Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before
superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it.
http://users.snip.net/~hart/

We loved Gettysburg: married there, took dozens of week-long trips, spent
many thousands of dollars there, and even considered moving there. But those
days are over thanks to park superintendent John Latschar. He's ruining the
Gettysburg battlefield. He calls it restoration. Desecration is more
descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the destruction. We
refuse.

Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been slaughtered.
Visiting on a November evening is an experience everyone should be able to
enjoy, but he shortened the decades-old operating hours so you'll be
ticketed and labeled criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that
traffic in town has become a tourist's nightmare. His nonsense goes on and
on.

He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the planning, not now."
Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment, but you ignore them.
Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as though the
Gettysburg battlefield is your own private domain to use and abuse as you
please. It belongs to the taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed
bureaucratic freeloader.

Gettysburg battlefield ghost hunters have been turned away in droves because
he equates them with drug users and drinkers. What a moron. Not only is the
town losing a fortune toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands
of watchful eyes from some of the most respectful visitors. Those with evil
intent will always gain access at night as was proven by recent vandalism.
Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John Latschar has, in
effect, given vandals free rein.

Attendance is lagging. He blames everything except his own bumbling. He
constantly moans about never having enough money to fix rotting cannons,
monuments and buildings, yet continues wasting funds on mindnumbingly
senseless projects that divide the townspeople and drives others away. It's
typical government ineptness.

Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to **** people
off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of trees,
changing the hours or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other
dumbass plan. Chances are he'll eventually move on to another location
leaving his mess and debts behind for someone else. It wouldn't be the first
time.

What's worse than allowing John Latschar to inflict so much damage to the
Gettysburg battlefield? Most of you sit idly by and let it happen without so
much as a whimper. Talk is cheap, but a Gettysburg boycott speaks volumes.
We're doing our part. Good bye Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on
Earth until John Latschar raped you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity
and disgrace.

Cassie and Tom
http://users.snip.net/~hart/

"sf" wrote

Sorry to hear you're so distressed about current park refurbishing. I
didn't know anything about it. The deer and tree situation sounds
perfectly awful,

They did the same thing at a park near me, returned it to the
way it supposedly was at the time of the battle with the British.
This involved tearing down hundreds of beautiful trees. It was
sickening. No amount of outcry could stop it, the dastardly deed
was done with no input. Just one day, hey, why are they cutting
down the trees??? Very sad.

nancy

On 2006-08-08, sf wrote:
Sorry to hear you're so distressed.....

Stick around. You'll be hearing it again ...and again ...and...

nb

notbob wrote:

On 2006-08-08, sf wrote:
Sorry to hear you're so distressed.....

Stick around. You'll be hearing it again ...and again ...and...


LOL. Sad but true. He has been whining about it in
rec.tavel.usa-canada for a few months now. That was more or less
appropriate. It is spam here.

sf wrote:

Have you contacted 60 Minutes about this?
It sounds like a story they could easily make into a
segment, if it's true.

Or even if it's not true, if it's CBS.

"Tom" wrote:
We loved Gettysburg: married there, took dozens of week-long trips, spent
many thousands of dollars there, and even considered moving there. But those
days are over thanks to park superintendent John Latschar. He's ruining the
Gettysburg battlefield. He calls it restoration. Desecration is more
descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the destruction. We
refuse.

*yawn*. The whine of just another overgrown child.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Dave Smith wrote in news:44D8DF06.72BFE963
@sympatico.ca:

LOL. Sad but true. He has been whining about it in
rec.tavel.usa-canada for a few months now. That was more or less
appropriate. It is spam here.

Spam is unsollicited *commercial* e-mail or usenet message. This may
be off-topic (and inappropriately identified) but it is not spam. And
it isn't offensive enough to be a troll. It's just a poster with an
agenda who wishes to be heard by everybody, even those like us who have
no interest in foreign battlefields (even though I was a few kms away
on Sunday...yes, woofie, they let me into the US...:-p ).

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Michel Boucher wrote:

LOL. Sad but true. He has been whining about it in
rec.tavel.usa-canada for a few months now. That was more or less
appropriate. It is spam here.

Spam is unsollicited *commercial* e-mail or usenet message. This may
be off-topic (and inappropriately identified) but it is not spam. And
it isn't offensive enough to be a troll. It's just a poster with an
agenda who wishes to be heard by everybody, even those like us who have
no interest in foreign battlefields (even though I was a few kms away
on Sunday...yes, woofie, they let me into the US...:-p ).

It doesn't have to be commercial to be spam. The whining about the changes
to the Gettysburg Park have appeared in a relevant news group repeatedly
over the past few months. Now he has brought it here.

Dave Smith wrote in news:44D92637.BD21B9B3
@sympatico.ca:

It doesn't have to be commercial to be spam.

Oh yes it does.

