[at-l] It is immoral/perspectives... whatever

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

There was once a time when I thought Weary and I could - or at least should 
- be friends.  We have much in common.  But I think we may be past that 
possibility now.  If not yet, we will be soon.

In response to Orange Bug (who wasn't even talking to him) Weary wrote:
>Am I a terrorist because I drove 250 miles yesterday and reported it on 
>this list? Am I a terrorist because I have said Wingfoot does useful things 
>but would be much more useful were he not so paranoid and self-centered.

And a bunch of other "am I a terrorist" questions.

I might not have used quite that word (terrorist), but since Weary asked the 
question, let's examine the concept.  What is a terrorist?  Or more to the 
point - what are the defining characteristics of terrorist action?  After 
yesterday I think we can all answer that to some degree. The goals of 
terrorists may vary widely, but the tools they use are limited and universal 
– and measurable to some degree.   A terrorist invades spaces where he (or 
she) is unwelcome and the tools they use to achieve their aims are pain, 
fear, destruction - and sometimes death.  Those are the criteria for 
determination of a terrorist action.

Weary has been asked any number of times to cease and desist his political 
crap - to stop abusing the list, to stop the constant preaching, to stop the 
constant nit-picking --- in other words, he's been told that his "message" 
isn't welcome here.  I think that qualifies very nicely as "invasion of 
space where he (or at least his "message") is not welcome".

Let’s put this in different terms – if you were to join a list that was 
dedicated to discussing Beethoven, would you insist that the members of that 
list join ATC, participate in Trail crews and write letters in support of 
your favorite causes?  That’s exactly what you’ve done here – and your 
excuse that the letters AT in the list name require us to follow your lead 
just don’t wash, babe.

So let's try the next one - I won't speak for "everyone" on the list, but I 
can tell you that Weary's constant bullying has caused pain in my household. 
  It should be obvious to the most mindnumb among us that a large number of 
people (and many of the more vocal and valuable people at that) have left 
the list because his (and RnR's) politicization of the list has caused more 
pain and frustration than they’re willing to endure.  His insistence that 
the list as a whole participate in his particular jihad – and to the degree 
that HE requires is entirely incompatible with what this list was intended 
to be.  Weary, you have caused a great deal of pain to a great number of 
people.  When Ginny decides that your posts are worthy only of the delete 
key, you have overstepped your bounds.  And she decided that long ago.

So far you’re not doing well with respect to the “criteria” for defining 
terrorism.

How about fear --- has he used fear?  I think so.  Look at his latest 
statement of his message: “This trail wasn't created easily. It was fought 
for over the decades by dedicated people. It will remain only if dedicated 
people can be found to continue the fight.”

How many understand that that statement is designed to instill the fear that 
the Trail will disappear if those on this list do not join him in his 
personal jihad to “protect the Trail” by adding massive (and undefined) 
amounts of land to the Trail corridor.  If you want a real estimate of 
what’s necessary to protect the Trail, go the latest ATN – the ATC publishes 
the numbers.  And they don’t require the massive efforts that Weary believes 
are necessary.  Nor do they require the kind of tactics that I outlined here 
recently.

Am I personally against the “protection of the Trail”?  Not at all – but I 
also realize that Weary is perfectly willing to destroy this list if it 
would advance his cause by a single voice.  Is that what the membership of 
this list wants – or is willing to endure?   It certainly qualifies as a 
terrorist characteristic under the heading of “destruction”.

So let’s look at “destruction” – what does it take to destroy a list?  It 
takes the elimination of those who understand what the list is, what its 
purpose is, and who have knowledge of the subject of the list.  It takes 
subversion of the conversation such that the topics of conversation no 
longer pertain to the purpose of the list.  It takes the denigration of the 
purpose and/or conversation of the list such that those who are on the list 
for those things fail to post.

I think we covered some of this under the heading of “people driven off the 
list”.   So - how many people have left the list now?  Who are they?  How 
much knowledge has been lost?  How many are still here but no longer post?  
How has the “conversation” on the list changed?  To what purpose?  Has it 
been for the better?

I think the answers are obvious – I think the cause is obvious.

Just to keep things current (or at least recent) take a look at Dick Cook’s 
post.  You blew off Sloetoe’s opinion when he returned from a month on the 
Long Trail – you should have paid more attention to it because he said then 
that the list was being destroyed.  In those words?  No.  But the message 
was there and has continued to be there in more posts that I care to count.

In your own words:
>Perhaps Orange Bug isn't speaking about me at all, though I'm about the 
>only "controversial" one left, who posts regularly.

Yeah – and you don’t get the message in that statement, do you?  If you’re 
the only one left, where did everyone else go?  You meet the criteria for 
“destruction”, Bob.

