[at-l] Etiquette lesson

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

baltjack@hotmail.com wrote:
>Gee, thanks, Kahley.  In taking the time to publicly excoriate me for 
> >alleged breaches of etiquette, I find it remarkable that you never once 
> >had anything to say about WHY I was considering this regrettable >option.

It doesn't make any difference WHY you were considering it, Jack - YOU are 
responsible for your actions - not him.  That attitude kinda reminds me of a 
terrorist who says "If I kill my hostages, it's the governments fault 
because they didn't meet my demands".  Same logic, same level of personal 
responsibility - or lack therof.  It's an illogical, self-centered, 
nonsensical shifting of responsibility for your own actions to others.

<snip>
>If  I'm tacky for considering exposing this boob in public, then what >do 
>you feel about HIS behavior, eh?  Kinda interesting that your >strident 
>little screed had nothing at all to say about him.

Again - you're not responsible for what 'he' does - only for the way YOU 
react to it.

>And as for there being "skunks" in your shelter, well at least when I >send 
>off something strong, or something controversial, at least I have >the 
>integrity to sign my name to it, to accept responsibility for it,

I gave you credit for that the first time we tangled - it still applies.

>and to answer and respect the right of other folks to reply to it.

But this part ain't necessarily always true.

>I'd have preferred that Kahley wrote to me in private regarding her 
> >disagreements with my last post.  However, by attacking me in public >and 
>by name (as I pointedly DID NOT DO with the fellow who has been >pestering 
>me), she invited a public response.

Case in point, Jack - Kahley didn't 'attack' you.  She said exactly what 
needed to be said - that you were off-base about putting private posts in a 
public forum and that there are other solutions.  She even gave you a 
legitimate solution.  If you can't figure out how to set up filters, then 
get help.  But don't tell me that your only recourse is the one you 
proposed.

>   Lastly, I urge people to re-read the last paragraph of my recent >post, 
>and also to re-read Redhead's recent letter, regarding civil >tones and 
>respect.  It is possible to disagree without being >disagreeable, but it 
>takes a little effort.  One way to improve the >level of discourse is for 
>people to be upfront and open with their >views and thoughts, and to be 
>willing to take full, open, and public >responsibility for controversies 
>and arguments that arise from the >publication of their thoughts  To do 
>otherwise, as Kahley has put it, >is pretty tacky.

Jack, Jack -  you've dumped that "reasonable" attitude on this list more 
times than I care to remenmber. But you've never learned how to take your 
own advice.  C'mon, guy - you're not stupid, put the effort into learning a 
little about human relations.  This isn't atml and the atml attitude just 
don't fly here - just saying the words doesn't make it so on at-l.  There's 
a much lower level of self-deception here than on the 'other' list.

>here's to cordiality and adult, mature discussion,

I'll buy into that - when do you want to start?

>P.S.   K. also mentioned that I have time to deposit skunks here, but 
> >never the time to share.  In point of fact, I correspond with an awful 
> >lot of folks about trail-related matters, particularly prospective 
>thru->hikers.

<snip>

>Once again, she's sounding off about something that she is regrettably 
> >ill-informed on.

Jack, there are those of us who share what we know in a public forum - at-l. 
Where are you?  The only time we see you here is when, as Kahley said, you 
drop a skunk and run.  If you share with prospective thruhikers privately, 
that's good - I'm all for that. And I'm not doubting that you do it - we 
just haven't seen it happen.  Don't accuse someone of being ill-informed 
when the available evidence supports their contention.  And few of us on 
this list have seen you share anything but dissension and disruption.  I'd 
really enjoy seeing you share your knowledge with those who could use it.  
When would you like to start?  Now is a good time if you're willing.  Or 
maybe next week after the Ruck.  Or maybe even at the Ruck - you're not 
excluded from the Ruck, Jack.  Just leave the attitude at home, please.

Now I'll ask another question (I'm just full of them tonight) - why are you 
willing to share privately, but not on this list?  There are a number of 
prospective thruhikers here - and they want/need your information, the 
benefit of your experience, as much as those that you favor with it. Why do 
you choose to discriminate against them?

I won't be here to see your answer - I won't be back until Sunday night. I 
think you need to do some thinking.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com