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

[at-l] Flame Response : Cliff

Well, this is a good example of why "trolling" has been attached to all of 
these threads. There is a common mistake in how you have dealt with this 
"discussion" or "debate" (not that either term is really applicable). You 
respond and inflame those who maintain the belief that you are either 
insecure or ill-informed. Those who attempt to engage you regarding the 
process and history of events are ignored. Sir, you are a bully.

You understand exactly that the issue has nothing to do with whether WF 
advocates effectively for the AT or not. You understand that the issue 
involves mercurial, bizarre and autocratic behavior that has saddened many 
who have called WF "friend." It does WF no service to defend or attack his 
grandiosity, as he is not able to hear such comments however they are 
voiced. It also serves the AT community poorly to have such divisiveness 
inflamed and maintained by this continuing drama. I think that WF serves a 
useful purpose but falls short of his potential, alienating those who could 
use his drive for leadership. I marvel at the thought of what could be 
accomplished if WF and others could share the stage.

I suspect that there is another agenda in your continuing blather about 
history and traditionalism. I think that you also have potential for 
leadership and advocacy, but that your process limits your credibility and 
audience. I doubt that you will bother to respond to this, much less take 
heed. I wish you well, but I hope that my other friends will avoid 
underestimating you, your understanding and your intentions.


At 02:49 AM 6/22/2001 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/19/01 4:37:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>chaynes@javanet.com writes:
><<  God man are you that insecure that you have to
>  constantly have to keep carrying on. >>
>     I'll go easy on you because, from your post, it is obvious you don't get
>very deep into Trail history or topics.