[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] The Handbook, the Companion, and a respectful suggestion

On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 15:51:46 PST "Jack Tarlin" <baltjack@hotmail.com>
>    I particularly enjoyed the 
> color and ferocity, never mind sheer gutlessness of some of the
> personal replies.  
Jack - 
Unsigned personal replies are possible but not likely on email.  The
header of the message generally tells you who sent it - and most people
on this list couldn't be bothered to hide their identity with regard to
this subject.  :-))

>  Not a particularly pleasant introduction to this list, believe me.

Sorry about that, but you brought it on yourself.  :-))

> I understand entirely the anger and 
> animosity that some people feel towards the the author of The
> Handbook, who is also the webmaster of another Trail-related site.  

I doubt that - but you're welcome to believe so.  

> Several people have provided me with detailed, very upsetting histories
> events and circumstances that have led them to these feelings.  But 
> justified or not, folks, how about a return to some simple calmness and
> here, OK?  Name calling, character assassination, speculations on an 
> individual's mental condition or stability, and so forth, all seem to
have gone a 
> bit over the line.  

Really???   So far I haven't seen anything that's untrue - a couple
things that might require a psychiatrist to verify - but that was
personal opinion on the part of the writer.    As for speculations -
well, if it looks like a pig and smells like a pig and sounds like a pig
- my Grandma taught me that it's probably a pig.  :-)

> Disagree with a man by all means.  And publicly, if 
> you must.  Provide details of your disagreement and grievance, and
> them with others if you must. If your complaint is legitimate, and you 
> express yourself properly and well, your comments may well find a 
> sympathetic audience.  

Don't be silly, Jack.  Fact is that many of us, at least at one time,
agreed with his stance on many issues.  But because we didn't agree
"totally" with him on "every" issue, he attempted to silence us.  

There are many legitimate complaints - where would you suggest that they
be voiced?  On ATML perhaps - where they would be censored or the authors
"excommunicated?   Why dont' you ask WF to allow that - the response
should be really interesting.  

> But I honestly feel that it's possible to do so without 
> your comments descending into the gutter of slander, invective, 
> finger-pointing, and name calling, the likes of which can be found 
> amongst any assemblage of nine-year olds.

If you've proof of "slander" I suggest that you produce it.    But I have
yet to see anything here that isn't true - and that precludes slander, my
friend.  There was very little that was really emotional - most of us are
long past feeling anger, it isn't worth the time or the energy.  Most of
the discussion has been just that.  There is a problem, and we've talked
about it. Not irrationally or childishly but rather generally with humor
- which, frankly, is more deadly than anger. 

The only finger-pointing I see here is yours.  :-)

>     I fully expect to get ripped all over again for the above comments,
> I genuinely believe it needs to be said, so I'm willing to take the

What heat, Jack?  For what?  What you've done is to attempt to incite the
list.  What you've done is to ask the unanswerable - like asking someone
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"   Both the question and the
answer are meaningless.  

> The present level of discourse adds virtually nothing positive to this

Ahh, but it does.  It allows the list as a whole to get one step closer
to healing the wounds that your friend has inflicted on others.  It
allows for the exposition of wounds by those who have not yet been
allowed to express their anger, frustration, etc. over their mistreatment
by someone who claims to be the thruhikers best friend.  Is he really?? 
I think not.  

> and in fact, has lately taken a turn that is not merely unpleasant to
> but is simply ugliness personified.  By all means, be strident, 
> vocal, angry if need be.  But can we please try to temper some of our 
> comments so that  their presentation can lead to intelligent, rational

I've seen nothing either unintelligent or irrational in this discussion -
except your post.  And that only because it fails to recognize the
validity of what's been said here and because it's nothing more than an
incitement to anger and an invitation to continue the discussion in a
nastier vein.    

> And if not, I submit that strongly negative comments of a personal
> should be signed by the author with their real names.   If you're going
to use 
> language and tone of a certain nature, that's fine, but at least be
> enough to take responsibility and credit for what you've said.

Really??  That's the second time you've said that - just who do you think
has been anonymous here?  I've seen none of that.  Tell us who, Jack.   

> My last post on this subject, several months ago, suggested 
> that we could perhaps find something better to talk about.  That is NOT
> I'm saying today; this is obviously a subject that NEEDS to be talked 
> about, and deserves to be. It's a subject that matters to a great many
> All I'm saying is that there is a way to pursue this discussion in such
> way that renders the commentary as worthwhile, honorable, and a credit
> this mailing list.  Several of the recent posts have decidedly NOT fit 
> this description.  

I'd suggest that if you have something to say about WF - or about
anything specific, that you say it, whether positive or negative.  But
vague accusations and insinuations about what others have said just don't
make it here, Jack.  

>  I think we can do better.

This I can agree with - we can ALWAYS do better.  

Walk softly,

Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *