This is for all threads to goto about www.stopburningman.org

[nipples]

Only thing I could figure (before it was determined that some critics of BMs' environmental impacts were off road users) was that someone was projecting their own supposed guilt over ruination of the planet.. but I had thought them ashamed to eat anything that cast a shadow. Go figure.

Anyways, it seems to me that this is a case of someone attempting to transfer blame or justify their own actions by comparison to a "greater evil". Which does not wash with me, as it is sort of like saying that "Our Breakfast cereal has less rat-shit than theirs!", or that Wheaties is superior to Rice Crispies due to a lower rat-shit to-cereal ratio.

Which is why I'd said on an earlier "stopbman" thread the somewhat criptic words my dad told me ten years ago to:

row my own boat
hoe my own garden

meaning (to me)
steer my own course
do not find solace/comfort imagining weeds in my neighbors garden

I think it is important to the environment that Burningman not use an off-road enthusiast groups' environmental impact as a baseline for comparison, for instance, nor they to use us as one.

It is appropriate for anyone to be concerned, though life on earth is offensive & some rat shit/insect parts in cereal is inevitable.


As usual, you are all quite marvelous... caring and all.

[Badger]

I still need to meet you in person wearing that damn bunny suit Nipples.

[nipples]

Eeeeeek!

So you can lop.... off... my..... head?!

[Badger]

(blowing beer out of my nose...)

[quiet girl]

Someone somewhere mentioned that BMs presence is severely lowering the water table, which isn't true at all and is in fact an ill-informed statement.

The basin that Frog Pond is in produces 28,000 acre feet of water per year (1 acre foot = 330,000 gallons) and we pump about maybe 1 million gallons from the pond total.

It's in Basin 28, the Black Rock Basin.

[quiet girl]

total...that was supposed to mean "Each year."

[Zona]

quiet girl has it right. I have been up there alot and the playa is soft and wet even in September on that side of the valley. I have been to the ponds before the the "take over" and they are much improved. My god, before they were like a dump. Not that animals care about the looks of things. Metric speaks the truth, and he lives there. We are just lucky it's open for day use, the renters could kick us all out and have it for themselfs.
Just like Trago on the RR right-of-way....yes they dug it out with a backhoe(it's a ditch!). The rail line goes through the springs.....just look along the sides of the tracks to see the REALLY hot water going down the side ditch.

[Isotopia]

Anyone wanna go for real fucking environmental injustice?

Consider that Pyramid Lake probably won't be there by the time your children grow up.

The Truckee river - which is the only source of water into the lake - is being diverted so much by the burgeoning growth being experienced in Reno and adjacent areas that there's a defecit loss (annually) of 60 acre feet (average) per year.

Yeah, it sucks.

Oh, and BTW, I'm Badger's girlfriend so don't get any ideas. OK?

[aforceforgood]

From the hole it was in and was handed to Vito Carmosino of BLM after that transect was finished.

At this point, I'm not sure what additional facts you folks want. The site has scans of memos and letters obtained from BLM. The site lists two ecologists who have a like view. The site shows that among BLM, the transect methodology is in question and probably has been since at least 2001 (the first Bilbo memo) and stil lwas as of Summer 2003 (the Cooper-Farschon memo).

It seems that isn't enough. OK. It seems the photos aren't enough. OK. What *is* enough then?

Taking photos of something and pointing at it and saying "doesn't that look terrible" is not science, and it certainly doesn't prove any conclusions. Heck, it's not even junk science, it's more like an unfunny comedy skit.

Your expectation that we look at a picture and leap to the conclusion that BM is ruining the planet is laughably simplistic. We asked if you had any data on actual water usage, etc, and you immediately went into defensive ("protesting for dummies") emotional finger-pointing mode, essentially calling us idiots or evil for not accepting your ill-founded conclusions.

That crap won't fly here. You start talking out your ass here, and people will initially ask politely for your basis or evidence or rationale for what you're saying (well, most of the time it's polite initially- sometimes someone says something so friggin dumb they immediately get called on it) and if you can't back it up, well, you can bet you're gonna get ripped a new one, especially if you're hostile and attacking in your presentation.

Go back and read these threads again, and pay particular attention to the progression of tone. Initially I was in agreement with you IN PRINCIPLE, (meaning there COULD be a problem, but I wanted to see numbers from independent sources- which you didn't provide) but I quickly saw that your posts were at best from someone who was worked up over a subject they honestly believed was important and at worst from someone with an ulterior, unstated motive. And even giving you the benefit of the doubt, your presentation was hostile and accusatory- which might work on bible-belter mentalities who have guilt buttons to push, but sure as HELL ain't gonna work HERE.

