More Anti Movies from Disney

One supposes you could spend a multitude of lifetimes in any number of
places without giving any of them the sort of examination they
deserve.....or need.
Wolfgang

If you wish to spend an exhorbitant amount of money to wander around a theme
park, stand in slow-moving lines to ride various thrill rides that vary only
in name from park to park, dodge hordes of over-sugared children, risk being
run down repeatedly by strollers propelled by parents who feel that their
accidental acts of procreation should somehow advance them to the front of
the line and negate their responsibility to watch where, and into whom, they
push their buggies, please feel free to join the tourist hordes and spend
your money in FL. I've been to a theme park. I've no need to visit
another, even if it be in FL.

There are many places in FL to enjoy that are not owned and dumbed down by
the rat that ate Orlando. I prefer to frequent them.

On the other hand, despite your snide supposition, there are thousands of
places on this earth where I could happily spend a year or so enjoying the
topography, flora and fauna, history, and recreational opportunities that
are particular to those places.

Have a happy holiday, if such is capable.

--
Stev Lenon

Duck? Viaduct?

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:56 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
. net...
Mr. Wolfgang,
And your remarks are constructive on what level other than in revealing
your
prejudice and classist attitude?

Well, Mr. James, that's a real interesting question, that is. In the first
place, I'm curious about what prejudice it is you think I've revealed and
which classes you believe I've set against one another, but I guess I won't
hold my breath waiting for revelation. As to the meat of the question, I
think the answer depends to a large extent on what is implicit in it which,
in turn, hinges on context. If I understand your position, you maintain
that hunting and fishing are worthwhile activities with their own intrinsic
merits. Is that about right? Assuming that it is, it might interest you to
know that I am a lifelong avid hunter and fisher. Naturally, it follows
that unless I am a complete sociopath, I believe those activities to be
justifiable on some level beyond merely satisfying my own urges. In other
words, we agree on the basic premise underlying your argument....however
vapid and counterproductive it's exposition. Now, the question you SHOULD
be asking becomes obvious, doesn't it? If you can't convince someone who
agrees with your position that your arguments have so much as a shred of
merit, then how well do you think you are going to fare in dealing with all
those folks who don't?

You should be so grateful that your place
in the world today has not been overly constrained by socio-economic
conditions of generations preceding you.

As you should be grateful for the existence of anyone willing to expend the
time and energy required to sift through that jumbled mass of randomly
selected words in a search for meaning, and especially so when, as was
predictable, the search proved fruitless.

Moreover, this gratitude could and
should translate into a willingness to assist those you mock.

Oh, you haven't seen much in the way of mockery yet, and the assistance that
has been rendered was surely as wasted as it was opaque to you. In the end,
the issue of whether or not hunting and fishing will continue to be
practiced in this country will not be decided by anyone willing to look the
matter rationally, but rather by people like yourself.

Wolfgang



Mr. Ehler's name rang a bell. I did a little search and here is what I
found in a Ted William's piece in Fly Rod and Reel magazine entitled
"Sportsmen vs. the Northern Forest".

"Whipping the sporting masses to a froth of hysteria and paranoia is
Outdoors Magazine editor James Ehlers, a Music Man figure who stomps and
shouts and carries on about secret, government-financed, anti-sportsman
conspiracies right here in River City. He preaches to his flock that the
core area is a preemptive strike on the working class by "egocentric
Chittenden County elitists," "narrow-minded misanthropic state officials"
and the unholy Pooh-Bahs of the "shape shifter" Fish and Wildlife
Department. "No cutting of trees means no habitat for [game] animals, which
means no hunting." The Nature Conservancy is a "Goliath" but sportsmen
(under his leadership, of course) have brought it "to its knees after being
ignored, excluded, patronized and prejudged." TNC is "saving the last great
places on Earth for themselves." The Vermont Department of Fish and
Wildlife is staffed by "disgruntled, coerced scientists." The
Montpelier-based environmental group Forest Watch is a bunch of "emotional
Bobos." Governor Howard Dean keeps "an ever thoughtful eye towards a
wealthy America and discriminating microbrew drinkers." In the core area
sportsmen can: "Come and watch healthy trees grow old, fall over and die.
Come and watch the deer look for browse that is too high for them to reach.
Watch them leave and die. . . . Come and observe the underbrush wither and
die because the large 'old growth' trees are blocking out the sunlight."
"Biodiversity," warns Ehlers, "is the rallying cry of hell-bent
preservationists everywhere. It is to the environmental community what
rear-end revealing pants are to high-school kids today. . . . The tweed
academia even have a name for it--sacred ecology--and the Vermont
Biodiversity Project zealots are on a crusade to control the social agenda,
equating the constitutional rights of humans with the supposed rights of
bugs." And so on and so on and so on.

