[at-l] "AT-List mostly doesn't talk about... issues because...."

[Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> (Bob Cummings)]

"...Personally I admire your political savvy, the work you have done for the AT
in the past ..."

 Thanks for the thought. But the only political savvy, if any, I possess is
 persistence. I know from long experience that nothing that is worthwhile is
 easy in this world. I fought for most of my working life with editors who
 argued, "you did a story on Bigelow last year.... You wrote about the St. John
 two years ago -- or last month." But I noticed that only when I persisted did
 useful things happen. Nothing is more useless than a simple reminder of an
 issue. It takes ten stories; ten messages before anything happens. As the
 administrator of the "other" list well knows. He put his entire list on the
 line in an effort to stir people out of their lethargy over Saddleback, ousting
 anyone who refused to respond. Some think of this as simply an ego trip. With
 all his faults, I think of it as an act of consumate courage.

 As you point out people are busy. It is difficult to get their attention. Only
 persistence, even badgering if you insist, works. However, after a diligent
 effort, I know when to quit. This list simply doesn't want to be reminded of
 political problems dealing with the trail. You are are right. It makes members
 feel guilty about not doing more. And when that happens they tend to strike out
 blindly with silly accusations like  "terrorist."

  I think my assessment of the tolerance of this list to deal with "political"
  matters to be far more accurate than yours. However, I'll be extremely pleased
  to learn that your analysis is correct. However, I tend to believe actions,
  rather than words. As a very wise person told me once, "I can't hear your
  words, your actions are speaking too loudly.

  However, until I see evidence that you are right about the tolerance of this
  list, I've resolved to confine my remarks to non controversial matters. The
  exception is when people say things that conscience demands a response, such
  as my response to someone who called political issues like eminent domain
  "nonsense," a response you objected to. You thought I was simply welcoming a
  new list member. I apologize for that. I should have changed the subject
  field.

  I had dual goals: to remind that eminent domain has been a useful tool in
  preserving the land on which the trail exists and to explain to a newcomer my
  perception of what the list will and will not tolerate. As I've already said,
  I hope I'm wrong in the latter evaluation.

  Weary