It's very simple- we do care, and if you can clearly show there's a problem, it WILL be solved. Period. Nothing to get worked up about there. No need for emotion to ever enter into it. Of all the institutions, groups, or whatever that you could appeal to and ask for them to be MORE environmentally friendly, the fact that you've tried to cast BM as a thoughtless and uncaring one highlights your disconnect from reality, and your posts haven't done anything to dispel that perception. Rather the reverse.

Get rigorous and come back with some proof or don't waste our time.

[sparks]

Only thing I could figure (before it was determined that some critics of BMs' environmental impacts were off road users) was that someone was projecting their own supposed guilt over ruination of the planet.. but I had thought them ashamed to eat anything that cast a shadow. Go figure.

Anyways, it seems to me that this is a case of someone attempting to transfer blame or justify their own actions by comparison to a "greater evil". Which does not wash with me, as it is sort of like saying that "Our Breakfast cereal has less rat-shit than theirs!", or that Wheaties is superior to Rice Crispies due to a lower rat-shit to-cereal ratio.

Which is why I'd said on an earlier "stopbman" thread the somewhat criptic words my dad told me ten years ago to:

row my own boat
hoe my own garden

meaning (to me)
steer my own course
do not find solace/comfort imagining weeds in my neighbors garden

I think it is important to the environment that Burningman not use an off-road enthusiast groups' environmental impact as a baseline for comparison, for instance, nor they to use us as one.

It is appropriate for anyone to be concerned, though life on earth is offensive & some rat shit/insect parts in cereal is inevitable.


As usual, you are all quite marvelous... caring and all.

I don't know why you guys keep complicating the situation! Let me lay it out for you again:

1) In 1997-1999, we did race around a little bit on the playa. This was always secondary to driving across the playa (carpooling, incidentially) to see such places as Black Rock Spring and some mini-playa near there where we found some cool rocks. The 'racing' happened 5 years ago, when we were completely uninformed regarding invertebrates in the playa. Since then, we've stuck to established roads as much as humanly possible. I'll say it again: 5 years ago!!! The car club is all but inactive at this point, and has never been an 'offroad enthusiast' club. Try driving a Neon offroad and you'll agree that 'offroad Neon' is an oxymoron. Granted, the playa is a very nice surface to drive on, but a one-a-year trip to Black Rock for 3 years in a row as a Neon club hardly qualifies us as 'offroad enthusiasts'.

2) As we are individual people, our opinions vary with regard to our attitudes toward Burning Man. If you read our posts, it's apparent. I can only speak for myself, and I personally have no axe to grind. I have seen some expert opinions that, in my mind, suggest that a second thought needs to be given toward the cleanup standards and the ecology of the area. I already said that I'm happy about the efforts at Frog Pond, and I am anxious to see how it'll turn out. You won't see this 'sock puppet' making any remarks about Frog Pond without solid evidence that I doubt exists. The reason that we all came onto the site at around the same time is that we have our own e-mail list, and we all found out right away when Rex jumped on here and presented stopburningman.org to the forum. Some of us decided at that point to jump in and participate in the 'debate' that would ensue. I, being the least informed of the group, have asked some questions, to which 'stopbmorg' has replied. Classic sock puppetry? okay... whatever you want to call it...

This 'debate' or exchange of information has escalated far beyond what I would have liked to see it go (I didn't start it, and I regret joining in), and I feel that some people on BOTH sides aren't being entirely rational. First, It's absurd to say that we're 'racing around on the playa' when it's been made clear that our playa autocross days are ancient history. It's also absurd for people in our group to assert that wetlands (of any definition) do or don't exist out there without the opinions of an expert. One guy says they're out there, one guy says they aren't because the soil drains the water away too quickly, according to NRCS soil classifications. Without local soil and plant samples, neither of you have good information.... which leads to the central premise of my stand on this: there appears to be a lack of information!

Again, I can only speak for myself, and my goal was to help present the expert opinions that we have assembled. These are not opinions of my own, they are the opinions of qualified people. You can dismiss the 'crappy JPEGs' as doctored documents, you can call us sock puppets because you're still upset about a past sock puppeteer, but the basic EXPERT OPINIONS that are being conveyed here are simple, are NOT OURS, and are available for independent validation:
http://www.stopburningman.org/images/index.html
The expert opinions I refer to are the first five sections of the page, which refer to scanned documents obtained through a FOIA request. The scanned documents have not been altered that I know of, and are passed on so that people can assess them for themselves. Whether these experts are anti-Burners with axes to grind, I don't know... but that doesn't appear to be the case. That's my personal assessment... you be the judge. The image below, which shows the cleanup transects in comparison with the perimeter fence, was created by me from a) an ArcView shapefile provided by BLM to me, and b) transect lengths and widths taken from the Farschon document on the site. I don't profess to have a strong opinion regarding the photos below these documents (bird feeder, excavations at Frog Pond, etc.). Feel free to draw your own conclusions on those issues... I'm not touching 'em.

In response to the letter from the Burning Man staff, I'm happy to see that the results of the transect walks yielded so little trash. Also, the work at Frog Pond is an indication of their goodwill. I recognize this, and for what it's worth, I'm reassured. I do, however resent the fact that they refer to us as one person with multiple identities, without ANY evidence that it is true. Sitting here in Sacramento right now, knowing that the three other people are in the Bay Area at least an hour and a half away from me, that notion makes me chuckle as I type this. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with sock puppets, but honestly, do you think that a person intelligent enough to do such a good job at it as we supposedly have done would've attacked the issue at hand in the manner that we did? NO. HELL NO.

If anything I've said here appears to be out of line or irrational or opinionated, please point it out, and I'll either clarify or admit fault, whatever the case may be. I realize that people in our group have 'upped the ante' to a pretty extreme level from the start, which I disagree with. If I had personally said or done anything out of line, I'd be apologizing for spreading misinformation, but since what I said above is what I've said the whole time, I don't see anything that warrants apology. I have not personally made any claims that didn't have some basis in expert opinion or personal observation. Some of my claims have been refuted (such as Frog Pond), and I admit that, since the end result is what matters, not whether I win or lose some debate. If I had an axe to grind, I wouldn't have ceded any ground.

Out of decency and the struggle to keep things rational, I've refrained from personal attacks, as if we were all talking in person. How naive of me. I've learned my lesson on that front, since there are only a handful of people in this discussion who try to adhere to this ethic.

All of the information which is solid (in my opinion) has been presented. If you still see me as a troll, I'd like to know your rationale. If you still see me as one of many multiple personalities, I'm sorry, but you're paranoid. It simply is NOT TRUE.

-Rodney

[sparks]

Anyone wanna go for real fucking environmental injustice?

Consider that Pyramid Lake probably won't be there by the time your children grow up.

The Truckee river - which is the only source of water into the lake - is being diverted so much by the burgeoning growth being experienced in Reno and adjacent areas that there's a defecit loss (annually) of 60 acre feet (average) per year.

Yeah, it sucks.

Oh, and BTW, I'm Badger's girlfriend so don't get any ideas. OK?

Good point... that does suck.

I'm gonna have to ask the water rights engineers at work if they know anything about that.

-r

[aforceforgood]

Again, I can only speak for myself, and my goal was to help present the expert opinions that we have assembled. These are not opinions of my own, they are the opinions of qualified people. You can dismiss the 'crappy JPEGs' as doctored documents, you can call us sock puppets because you're still upset about a past sock puppeteer, but the basic EXPERT OPINIONS that are being conveyed here are simple, are NOT OURS, and are available for independent validation:
http://www.stopburningman.org/images/index.html

I read those, and I'd have no objection to more study of the situation. But from what I read, basically you could boil it down to this;

A smart guy used a his knowledge of the subject to say; (dah-ta-da-DAH) there is life/ecology in the desert, (we knew this already) and we should do further study to see whether BM is impacting it more than it has to or more than is supportable.

Any BM people got a problem with further study to see if we're killing too much (I'll come back to these two words in a second) nature? Didn't think so, and I don't either.

He DIDN'T say that BM is running amok with bulldozers chewing the land into dust, which is the general tone that stopburningman.org and it's defenders seem to want to portray.

I'm not too impressed with the term expert, since my mind's internal definition is; "someone who knows more than you about a subject". Doesn't make them right, it just means they know more about it. And I learned when I was much younger that you can achieve that status pretty easily- I was a VCR "expert" at 16 when people would call us after renting both the player and the movie (yes, I'm THAT old) to find out why there were squiggly lines in the movie and I solved the problem by having them turn the tracking knob. The awe in their voice that I was so brilliant that I could diagnose this (then-new) apparently malfunctioning piece of technology over the phone and prescribe a fix for it taught me that it's an error to be too easily impressed by someone who knows more about a subject than you do, and an even bigger error to accept whatever they have to say just because of that.

As to the "too much" qualifier above, that's the short way of saying that ALL human activity is going to have an impact.

[aforceforgood]

Again, I can only speak for myself, and my goal was to help present the expert opinions that we have assembled. These are not opinions of my own, they are the opinions of qualified people. You can dismiss the 'crappy JPEGs' as doctored documents, you can call us sock puppets because you're still upset about a past sock puppeteer, but the basic EXPERT OPINIONS that are being conveyed here are simple, are NOT OURS, and are available for independent validation:
http://www.stopburningman.org/images/index.html

I read those, and I'd have no objection to more study of the situation. But from what I read, basically you could boil it down to this;

A smart guy used a his knowledge of the subject to say; (dah-ta-da-DAH) there is life/ecology in the desert, (we knew this already) and we should do further study to see whether BM is impacting it more than it has to or more than is supportable.

Any BM people got a problem with further study to see if we're killing too much (I'll come back to these two words in a second) nature? Didn't think so, and I don't either.

