Earth First! Live
I almost forgot to check out the North Coast Journal this week. I see Earth First! now has a live web cast once a week. I'll have to check it out. Not expecting any surprises since, if you subscribe to the Redwood Peace and Justice Center e-mail list, you've likely heard it all before, and heard it umpteen times.
I wonder about that Shunka Wakan guy: Does anyone know him? From reading the article it seems all he does is Earth First stuff. Does he have a job or is he on the public dole?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:55 AM
58 comments
58 Comments:
Beyond parody. I wondered why the area is the laughingstock of the west coast.
Pogo, you lying, ignorant putz. You are the laughingstock of all local people who have a clue. And there are quite a few in Humboldt, and quite a few all over the West coast.
Fred, I know somebody who has seen and talked with Shunka around this town for years, since he first came here. She says he's a great guy. He is mature, laid back, patient, kind, intelligent, courageous and spiritual, with a good sense of humor. In other words, he is a rare kind of person.
I've never met him myself, unfortunately, but my friend doesn't lie about people. So if you ever meet him in person you will see those qualities in him. I think an honest, unpretentious, hardworking guy like you would really respect him, even though you don't share his politics. I have some philosophical differences with Earth First myself. In fact I sometimes call them "Earth Fist" because of their foolish logo, which I really dislike. But from everything my friend has told me consistently for years, Shunka is the kind of guy I would highly respect.
It would be a mistake for you to associate him with the Redwood Peace and Justice Center, if those violently nasty emails you received really came from there. Shunka is not an immature, idiotic adolescent like so many leftists who give their causes a bad name. Or like the legions of right-wing wackos who give their causes a bad name too.
You are not going to get a very accurate idea of him from reading a North Coast Journal article. They are definitely biased against all leftist activists and other people who are not politically mainstream. The NCJ represents the political values of the Democratic Party, as does its publisher, and they're not getting any better. They're slowly moving to the right as Hodgson gets older and more conservative.
You can see NCJ's blatant bias in the article by Heidi Walters. It's not a terrible hatchet job like Hank Sims would surely do if he was allowed to, but it's definitely not friendly either. Nor is it honest. It can't be if Heidi wants to keep her job at NCJ.
Right off the bat, in the first paragraph, she says Shunka "ranted about the devil-doings of corporations and the government", thus deceitfully framing him to the reader as some kind of unbalanced wacko. And yet a little bit farther on she describes his broadcast as "a sustained laid-back rant". At least she admitted that he is laid-back. But the term "laid-back rant" is obviously a contradiction. Like a typical journalist, she uses words to mislead her readers. In this case the words "ranted", "devil-doings" and "rant".
Here's the definition of "rant" my dictionary gives:
rant vb, vi 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently ~ vt to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion
rant n 1 a : a bombastic extravagant speech b : bombastic extravagant language syn see BOMBAST
That's a fair definition of "rant" the way it is used and meant in everyday speech too. Does it sound laid back? Is it the way Shunka talks? No, it is not, and she knows it. And yet she characterized what he said as a "rant".
Having thus cued the unwitting readers that all he has to say is a "rant" about "the devil-doings of corporations and the government", she doesn't have to actually report his "rant" in any clear, accurate way. We know it doesn't matter what he actually said, right? After all, he's just another one of those crazy, long-haired, leftist ranters. So don't think for yourself, just trust the journalist. A newspaper wouldn't dare lie or mislead anybody, would it? Heaven forbid!
So in the third paragraph she goes on to further deceive the reader by using disconnected words and phrases from his presentation, making it all sound indeed like a meaningless rant. Check out the third paragraph in the website version, you'll see. She puts all these disconnected words between quotation marks to parody what was said. In the print version the NCJ used the formality of putting the disconnected words between three dots ... like this ... , but it has the same effect. It sounds stupid, nutty and meaningless.
It's a deceitful parody, the intent of which is to mislead the reader.
And then she has the unmitigated gall to follow that deception with the statement:
"For the newcomer to the issue, it might have been a confusing half hour."
Well golly gee wiz. No kiddin'. The Journal sure showed us, right? Why, that rant makes no sense whatsoever! Buncha stoned hippies! That's what they are!
The next sentence is: "For old-timers, who've read it all on the group's website or perhaps partaken in the actions -- nothing new."
