Dub, I live in the People's Republic. I most certainly do not belong to it!:)
Printable View
Dub, I live in the People's Republic. I most certainly do not belong to it!:)
I fly fish for steelhead with a two handed rod.
Oh, whoops, wrong thread...........
Dub,
None of this has anything to do with Catskill patterns, the Catskills, or for that matter anything Catskill. I don't think the word 'Catskill' was even mentioned until you wrote it.
John,
"Maybe you can clarify for us who ( by name ) is using whom ( individually and collectively ), and how that who is using the "we" referred to in the title you gave this thread ??
Perhaps unbeknownst to the original poster, the PAC (change.org) was a hired gun to push for a cultural change (see that organizations own self-description) simply to break a private clubs rules and barrier. WHO was being used? Possibly anyone who believed the cover story without knowing the underlying motive which may have been quite different and unsupported by the intended and well-deserved recipient. HOW - The use of friendly web sites(like this). "Who is using the "we" referred to in the title you gave this thread ?" (not sure I understand this but I think you mean - The PAC is trying to use the WE. The original poster may have been innocently drawn into this by the cover story.
Hey, if you think this is all off base, don't worry about it. No big deal.
"
Hey let's bury this. You are all right and there is much grey area here. mnklagoon said it right- yawn. This country is very polarized and it's sad. At our local fly shop, it's the same type semantic warfare and yet because the other person is a fly fisher we tend to listen and maybe see the other side and agree to disagree. Kind of like the old days if you will. Stay in the room and hash it out,compromise, and and move on and be friends. Thanks kindly, have a smooth day and tight lines. Michael J.
... clearly suggests that you believe Deb started a political thread for "something other than what was petitioned."
You're saying that you think Deb was pushing "an effort that would destroy a small piece of culture, garner a wider cultural change and/or to enhance the strength of that PAC."
I'm wondering what facts, proof, or evidence you have that Deb intentionally started a political thread for other than her stated purpose of supporting Joan Wullf's desire for a particular kind of recognition.
It strikes me that you are using a well respected member of the FAOL Bulletin Board to advance your own desires to attack a third party with whose political agenda you disagree.
So - who is using whom ??
This is not something to write off lightly as you attempt to do in your response to my earlier post. An unwarranted attack on one of our well regarded Bulletin Board members is a big deal, as least to me.
John
John,
"I'm wondering what facts, proof, or evidence you have that Deb intentionally started a political thread for other than her stated purpose of supporting Joan Wullf's desire for a particular kind of recognition."
First, I was not aware that the poster, Mato Kuwapi was a woman whose name is Deb. Second, she did start the thread. Third, did she(Deb) know it was political or that the organization behind the petition had some alterior motive(s)? I did not question her motives. She may have just accepted the intent which she had read or heard. Fourth, it seems to me that even a well respected member of this site may be incorrect once in awhile. Finally, Deb wrote, "After some very recent discussion with the persons involved in this petition, I now have more clearity into what's going on. Hopefully you'll understand."
Well, according to other "respected" members (not quite sure how that term is defined but if you're a member, you're respected otherwiase you wouldn't be permitted to post), "Why didn't you(Deb) have a "discussion" with the people involved before posting this? Anything in bed with Change.org is usually a load of crap anyway....." Other "respected" members questioned most all of the assumptions in the original post, and another 'Respected' member wrote, "If (name of petition originator) is the same person who was 'involved' with Stan Bodgen a while back, me thinks she might be better served by just doing her television program and not stirring the pot(s)."
Even the person identified in the petition had asked (quoting from a poster who had contact with that person) "the subject makes her uneasy and she has asked that we not stir the pot."
Well, maybe I've said too much and too much has been said.
Allan