He DIDN'T say that BM is running amok with bulldozers chewing the land into dust, which is the general tone that stopburningman.org and it's defenders seem to want to portray.

I'm not too impressed with the term expert, since my mind's internal definition is; "someone who knows more than you about a subject". Doesn't make them right, it just means they know more about it. And I learned when I was much younger that you can achieve that status pretty easily- I was a VCR "expert" at 16 when people would call us after renting both the player and the movie (yes, I'm THAT old) to find out why there were squiggly lines in the movie and I solved the problem by having them turn the tracking knob. The awe in their voice that I was so brilliant that I could diagnose this (then-new) apparently malfunctioning piece of technology over the phone and prescribe a fix for it taught me that it's an error to be too easily impressed by someone who knows more about a subject than you do, and an even bigger error to accept whatever they have to say just because of that.

As to the "too much" qualifier above, that's the short way of saying that ALL human activity is going to have an impact.

[sparks]

I'm not too impressed with the term expert, since my mind's internal definition is; "someone who knows more than you about a subject". Doesn't make them right, it just means they know more about it. And I learned when I was much younger that you can achieve that status pretty easily- I was a VCR "expert" at 16 when people would call us after renting both the player and the movie (yes, I'm THAT old) to find out why there were squiggly lines in the movie and I solved the problem by having them turn the tracking knob. The awe in their voice that I was so brilliant that I could diagnose this (then-new) apparently malfunctioning piece of technology over the phone and prescribe a fix for it taught me that it's an error to be too easily impressed by someone who knows more about a subject than you do, and an even bigger error to accept whatever they have to say just because of that.

When I say 'expert', I don't necessarily mean that the person has all of the facts and is therefore infallable. I mean it more in the 'courtroom' sense (having recently done jury duty in an attempted murder trial... very educational!), where an expert is a person who knows enough about the subject that his/her opinion would hold up as evidence in an argument. Really, if you consider this standard invalid, then nobody can speak about anything, since all evidence is subject to interpretation, and proper interpretation is based on specific life experiences in that subject area. Nobody has ALL of the answers, so we have to settle for answers given by people who know as much as or more about the subject than anyone else available at the time. In this case, the two ecologists cited in the Keith Sugar memo have enough experience in their field that I would, at first glance, assume that they're experts. Of course, more research could be done on their qualifications. As for Mike Bilbo being an expert on the design of the transect walks, Black Rock City, LLC has clearly accepted the standards he's put forth and nobody has come forth and proposed any other standards, so he must be at least the foremost expert that has taken part in the development of these standards. If he is not an expert, then things might need re-evaluated by a real expert, in terms of the establishment of acceptable pollution levels, since the existing standard would logically have to be deemed somewhat arbitrary and without basis in qualified analysis. If Mike Bilbo is an expert, then his expert opinion is that "Although the site passed inspection, ... perhaps the site is not truly clean and our scientific method of transects should be increased or re-evaluated, in the future." My take on this is that he's dissatisfied with the level of sampling of these transect walks, which is why I created the factual graphic which illustrates the 300-to-1 ratio between the transect walks and the area of the event. If an expert says this is good enough, then cool. I'm happy, and I think the other guys in my group would probably be happy as well. Maybe.

EDIT: Regarding the bulldozers, I stated that I peronally don't have a problem with what's going on at Frog Pond, and I know that a certain amout of excavation is necessary in any habitat restoration project (we design them at work). I can't/won't speak for the views of other people, however, so I'll leave it at that. Like I said, we have different opinions.

-Rodney

P.S. Thanks for the constructive reply!

[Tancorix]

Just an FYI: The latest disclaimer on the StopBM website....

This site and its critical content, including the usage of the organizational
name in its URL and in the text below constitutes fair use, nominal use and
where applicable, appropriate use. This site is not used "in commerce"
as defined by sections 1114, 1125(a) or 1125(c) of the Lanham Act.

This is not trademark infringement because the mark in question is not being
used in commerice in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution
or advertising of goods and services. Also, the mark is not used in a manner
likely to confuse a consumer of the actual services.

The ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy cannot be used to take
this domain away. Criticism is a legitimate use of a domain name under element
2 of the UDRP. In addition, element 3, bad faith, has not been met.
This domain name is not for sale, is not here for commercial gain, and is not intended to
disrupt business by a a competitor.

This site is not defamatory to any person, real or imagined or to any organization.
First, nothing factual that cannot be backed up with testimony and
photographs already present here, is posted on this site. Second, opinions and
expression of opinions are not defamatory. Finally, opinions and facts presented
here are not made with malice, as legally defined. Our intent
is not to harm, but to see corrective and remedial measures taken.