Well there you go. For the newcomers it's "confusing", and for the old-timers it's "nothing new". So you, dear North Coast Journal reader, certainly don't have to take it seriously at all, or even wonder what was actually said or trouble yourself to even think about it.
All of this caters to conventional, mainstream readers' prejudices, and is more than enough to convince them to read no further. Which is precisely the effect that a skilled journalistic deceiver is seeking.
In the rest of the article she actually reports a little more coherently what was said and what she was informed of. Gotta make it look like the NCJ is an honest newspaper. But it's too late. She has skillfully managed to lose the majority of the article's readers in the introductory paragraphs. And it doesn't matter what the rest of it says anyway, right? Why waste our time reading it? We already "know".
So Fred, I took the time to write this so that you and your more honest and intelligent readers can know, from now on, that if the North Coast Journal reports on anything about leftist political activists that you haven't actually witnessed yourself or don't know anything personal about, you definitely cannot be assured that the Journal is telling you the truth.
In fact, it would be a far safer bet that they are twisting things, covering things up and/or outright lying.
I have met and spoken with Shunka on numerous occassions. He is a ranting lunatic.
As for Anon 3:13 - we all know its you R. Trent - at least you signed in as anon and not some other persons name. Can't cover up your writing style though.
Anon 313 wrote "She says he's a great guy. He is mature, laid back, patient, kind, intelligent, courageous and spiritual, with a good sense of humor."
I'm sure some folks think he is like that and others don't. All I was asking is what he did for a living.
And let's not start with the old "they're lying..." line that I hear everytime a newspaper or tabloid writes something that isn't exactly written the way someone wants it written. Everyone is going to have a different take on a given subject. It's human nature.
I've found the North Coast Journal to be pretty even handed in their reporting.
For someone who's never met him, you sure do go on, 3:13.
I have met him, and thought the NCJ's paraphrasing of his "nothing new" rant was right on the nose.
For a living he claims to be the front man for Earth First, and sympathetic people give him money.
"I have met and spoken with Shunka on numerous occassions. He is a ranting lunatic."
You are a bald-faced liar, 7:53.
"As for Anon 3:13 - we all know its you R. Trent..."
You don't know any such thing, liar. I wrote the 3:13 comment, and I am not "R. Trent". You don't even care what the truth is. You just say whatever you want to believe, regardless of how false it is.
Fred said:
"All I was asking is what he did for a living."
Not true, Fred. Go back and read your own post. You also said:
"I wonder about that Shunka Wakan guy: Does anyone know him?"
I took your apparent request for information at face value and answered your question at length.
"And let's not start with the old "they're lying..." line that I hear everytime a newspaper or tabloid writes something that isn't exactly written the way someone wants it written."
Fred, are you capable of reading something with a clear, rational and analytical mind? For you to grossly simplify what I wrote as saying nothing more than "they're lying" is patently absurd. It shows that you just don't want to take the time and effort to honestly think about it.
"I've found the North Coast Journal to be pretty even handed in their reporting."
And I just gave you a detailed example of how the North Coast Journal is NOT "even handed" in their reporting.
Why are you playing dumb, Fred? I know you're not that stupid.
"For someone who's never met him, you sure do go on, 3:13."
Note, 9:23, that I "sure do go on" primarily about the deceitful NCJ article, which is there for you and everybody else to see.
"Why are you playing dumb, Fred? I know you're not that stupid."
Thanks for the compliment, Anon!
Only half of that was a compliment, Fred. The other half was a question. So why do you oversimplify this issue and play dumb?
Ok, Anon: First, when I asked if anyone knew the guy, I was asking to see if anyone knew how he made his living. I wasn't really concerned with how nice a guy he may or may not be.
As far as "they're lying..", perhaps a poor choice of words. I've just seen too much of people saying media is twisting the truth just because they write something a reader doesn't feel does justice to his or her cause.
Yep, sometimes reporting may not seem balanced. But, as I said, everyone sees things differently. That's why some people think that Earth Firster is a nice guy and others consider him a raving lunatic.
So, the one anon that spoke with Shunka and thinks he's a raving lunatic, isn't lying. That's just the way he sees it.
I wish I could find that old movie I saw in elementary school (or was it junior high?). It was called something like Points Of View, or some such.
It was pretty neat and had a life long effect on me. It was all about how everyone can often see the exact same person or situation differently. It focused on some eccentric artist in, what appeared to be San Francisco or a similar city.
