[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] R 'n R's Apology For Traditionalism
In a message dated 6/13/01 4:03:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> 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?
2) How, given the earlier post by Paddler, can you say that the scales are
tipped in WF's direction on this matter?
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/plain (text body -- kept)