See also: New York Times v. Sullivan for more information. Also of interest may be
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisio ... -1104.html
***************************************************
ICANN's policy was only going to be invoked because of fradulent registration info. I don't take those steps unless I feel I have a high chance of success, and in this case our team over here felt this was about as strong of a case as you get. But we played nice and gave you a chance to respond to our claims instead of bringing ICANN in.

Technicalities....
One of the letters from Mike Bilbo is not a letter but an e-mail.

The second "letter" with 4 links to it appears suspicious as pages 3 & 4 are a bibliography that makes it look like this was lifted out of a book somewhere. And if it's a real letter, how come it's not signed?

As for the documents themselves, I see absolutely nothing that is "current", all of this is the same dredged up material that has been recycled over and over again. (2001)

And about the photos, while I believe them I also know what Photoshop is capable of, and in the right hands anything can be altered. I know...that last statement is unfair, yet it is worth keeping in the back of your mind so everyone approaches this with a critical mindset.

Couple that with spelling errors, gramatical goofs, very poor scan quality, the actual name of the domain / website itself and I think and feel this is a vigilante site that is out to shut this event down.

As for what Rex did with his Neon 5 years ago, I don't care what he used to do. I can't change the past, neither can anybody else. It's what you are doing NOW, and what you plan to do.

I could keep ripping and ripping but it's not worth it. If I were running that group I'd take the content down, polish the layout and clean things up especially with a spell checker, then come back into the debate with a rock solid website to back you up. But that's just an opinion which really doesn't mean much. Anyway unless something compelling comes along I'm going on to other things and let the others have their say. I have a life outside of BM that's calling.

[sparks]

As for the documents themselves, I see absolutely nothing that is "current", all of this is the same dredged up material that has been recycled over and over again. (2001)

Recent or not, are the statements still valid? Has the cleanup standard been re-evaluated? Has the further study which is proposed by the two ecologists been performed? These are not rhretorical questions... I'm actually asking them to get an answer. If the answer is no, then they're still current documents, right? You can just dimiss documents because they're 3 years old... If they haven't been addressed, they still stand. Someone please tell me if this is unreasonable.

As I'm not the creator or the maintainer of the site, I don't control what is on there. I can, however, say that I was there when the pics at Trego were taken, and for what my word is worth to you guys, they're genuine. What weight they carry is another issue altogether.

-Rodney

[Zane5100]

sparks,

I've found that most of your replies have generally been direct and responsive. Also, you seem to have avoided some of the inflammatory words and actions and generally come across, IMO, as someone committed and convinced of your conclusions.

I appreciate your apparent willingness to discuss this in reasonable terms.

However, IMO, part of the reason why there is a lot of resistance to your group's assertions/conclusions regarding the site clean-up and Frog Pond was the manner in which your evidence was presented, RE: your web site, and how the other people of your group have conducted themselves (regardless of whether or not they are real or sock puppets). The approach you have collectively taken has not been conducive to getting a positive response from this community. It is not reasonable for your group to expect this community to be friendly and inclusive after we've been metaphorically slapped in the face.

It may not be right or fair, but presentation and manners count. Blow those standards, and you're going to be fighting a bitch of an uphill battle.

The analogy that I see is something like this: you have a rowdy party going on in a field that you like to use. You object to it how it's being handled, so you and your friends go over to try and sort things out. Instead of walking in, being friendly, and getting to know and understand the organizers and the dynamics of the people at the party (like is it a biker club, a chess club, S&M club, gun club, all the above?) before bringing up the problem, your group walked in and shouted, "Shut the fuck up and listen to what we've got to say. You are doing this the wrong way and since we've got proof--you don't have a fucking thing to say about it!" To top it off, when the party began to challenge your evidence, members of your group became even more hostile.

Hyperbole? Maybe. But ya sort of all popped up in here at once and pointed at your site leaving the impression that any input from this community was moot since you had "proof" and "experts" and your group has not tolerated rebuttal well at all.

It's a good way to turn a party into a "Who in the fuck are you? Now we're going to kick your ass, and we don't give a fuck what your papers say. Fuck you and the bullshit you're peddling!" type of situation

Your web site had some compelling information on it--but in a case like this, you should minimize the editorializing, let the evidence speak for itself, and then offer constructive suggestions. You could have done a much better job with presenting your site. Remember that you need to seduce us, convince us--force will only backfire on you.

One example, naming the site www.stopburningman.org was a real fuck-up. It instantly polarized the situation. Poor quality scans are hard to read and annoy the person reading them--it's better to not annoy people who are already not feeling very receptive. Save the editorializing until later--as it is, it comes across as "this is the way it is." Not good for encouraging discussion and debate.

There's my $.02 worth.

[stopbmorg]

I just wanted to address a couple points.

Scans - you have a choice between high quality or small size. I tried to find a happy medium between file size and readability. I can read them just fine though, so I didn't know that anyone else was having problems reading them. There are larger size scans available though, I think.