He ends up having his landlord think he killed someone, but he didn't and the whole movie goes through all the people he was acquainted with and everyone had a slightly different take on him. Some say what a great guy he is, others say he was just strange and some say he's a nut case.
No, he didn't kill anyone. He was doing a portrait of a model and she comes on to him real strong, he pushes her away, she falls to the ground, gets some red paint on her and is unconcious for a few seconds.
The landlord comes in after hearing the girl scream, sees the girl with the red paint on her and, since she thinks the artist is a weirdo anyway, thinks he killed her and runs off screaming. The police end up being called and everyone ends up telling what they thought of the artist. Neat show.
I think they should still show that flick in schools. Might make people a little more tolerant.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Fred. That sounds like an excellent movie to teach kids the value of honesty, objectivity and tolerance.
In the movie the biased landlord didn't intentionally lie, but that does not mean that other people don't. Just because everyone sees things differently doesn't mean everyone is right and honest.
There are many cases where very objective criteria exist for judging a person, such as their actual behavior and actual words.
When people are biased against a person's beliefs, appearance, lifestyle or whatever, they tend to become very dishonest in their general assessment of the person. They will say that a person is a "ranting lunatic", for example, when in fact he is a very calm, rational, mature and principled person.
If you want to be honest, you can't just simplistically write it all off to people merely "seeing things differently". Yes, they certainly do, and some people are extremely dishonest about what they claim they see.
And some people making judgements might be a bit on the "daft" side themselves, imo.
Not a hostile situation here, but I remember when I worked as a security guard at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant; I was inside the control room with another guard. We were sitting there quietly talking.
When I relieved one of the guards outside, he says something like, " What were you guys doing in there? I was walking by and saw you guys in there with your arms waving and all. Looked like you two were real excited..."
To this day I have no idea what he was talking about. The two of us were sitting in the control room just talking. That's all we were doing- hard to get to excited working the graveyard shift. I had to wonder: What was old Rich smoking to think he saw what he thought he saw?
He was a good friend of mine but a sometimes nutty one at that.
Yes, and just as that sometimes-nutty friend was completely delusional about seeing you with your arms waving, so are others completely delusional about seeing Shunka as a "ranting lunatic".
Whether those delusions are intentional or not, it's hard to tell from just their few short comments on this blog. But it's a very different situation with professional journalists whose job it is to write about things at length. If you really pay attention to what they write, you can see what they're up to, good or bad.
Journalists are trained and experienced professionals. They know exactly what they're doing. They can and do lie and deceive about people and issues to serve the political agenda of their bosses: the editors and publishers.
I think its a bit funny that someone who has never met Shunka is so quick sing his praises. He is very humble seeming a lot of the time but he also has frequent shouting matches with people he doesn't agree with in front of the coop. He particularly loves to cal his critics "boomba clots", a derogatory term for menstrual blood. As a long time forest activist I would say that Shunka is not a bad person, but definitly not a saint either. He represents himself as a spokes person but was never appointed (consensed upon) by north coast earth first!. He solicits donations on his website to support "http://northcoastearthfirst.org/sponsor_activist.htm" his personal life. Most of the issues he speaks of are real issues, and important. That said, his personal opinions do not represent many forest activists here. Hopefully he will stop representing himself with the title of a somewhat defunct group (NCEF!) and just use his own name and reputation to garner donations.
First of all, the North Coast Journal has been MORE than kind to the Earth First! types, and their spin-offs, so it is ludicrous to see them as right wing, seems to be the theme for the day, though.
Secondly, thank God for a voice of reason, Fred. I don't know how you keep your cool
On his website and listserve, Shunka pushes Earth First! T-shirts that he sells on ebay, some of his posters, send in poetry of sorts. They're almost comical. Teddy bears compared to some of the other local groups.
Shunka posts his communications with Paul Gallegos and voices his frustration that no charges have been filed in the David Chain case.
I think the radical enviros have left them behind
"I think its a bit funny that someone who has never met Shunka is so quick sing his praises."
I think it's a bit funny that someone named "forest defender" would just pop up all of a sudden on Fred's conservative blog, just in time to make a semi-derogatory comment about an Earth Firster in this conversation.
You are wrong, "forest defender", that I am "so quick to sing his praises". I've heard consistently good things about Shunka for about eight years. That is anything but a "quick" judgement.
As for your claim that "he has frequent shouting matches with people he doesn't agree with in front of the co-op", all I can say is that my friend has gone to the co-op almost every single day for all those years, seeing Shunka tabling there frequently, and never once has she ever seen him shouting at anybody. On the contrary, she says she has sometimes seen people shouting at Shunka, and that he always handles it with calmness and rationality and even good humor.
That's all I've heard, and I've never heard anyone say that he calls people "boomba clots" or any other name.
So, "forest defender", do you often comment here on Fred's blog? Or just on special occasions, to put down Earth Firsters?
First of all, the North Coast Journal has been MORE than kind to the Earth First! types, and their spin-offs...
Whether or not that statement is true, it is an evasion. This is about the latest unkind and deceitful North Coast Journal article about Earth First.
anon 11:41 its unfortunate that you are so limited that all you can do when someone disagrees with you is call them a liar. Sorry about that disability. I have met shunka on many occassions and have listened to him, he has no credibility with me because of he is too out there What am I a liar too?
"anon 11:41 its unfortunate that you are so limited that all you can do when someone disagrees with you is call them a liar."
Anon 4:47, if you know somebody telling a lie, it makes sense to call them a liar. 7:53 said Shunka was a "ranting lunatic". That is a lie, so I called 7:53 a liar. 7:53 also said "we all know its you R. Trent". That is a lie, so I called 7:53 a liar.
It is not a matter of mere "disagreement". It is a case of them outright lying. And yet you think it's a "disability" to call liars what they are.
"R. Trent Salzmann (AKA anon 313) "he said, she said", but you don't actually know him? Come on, you can do better than that. You are not as good at the blogs as you are the letters to the editor."
Bill G, you just go ahead and fantasize all you want that anon 313 is "R. Trent Salzman", if that helps you. Looks like you're not very good when it comes to honest, rational argument.
Don't you have any friends whose word you trust? I do, so it's perfectly legitimate for me to say so to others in this blog.
No, anon 3:13 is not Salzman. Someone else. One of his supporters. One of Salzman's Orks. My guess.
It is pointless to guess who is behind an anonymous comment. Some people seem to be obsessed with such stupid bickering on blog comments rather than discussing the blog subject. How about trying to deal with the issue at hand, rather than indulging your Salzman fantasies?
To anonymous 3:13, it is suspect that you vigorously defend someone you have never met, and attack those who have personal knowledge of the person. Maybe "your friend" has never experienced Shunka involved in a shouting match with someone he disagrees with, but it’s not an unusual scene in front of the Co-Op. It's amazing the Arcata Co-Op continues to let him sit out there "almost every single day" despite the way he acts toward some Co-Op patrons. Your friend apparently thinks Shunka is a great, humble guy, and consequently, has probably given him the money he seeks. Given those circumstances, your friend has probably not been subject to the less "humble" aspects of this person, who presents a very un-humble and even threatening attitude to those who don't agree with his every position.
Maybe you suffer from a guilt complex because you feel you don’t “do enough” for the trees, which makes you vigorously defend so-called "activists" who claim to be giving their lives to defending the forest. Some people, even those on the radical left (even the ones who supported Julia Butterfly!) deserve some criticism for their un-progressive behaviors ("boomba clot" - WTF??).
So 4:26, is it so strange that I would read this blog and post just like you did?
I don't care how long you have been hearing about Shunka from your coop shopper friend, I have known the guy since he got here. And I'll repeat, he is not a bad person but not a saint either.
I have made no derogatory comments, only stated my opinion and what I know to be going on.
If you were closely associated with Shunka you would know about his long list of insults that he uses on anyone who questions his behavior.
I don't blame you for having a knee jerk reaction to criticism of a political figure/ personality that you support. But I do blame you for trying to make such a strong argument in favor of someone you've never met.
Not actually knowing the guy doesn't give you the least bit of ground to stand on and weakens the rest of your points.
For those who say that Shunka has been left behind by a more radical element, who are you talking about? How are they more radical? You also are uninformed.
There are several nonviolent direct action groups around humboldt and they all do pretty similiar things, tree-sits, getting arrested for publicity etc. Whats new?
I know I have an irreverent attitude towards the subject but I am certainly not going to censor myself on forest defense topics. I think that blind support and following of leaders is as much a problem for forest defenders as it is for the rest of americans. It is one of the things about our society that needs to change.
