[at-l] Responses

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

On Tue, 15 May 2001 14:21:07 EDT, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:

>     This is obviously a petty attempt to smear my topic with that other 
>site's reputation - which I find distasteful and disingenuous. Kind of 
>strikes me as a low blow. Here we go again! (I hope I don't get moderated 
>for saying this).

R&R –
The other site’s reputation has no relation to this mess – but what you 
wrote there does.  If you insult at-l on atml, why do you think that those 
on at-l won’t know – and react?  C’mon – you’re presumably smarter than 
that.

The fact that you’d assume that “moderation” was a threat reveals your 
ignorance about how this site operates.  It also says that you haven’t been 
on a lot of other email lists.  Moderation is common on many, if not most, 
email lists - it just hasn’t generally been necessary here.

It also reveals a fear of removal that is one of the basic reasons for the 
dislike of many of those (including myself) on at-l for your “other” site.  
Anything that generates that kind of fear is unwelcome in my life and, in my 
personal opinion, worthy only of oblivion.

<snip>
>Sorry to those turned off by people making it their business to
>broadside my sincerely-felt AT posts. Me thinks it is the truth that gets 
>them, not the method...

Actually, what gets them is the ”tone” of some of your posts.   Like every 
other list, at-l has a long history of disagreement on a lot of subjects – 
and there are a few subjects that are generally not discussed anymore - by 
common consent.  But we’ve learned that (usually) disagreement doesn’t mean 
we have to get nasty in order to make our points. Reason usually works 
better than attitude. Nor does it mean we have to “win” at any cost.  You 
apparently haven’t learned that yet.  As you once said in another context:

>I take that as a flaming kill after a reckless approach –thanks

In fact, on a personal basis, you should know that if you answer one of my 
posts and don’t get a return, it doesn’t mean you won – it means you lost.  
I’ll let you figure that one out.  :-))

To continue – you wrote:

>     I hope it is not disallowed to mention that the "Rev", with all his 
>warts, has managed to preserve thousands of acres for the AT for
>prosperity...

OK – you got me.  I almost choked laughing about this one.  WF’s efforts 
were responsible?  Really??  And just where were the ATC, USFS, NPS, etc 
while this was happening?   Exactly what part do you think WF played in the 
negotiations?

Anyway, let’s keep going here -

On Wed, 16 May 2001 01:42:42 EDT, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote in response to 
thornel@attglobal.net:

>True, no honest admission,

If you’re looking for honesty, look in the mirror first.  If you don’t find 
it there, you won’t find it anyplace else.  Conversely, if you don’t find it 
anyplace else, you likely won’t find it there either.

>no respect for results,

If you want respect, then give it first.  I have no respect for those who 
don’t respect others.  Most humans are like that.  The ones who aren’t, 
simply aren’t worth knowing.  In this respect, you get what you give - 
always.

>no reference to topic,

I think we took care of that yesterday.

>no substance but cheap ridicule,

It couldn’t have been too cheap – it lit you up  :-)

>and more importantly, no condos in several thousands of acres of AT 
>corridor buffer!

Again – if you’re gonna say things like that, what reason do we have to 
treat you seriously?

>Yes indeed, I do think I am getting the swing of the campfire after all...

I doubt that.  At one time you said:

>My posting on TP is irrelevant.

The problem with that statement is that you’ve learned habits and ways of 
expression on TP (or perhaps in other places) that are not acceptable on 
at-l.   There are those who inhabit both lists and understand that the two 
are different – and generally they get along very well here.  That’s because 
they’re basically reasonable people who don’t come in here with an agenda 
and try to force it on at-l without regard or respect for those who live 
here.   And they generally understand that being polite and respectful of 
others doesn’t make them or their arguments/beliefs either weak or unworthy.

The voluntary politeness on at-l that you denigrate in your atml post is a 
form of strength that WF wanted for atml.  He tried for about 6 months to 
achieve it and failed – so he decided that he’d force it with the threat of 
excommunication.  But he doesn’t have it - so even with the threat, his list 
doesn’t have it.

Once again – the “tone” of your posts which are not strictly informational 
(and there have been some good informational posts) is combative and 
sometimes brings to mind the behavior of a 3 year-old who’s been refused an 
ice cream cone.  Just because people sometimes don’t agree with you is NOT a 
reason to attack.  It has taken me a while to learn that lesson. I still 
have some hope that you’ll learn it.  I think you “could” be a valued member 
of this list – but there’s no guarantee of that.  Not all of us live up to 
our potential.

Walk softly,
Jim


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