The domain name - that was a question of strategy. Got your attention, didn't it? That was one goal, at least.

Information - the Farschon-Cooper memo is from June/July 2003. Much newer than the 2001 internal Bilbo memos, but it still says essentially the same thing. If summer 2003 isn't recent enough for people, another request will probably go in around March/April.

[sparks]

sparks,

I've found that most of your replies have generally been direct and responsive. Also, you seem to have avoided some of the inflammatory words and actions and generally come across, IMO, as someone committed and convinced of your conclusions.

I appreciate your apparent willingness to discuss this in reasonable terms.

However, IMO, part of the reason why there is a lot of resistance to your group's assertions/conclusions regarding the site clean-up and Frog Pond was the manner in which your evidence was presented, RE: your web site, and how the other people of your group have conducted themselves (regardless of whether or not they are real or sock puppets). The approach you have collectively taken has not been conducive to getting a positive response from this community. It is not reasonable for your group to expect this community to be friendly and inclusive after we've been metaphorically slapped in the face.

It may not be right or fair, but presentation and manners count. Blow those standards, and you're going to be fighting a bitch of an uphill battle.

The analogy that I see is something like this: you have a rowdy party going on in a field that you like to use. You object to it how it's being handled, so you and your friends go over to try and sort things out. Instead of walking in, being friendly, and getting to know and understand the organizers and the dynamics of the people at the party (like is it a biker club, a chess club, S&M club, gun club, all the above?) before bringing up the problem, your group walked in and shouted, "Shut the fuck up and listen to what we've got to say. You are doing this the wrong way and since we've got proof--you don't have a fucking thing to say about it!" To top it off, when the party began to challenge your evidence, members of your group became even more hostile.

Hyperbole? Maybe. But ya sort of all popped up in here at once and pointed at your site leaving the impression that any input from this community was moot since you had "proof" and "experts" and your group has not tolerated rebuttal well at all.

It's a good way to turn a party into a "Who in the fuck are you? Now we're going to kick your ass, and we don't give a fuck what your papers say. Fuck you and the bullshit you're peddling!" type of situation

Your web site had some compelling information on it--but in a case like this, you should minimize the editorializing, let the evidence speak for itself, and then offer constructive suggestions. You could have done a much better job with presenting your site. Remember that you need to seduce us, convince us--force will only backfire on you.

One example, naming the site www.stopburningman.org was a real fuck-up. It instantly polarized the situation. Poor quality scans are hard to read and annoy the person reading them--it's better to not annoy people who are already not feeling very receptive. Save the editorializing until later--as it is, it comes across as "this is the way it is." Not good for encouraging discussion and debate.

There's my $.02 worth.

Zane, I agree, 100%. In my opinion, our group hasn't approached this effort in the most constructive manner, and I have felt that way since the start. People have different ways of approaching issues such as these, and I think you and I are on the same wavelength in that regard. My efforts so far have been aimed at smoothing things over and struggling to get back into the realm of rational, moderate thought... but this stupid sock puppet notion completely sabotages that effort and renders me bound to the other people in our group in EVERY WAY. We share a common basic goal, which is the presentation of what we feel is valid information to be considered by all, but we differ greatly in our methods of accomplishing that goal. This is where the sock puppet 'model' falls apart... why would we continue to present our collective position from several directions when it is clear that one of them is almost entirely backfiring? It just doesn't make sense. The only answer is that we're not the same person. I'm sorry to beat on this horse again, but I don't think it's dead yet.

I'll see what I can do about the quality of the documents. EDIT: Looks like stopbmorg just addressed that issue... so nevermind.

-Rodney

[technopatra]

It certainly is refreshing to see the stopbm folk turn down the tone a bit to help enable better conversation, however...

- the stopbm folk have not responded to the staff's reply to these accusations, nor have they ever contacted anyone on the Burning Man Staff to discuss their concerns. Nor do they intend to do so.

- their ringleader "stopbmorg" refuses to identify himself, due to his fear of bodily harm by "Larry's goons" viewtopic.php?p=35294&highlight=#35294

- by their own admission the BLM has found their claims so lacking in credibility that they do not warrant investigation. And as we all know, the BLM spends a great deal of time and effort trying to find ways to get more money out of us. Any additional cleanup effort would mean money to them, so they have no motive whatsoever to avoid investigating us.

- our treatment of the Black Rock Desert has excelled for so long that the BLM used us as a case study to teach environmental awareness and respect to CHILDREN as early as 1999 http://www.blm.gov/education/feature/1999/nv/.

Sound and fury, my friends.