Well said, anon 7:49.
Here's some of Shunka at "work": "I came down with the flu and was down in bed for several days, and now it's pouring down rain again, so we're unable to table once again. So, if you can, we could really use some help from our extended support network (that's you:). Here's the link, if you are able to donate at this time... Since tabling is our main source of support, we could really use your help during this very rainy, sleety, cold, and windy time. Please help if you can...I remember when I first arrived in Humboldt, over 7 years ago, NCEF! had a "shameless plea for cash" in their newsletters. I always thought that was a funny way to put it, very honest, very real, and to the point. It's no secret that Earth First! operates based on community support, so we're reaching out to our global community, shamelessly, for a bit of help in a pinch. As always, our actions will continue with or without money, because the spirit of revolution is free...Earth First!"
Here he is upset that Rodney Coronado has been arrested (violated his parole or something by teaching bomb-making): " This is clearly a free speech issue, another example of the trashing of the Constitution in the name of the "War on Terror." It's a fraud, it's a lie, and it's the new siren-song of wanna-be dictators in the New America and the New World Order. It's as old as empire, though, as old as tyranny itself. We must stand strong for our freedoms of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, or else all of our liberties will disappear. What's keeping America from being like Mexico or China? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and an amazing love of true freedom that's alive in the people of this country and of this Earth. Earth First! includes the good people of this Earth, and it stands for real freedom, not the phony neo-liberal philosophy of the corporate elite or the land-grabbing tactics of the fake environmental movement. Seems that even the judge can see that this is a rediculous case...check it out...
Shunka's Motorcycle diaries. Wanna be.
Anon 4:33 wrote: " would just pop up all of a sudden on Fred's conservative blog,".
Nope. Wrong, Anon; It's not convservative. It's a Libertarian blog. Or so I like to think.
It does not appear that anon 8:09 or the earth first! people are much in favor of the U.S. constitution. Amendment V: ...nor be deprived of life liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law. Much to the chagrin of collectivists, corporations are defined by law as private persons. Their private property is (should) be protected from unlawfull acts such as trespass, sabotage and other destruction. Free speech is a protected activity but you do not have a right to come onto my property and scream in my face because you oppose legal acts I am engaged in.
"I think that blind support and following of leaders is as much a problem for forest defenders as it is for the rest of americans. It is one of the things about our society that needs to change." anon 8:01 PM...
Really? Does that also apply to the blind support and following of YOUR leaders - like Shunka, like Salzman, like Gallegos?
5:06 PM Anon wrote:
It is not a matter of mere "disagreement". It is a case of them outright lying. And yet you think it's a "disability" to call liars what they are.
Sorry anon - you are more than wrong. You so have a major disability as anon 4:47 pointed out if all you can do is call a person a liar for having an opinion of your friend Shunka as a ranting lunatic. He does scream down people he doesn't like and has very questionable judgment with his forest antics. But go ahead and keep up your ranting so we all know how impaired you are.
As for me, I'll just continue to either agree or disagree and not stoop so low to be personally insulting to those who I disagree with or whom disagree with me. Your divisive name calling and those of your friends who share your belief that it is ok to personally attack those who have different opinions than yours is what is truly hurting this community.
ok - 3:13 and 5:13 - if you are not R Trent Salzman, who are you - come on I triple dog dare you!
"Really? Does that also apply to the blind support and following of YOUR leaders - like Shunka, like Salzman, like Gallegos"
For one thing those people are not my leaders. Secondly, yes, I think that these people and others should not be blindly followed. Is that so suprising?
I wouldn't really call Gallegos a leader. He is the D.A. elected by voters, he is a public servant. He leads the D.A. office but thats about it as far as I know.
You may think that he is biased in favor of environmental activists but I would say that he has gone out of his way to prove otherwise by trying to throw the book at tree-sitters.
With a $10 fine? O-K, then.
7:49 said:
"To anonymous 3:13, it is suspect that you vigorously defend someone you have never met, and attack those who have personal knowledge of the person."
How can anybody here know if any of these anonymous and pseudonymous posters have "personal knowledge of the person"??
As for vigorously defending someone I have never met, I made it very clear from the beginning that it was based on the word of someone I trust.
Why is that suspect?
"forest defender" said:
"But I do blame you for trying to make such a strong argument in favor of someone you've never met."
