[at-l] The Truth

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

In a message dated 8/10/01 7:01:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kahley7@ptd.net 
writes:

<< The only thing that keeps your meaning from being understood is
 that you don't seem to be able to explain yourself in a clear manner.
 Trying to blame it on any other reason is a cop out....


    I think it is interesting that Kahley writes in a previous post that she 
is "more tolerant to posts that are strictly designed to aim at the heart as 
flames" and then proceeds in the next post to aim a flame at the heart 
herself. To others who simply see this thread as "bickering", I can't share 
in your apparent belief that an AT list should remain a place free from 
controversy and be completely serving to your need for 'pleasantness'. The 
world doesn't work that way, nor should the AT. If this site seeks to avoid 
any kind of Trail conflict it should state so up front and simply exclude any 
serious Trail topics. If not, it should open up and respect posts that many 
Trail involved people of credibility and concern consider important to 
themselves and the Trail. I'm not the only one to say this.
 
    If this was truly the problem, and my words were that confusing, I would 
suspect some of these critics would at least highlight something and ask for 
clarification or at least involve some substantial content. No, that doesn't 
happen because the real cop*out happening here is the avoidance of going back 
to what they know I was saying and facing it. M. Fuller managed, so did 
Addleton off*list, and, in his infinitely questioning way, Jim did too. He 
did so off list because he was afraid of the ongoing pressure (which is 
clearly represented above) to put down and chase away any topic which 
suggests that certain behaviors or attitudes are identifiable as being 
contrary to the Trail. Compounding this is a contemporary fad of cyber 
community with all its rules and expectations of conformity. Look, this site, 
as far as I can see it, is the most active AT site on the net. Whether you 
believe it or not, this site will form attitudes and views that will then 
return to the Trail. This process of shedding any accurate reflection of 
Trail conflicts or problems by means of the expectation of superficial chat 
room rules will only send people back to the Trail with a less than positive 
influence for long term Trail advocacy. I worry about that when I see 
attempts of Trail connected persons to express Trail imperatives met with 
freely encouraged derision. The net possesses great potential for Trail 
organization and advocacy. I hate to see it abused by posters like Steve 
Landis and others who seem to prefer see it as a whipping post when more 
substantive uses are available.

    Why Weary chooses to call my posts inarticulate when so much is at stake 
I don't know. But even if they are, I think it was what I was aiming at that 
is more important than being bullied over form. That is obviously a crack 
these detractors are working to try and break my intent. Focusing on what 
words I use to deny their content is a straw that won't hold the weight of 
what I said. Again, these people deny that they try to push serious AT topics 
off the board, and on the next turn do exactly that. An ATL poster wrote me 
telling me my message was clear to him and that I should ignore posts like 
the above because they are simply motivated by anti*WF feelings.

    If you need any of the above explained I would be glad to do so.   

 
 <You say we can't understand you because we hate dan, yet we
 have noooo problem understanding his positions and writings.
 Why do you think the "dan factor" doesn't preclude our comprehension
 of_his_writing yet it does for yours?>

   *** This is childish.
 
 

   *** Addleton wrote me saying that ATL in no way was to be compared to the 
AT and I was out of line in expecting it to be. Dan, I feel, at least makes 
an attempt in the right direction. His main fault is reacting to deliberate 
anti*intellectual feedback in an annihilating way. If list users push an 
uncooperative attitude towards Trail advocacy, then where are we left when it 
comes time to respond? HYOH? That isn't specific enough!
 
    But, really, your remark here is more like an adolescent comeback than 
something deserving response vs what I wrote.  
 
 <And this refrain of 'ya'll are mean to me cause you hate dan'  is getting 
 really old.
 In part, because most of us don't hate dan and in part because you bring your
 treatment on yourself.  dan has many faults and but being responsible for 
your
 lack of  socializing  or communication skills is not one of them.

     *** This is utter nonsense and is only an undignified flame. If this is 
how you interpret what I wrote, it isn't me who isn't getting it. If you 
would like to ask me something about my views I would be glad to respond. 
 
 BTW....did you know that my Eudora spellchecker always wants to change
 RoksnRoots to restrooms?   Go figure.....
  >>

     *** Kahley * obviously feeling that it is safe here to steer the 
conversation towards witty comebacks, personal attacks, and ridicule in lieu 
of responding respectfully, or to the subject matter at hand. 

    Dan has nothing to do with this.