View single post by indy19th
 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 07:20 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
indy19th
$user_title
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David White wrote: Indy:

As to Lightzner, sure its a politicians perogative to change his mind.  Doesn't mean I have to like his change and don't get to scratch my head about when the standard applies and when it doesn't.  We asked for a solicitation of the members to help with the defense but he refused since we didn't have land to buy.  In his defense, he has decided it is a lost cause, pardon the pun.  I'm starting to agree with him on that as well.  I mean if we can't convince Civil War enthusiats like you that Mansfield is worth saving then how do we convince people who have never heard of it.   Lightzner tried to meet with Swepco at their invitation.  They left him cooling his heels in the lobby for a great length of time then sent a flunky down to speak to him in BS terms.  He left the meeting and said there was no working with a group like that.  He's right they will only react to hardball--sort of like it's going to be with Iran.  Still I don't think all has been done that should  have been tried.  I just want to throw the first fastball and stop playing softball with these jerks, becasue every day they destroy more of the battlefield and probably dig up the graves of Union soldiers.

 


I've never said that Mansfield isn't worth saving. I think I've only made relative comparisons. If it were up to me, I'd save nearly every piece of CW land where someone was made to bleed. It doesn't help that the only photograph I've seen of that battlefield is of chewed up dirt from the mining going on there. Has the core battlefield been virtually compromised to the point where interpretation is too problematic?

I think we might at least agree in spirit (we all want to save land), so that in turn helps make this discussion enjoyable compared to discussing the Iraq War, the next election, or Anna Nicole Smith. :)

 

 Close Window