Thursday, July 28, 2016

bwaaaah hah hah hah hah

You gotta be kidding me.

Vernon Felton as legislative/policy expert?

Jesus popsicle stick K. Riced.


Vernon Felton has no background in law, legislation, legislative policy, land management, governmental operations.

His background is in writing circuitous crap from a position of pseudo expert.

Like here.


Ted Stroll?

Dude may ride a mtn bike once in a while, but that's not the same as having the necessary background for such analysis, policy drafting, legislative conception, or holistic understanding of federal politics and how matters are achieved at the national level.

This is why Ted hired lobbyists.  Because he doesn't know anything about the subjects.


Seriously, pinkbike/STC -- you're really going to sit there and tell me that of all the people who are MTB riders in the USA, you could not find a single well-experienced attorney with a background in policy work, legislative drafting and analysis, lobbying, land management, environmental science and policy?

So you used Vernon Felton, Ted Stroll, and lobbyists instead?

You don't give a damn about getting things done.

You only care about click-generation for more income to help Vernon Felton, Mike Levy, Mike Kazimer and Richard Cunningham continue to get wicked bikes and bike parts for free, and hopefully, to let each of these vampire fucks "upgrade" to a swankier vehicle and bigger "home."


Once upon a time, we of UNSF tried to engage Vernon and the fatBIKE magazine staff on this subject.  Vernon said we were "counter-productive" because we kept pointing out the weaknesses of their strategies and whims.

Dude, if you don't consider EVERY weakness when you advance a position, you're gonna fail.

Good luck, buddy.

-- Charles F. Oxtrot, who knows at least one lawyer with the requisite background to do the legwork on this important question regarding Wilderness and whether MTBs actually are legally prohibited. 


Harold Caidagh said...

Charles F. Oxtrot, who knows at least one lawyer with the requisite background to do the legwork on this important question regarding Wilderness and whether MTBs actually are legally prohibited.

Seriously? Or to make a satirical, lampoon-ish point?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...


Very serious.

The lawyer I know contacted Ted Stroll and offered a resume/CV and free legal research, writing, policy analysis, enviro strategy, and federal process input.

No response.

Harold Caidagh said...

So instead of choosing someone who would be good at this work, they hired Vernon Felton/pinkbike/fatBIKE to ramble on nonsensically and naively, and possibly WRONGLY? And to further their strategies, they paid $100k+ to lobbyists?

So now they have a junior R-UT senator who will sponsor a bill that will further enflame the problems by carving a special exception to Wilderness designation for human-powered travel?

In the present political climate, they're trying legislation?

Obviously they want to fail while looking like they did their best.

We should ask Chet why that strategy would be chosen. He may have better insights than "intended to fail".

Chet Redweld said...

They chose this strategy out of naivete.

The naivete is admitted by Stroll hiring lobbyists.

And we're not allowed to doubt the wisdom of that path because, apparently, Stroll is the most expert voice -- apart from the lobbyists he's hired.

Felton couldn't admit that Chuck and Karl had insights worth hearing, because Felton doesn't like being mocked by people. To protect his ego, he rejected actual expertise. As did Stroll.

I've had clients like that before. Brittle egos, can't imagine a lawyer knowing more than they know, but blind to the hypocrisy of holding that stance while hiring a lawyer.

You can't help such clients. When this trait is spotted early on in the client relationship, often it's best to sever the relationship and let them screw up another lawyer's professionalism.

H.M. Lohmann said...

So they're classic progressives: naive, self-satisfied, brittle ego'd, and destined to fail while pursuing a defeatist short-term strategy that only inflames and exacerbates the problems they complain about?

Chet Redweld said...

That's a fair summary, Hy. Although I'd strike classic progressives because I've seen all kinds of people follow the same path.

H.M. Lohmann said...

What about hiring lobbyists?

Chet Redweld said...

It's an admission of naivete and acceptance that things are well over your head, in a how to get it done manner of speaking.

The naivete is made worse because lobbyists are much worse than lawyers when it comes to the "gun for hire" aspect. Lobbyists do not get invested in random things, they just see random things as income streams. Lobbyists tend to completely unethical. The best ones have areas of subject matter specialty, but even they often are unethical. Often, but not always.

I'd wonder how Stroll chose these particular lobbyists.

But more than that, I'd wonder why everyone making these decisions felt that legislation would be the best path.

