Blue Ridge hotel defies Park Service shutdown

[Pogo]

Believe it or not, I didn't even read the Washington Times article.

An interesting question... since the business itself isn't affiliated with the government, how can they shut the business? Normally, when you're leasing someone something, you are lending them the rights to that thing, regardless of what conditions may arise later on. I think this closure is bogus, and may not be in line with the terms.

Damned if I know. I don't have a copy of the lease. Some of the articles did mention that the NPS told O'Connell he was in violation of it but we already covered that.

Look, again I'm not here to pass judgment on the NPS or the business owner. I'm not qualified to do that. I'm here to pass judgment on the Moonie Times.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Damned if I know. I don't have a copy of the lease. Some of the articles did mention that the NPS told O'Connell he was in violation of it but we already covered that.

Look, again I'm not here to pass judgment on the NPS or the business owner. I'm not qualified to do that. I'm here to pass judgment on the Moonie Times.

So, if you are indeed a judge of media bias, what news sources do you partake of?

 

[Pogo]

^ Time to practice reading comprehension, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]. MeBelle beat me to this link.... right in front of my face, open tab too. Looks like superior research beats liberal talking points, Pogo. Scram.

WTF are you talking about there, Evelyn Wood? It says right there, "National Park Service-owned buildings and property".

Duh?

But they are given rights to operate and maintain the property, it also is operated at no cost to the park service and thus no cost to the government. So why exactly would they be forced to shut down? So my argument stands. They have no business closing these people down. IF and ONLY IF they were operating on federal dollars would they be obligated to shut down. But since they don't...

Sit down, Nostradamus.

You're asking questions I never raised. Again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm not here for wacko conspiracy theories on whose nefarious agendas are impacting what. That's not my gig. I'm here to flag a slanted hack article (and some fallacy-infested hack posters) with some cold blue steely hard logic, and the occasional news article.

On which you've already conceded your own error I might add, so ... wtf is this game you're onto?

 

[Pogo]

So, if you are indeed a judge of media bias, what news sources do you partake of?

I subscribe to Sarah Palin's list: "all of 'em!"

I couldn't resist...

I don't take any one at face value; I sample several and see where there's a consensus on fact. The C-T is a decent local paper, if smallish. But I look at sources with known agendas with a jaundiced eye.

 

[Pogo]

You might want to find another lackey other than Jakey to champion, he's proven himself to be dumb as ditch water on many occasions. As for you being the loyal maobama-bot-zombie that you are, you attempt to discredit the whole story citing a case of semantics because you can't defend the overall subject. Just remember, semantics are the last bastion of a looser.

Umm... a poster with the emotional fortitude of an 11-year-old who jumps on everybody that doesn't immediately sink to their knees and give his OP a long sloppy blowjob with cries of "zombies up the ass" -- on at least one person who's politics you don't even know-- is in no position to be talking about "loosers", Homer.

Now you're getting mad because I called you a dumbfuck? Now you're insulting people's mentalities? Typical of you, how you establish such double standards.

"Mad"??

Moi?

Clearly you don't know me either. OKT actually found it humourous, which was after all the intent. But do tell how double standards are "typical" ... on a poster you've never had much exchange with in the first place.

But again, revisionist historian, let's be clear on who came in and started insulting people's mentalities -- due to their own inability to read. That ain't going away.

I am though. It's been fun and it's been real, though I can't say it's been real fun, as the saying goes...

 

[TemplarKormac]

WTF are you talking about there, Evelyn Wood? It says right there, "National Park Service-owned buildings and property".

Duh?

But they are given rights to operate and maintain the property, it also is operated at no cost to the park service and thus no cost to the government. So why exactly would they be forced to shut down? So my argument stands. They have no business closing these people down. IF and ONLY IF they were operating on federal dollars would they be obligated to shut down. But since they don't...

Sit down, Nostradamus.

You're asking questions I never raised. Again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm not here for wacko conspiracy theories on whose nefarious agendas are impacting what. That's not my gig. I'm here to flag a slanted hack article (and some fallacy-infested hack posters) with some cold blue steely hard logic, and the occasional news article.

On which you've already conceded your own error I might add, so ... wtf is this game you're onto?

I didn't stop researching even after I ceded my error. I am not going to lie for myself. I had the same page MeBelle posted open in my browser. That link contradicted your claim that the NPS had sole rights over the building. It owns the building yes, but it doesn't operate or maintain it. Notice in the article where it said that they "ran" it. That's a big difference.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Umm... a poster with the emotional fortitude of an 11-year-old who jumps on everybody that doesn't immediately sink to their knees and give his OP a long sloppy blowjob with cries of "zombies up the ass" -- on at least one person who's politics you don't even know-- is in no position to be talking about "loosers", Homer.

Now you're getting mad because I called you a dumbfuck? Now you're insulting people's mentalities? Typical of you, how you establish such double standards.

"Mad"??

Moi?

Clearly you don't know me either. OKT actually found it humourous, which was after all the intent.

But again, revisionist historian, let's be clear on who came in and started insulting people's mentalities -- due to their own inability to read. That ain't going away.

I am though. It's been fun and it's been real, though I can't say it's been real fun, as the saying goes...

See you later, hotshot. Your argument was totally contradicted. And there was no lease, but a contract. I can't say it's been fun for me either, but you were the one who chose to spin this issue, portraying the Pisgah in as someone who had no choice but to comply with the government.

 

[Pogo]

Now you're getting mad because I called you a dumbfuck? Now you're insulting people's mentalities? Typical of you, how you establish such double standards.

"Mad"??

Moi?

Clearly you don't know me either. OKT actually found it humourous, which was after all the intent.

But again, revisionist historian, let's be clear on who came in and started insulting people's mentalities -- due to their own inability to read. That ain't going away.

I am though. It's been fun and it's been real, though I can't say it's been real fun, as the saying goes...

See you later, hotshot. Your argument was totally contradicted. And there was no lease, but a contract.

Uh-- a lease IS a contract.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I subscribe to Sarah Palin's list: "all of 'em!"

I couldn't resist...

I don't take any one at face value; I sample several and see where there's a consensus on fact. The C-T is a decent local paper, if smallish. But I look at sources with known agendas with a jaundiced eye.

That's vague answer, but given that you were leaving... we will leave it at that.

 

[Pogo]

Now you're getting mad because I called you a dumbfuck? Now you're insulting people's mentalities? Typical of you, how you establish such double standards.

"Mad"??

Moi?

Clearly you don't know me either. OKT actually found it humourous, which was after all the intent.

But again, revisionist historian, let's be clear on who came in and started insulting people's mentalities -- due to their own inability to read. That ain't going away.

I am though. It's been fun and it's been real, though I can't say it's been real fun, as the saying goes...

See you later, hotshot. Your argument was totally contradicted. And there was no lease, but a contract. I can't say it's been fun for me either, but you were the one who chose to spin this issue, portraying the Pisgah in as someone who had no choice but to comply with the government.

I didn't say anything about "sole rights". I said they own it and O'Connell leases it, which is what the (local) media said. Who said the NPS "ran" the place??

Are you trying to revise what I said now? You think that really works?

 

[Pogo]

That was funny, I wouldn't have thought you had a sense of humor.

As I said, you know nothing about me; you work on ass-umptions.

You're just being an ass. All there is to it. In one fell swoop, one poster destroyed your argument. Unintentional air support.

How far are you willing to dig?

That ain't your post there, speed reader.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Mad"??

Moi?

Clearly you don't know me either. OKT actually found it humourous, which was after all the intent.

But again, revisionist historian, let's be clear on who came in and started insulting people's mentalities -- due to their own inability to read. That ain't going away.

I am though. It's been fun and it's been real, though I can't say it's been real fun, as the saying goes...

See you later, hotshot. Your argument was totally contradicted. And there was no lease, but a contract.

Uh-- a lease IS a contract.

No it isn't. You're wrong, legally speaking. And, where in that article MeBelle posted did it mention a "lease"?

A lease by definition is an "agreement" which is totally different from a signed contract which is legally binding under the law. Black's Law Dictionary defines an agreement as "a mutual understanding between...parties about their relative rights and responsibilities." It defines a contract as "An agreement between...parties creating obligations that are enforceable."

 

[Pogo]

But they are given rights to operate and maintain the property, it also is operated at no cost to the park service and thus no cost to the government. So why exactly would they be forced to shut down? So my argument stands. They have no business closing these people down. IF and ONLY IF they were operating on federal dollars would they be obligated to shut down. But since they don't...

Sit down, Nostradamus.

You're asking questions I never raised. Again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm not here for wacko conspiracy theories on whose nefarious agendas are impacting what. That's not my gig. I'm here to flag a slanted hack article (and some fallacy-infested hack posters) with some cold blue steely hard logic, and the occasional news article.

On which you've already conceded your own error I might add, so ... wtf is this game you're onto?

I didn't stop researching even after I ceded my error. I am not going to lie for myself. I had the same page MeBelle posted open in my browser. That link contradicted your claim that the NPS had sole rights over the building. It owns the building yes, but it doesn't operate or maintain it. Notice in the article where it said that they "ran" it. That's a big difference.

Actually your own links contradicted you. I noted that in big red letters and you conceded. Shall we just do it all over again?

What the **** is your point here?

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I said, you know nothing about me; you work on ass-umptions.

You're just being an ass. All there is to it. In one fell swoop, one poster destroyed your argument. Unintentional air support.

How far are you willing to dig?

That ain't your post there, speed reader.

