[at-l] The Truth (Warning: Wingfoot topic included)

[cleek@cleekhouse.com (Billie H. Cleek)]

You know, RnR, you really are quite verbose.  This post is an excellent
example of what Kahley was speaking.  Do you know why church preachers are
often so damned boring?  Because they go on and on and on about a simple
message.  It's not necessary.  It makes it a pain to read.  I'm all for your
right to talk about serious issues, and I really don't believe anyone on
this list is against talking about serious issues.   However, your methods
of conversation come across as entirely too wordy, accusatory, and you come
across as one that doesn't consider others' ideas, but instead instinctively
reacts and rejects anything that comes up simply so you may argue.  Just
consider that for a bit before you reply.

One more thing that I've gotta stay about ol' WF -- you said his main fault
is, "His main fault is reacting to deliberate anti*intellectual feedback in
an annihilating way."  What a bunch of crap.  He is absolutely against any
type of intellectual feedback. His "anti*intellectual" stance is exactly
what drives people away from him.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-l-admin@mailman.backcountry.net
> [mailto:at-l-admin@mailman.backcountry.net]On Behalf Of
> RoksnRoots@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: kahley7@ptd.net
> Cc: AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [at-l] The Truth
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>