"Why are you upset?" I asked Ehlers. "You can do anything you want in the
core area."

"There won't be any management for game species," he responded.

"But doesn't game--brook trout, bobcats, deer and such--need old growth?
Isn't restoring old growth management too?"

"It is if all the cards are on the table."

Well, no. It's management with or without cards, with or without tables.
When I asked Ehlers to explain how ecological reserves conflict with the
interests of sportsmen he e-mailed me a list of "Open Land Species
Threatened by Uniform Climax Forest Management" that included superabundant
organisms proliferating in suburbia and industrial forests. Among them: Joe
Pye weed, blackberry, black-eyed Susan, chokecherry, mourning dove and
robin. He is serious, and so are the Vermont sportsmen who follow him in
lock-step. Prevent ecological reserves! Save the Joe Pye weed!

After reading Ehlers copious screeds and interviewing him for the better
part of an hour, it became clear to me that of all the things for which he
can be justly chided, failure to think is not among them. For example, he
has figured out how to sell magazines, and he does it extremely well.
Outdoors Magazine is now the most influential sportsmen's publication in
Vermont, and it has just gone regional, seeking circulation in Maine, New
York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Tom Butler makes this
observation: "There are state legislators who honestly believe that if you
don't log every acre all the time, all the animals will die, that the only
way to healthy wildlife populations is to have intensive forest management
everywhere, that nature can't do anything right. There's an element in
Vermont that is grossly ecologically ill-informed, and I think James Ehlers
is savvy enough to goose it along." "

Here is a link to the whole article.

http://www.flyrodreel.com/conservation0103.html

g.c.

Mr. Wolfgang,
Why you feel the urge to attack someone for posting information relevant to
our shared pursuits is beyond me. Furthermore, how you portend to know me
or people like me further compounds the ignorance of your remarks.

People that delight in the ridicule of others reveals more about their own
limitations than that of their target. I am sure you are intelligent enough
to figure that out.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net




"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
et...
Mr. Wolfgang,
And your remarks are constructive on what level other than in revealing
your
prejudice and classist attitude?

Well, Mr. James, that's a real interesting question, that is. In the
first
place, I'm curious about what prejudice it is you think I've revealed and
which classes you believe I've set against one another, but I guess I
won't
hold my breath waiting for revelation. As to the meat of the question, I
think the answer depends to a large extent on what is implicit in it
which,
in turn, hinges on context. If I understand your position, you maintain
that hunting and fishing are worthwhile activities with their own
intrinsic
merits. Is that about right? Assuming that it is, it might interest you
to
know that I am a lifelong avid hunter and fisher. Naturally, it follows
that unless I am a complete sociopath, I believe those activities to be
justifiable on some level beyond merely satisfying my own urges. In other
words, we agree on the basic premise underlying your argument....however
vapid and counterproductive it's exposition. Now, the question you SHOULD
be asking becomes obvious, doesn't it? If you can't convince someone who
agrees with your position that your arguments have so much as a shred of
merit, then how well do you think you are going to fare in dealing with
all
those folks who don't?

You should be so grateful that your place
in the world today has not been overly constrained by socio-economic
conditions of generations preceding you.

As you should be grateful for the existence of anyone willing to expend
the
time and energy required to sift through that jumbled mass of randomly
selected words in a search for meaning, and especially so when, as was
predictable, the search proved fruitless.

Moreover, this gratitude could and
should translate into a willingness to assist those you mock.

Oh, you haven't seen much in the way of mockery yet, and the assistance
that
has been rendered was surely as wasted as it was opaque to you. In the
end,
the issue of whether or not hunting and fishing will continue to be
practiced in this country will not be decided by anyone willing to look
the
matter rationally, but rather by people like yourself.

Wolfgang

Mr. Fortenberry,
Does the drunk think that another beer will do any harm? And if so, does he
care?

I rest my case.

While I do not know "Tom," I have not met him in the course of legislative
issues so I am not sure how sound his advice in the world beyond newsgroup
where pontificating costs nothing but a keystroke or two.

Wake up, Gentlemen, the suit in NJ to recall all fishing and hunting
licenses is real. Don't think it can happen in your state? Keep hiding in
the USENET.

I apologize that the URL does not work in the signature, but I am certain
that is a function of your newsreader and not the URL. Thanks for pointing
it out.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net



"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Outdoors Magazine wrote:

Dear Mr. Littleton,

I will disregard your disrespectful opening comments and proceed. I do
not
believe it is the cartoon characters that are the issue but rather the
Disney Corporation which also owns companies like ABC and ESPN.