Choosing that path reflects a real ignorance of how power works in DC generally and in the US Forest Service more specifically.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Choosing that path reflects a real ignorance of how power works in DC generally and in the US Forest Service more specifically.

Can you explain that, Chet?

Chet Redweld said...

Because the present problem revolves around the US Forest Service misinterpreting existing legislation, and implementing management policy decisions which defy their bureaucratic scope of power.

Nothing exists to stop them from doing likewise if the proposed bill advances into law.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Assuming Stroll still had that $100k+ spent on lobbyists, could a lawyer work up the necessary litigation and see it through for the same amount?

Chet Redweld said...


That's what was offered to him.

For some reason, he rejected it.

H.M. Lohmann said...

So you were the one Chuck referred to?

Chet Redweld said...


Harold Caidagh said...


I had no idea.

They have no clue how stupid they've been in rejecting that offer.

Chet Redweld said...

Naive, that's what I'd say, Hal.


Probably because someone who doesn't know me or the quality and extent of my work told them that I'm not as talented as my resume/CV suggests.

Harold Caidagh said...

Well, you didn't go to Harvard, Chet.

So you couldn't possibly have any skill.

Chet Redweld said...

Maybe they thought something like this:

1) We have only $150k, maybe 200k, to spend.
2) I checked with the Los Angeles firms staffed mostly by Harvard/Ivy lawyers, they all charge a minimum of $250/hr.
3) This would take a fair amount of work.
4) At $250/hr, they couldn't carry it far.
5) Therefore, let's try the lobbying/legislation route.

Being a government employee, Stroll likely doesn't understand how plaintiff's lawyers work. He chooses a Defense Lawyer Cost Analysis. And by doing so, shoots himself in the foot. Or maybe head.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Stroll never even got back in touch with you to look further into your qualifications, work history, areas of knowledge/expertise?

Chet Redweld said...


Not a peep.

Guess he knows best.

H.M. Lohmann said...

You would think that Levy & Co could afford to kick in $200k or more, even if that was Stroll's analysis.

So why would they reject a litigation-oriented strategy?

Chet Redweld said...

Because they're naive and think like naive people. Probably afraid to admit that their chosen, naively-ill-informed strategies are misdirected or ill-considered.

Harold Caidagh said...

Chet, when you practiced law at the upper tiers level, did you find any truth to the General Public perception that a lawyer has to be Ivy/prestige, or she/he isn't worth hiring?

Chet Redweld said...

Of course not.

That's why I call them naive. They don't realize that legal talent isn't boxed up solely by Ivy/prestige diploma process.

I saw this play out as a judge's law clerk. I saw it play out as a young litigator. I saw it play out as a more experienced litigator.

The prestige diploma enables higher billing rates, but doesn't ensure higher quality work.

When I worked in-house at an insurance company and had to hire outside lawyers to represent the company, I rarely chose based on diploma prestige. I chose based on quality of work. Which was learned by either (a) polling other lawyers, or (b) examining various candidates' portfolios of actual work and results.

It would appear that such a selection process did not even occur to Mr Stroll.

Harold Caidagh said...

So after hiring lawyers with that method, did you ever get hoodwinked by your avoidance of the prestige diploma?

Chet Redweld said...

Not once.

Contrary to General Public Perception, the world of litigators and other lawyers is filled with high-quality, very talented people who went to schools that lack prestige.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I remember talking about this subject on TGR.

The "experts" there mocked me and my position. Instead they listen to people like (((legend of kidwoo))), who knows nothing about me, or Karl, or Chet or anyone else affiliated with this blog. None of us ever has met (((legend of kidwoo))) nor any of his friends. So there's no reason why anyone should believe (((legend of kidwoo))) when it comes to appraising me, Karl, Chet or anyone else affiliated here.

The double-irony is in the fact that (((legend of kidwoo))) is an Online Asshole, while the TGR fools said people should ignore me on TGR because I'm supposedly an Online Asshole. Meanwhile, (((legend of kidwoo))) is like the Sage on the Mount where TGR fools are concerned. And what's his background, anyway? Even less substantive knowledge in this subject than Vernon Felton!

So it goes for people "in the industry." Since neither Chet nor I have ever been "in the industry" where MTB is concerned, I can't and Chet can't possibly know more than Vernon or (((legend of kidwoo))) or Ted Stroll.

Incestuous ignorance, and proud of it. Smugly proud.

How sad.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Yeah maybe if you were Scott Hart or Mitchell Scott they'd listen to you, because we all know that Hart and Scott are geniuses of law, policy, etc. merely by being "industry insiders."

