[at-l] R 'n R's Apology For Traditionalism

[DaRedhead@aol.com (DaRedhead@aol.com)]

In a message dated 6/13/01 4:03:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time, 
RoksnRoots@aol.com writes:


> This is exactly what I am referring to when I assert that the scale tips to 
> Wingfoot in this matter as having gotten to the point despite his unpopular 
> methods when others were busy splitting hairs on exactly who was opening 
> their eggs correctly.  I feel there is a greater weight or onus you are 
> avoiding for purposes of community politics, or list pandering, rather than 
> Trail advocacy.
> 

How many more times are you going to say, in a different way each time, that 
the people on this list are NOT doing anything for Trail advocacy, before you 
tell me just *how* you come to that conclusion?  Do you think that if you 
just say it often enough we'll start to believe it, even though we know 
better?  Because the only thing you can point to is that we didn't like how 
WF handled Saddleback - which has nothing to do whatsoever with how we feel 
about Trail advocacy, or what we do about it, or what we did about the 
Saddleback issue, without threats.  If you want to be taken seriously, and 
are so interested in people answering point by point, please answer this one. 
 Because even though I don't always disagree with what you are saying, you 
come right back to this same type of statement, and I lose what respect I was 
gaining for you in the things you were saying.  

If you are trying to say that disagreeing with WF's methods equals a lack of 
commitment to Trail advocacy, then I understand that your only intention is 
to put us down again, as that is patently ridiculous.  But if you have 
something else, some post, some something, that shows that we are not serious 
about said advocacy, or not doing anything about it - please point it out.  
You make comments about Jim's post, and his intentions - but Jim never posted 
anything that wasn't true.  And if you called him on it, he explained *why* 
it was true.  So how about you explain to me how you arrived at deciding that 
we aren't doing anything for the Trail?

I wonder how you can make the above sentence in good faith after hearing from 
someone who was *there*, not a rumor, but first hand witness, who said that 
WF's methods are not taken seriously by the powers that be because it is so 
easy to fake -thereby causing those poor souls who used his method under 
threat of removal to have little or no impact on the entire issue.  More 
people on this list wrote personal letters and emails than the few who 
submitted to WF's edict, which a first hand witness said *were* taken more 
seriously.  So how are the "scales tipped to WF" in this matter?

In case my questions got lost in my paragraphs, and so you can respond 
directly to them without bothering to respond to everything else but -

1) In what way has this list, or the people on it, shown that we are *not* 
serious about Trail advocacy?

and

2) How, given the earlier post by Paddler, can you say that the scales are 
tipped in WF's direction on this matter?

The Redhead


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---