That leaves only “death”.   Have you caused any deaths of list members, Bob? 
  I think not – although I suspect there are some that you’d like to 
influence in that direction.  But there are two points that I think you’ve 
missed here.  The first is that when you asked yesterday “why we should only 
sit around the campfire…. etc” you tacitly acknowledged the deaths that 
occurred as part of the implementation of your philosophy that protection of 
the Trail overrides all other concerns – including the “human cost”.   While 
you may not have personally pulled the trigger on those people, your 
philosophy, your message (as applied by others) certainly did.  How many 
other deaths have there been for the same reason?  I don’t have an answer to 
that and neither do you.  Do you deny any culpability, Bob?  While I may be 
wrong, I expect you do --- but your cavalier dismissal of those deaths makes 
your fanaticism no less culpable in my estimation.  And that is the final 
criteria that I see for determination of whether you are a terrorist with 
regard to this list.

I won’t call you a “terrorist”, Bob – but your tactics, your attitude, your 
philosophy – and the results of your words and actions most certainly 
qualify for that label.

You said: >Jim and/or Ginny, I don't really want to debate this matter at 
the
>moment.

There is no debate here, Bob.  Only the question as to whether you’re smart 
enough to stop trying to change the list to meet your particular overzealous 
(in fact, fanatical) view of what it “should be”.  It’s not your list, it’s 
ours.  It’s not your prerogative to change this list unilaterally.  It’s 
your privilege to participate – but not to change, not to proselytize, not 
to bully as you have been for this last several months.

And your solution?

You say: “I suggest that those who don't want to read my offerings just hit 
the delete key.  Those who want to debate my terrorist proclivities should 
specify their evidence with more specificity than Jim managed (Ginny has 
already discovered the delete key)in his recent  post on this very trying 
day.”

Sorry, Bob, but that’s unacceptable.  It leaves you free to irritate, 
denigrate, proselytize, bully – and generally dominate the conversation on 
the list without hindrance.  Not acceptable at all.

This list is my “home”, it’s where many of my friends “live”.  And you’ve 
come in and crapped in the living room.  And  now you expect those who live 
here to not only accept that pile of crap and but to also close their eyes 
so they won’t see you do it again – and again – and again – until the living 
room, and indeed the entire house, isn’t fit to live in.

This list is one part of my “family and friends”.  This list was a refuge 
that we, as a group, built, a place where we could come to just be friends, 
without worrying about who was “liberal” or “conservative”, without the 
stress that the world lays on us all every day, generally without bickering 
and backstabbing, but with a common interest in hiking the AT as well as 
other trails.  And you‘ve come in and robbed my friends of that refuge.  
You’ve mugged my wife and my friends and silenced their voices on this list. 
  Does that make you a thief, Bob?

You’ve invaded this list with the intent to appropriate it to your own 
purposes, without the consent, indeed without even the courtesy of 
consulting the list membership.  In fact, you’ve continued to pursue your 
inappropriate and unwelcome agenda even when the list membership has asked 
you to stop.  Does that make you a thief, Bob?

You’ve claimed to dislike theft – how do you justify your own actions with 
respect to this list?   And don’t quote me your “I’m trying to get some of 
you to think seriously about the Trail” line, Bob – that’s nothing short of 
insulting.  It says “None of you people can think your way out of a paper 
bag – only my way of thinking is “serious””.  Really?  I don’t think so, 
Bob.

Is that specific enough for you?

If there are any questions about what I said yesterday, they have yet to 
surface. I think I may have been clear enough for those who have the wit to 
understand plain English – and that includes the vast majority of those on 
this list.  Does it include you?

There is nothing to “debate”, Bob.  There’s only the question of how long it 
will be before I formally ask Ryan to remove you from the list.  I’ve never 
done that before.  I’ve spent 5 months avoiding that action.  And only once 
before has Ryan ever removed “anyone” from the list for any reason.  And 
then two days ago, Ginny told me that I “couldn’t” do that – not that she 
“forbids” it, but because she knows that it violates much of what I am and 
what I believe and live by, for and with.  But even Ginny doesn’t totally 
understand that, as a friend once put it – a “real” person kills their own 
dogs – they don’t farm it out to others.  Meaning that when the real “hard” 
decisions come along one doesn’t walk off and leave the dirty work to 
someone else.  I’ve made those “hard” decisions before, Bob, the ones that 
involved life and death. This one involves the life or death of this list.  
I’ll find it a lot easier to make than some of the others were.

Will Ryan remove you at my request?  I don’t know – and neither do you.  But 
I think if enough others also ask, it just might happen.  How far are you 
willing to force this, Bob?  It was said of yesterdays events that it’s 
impossible to stop a man who’s willing to die for his cause.  What you may 
not realize is that if this list is gonna go down in smoke and flames, I’ll 
be the one to give it coup de grace – not you.  Been there and done that – 
have you?

Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp