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

[at-l] Evidence Of Trailplace Effectiveness



In a message dated 6/18/01 8:25:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bullard@northnet.org writes:

<< I get similar replies to letters that I write directly to my 
 congressmember, senator, etc.  I can't remember how many times I've "made a 
 real difference".  That doesn't mean that I can claim or deserve sole 
 credit (or blame, depending on your point-of-view) for the outcome.  It's 
 called courtesy.  You write nice letters to supporters thanking them for 
 their assistance.  Again, you're missing the point.  No one said he did 
 nothing.  But there's no point in restating it all.  You're obviously still 
 not listening. >>

    I'm tired so I'll try and answer. I find it unbearably dishonest to 
demand proof, then get it, and still come up with the same old denials that 
were answered to by the begged proof. I appears that Wingfoot could come down 
off the mountain with Abraham Lincoln's ghost vouching for him and the AT*L 
response would be that he faked it. It is obvious to me that no possible 
admission to anything positive from him is going to come about. You speak to 
me as if I have failed to live up to some expectation when you won't even 
allow a begrudging admission that this letter disproves most of the invective 
leveled at our friend claiming charlatanism and fraud. I find the E.D. of ATC 
at least a minimally credible reference. ATC has the decency and integrity to 
acknowledge a sincere Trail effort. Other responses do nothing but seek the 
nearest excuse for marginalizing. 
     The fed doesn't just give money when the door is knocked, it follows 
protocols and procedures to appropriate or requisition the funds for public 
purchases. If the expenditure is legally challenged proof of public interest 
is then given. We have AT*L members lamenting the woes of property owners 
while WF is out there saving the Trail. Then, even worse, after he has gotten 
it done you have persons  (whose only input in this process is to try and 
defeat the doer) then try and pass some sort of false sense of community will 
off for the aimed hostility the are busy working on instead of assisting 
those who actually DO help the AT.
    Yes, this could be a courtesy remark, but it also could be due 
recognition with an inner held knowledge that Trailplace tipped the funding 
scale in the AT's direction. The fact that the worst description is given in 
every case shows the posters are not really objectively seeking the truth and 
proves what I was saying all along. I know I won't have to wait up waiting 
for these posters to find out the truth, since they are not really interested 
in it anyway. This doesn't help the AT. How people who so strongly express a 
special insight into the AT can justify trying to undo such a needed 
grassroots AT advocacy site while it proves to fill a needed niche in AT 
interests is beyond me.