Why?
I made it clear that it was based on the testimony of someone I trust and know to be truthful. What is wrong with that?
Don't you have friends whose word you trust?
"forest defender" said:
"Not actually knowing the guy doesn't give you the least bit of ground to stand on and weakens the rest of your points."
That is completely false and irrational.
One has some ground to stand on if one trusts one's source.
Don't newspaper journalists trust the testimony of their sources? Would you say that journalists have "no ground to stand on" because they make statements in their articles about people they haven't met?
And speaking of journalists, the bulk of what I wrote concerned the North Coast Journal article. So why is everybody evading and ignoring the issues I raised about that article?
8:44 said:
"You so have a major disability..."
"...so we all know how impaired you are."
"As for me, I'll just continue to either agree or disagree and not stoop so low to be personally insulting to those who I disagree with or whom disagree with me. Your divisive name calling and those of your friends who share your belief that it is ok to personally attack those who have different opinions than yours is what is truly hurting this community."
8:44, can you spell -- h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y ?
Calling someone "impaired" and having "a major disability" is a personal insult and a personal attack.
Anonymous 10:45 said:
"ok - 3:13 and 5:13 - if you are not R Trent Salzman, who are you - come on I triple dog dare you!"
Who the hell are YOU? I quadruple dog dare you!
Listen "anonymous", if that is your real name.
You are missing the point.
I am not interested in what you have to say about the NCJ because I am focusing on you ill-informed opinion of Shunka.
Reporters might report on someone they don't know but do they go out on a limb to defend them?
How are we supposed to know that you really know someone who shops at the coop every day? Questions like this are pointless in an anonymous forum.
How am I supposed to prove to you that I know someone that you don't know? The idea is a little silly and goes back the point that you are arguing second hand opinions.
I don't care if your friend goes to the coop every day, they don't know him either as you have made clear.
Regardless of how much you trust your friend, I have a much more rounded perspective on the situation than you by far. How can I prove this? Do I even want/need to? No
P.S. You have shown yourself so far to be unskilled at internet forum discussions. Don't be baited by trolls.
3:13 and 5:13 are not the same person.
I thought the North Coast Journal article was pretty accurate.
Do you think it's accurate to reduce a 35-minute presentation to a meaningless series of disconnected words in one paragraph?
"3:13 and 5:13 are not the same person."
3:13 and 5:13 are the same person.
"P.S. You have shown yourself so far to be unskilled at internet forum discussions. Don't be baited by trolls."
You mean like you? Don't you worry your haughty little head over it.
"Save Ancient Forests" said...
"Listen "anonymous", if that is your real name."
Oh is this the new version of "forest defender"? Now we have "Save Ancient Forests"(if that is your real name) popping up on Fred's anti-forest-activist blog.
"I am not interested in what you have to say about the NCJ..."
"I don't care if your friend goes to the coop every day..."
You sure are arrogant.
"How are we supposed to know that you really know someone who shops at the coop every day? Questions like this are pointless in an anonymous forum."
What a hypocrite! How are we supposed to know that you really know what Shunka is like? You're just as anonymous as I am. Your "Save Ancient Forests" name can be very easily forged.
"How am I supposed to prove to you that I know someone that you don't know?
You can't prove it to anybody here who doesn't already know you.
"The idea is a little silly and goes back the point that you are arguing second hand opinions."
Your opinion is no more proven than mine.
"I have a much more rounded perspective on the situation than you by far. How can I prove this?
You can't, obviously. Not to anybody here who doesn't know you.
"Do I even want/need to? No"
If you don't want/need to prove anything, then why are you making all these unprovable assertions, such as the last one, that you "have a much more rounded perspective on the situation"?
Anon 4:33 wrote: "would just pop up all of a sudden on Fred's conservative blog,".
Fred wrote: "Nope. Wrong, Anon; It's not convservative. It's a Libertarian blog. Or so I like to think."
Think again, Fred. Here's what you wrote yourself:
"Forestry Practices: Advocacy for more controls on private use of forest land and acquisition of more "public" lands clearly goes to the Left. I probably hang with the Right on that one as I think we have more than enough government land now and more than enough restrictions on private land already."
Last time I checked, "the Right" means the same things as "conservative".
So when it comes to anti-corporate forest activism, you are definitely a conservative.