Nope, but I know when someone gets nailed by a superior argument. I never claimed that post was mine. How funny you would accuse me of not having any reading comprehension.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're asking questions I never raised. Again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm not here for wacko conspiracy theories on whose nefarious agendas are impacting what. That's not my gig. I'm here to flag a slanted hack article (and some fallacy-infested hack posters) with some cold blue steely hard logic, and the occasional news article.

On which you've already conceded your own error I might add, so ... wtf is this game you're onto?

I didn't stop researching even after I ceded my error. I am not going to lie for myself. I had the same page MeBelle posted open in my browser. That link contradicted your claim that the NPS had sole rights over the building. It owns the building yes, but it doesn't operate or maintain it. Notice in the article where it said that they "ran" it. That's a big difference.

Actually your own links contradicted you. I noted that in big red letters and you conceded. Shall we just do it all over again?

What the **** is your point here?

And MeBelle posted a link that contradicted YOU. What the **** is your point here? While those specific articles did contradict me at first, another more wiser poster came in and found proof to the contrary of your claim. Our positions are now reversed, given that new evidence was presented.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Didn't you say you were leaving? Glutton for punishment?

 

[Pogo]

See you later, hotshot. Your argument was totally contradicted. And there was no lease, but a contract.

Uh-- a lease IS a contract.

No it isn't. You're wrong, legally speaking. And, where in that article MeBelle posted did it mention a "lease"?

A lease by definition is an "agreement" which is totally different from a signed contract which is legally binding under the law. Black's Law Dictionary defines an agreement as "a mutual understanding between...parties about their relative rights and responsibilities." It defines a contract as "An agreement between...parties creating obligations that are enforceable."

I'm afraid it is...

1lease noun \ˈlēs\
: a legal agreement that lets someone use a car, house, etc., for a period of time in return for payment

Full Definition of LEASE

1: a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent; also : the act of such conveyance or the term for which it is made
2: a piece of land or property that is leased
3: a continuance or opportunity for continuance <a new lease on life> (M-W)

Newspapers and TV stations are not law libraries there, Perry Mason.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't stop researching even after I ceded my error. I am not going to lie for myself. I had the same page MeBelle posted open in my browser. That link contradicted your claim that the NPS had sole rights over the building. It owns the building yes, but it doesn't operate or maintain it. Notice in the article where it said that they "ran" it. That's a big difference.

Actually your own links contradicted you. I noted that in big red letters and you conceded. Shall we just do it all over again?

What the **** is your point here?

And MeBelle posted a link that contradicted YOU. What the **** is your point here? While those specific articles did contradict me at first, another more wiser poster came in and found proof to the contrary of your claim. Our positions are now reversed, given that new evidence was presented.

It's not "proof to the contrary" that one local paper and a TV station use the word "lease" while another uses the word "contract". For the purpose of the story it's the same thing.



Jesus Christ on a bicycle, you are stubborn as all ****. Even when you're wrong and fully admitted you're wrong-- and admitted you admitted you're wrong -- you think you're still somehow not wrong.

Words fail me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh-- a lease IS a contract.

No it isn't. You're wrong, legally speaking. And, where in that article MeBelle posted did it mention a "lease"?

A lease by definition is an "agreement" which is totally different from a signed contract which is legally binding under the law. Black's Law Dictionary defines an agreement as "a mutual understanding between...parties about their relative rights and responsibilities." It defines a contract as "An agreement between...parties creating obligations that are enforceable."

I'm afraid it is...

1lease noun \&#712;l&#275;s\
: a legal agreement that lets someone use a car, house, etc., for a period of time in return for payment

Full Definition of LEASE

1: a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent; also : the act of such conveyance or the term for which it is made
2: a piece of land or property that is leased
3: a continuance or opportunity for continuance <a new lease on life> (M-W)

Newspapers and TV stations are not law libraries there, Perry Mason.

Oh brother. I just gave you the legal definition of what leases and contracts are from BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY! My goodness you are dense.

 

[Pogo]

No it isn't. You're wrong, legally speaking. And, where in that article MeBelle posted did it mention a "lease"?

A lease by definition is an "agreement" which is totally different from a signed contract which is legally binding under the law. Black's Law Dictionary defines an agreement as "a mutual understanding between...parties about their relative rights and responsibilities." It defines a contract as "An agreement between...parties creating obligations that are enforceable."

I'm afraid it is...

1lease noun \&#712;l&#275;s\
: a legal agreement that lets someone use a car, house, etc., for a period of time in return for payment

Full Definition of LEASE

1: a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent; also : the act of such conveyance or the term for which it is made
2: a piece of land or property that is leased
3: a continuance or opportunity for continuance <a new lease on life> (M-W)

Newspapers and TV stations are not law libraries there, Perry Mason.

Oh brother. I just gave you the legal definition of what leases and contracts are from BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY! My goodness you are dense.

And I just pointed out -- maybe you forgot to read this too-- that a newspaper or TV station IS NOT A FREAKING LAW LIBRARY. They report in colloquial language -- not technical.