What disrespectful opening comments ? You sound like a raving loon,
now THERE'S a disrespectful comment. Tom has given you some very sound
advice and I will add the following; the URL in your sig doesn't work.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Mr. Pavlov,
What is the point of that remark? I guess it was funny. How you do not
think someone referring to another's post as "paranoid drivel" is
disrespectful is beyond me.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net



"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:01:07 GMT, "Outdoors Magazine"
wrote:


I will disregard your disrespectful opening comments and proceed.

"Disrespectful ?????" You're not saying that
with a gun in your hand, perchance ?

Tom,
Please define "who?" Are you familar with the politics of the governor of
NJ? WI? US Senator Schumer? Feinstein? These people are real, with power,
money and agenda counter that of ours.

The threat is real. If you would like me to fax you a copy of the lawsuit
in NJ to recall all fishing and hunting licenses I would be happy to oblige.
Just send me your number directly to my email.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net



"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...
James Ehlers notes:
Perhaps where you live there are not real threats to fishing, but there
in
many places in this country, including movements to ban catch and release
fly fishing.


I am perfectly aware of such movements. At present, few regard them with
any
seriousness whatsoever, despite the fact that Bambi has aired for close to
three generations. Hyperbolic overreaction is the only thing that could
make
such movements blossom into a true threat, as the public could then
develop the
idea that outdoorsmen(and women) are as irrational as the opposition.
Tom

"slenon" wrote in message
om...
One supposes you could spend a multitude of lifetimes in any number of
places without giving any of them the sort of examination they
deserve.....or need.
Wolfgang

If you wish to spend an exhorbitant amount of money to wander around a
theme
park, stand in slow-moving lines to ride various thrill rides that vary
only
in name from park to park, dodge hordes of over-sugared children, risk
being
run down repeatedly by strollers propelled by parents who feel that their
accidental acts of procreation should somehow advance them to the front of
the line and negate their responsibility to watch where, and into whom,
they
push their buggies, please feel free to join the tourist hordes and spend
your money in FL. I've been to a theme park. I've no need to visit
another, even if it be in FL.

There are many places in FL to enjoy that are not owned and dumbed down by
the rat that ate Orlando. I prefer to frequent them.

On the other hand, despite your snide supposition, there are thousands of
places on this earth where I could happily spend a year or so enjoying the
topography, flora and fauna, history, and recreational opportunities that
are particular to those places.

An examination of what people appear to think they are responding to is
often more revealing than the response itself. I'd have bet a shiny new
nickel that you would think I was talking about looking at places.

Have a happy holiday, if such is capable.

Um.....yeah....same to you, if green are orthogonal......I guess.

Wolfgang

Mr. Cleveland,
That's me.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net



"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:56 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
. net...
Mr. Wolfgang,
And your remarks are constructive on what level other than in revealing
your
prejudice and classist attitude?

Well, Mr. James, that's a real interesting question, that is. In the
first
place, I'm curious about what prejudice it is you think I've revealed and
which classes you believe I've set against one another, but I guess I
won't
hold my breath waiting for revelation. As to the meat of the question, I
think the answer depends to a large extent on what is implicit in it
which,
in turn, hinges on context. If I understand your position, you maintain
that hunting and fishing are worthwhile activities with their own
intrinsic
merits. Is that about right? Assuming that it is, it might interest you
to
know that I am a lifelong avid hunter and fisher. Naturally, it follows
that unless I am a complete sociopath, I believe those activities to be
justifiable on some level beyond merely satisfying my own urges. In
other
words, we agree on the basic premise underlying your argument....however
vapid and counterproductive it's exposition. Now, the question you
SHOULD
be asking becomes obvious, doesn't it? If you can't convince someone who
agrees with your position that your arguments have so much as a shred of
merit, then how well do you think you are going to fare in dealing with
all
those folks who don't?

You should be so grateful that your place
in the world today has not been overly constrained by socio-economic
conditions of generations preceding you.

As you should be grateful for the existence of anyone willing to expend
the
time and energy required to sift through that jumbled mass of randomly
selected words in a search for meaning, and especially so when, as was
predictable, the search proved fruitless.

Moreover, this gratitude could and
should translate into a willingness to assist those you mock.

Oh, you haven't seen much in the way of mockery yet, and the assistance
that
has been rendered was surely as wasted as it was opaque to you. In the
end,
the issue of whether or not hunting and fishing will continue to be
practiced in this country will not be decided by anyone willing to look
the
matter rationally, but rather by people like yourself.

Wolfgang



Mr. Ehler's name rang a bell. I did a little search and here is what I
found in a Ted William's piece in Fly Rod and Reel magazine entitled
"Sportsmen vs. the Northern Forest".

