[at-l] Roks, Roots, and other inconvenciences..

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

In a message dated 1/18/02 4:04:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
baltimorejack@hotmail.com writes:


> .  One DOES not have 
> the right to say whatever one wishes, wherever one wishes.  One usually 
> tempers one's speech with tact, diplomacy, decency, and common sense.


    ***  Yes of course, but there is also a palpable degree of latitude both 
on the Trail and in the Trail universe I prefer to have reflected at any 
Trail venue. I'm sure Warren assumes a certain Trail license on these 
grounds. If you don't want to discuss that is up to you. Maybe you should at 
least be informed. Wildman come down from the hills -you know...


> 
>      3. I see that you acknowledge that you weren't in the audience to 
> personally witness the events in question


    ***   Whoa Jack! Slow down. I provided that up front and disclaimed the 
fact that I was speaking in a general apology from my knowledge of Warren and 
his ways. Take it easy here, you seem to feel that I'm contradicting your 
version or calling you a liar. I was simply trying to explain Warren's odd 
way of expressing otherwise esoteric or even inspirationally imaginative 
concepts. He connects those to the Trail in a weird sort of mystical 
theatricality that could look goofy to those who don't detect it (I'm not 
saying it's above you or you're clamping your national ass cheeks so tightly 
that it's shutting off your brain). 
       BJack, although I must defer to your being there and my not, I would 
be remiss to not say that I feel an equally misplaced over-seriousness (in 
light of both the Trail's and Warren's understood tone) has overtaken the old 
atmosphere of mischievous liberty I always found on the Trail. Sad to see the 
Gathering has lost this.  

> 
>     4.  You complete your letter with the extraordinary comment:  "BJack, 
> don't burn the stage because you were offended by the play....."
>         Ya know, Roks, once upon a time I reviewed theater and film, and 
> the 
> absolute CARDINAL, unforgivable sin was to attempt to review a theatrical 
> or cinematic work that the reviewer hadn't actually seen.  Writers tried 
> this, of course, usually, with dire results:  They made fools out of 
> themselves in print, and frequently lost their jobs.


   ***  You are unfair. I specifically admitted that he may have gone too 
far. I think you understood my attempt at mitigating this incident from the 
outside. As a matter of fact, I feel you understood it so well that you 
resorted to these convenient detours of the gist of my points in order to 
disqualify me before you had to acknowledge them. Again, I didn't hear 
exactly what he said, but the form of this particular action conforms to a 
"killing the messenger" profile. Before I hear the predictable responses -NO 
I don't back Al-Qaeda or subtly approve of what they did. Murder is murder 
and is always damned. It's just that Warren pushes the envelope of 
conventional understanding and tests the bounds. He does that (as I see it) 
to blow out preconceptions on all levels, attaching it to the AT experience 
so to speak. I suggest if Warren misjudged something it was probably the 
willingness of some in the crowd to run him off the stage before absorbing 
what he was saying the way he intended. Yes, I know I wasn't there, but I 
feel like I am now... 


  In short, Roks, please 
> give some thought to further discussion of this, but at the very least, it's 
> more than a little amusing to see you admonishing me about burning the 
> stage 
> when you yourself were not privy to the performance.  
> 

     *** Your writings are very intelligent BJack. I'm surprised that you 
don't understand the concept of *diplomacy*. It's where an uninvolved party 
comes in to try and assist in the defusing of a troubling situation. Let's 
just say from what I know of Warren, ALDHA, the AT -and even yourself I have 
a pretty good idea. 


<Final note, R&R.  You have the habit of making provocative posts, 
<repeated ad nauseum, that invariably involve your vainly trying to hammer 
<away at points that others either don't see, don't agree with, or simply 
<don't wish to further discuss.  Please don't take it personally if I do not 
<continue this dialogue 


    ***   Ah BJack, really I'd rather have you as a friend [if not for 
self-preservation alone ;) ]  But really, I'm hurt by this because it's an 
unprovoked and uncalled for side-slam. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like you 
did it not because my opinions were so outrageous that they flared your 
disgust, but because I spoke my mind. Sort of like opening up your vulnerable 
inside while taking a risk with much-needed challenging views and getting 
socked in the ego as a reward. 
     When I came onto the AT internet I was thrilled because it looked like 
the chance to rally & organize the 'mystique' and heartfelt love of the AT 
was finally available. My picture of the Trail community was one where such a 
cause and necessary accompanying commitment would be automatically gathered 
and certain questions would not have to be asked. What I actually ended up 
encountering was a rote intransigence and entrenched dislike for the 
progressive, unconventional thinking necessary to properly conceive of what 
is basically a vast conservation experiment (the AT). I'm dismayed by what I 
see to be a collapsing of the elevating spirit which originally lifted the 
entire project into being. Frankly, the tone is more of a parliament floor 
debate or political forum where a pol has exposed himself to public rebuke. 
Like a bunch of snooty stiffs launching a political attack rather than a 
"Trail Conference".
      BJack, in my life I credit myself with a modicum of wisdom and 
experience. What those senses are telling me, from your response, is that 
maybe my points hit home. Like Jim, either my opinions are not worth 
responding to, or they perhaps bear some truth. One thing that always makes 
you suspect though, is persons who preemptively excuse themselves from 
answering. At minimum it leaves the impression that one is better off not or 
incapable. Forgive me if I'm presumptuous or in the wrong...

     Now let's wind this down so I don't take more boardspace than is my 
share...


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---