[Zane5100]

The sock puppet issue is probably not dead, but denying them tends to reinforce the collective belief that they are there. Too many sock puppets have turned up here in the past and have denied, denied, denied, denied ad nauseum that they weren't sock puppets... until one day they admitted they were (or were outted). We have a very long memory on this board and are very suspicious of newcomers attacking with the same message on several threads at the same time.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you need to talk to your cohorts and get them to understand that they are failing, and you, unfortunately, are guilty by association. At this point, there is so much lost ground and division existing between both sides that your group's efforts are now pretty much moot.

It's very doubtful that any of the established/long-time members of the community here (the very people you've been trying to reach and who can effect a difference) will ever take your group's information/proofs seriously. The more people shout/rant/blow their ass, the more entrenched each side becomes. Having alienated the people that you need to get through to, you have made yourselves, and more importantly, your information and message, irrelevant.

In other words, what you are trying to say and prove is now worthless in eyes of those you are trying to convince. It no longer matters if you are right or not.

Now about getting our attention--yes, you did. If that was all you wanted to do was get our attention--fine. It worked.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to do anything else with this community, then it was a catastrophic failure. There are better ways of getting a group's attention without pissing them off and your group should know that.

[Wind_Borne]

Now and then I have cause to quote Shakespeare, paraphrase Aristotle, or cite Twain; but I can not recall ever borrowing from Spiro Agnew before. But reading the posts of stopbmorg, Allanon[0-n] and Sparks one phrase comes to mind:

What a bunch of Nattering Nabobs of Negativity!

Ahhh. Thanks for letting me indulge that. I feel better now

[sparks]

The sock puppet issue is probably not dead, but denying them tends to reinforce the collective belief that they are there. Too many sock puppets have turned up here in the past and have denied, denied, denied, denied ad nauseum that they weren't sock puppets... until one day they admitted they were (or were outted). We have a very long memory on this board and are very suspicious of newcomers attacking with the same message on several threads at the same time.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you need to talk to your cohorts and get them to understand that they are failing, and you, unfortunately, are guilty by association. At this point, there is so much lost ground and division existing between both sides that your group's efforts are now pretty much moot.

It's very doubtful that any of the established/long-time members of the community here (the very people you've been trying to reach and who can effect a difference) will ever take your group's information/proofs seriously. The more people shout/rant/blow their ass, the more entrenched each side becomes. Having alienated the people that you need to get through to, you have made yourselves, and more importantly, your information and message, irrelevant.

In other words, what you are trying to say and prove is now worthless in eyes of those you are trying to convince. It no longer matters if you are right or not.

Now about getting our attention--yes, you did. If that was all you wanted to do was get our attention--fine. It worked.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to do anything else with this community, then it was a catastrophic failure. There are better ways of getting a group's attention without pissing them off and your group should know that.

Those documents exist regardless of the manner in which our group presented them. It sounds like you guys are attaching the same credibility to these sources of expert opinion that you attach to the opinions that people in our group have proclaimed. I don't see how that's very reasonable. The manner in which we presented these sources of information has no bearing on how factual or credible the cited works are. If you claim 'doctored documents!' without some form of proof (pixellation, splotchy color, mismatched shadow angles and sharpness in the photos, etc.), you're hastily jumping to conclusions. In the process, genuine data is being dismissed as a hoax for no good reason. Oh well.

Man, this sock puppet thing really gets to me. Sure, a sock puppet will constantly deny that he is a sock puppet, but so will a person whose rational thought is constantly being dismissed on that basis. What a shitty thing to happen to this mode of communication...

-Rodney

[BlueBirdPoof]

Rodney--
Get over the sock puppet thing. (Friendly advice.) Also, try and remember that humans are inherently irrational. Or maybe arational is more correct. That's why logic is a seperate topic in rhetoric and mathematics--if it were easy for us, it wouldn't be such a formal thing. {Or to be quazi-zen "Rational humans accept that humans are irrational.}

And humans didn't evolve on computer boards with a survival need to tell people apart there. So it doesn't come easy either. But facial recognition--just wonderful. If you tried to get an avatar, at least you'd be visually seperate from your cohorts. I doesn't have to be a portrait either, just something distinctive that you're comfortable with.

[aforceforgood]

The expert thing is somewhat of a red herring, since even they didn't state any hard and fast conclusions, only called for more study. Whether they're capable or not is irrelevant since they didn't present us with any information to support their calls for more study.

And that's what I keep saying; show us some kind of real evidence to support your conclusion.

As for the sock puppet thing, I don't care if you're a multiple personality disorder sufferer or whatever, IF you can show me a problem that needs fixing. You haven't done that. And the fact that you guys (the stopbm.org crowd) all seem to be so lackadaisical about presenting any real proof is suspicious. So is your shared tendency to leap to conclusions based on little or no evidence.

So kindly present some or please shut the fuck up. I personally don't want to hear any more about the quality of your scans, the sock puppet issue or whatthefuckever.

