I'm not sure there is a lot to learn from Rudolph. Admittedly E&E doesn't interest me much but a cursory examination of Rudolph's "survival" methods shows me that:

There are half-smoked cigarette butts and food to be scrounged out of dumpsters.
You can steal vegetables out of gardens and grain out of silos if nobody is watching.
Move at night and you lessen the chance that somebody can see you.
You can greatly increase your chances of avoiding capture if you are willing to live like a rodent.

Big deal. Any transient can tell you that. Even I could probably figure those things out without much effort. Throw in his repugnant philosophy and criminal actions and IMO he's just not worth studying.

Regards, Vince

I understand what you mean.

The toughest time I have ever done in my 20 years of the practice of law was 8 days spent in the interview room of the women's prison here in Texas while opposing counsel deposed my ostensible client.

I was shanghai'd to sit the deposition of a young woman -- no secret, her name is Magy Ward -- who shot her mother in the back of the sink while she was standing there washing dishes.

The intellectual exercize of seperating the deed from the doer gets to be pretty tough when she is 85#, 17 years old, and quite nice when she isn't pissed off at you wiith a gun in her hand.

Magy was systematically malpracticed upon by a 'psychologist' for an extended period of time. The persons of whom our poster professes admiration were very deliberative and, to use a very outmoded term, quite evil.

I think that what is offensive to those of us who have responded in opposition to any sort of praise for the Rudolphs of the world is the perception of evil. I have sat in the presence of evil, and I cannot condone its praise, mixed with admiration or not.

The extent to which I may somewhat like or admire this guy, -as a Person / ality, - and of his overall Wilderness Experiences, -and of what I've mentioned that I am not limiting those to, -all DO NOT include nor entail, his killings, maimings, bombings, or other wrongs.

I think I like him somewhat as a *Personality and Person*.

That's what I Mean and Meant, -when I said, (paraphrasing now), -of such like and "admiration" as being beyond just his Survival Aspects alone. (Though such aspects too do count for a lot of it in me).

I've gotten a little worried about such possible Reactions, Mis / Understandings, and Mis / Interpretations, -a day or so after originally posting.

I've also been reading a relatively recent book on the topic, -"Hunting Eric Rudolph", -in for one thing, -a further effort to better make up my mind, -on just where he comes down with me.

To the extent that he either is, or may be, -domestically terroristic, anti social, or whatnot, -I'm as Turned Off to him!, -as any of you!

*Again, -I Utterly Oppose and Deplore!, -Any and All such Wrongs as he's all round Done!*

Engaging in Guerilla War against say nazi oppression, -is one thing. But I DON'T beleive that bombing clinics and other locations, -in today's all round Society, -is a proper, -or in any way permittable, -way to further one's views on the matter.

I'm also Moved by the Experience of Miss Lyons, (as well as the Sandersons and Others), -injured in one of his bombings. Though personally differing with what she did at such place. My Regards and Sympathies DO go out to her and them. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]MGF[/email]

Scott, There are good people in every walk of life, political philosophy and religon. I met the great Marlene Dietrich when my grandfather made a pair of dancing shoes for her. My father made the mistake of mentioning ( boasting) meeting Einstein and Werner Von Braun from his days on the Manhatten project and the early rocket program. Dietrich's withering comment about "that nazi and his toys" was followed by a history lesson to me about my german ancestor Blucher and how his late arrival at Waterloo stopped Napoleon. I grew up painting 54mm Napoleonic War Prussian cavalrymen and I.R.A. volunteers while my friends got high gluing Stukas together. You don't need Rudolphs for nothin' <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

AFAIK, GROUCHY was late and thus BLUCHER earkier arrival caused Napoleon's defeat.

Yes, but the battle was still a close affair until Blucher came. My family geneologist thinks there was another ancestor in Queen Sophia's Guards with the elaborate leopard skin helmets. Typical of my family, fighting with each other even then.

I seem to remember it's Victor Hugo who wrote about Napoleon at Waterloo ... " he was waiting for Grouchy and Blucher came ..."
"Waterloo, morne et triste plaine..."

IIRC, that guy GROUCHY arrived too late, because he took his time for diner or something like that.... but I might be wrong on that one...

If I remember my "Young Frankenstein" correctly, Blucher is German for glue.
Correct? No offense intended.
<img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Incorrect.

Must be a different spelling.
Scared the heck out of the horses when they heard the name "Frau Blucher."
May have been Cloris Leachman's accent.