Bigger question is - where does "R. Trent" Salzman's money come from?
Acusing me of arrogance does nothing to disprove my points.
You either didn't get what I was trying to say or you chose to ignore it.
You have made it clear that you don't trust what I say, why continue a dialog then?
exactly, saveancientforests, looks like you are connected to Humboldt Watershed Council - how many names do you use, anyway? One of Ken Miller's useful idiots, perhaps? We don't trust you, and we're tired of you. You like to twist the facts. You're filled with hate. You're a zealot.
Excuse me, anon 10:28, what's this "WE don't trust you..." stuff? Nothing personal, but you need to speak for yourself if you're attacking someone.
If other people have problems with Save Ancient Forests, they can speak for themselves.
anon 10:28 Sorry, Fred. Won't do it again. That was a group effort though, a few people here chiming in. Didn't occur to me that it would be seen otherwise.
You right anonymous 10:28, I am connected to humboldt watershed council through political/social channels, just like I am connected to pacific lumber through political/social channels, just like I am connected to many groups in humboldt one way or the other.
A zealot is someone who is fanatical and refuses to compromise, how do I fit that description?
Can you give me an example of how I twist the facts please?
I may have some anger issues, like just about everyone in america, but am I really "filled with hate"?
Can you offer any examples of this?
"Save Ancient Forests": "Acusing me of arrogance does nothing to disprove my points."
No need to disprove anything there, your arrogance speaks for itself.
"Save Ancient Forests": "You either didn't get what I was trying to say or you chose to ignore it."
You are so incredibly twisted.
Go back and look at your own post.
And then actually read my reply.
You'll see that I got what you were trying to say and I did not ignore it. It is clearly you who are ignoring what I said. You are such a deceitful, twisted hypocrite.
I answered every one of your questions and so-called "points" but one, which I thought was so obviously stupid it didn't need answering. But just so you won't accuse me of "ignoring" any of your deceitful drivel, I'll laboriously spell it out for you.
You said: "Reporters might report on someone they don't know but do they go out on a limb to defend them?"
Yes of course they do, as you surely must know. Reporters "go out on a limb" to defend, or attack, all kinds of people they don't know. For instance, when they write things in favor of, or against, political candidates, corporate billionaires, government officials or anyone else they haven't met.
And of course you were implying that I'm "going out on a limb" to defend Shunka. That is obviously false. I simply posted a comment on this blog. How is that "going out on a limb"?
Why don't you define exactly what you mean by "go out on a limb". I assume it means taking a risk. But maybe you have your own meaning?
"Save Ancient Forests": "You have made it clear that you don't trust what I say, why continue a dialog then?"
Yet another outrageously twisted hypocrisy. It was YOU who first expressed your distrust of what I said. So why are YOU continuing a dialog?
In my dialog with you, I am pointing out the arrogance, deceit and hypocrisy of your own posted comments. Your written comments are an objective reality. I don't have to "trust" that it's what you say, it is right there for anyone to read.
Bill G: "Here's what I learned: Some people think "Shunka" is a raving lunatic. Some don't. If you disagree with the 'pro shunkas' they rave like lunatics too.
You better go back to school, Bill G., because you didn't learn anything at all.
I challenge you to point out exactly where any of the "pro shunkas" in the comments for this post "rave like lunatics".
If you think that simply calling a liar a liar is "raving like a lunatic", then I think it is you who have mental problems.
Bill G: "Is he on welfare, or what? R Trent didn't answer that original question."
Well gosh, Bill G., since "R Trent" isn't making comments here, that might possibly explain it.
You've been Salzman-ized, anon 4:01
Its a bit hard to tell which "anonymous" is saying what. It might help the debate if you pick a name, real or not.
To the person who is defending Shunka with second hand information: I think you blew what I said earlier out of proportion.
Heres my main point in a nutshell;
Its true that a lot of the time Shunka is not having a yelling match with anyone outside of the coop. Its also true that sometimes he is.
Bill G, I'll give you a little refresher course on what has actually been said here -- as opposed to what your confused and twisted mind imagines has been said.
You said: "Here's what I learned: Some people think "Shunka" is a raving lunatic. Some don't. If you disagree with the 'pro shunkas' they rave like lunatics too.
That is simply a bald-faced lie.