Your "experts" go on and on about what they know about the subject, present no hard evidence, and then call for more study (one would assume you expect BM people would foot the time/money bill for this). And apparently you seem to feel this is reasonable, which shows your disconnect from reality. Or maybe you're just doing your "protesting for dummies" act and giggling over how you got BM to dance to your tune? Obviously BM is not going to do anything until you show some real evidence that shows a problem, nor should it. Otherwise they'd be inundated by protesters of every stripe whining and bitching about whatever their pet cause is.

At this point, due to your failure to produce any credible evidence that supports your conclusion, we have little choice but to view you as trolls just looking for attention. If you weren't, and really cared about this dubious issue, you'd spend some time trying to find some evidence to support your conclusion. The fact that you prefer to spend your time bickering with people here seems to support that conclusion.

So again, kindly present some evidence or please shut the fuck up.

Or at least explain why you haven't responded to BM's requests for more information from you.

At this point, I would recommend to everyone DFTT (Don't Feed The Trolls) until they actually come up with some evidence to support their assertions.

Replying to their bullshit will only encourage them to post more and more of it.

[michaelmichael]

RexSkates... hummm? ...the data string registers dimly in memory but it was the webpage visual which trips facial recognition.....early Cacophony Society. I knew you then... computers, costumers, music & dancing in the dark unclaimed corners of SF, the parties at the GG house...racing high-speed across the playa after the seventh beer and the glow of neon.

We were a part what created this thing.

How have you been?

-michael2

[allanon2]

RexSkates... hummm? ...the data string registers dimly in memory but it was the webpage visual which trips facial recognition.....early Cacophony Society. I knew you then... computers, costumers, music & dancing in the dark unclaimed corners of SF, the parties at the GG house...racing high-speed across the playa after the seventh beer and the glow of neon.

We were a part what created this thing.

How have you been?

-michael2

yes i came out of email lurking to say hello.

Michael yep its me. we have spent a good 4 years together.

been doing well. I am a teacher now. Did a 5 year stint running a sterile MFg. facilty. Like to make homemade fireworks, do blacksmithings, I still teach/attend dances and yes still into computers.
glad to see your still around. If you ever get a chnace stop by trego duringthe Burn weekend and say hello. We have a encapment there for the last 5 years or so.

[precipitate]

> I am a teacher now.

Owie.

[allanon2]

> I am a teacher now.

Owie.

I have gotten awards as a teacher. I have parents/students, staff saying we are lucky to have you teachign our kids. You people here criticise me based upon feeling emtion and expressing it here? Do you not care? Does ones abilty to type a email determien their value and net worth as a human? Or do you judge people whole entire life by a few words.
I could quit and go back to the Private secotr and make twice my salary.

Did you knwo that on this board I have been told
1. kill myself
2. I am a corporate raider wantign to buy land
3. I am a geotermal expedition company doign research
4. i am 5 years old
5. I am a a disgruntaled work for BMORG
6. I am a disgruntaled local resident
7. I am insane
8. I am a person that used to attend Burning man and now i don't
9. I am the same person as 5 other people.
10. and few more but i don't cuss to i wont repeat them.


and now that Michael Michael a person that I see has never posted here (but helped cerat BMORG and i think it part of the LLC) says hello to me and this proved that all the above thigns are wrong. Well i do soemtiems do a few insane acts
you still feel a need to bash me. This is my point. this is the reason i came here to try to get people to at least think. I came out of Email seclusion becuase someone else said hey you used to mention Michael Michael and he said hi go take a look on epliya so i did.
he used to be a good friend and I wanted to say Hello.

sigh people are idiots and thats the main reason i got into teaching to help stop the next generation from being so closed minded and learn to think for themselves. I did ask Badger to erpute a few things I said and he did not. Besides badger who writes very well noone else ever had any real criticism of what i had to say.

just amazing just amazing

[Zane5100]

Those documents exist regardless of the manner in which our group presented them. It sounds like you guys are attaching the same credibility to these sources of expert opinion that you attach to the opinions that people in our group have proclaimed. I don't see how that's very reasonable. The manner in which we presented these sources of information has no bearing on how factual or credible the cited works are. If you claim 'doctored documents!' without some form of proof (pixellation, splotchy color, mismatched shadow angles and sharpness in the photos, etc.), you're hastily jumping to conclusions. In the process, genuine data is being dismissed as a hoax for no good reason. Oh well.

I'm afraid you may have missed my point.

Data and facts no longer matter once people feel they are being attacked. By your group's actions--which I've already illustrated--the community that you were trying to reach was moved into an emotional point of view that now feels you're trying to attack it and now it doesn't trust you.

It doesn't matter how good or accurate your data is. You have to win hearts and minds in this situation. Instead, your group's actions have only hardened the heart of this community. Until that changes, you're metaphorically pissing in the wind.

It may not be right or fair, but you've still got to do deal with it.

This community thinks it's under attack by your group. Until your group does something to change that perception, you're not going to get anywhere.