Now we know why we get bullshit standards and 750% markup of Taiwanese mfre costs from "the industry."

Because it's a bunch of little pissants trying to hang on to their own little patch of land within "the industry."

Harold Caidagh said...

Yeah didn't Noah "toast2266" Bodman pretend that as a newly minted graduate of Univ MT law school, he actually knew this subject better than you, Chuck?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Noah's a damned good bike rider and a fairly good skier.

But that doesn't mean jack shit about policy, legal analysis, etc.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I seem to remember Wendell "rideit" Stam thinking he knew the subject better than Chuck. As did Joe "multiple identities" Hanrahan.

They think that having a "rep" on TGR makes them experts in any subject discussed there.

I think I know now why feminists talk about "mansplaining" being an egocentric unwillingness to admit ignorance in a subject.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Wendell built a trail at Teton Pass that many people enjoy and praise, and he did it by working with BLM. BLM is different from USFS. Also, USFS in many locations is schizoid -- some places it's very MTB friendly, in others it absolutely despises MTBs and the people who ride them. Stam's success on the Teton Pass trail is not a testament to his bureaucratic expertise; it shows that he had the luck of being in an area where bureaucrats WANTED trails for MTBs.

The schizophrenia of USFS management policy is one of the pivotal reasons why litigation is not only the best path, but the most likely path to success.

Ask Chet. He'll tell you.

Or, ask Noah, Kevin or Wendell. Because they have good "reps" on TGR. And they'll tell you that since I've insulted each of them on TGR, neither I nor any of my friends could possibly know more than any of the 3 of them.

And that's the case even though each of them dishes out insult after insult on TGR.

Hypocrisy. Apparently it's enough to sustain one's self-image online.

Special TGR Sensitive Snowflake said...

This blog is 100% homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, anti-semitism, reactionary cis-het-patriarchy BULLSHIT and you're all KKK members and John Birch Society fucktards.

We want to hire a lawyer who is 25% Asian, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, 25% Polynesian who went to Yale ugrad and Harvard for law, and has spent 3 years at the NAACP, 2 years at ACLU, 16 months at AIPAC, and at least 3 weeks working on the Clinton campaign for this November's election.

It's obvious you don't fit the bill. Go home you reactionary bigoted asshole. And go die in a fire.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

For such self-satisfied super-intellects, the TGR crowd and pinkbike crowd and fatBIKE crowd sure do lack for understanding of dark comedy, mockery and satire.

Ironic, given the Sage of the Mount stature granted (((legend of kidwoo))).

Special TGR Sensitive Snowflake said...

Listen, KIDWOO IS GAWD, he's ALWAYS funny.

You're not. Ever. Who would find bigotry funny?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Apparently they can't see how Bazar has been copying Chuck for over a decade where comic phrasing and writing style is concerned.

Maybe that's because Bazar dumbs it down by 40 IQ points while keeping the same writing style and aping the same timing, etc.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Joe Hanrahan says Chuck doesn't know satire.

Joe says this as a bike mechanic.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Yeah, if you can't grasp the satirical flourishes here, it must be due to this blog being a reactionary neoNazi outlet.

Satire isn't satire unless it mocks Republicans and spews hatred toward DONALD DRUMPF THE TOTALITARIAN!

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Funny how the sponsoring senator is a Utah Republican.

Is that cognitive dissonance headache generation I see standing in the wings?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Joe says this as a bike mechanic.

Listen, Tom Cuthbertson was a bike mechanic who wrote a funny bike repair guide.

Unfortunately, Joe's not Tom Cuthbertson.

H.M. Lohmann said...

So, Stroll shouldn't use Chet because Chet knows Chuck and Karl, eh?


Torpedo your chances to save the integrity of the (((legend of kidwoo))).

No that's not counter-productive, short-sighted, or helping the wrong person.

Not at all.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Yeah why would you want to win on this pivotal issue, when there are larger things at stake.

Like Kevin Bazar's ego.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Trustafarians always know best.

Ask Kevin. He'll tell you!

Kevin "poor as a churchmouse" Bazar said...


Chet Redweld said...

I've been trying to say this blog is about values.

And we can see whose and which values are being pursued here.

Rather disappointing, from the perspective of wanting to fix this USFS statutory interpretation and bureaucratic policy implementation issue.

But I suppose online reps are very important, perhaps more important than anything else at this point in 2016.