It is a lie which anybody can see for themselves if they go back and read the comments for this post. It is extremely stupid of you to tell such an obvious lie, when the proof that you are lying is right here on this very page on which you tell the lie.
Therefore I replied: "You better go back to school, Bill G., because you didn't learn anything at all.
"I challenge you to point out exactly where any of the "pro shunkas" in the comments for this post "rave like lunatics".
If you think that simply calling a liar a liar is "raving like a lunatic", then I think it is you who have mental problems."
To which you replied: "OK R Trent Salzmann. Here is why you are a lunatic:
"You challenge me to point out where pro-shunkas rave like lunatics, then accuse me of having mental problems if I believe calling a liar a liar is raving like a lunatic. That, in itself, makes you suspect to me."
Yes, of course it does. Anyone who points out an obvious and unflattering truth about you is "suspect". I understand.
Bill G: "You are not calling a liar a liar, you are calling an anonymous person, somebody you may have never met, and thus have no possible way of knowing whether they are lying or not, a liar. That makes you a raving lunatic."
No, it doesn't.
First of all, nothing I've said can possibly be characterized as "raving". What I've said has been said in a rational way. It is not "raving".
To call it "raving" is an obvious lie. You just compulsively lie like you breathe air, don't you Bill G.
Secondly, I do have a possible way of knowing whether the anonymous person you referred to was lying or not. As I have already told you, I trust the word of my friend. It is perfectly reasonable for people to trust the word of friends who they know tell the truth about things. That's why I have asked you: don't you have friends whose word you trust?
Why don't you answer that, Bill G?
If you have friends whose word you trust, as I'm sure you do, then why do you fault me for trusting the word of my friends?
Bill G: "You have no idea what the truth is, yet you accuse somebody of being a liar. Dogma."
What a total hypocrite you are, Bill G. You have no idea what the truth is, yet you accuse somebody of being "R Trent Salzman".
You repeatedly call me and others -- all anonymous persons -- "R Trent Salzman".
You don't know who they are. To use your own words: "you are calling an anonymous person, somebody you may have never met", R Trent Salzman.
I am, in fact, not "R Trent Salzman". Therefore I know that you, Bill G, are a liar about that too.
Not to mention an idiot. You simply smear a false name on people as a substitute for rational argument, which, apparently, you are incapable of.
As the 7:49 commenter said aptly:
"It is pointless to guess who is behind an anonymous comment. Some people seem to be obsessed with such stupid bickering on blog comments rather than discussing the blog subject. How about trying to deal with the issue at hand, rather than indulging your Salzman fantasies?"
So how about it, Bill G?
"Save Ancient Forests" said:
"To the person who is defending Shunka with second hand information: I think you blew what I said earlier out of proportion."
That is absolutely false.
As 10:28 said: "You like to twist the facts."
You made a series of arrogant, hypocritical, false and irrational statements -- as "Save Ancient Forests", and I suppose, "forest defender" -- and I addressed each and every one. That is not blowing what you said earlier out of proportion.
"Save Ancient Forests" said:
"Heres my main point in a nutshell;
Its true that a lot of the time Shunka is not having a yelling match with anyone outside of the coop. Its also true that sometimes he is."
And here is my point:
Someone whose word I trust has told me that, in the last seven or eight years of going almost daily to the co-op, she has never once seen Shunka having a yelling match with anyone outside the co-op.
Not one, single time. In seven or eight years.
On the contrary, she has sometimes seen men yelling at Shunka, and every single time he has never been yelling back at them. Instead, he has been calm and rational with them.
she has sometimes seen men yelling at Shunka, and every single time he has never been yelling back at them. Instead, he has been calm and rational with them.
That's because those men don't have "beavers" as Shunka likes to call them. He sure gets upset over people with "beavers" who disagree with him.
Well geez, I'd get upset too if a beaver disagreed with me. I mean, beavers aren't even supposed to be able to talk!
And what are they doing with people at the co-op anyway? Shouldn't they be left alone to live in peace in their ponds?
hey come on guys all you are doing is insulting each other. and throwing back the same arguments again and again. This is NOT the way to achive peace in this world. Shunka Wakan is doing the best that he can with what he is given. I don't agree with everything he does, but he listened to me when no one else would, and I think for that he deserves a bit of credit. He has given me my faith in the world and in human nature. I know we have our differnces, but if we can all try a little harder, I know that we can make this work.
Post a Comment
<< Home