"Whipping the sporting masses to a froth of hysteria and paranoia is
Outdoors Magazine editor James Ehlers, a Music Man figure who stomps and
shouts and carries on about secret, government-financed, anti-sportsman
conspiracies right here in River City. He preaches to his flock that the
core area is a preemptive strike on the working class by "egocentric
Chittenden County elitists," "narrow-minded misanthropic state officials"
and the unholy Pooh-Bahs of the "shape shifter" Fish and Wildlife
Department. "No cutting of trees means no habitat for [game] animals,
which
means no hunting." The Nature Conservancy is a "Goliath" but sportsmen
(under his leadership, of course) have brought it "to its knees after
being
ignored, excluded, patronized and prejudged." TNC is "saving the last
great
places on Earth for themselves." The Vermont Department of Fish and
Wildlife is staffed by "disgruntled, coerced scientists." The
Montpelier-based environmental group Forest Watch is a bunch of "emotional
Bobos." Governor Howard Dean keeps "an ever thoughtful eye towards a
wealthy America and discriminating microbrew drinkers." In the core area
sportsmen can: "Come and watch healthy trees grow old, fall over and die.
Come and watch the deer look for browse that is too high for them to
reach.
Watch them leave and die. . . . Come and observe the underbrush wither and
die because the large 'old growth' trees are blocking out the sunlight."
"Biodiversity," warns Ehlers, "is the rallying cry of hell-bent
preservationists everywhere. It is to the environmental community what
rear-end revealing pants are to high-school kids today. . . . The tweed
academia even have a name for it--sacred ecology--and the Vermont
Biodiversity Project zealots are on a crusade to control the social
agenda,
equating the constitutional rights of humans with the supposed rights of
bugs." And so on and so on and so on.

"Why are you upset?" I asked Ehlers. "You can do anything you want in the
core area."

"There won't be any management for game species," he responded.

"But doesn't game--brook trout, bobcats, deer and such--need old growth?
Isn't restoring old growth management too?"

"It is if all the cards are on the table."

Well, no. It's management with or without cards, with or without tables.
When I asked Ehlers to explain how ecological reserves conflict with the
interests of sportsmen he e-mailed me a list of "Open Land Species
Threatened by Uniform Climax Forest Management" that included
superabundant
organisms proliferating in suburbia and industrial forests. Among them:
Joe
Pye weed, blackberry, black-eyed Susan, chokecherry, mourning dove and
robin. He is serious, and so are the Vermont sportsmen who follow him in
lock-step. Prevent ecological reserves! Save the Joe Pye weed!

After reading Ehlers copious screeds and interviewing him for the better
part of an hour, it became clear to me that of all the things for which he

can be justly chided, failure to think is not among them. For example, he
has figured out how to sell magazines, and he does it extremely well.
Outdoors Magazine is now the most influential sportsmen's publication in
Vermont, and it has just gone regional, seeking circulation in Maine, New
York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Tom Butler makes this
observation: "There are state legislators who honestly believe that if you
don't log every acre all the time, all the animals will die, that the only
way to healthy wildlife populations is to have intensive forest management
everywhere, that nature can't do anything right. There's an element in
Vermont that is grossly ecologically ill-informed, and I think James
Ehlers
is savvy enough to goose it along." "

Here is a link to the whole article.

http://www.flyrodreel.com/conservation0103.html

g.c.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:43:47 GMT, "Outdoors Magazine"
wrote:

Tom,
Please define "who?" Are you familar with the politics of the governor of
NJ? WI? US Senator Schumer? Feinstein? These people are real, with power,
money and agenda counter that of ours.

The threat is real. If you would like me to fax you a copy of the lawsuit
in NJ to recall all fishing and hunting licenses I would be happy to oblige.
Just send me your number directly to my email.

Happy Thanksgiving.

--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net


What about the governor of Wisconsin? He has turned back two attempts by
the rat *******s in the GOP to privitize hundreds, perhaps thousands of
miles of trout streams. If you are talking about the concealed weapons
veto, we've gotten along just fine for 130 years here without concealed
weapons being legal. Every police chief and the vast majority of the county
Sherriffs were against that bill. Our governor was the Attorney General for
the state, a very successful one I might add, for many years and I trust
his opinions on law enforcement issues a lot more than you or the GOP
sleeze bags that were pushing this bill. The same sleeze bags were behind
the stream privitization bill, I might add.

g.c.

Wolfgang:
An examination of what people appear to think they are responding to is
often more revealing than the response itself. I'd have bet a shiny new
nickel that you would think I was talking about looking at places.

Good thing you didn't make that bet, you'd have lost your nickel.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm