improve the conservation of our National Parks.

Read it, and make up your own mind, don't take someone elses word for it,
and make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Gene Cottrell


You have read the entire document then and have the expertise to fully
comprehend the legal wording and the full impact those changes have on the
NPS? I'm impressed - considering that some of the best legal minds in the
country are wrestling over those very words.

You may want to read this opinion before saying the document changes are for
the better.

http://www.georgewright.org/ Click on the link for the PDF file - top,
center.

I did not read the entire 296 pages of the comparative summary written by
NPS but only about 100 pages but I certainly got the flavor.

Bob S.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).

Fellas, if y'all aren't semi-retired. marginally successful civil
litigators now devoted to your positions in major political party
leadership roles, you've missed your calling...thankfully...

...and ya just gotta love the premise that bureaucrats are gonna ****
things up by not allowing more bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats
trying to **** up the bureaucracy by cutting down on bureaucracy...

Well, good luck and all,
R

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it.

Ah, well, then - if it's THAT simple...but I thought Cabela's was doing
it...by-the-by, is "BJ" the sock-puppet or is "bcollin" or ???

If it's being done by a lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act.

Ooooh, now they're gonna get _you_ for slanble or lider or whatever you
call it...but let's look at...oh, OK, make fun of... this interesting
premise - IOW, if insert thief's name here did exactly what you
wished, how you wished, and when you wished, it would be "a lying
cheating dihonest sic act." So, you not only suborn such "lying
cheating dihonest" action, but condone such activity in others...

HEY! Terry, James - is that one or both of you with your hand(s) in the
sock?

If it looks like a duck, quacks etc.

Cabela's quacks?

The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.

I thought they drank whatever they didn't spill of their Slurpies on
their couches with their balding dogs...man, you boys have just GOTTA
get your gibberish coordinated...

"BJ Conner" wrote in
oups.com:

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it. If it's being done by a
lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act. If it looks
like a duck, quacks etc.
The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.


....get over it BJ, our Commander-in-Chief still has 2 years to go in office
which gives him plenty of time to **** with your mind. We've already had at
least two roffians die that I'm aware of, and you're a likely candidate for
number three if you don't chill out. (heart attacks will do that you know)

Frank Sr.

"Frank Church" wrote in message
9.11...
"BJ Conner" wrote in
oups.com:

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it. If it's being done by a
lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act. If it looks
like a duck, quacks etc.
The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.


...get over it BJ, our Commander-in-Chief still has 2 years to go in
office
which gives him plenty of time to **** with your mind. We've already had
at
least two roffians die that I'm aware of, and you're a likely candidate
for
number three if you don't chill out. (heart attacks will do that you know)

Frank Sr.

"no...I will not engage in political threads!"--Frank Church, Need
opinion on Cabela's Rod, 2-7-2006.

Hm......

Wolfgang

Frank Church wrote:
"BJ Conner" wrote in
oups.com:

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it. If it's being done by a
lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act. If it looks
like a duck, quacks etc.
The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.


...get over it BJ, our Commander-in-Chief still has 2 years to go in office
which gives him plenty of time to **** with your mind. We've already had at
least two roffians die that I'm aware of, and you're a likely candidate for
number three if you don't chill out. (heart attacks will do that you know)

Frank Sr.
Not to worry. Dicky, bush and is gang of thieves ain't gonna get to
me. I was serious once about 1967. It's our country their screwing
with they deserve all the s___ that we cna give them. Keeping quite is
a diservice to a lot of good dead people.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).



Think you better go back and read my post again and this time open your eyes
either that or get your head out of your ass.
So are you telling us you read it all and fully understand all the changes
made and the ramifications? I seriously doubt it based on your asinine
response.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:09:39 GMT, "none" wrote:


Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).



Think you better go back and read my post again and this time open your eyes
either that or get your head out of your ass.

Hmmm...lessee here...It is suggested that I "read your post _again_,"
thus acknowledging I read it at least once, albeit alleging that my eyes
were closed AND my head was up my ass when I did...gotta tell ya, my
skin isn't anywhere NEAR that thin...

So are you telling us you read it all and fully understand all the changes
made and the ramifications?

Hmmm...lessee here...think you better go back and read my post again and
this time open your eyes either that or get your head out of your ass.

I seriously doubt it based on your asinine response.

Hmmm...lessee here...oh, I know - hee, hee, hee...

You're a lousy troll if you can't do better than that.....