[at-l] AT-L Content (Old Master)

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

 OIdMaster@aol.com writes:


> Trail Place's RoksnRoots drones:
> >Today's List content is a good example of why a format change could be 
> >productive.  Most of what filled my mailbox today was not remotely Trail 
> >related and mainly consisted of chat room material.


    ***   No actually, I meant it as a sincere suggestion that a message 
board could improve traffic flow. 

> 
> A list's content is the product of the member's contributions.


     ***  So is a National Scenic Trail's...


> another one of R&R's continual slams at us. Since slithering 
> into our 
> campfire during the decline and fall of Trail Place, R&R has made it clear 
> he 
> doesn't like the at-l, or it's members, or it's content. He's attacked and 
> insulted many posters, he's played fast and loose with cut and paste to 
> twist 
> meanings, he's downplayed and disputed listers contributions to the Trail, 
> and he's trolled in an incessant attempt to disrupt the at-l community. And 
> that's just 'on list', his 'off list' emails are of an even lower standard.
> The at-l is a fine thing as it is. Ryan offers many viewing options, and 
> there's always your very own delete button. When questions are asked, 
> they're 
> answered. When news is learned, it's shared. When you want to chat there 
> are 
> friends listening. When you ask for opinions, you're sure to get them. I 
> like 
> it here, that's why I stay. If you don't like it here, easy instructions on 
> removing yourself from the list are at the <A HREF="http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l";>AT-L Info Page</A>.  
> Or you could just stay, and post over and over and over about how much you 
> hate it here.
> Old
> oidmaster@aol.com
> 


     ***   Oh boy, that's pretty harsh isn't it? Old Master, AT-L is a place 
where members collect around a warm campfire community to respectfully 
discuss Trail topics. Somehow, I don't think what you did above conforms to 
that. I didn't want to honor this unsophisticated hack with a reply, but some 
will probably take you at your word. First, I was here before Trailplace went 
down by my own volition and still am despite the blatant hostility your post 
embodies. I don't describe myself as a Trailplace refugee because that would 
be divisive and contrary to AT-L's stated tone. Nor would I describe you as 
an AT-L troglodyte for the same reasons. I am here as an AT member of my own 
free-will. Besides, it's against AT-L to have to justify being here.
 
     Your foolish attempt to sell me as an AT-L hater and malcontent is 
equally inaccurate. I won't lie, I do wish AT-L was more proactive in Trail 
advocacy and conservation activity, but your short sell of me above is just 
plain wrong. Although I don't merge well with some of the programs preferred 
in here, I certainly do enjoy much of what is discussed on the List. I like 
to think that I still possess a free-will and mind of my own when on the 
List. If I've cut & paste to debate points, I don't see the sin in it, many 
others do. Your version sounds like "he's one of them book readin' slickers". 
Club me on the head with the List OM. 
 
     I was worried that my post would be seen as a 'troll'. No, it wasn't. I 
meant it as a way to show how a message board could improve site reception. I 
think you're overreacting. Some appear to feel that anything that contests 
accepted views is automatically a 'troll'. I call it productive debate. OM 
has dispensed of that need in his interpretation. I don't appreciate your 
appraising me as only interested in disrupting AT-L. I have enough Trail 
background to be above that. But that's besides the point. I think others who 
have seen my posts on wildlife and other Trail matters will know that isn't 
true. I've seen many of my posts replied to by Listers who took an interest 
in the topic, including yourself...

    My history on the List could be described as trying to prove why 
Trailplace didn't deserve the shunning it was receiving despite its owners 
approach. We debated along, with me taking many broadsides (like the one 
here) after attempting to prove a valid thread of relevancy to my advocacy 
apology. My case came down to many waging outright challenges to TP's methods 
and effectiveness. They were quite brutal and not very objective. It was 
clear a guarded dislike for anything WF was being undertaken to uphold the 
blockade. When several letters were produced completely and undeniably 
proving TP's worth, suddenly the interest stopped cold dead. So much for 
honest pursuit of truth on an open AT site I guess...   I suspect the above 
is in reaction to that. That is why, when I see quotes like, "he's downplayed 
and disputed listers contributions to the Trail" aimed at me, I am confounded 
by the lack of restraint in light of the previous incidence. Frankly, the 
rest is more of the same and is really what should be considered for 
discontinuance... 

     In any case, I would hope that at minimum AT-L would be a place where 
those who love the Trail and speak their consciences would be safe from being 
attacked and slandered in such a list-rules-violating and offensive way. 
Perhaps the question here should be why Old Master reacts with such a vicious 
attack when somebody suggests a format improvement? Is AT-L a place where 
people are forced to agree with a self-imposed majority who go to lengths to 
squeeze out persons who spoke their AT minds successfully, or is it an open 
forum welcome to all those who take the Trail to heart and stay on topic? You 
tell me Old Master... I can't seem to reconcile how a group that describes 
itself as the open forum where people aren't banned is so quick to ask people 
to leave. Why is it that trolling, antisocial, subversive old R 'n R hasn't 
ever done that to any campfire member? 


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