"Spamming is economically viable because advertisers have effectively
no operating costs beyond the management of their mailing lists, and it
has proved difficult to hold senders accountable for their mass
mailings. Because the barrier to entry is so low, spammers are numerous
and the volume of unsolicited mail has become very high. The costs,
such as lost productivity and fraud, are borne by the public and by
Internet service providers, which add extra capacity to cope with the
deluge. Spamming is widely reviled, and has been the subject of
legislation in many jurisdictions."

I don't think that what he's doing meets the criteria. Of course, you
may use spam in an inappropriate way, the way others declare messages
they don't like to be trolls. This of course instructs newbies in an
irresponsible way where they will go on to accuse others of being
trolls etc etc. Proper use of terminology prevents accidents.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Steve Wertz wrote in
:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:47:19 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:

Dave Smith wrote in
news:44D92637.BD21B9B3 @sympatico.ca:

It doesn't have to be commercial to be spam.

Oh yes it does.

Anybody who posts the same message to 100's of Usenet groups is a
spammer - commercial or not. This one's just an insane spammer.

All righty, let's look at this then. Spam is defined as unsollicited
bulk email (or message to newsgroup) most often of a commercial nature.
Other than chain letters, I think every e-mail spam I have received has
been trying to sell me something or was phishing (which is still about
money). Even taking out the commercial aspect, it has to be a bulk e-
mail or message for it to qualify as spam. As to unsollicited, this is
an unmoderated newsgroup and consequently, OT or unsollicited messages
are not only common but par for the course. Some are generated by
people within the group and some are not. Unmoderated means that no
one checks on it and you know it's quite likely to happen. Complaining
about it does no good.

So, as it turns out, this message (in particular) was posted only on
rec.food.cooking. It wasn't crossposted, ergo it does not qualify as
spam even in the primary definition, i.e. "unsollicited" and "bulk".

You may refer to it privately (in your head) as spam, but it ain't
spam. It's annoying, but it ain't spam.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Steve Wertz wrote in
:

So, as it turns out, this message (in particular) was posted only
on rec.food.cooking.

No, it wasn't. As I and several others mentioned, it has been
posted to HUNDEREDS of newsgroups. The one he posted last month
here is even still active!

Oh the horror...the horror...:-)

However it is not bulk inasmuch as it was not posted to multiple
recipients from a single posting (ie crossposting in this case). And
on an unmoderated newsgroup, it can't be considered unsollicited as
fundamentally all messages are unsollicited.

It wasn't crossposted, ergo it does not qualify as
spam even in the primary definition, i.e. "unsollicited" and
"bulk".

You're apparently confused about the "bulk" aspect of email and
newsgroup messages.

Yes, *must* be me, because I disagree with you.

Posting a single message to hundereds of
individual newsgroups is even *worse* than crossposting it.

How so? It respects "bandwidth" (a concept which lost most of its
meaning when people migrated towards 9600 bps modems and which is
only a throwback to the 640K culture nowadays), it is labour
intensive, and it is selective. How then would crossposting the
message make it "better" (tm applied for).

And, to top it all off, no one is holding a gun to your head to even
respond to it.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Michel Boucher wrote:


Anybody who posts the same message to 100's of Usenet groups is a
spammer - commercial or not. This one's just an insane spammer.

All righty, let's look at this then. Spam is defined as unsollicited
bulk email (or message to newsgroup) most often of a commercial nature.

According to dictionary.com it is "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a
commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists,
individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail."



Other than chain letters, I think every e-mail spam I have received has
been trying to sell me something or was phishing (which is still about
money). Even taking out the commercial aspect, it has to be a bulk e-
mail or message for it to qualify as spam.

How many groups would it half to show up in for you to consider it to be
bulk? It did appear in rec.travel.usa-canada, many times and in several
different forms, all whining about changes to the park at Gettysburg. It
showed up in that group the same say it was sent here. I did a google
search for "boycott gettysburg Tom" and there were all sorts of hits for
that message and similar messages by Tom to all kinds of different
newsgroups, like sports car groups and motorcycle groups.

I didn't see much need to check out every one of them to see how many
groups were getting these same OT groups. While they may not be cross
posted to several different groups for replies, the fact remains that the
man has some sort of agenda that he wants to spread the word about. It's
not like he is a regular here and wandered off topic. He is posting the
same rant to numerous groups.. It is spam.



You may refer to it privately (in your head) as spam, but it ain't
spam. It's annoying, but it ain't spam.

It's junk e-mail.
It's spam.

Dave Smith wrote in
:

How many groups would it half to show up in for you to consider it
to be bulk?

I would consider it bulk if it was sent (as I noted) in one operation
to any number of groups more than one...I did point out the differences
between sending in bulk and sending individual messages. Perhaps you
didn't read that far.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Dave Smith wrote in
:

You may refer to it privately (in your head) as spam, but it ain't
spam. It's annoying, but it ain't spam.

It's junk e-mail.
It's spam.

It's not e-mail to start. Yes, it's annoying, but it's not "junk
mail" and it's not spam.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Steve Wertz wrote in news:b8iuqfuebm0g
:

You're completely insane.

Ad hominem, no less. Oh well. Pfft.

--

"At a time of universal deceit - telling the truth
is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell