[at-l] topic police... I'll say it ---- having been.....

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

RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>    ***  Be honest Kahley. Look at the traffic here. A good percentage of 
>it deals with gear. What you are really talking about is a core of 
>individuals who consider themselves the operators and speakers for AT-L. 
>Since I see nowhere where Ryan appointed you or anyone else site moderator 
>I can't see where you get the right to assume a steering position for such 
>site matters...

And you should say "Thank you" to Ryan for that.  He runs other lists that 
have moderators - and you'd have been ejected from any of those lists long 
ago. One of the reasons this list has never needed a moderator has 
specifically been that "core of individuals" you seem to object to.  Maybe 
it's time for at-l to acquire a moderator?  As for Kahley's "right", she has 
a hell of a lot more than you, both by longevity and by wisdom.


>    ***   The only real discussion being driven from the boards is Trail 
>philosophy (an inherent AT component and thoroughly "on-topic"). I 
>challenge  you to show me a single instance where any conversation was 
>driven from the board by Trail backers discussing ideological issues.

How about Wild Bill and Pittsburgh?  How about my wife who no longer posts 
here even though she has more Trail experience than you and Weary combined?  
When was the last time Red posted here?  Where are the other voices that are 
no longer heard here?

Why do you think that's so?


>The answer is clearly to allow any on-topic AT issue without the
>disrupting protests some feel necessary to maintain the site. I believe the 
>more pertinent question would be how negativizing Trail advocacy wherever 
>it appears could possibly help the Trail? This is merely a Trail defeating 
>schism designed to make ignoring critical Trail needs acceptable...

On topic?  This was conceived and operated as a HIKING forum long before you 
showed up.  Ideology is off-topic on at-l.  And Trail Advocacy has been 
offered its own "home", separated from all that annoying "chit-chat" and 
"trail talk".  And the "premier" Trail Advocate is objecting?

It was suggested long ago that you and/or Weary start your own list where 
you could gather those who were sympatico.  You were both offered the 
technical help you'd need to get it off the ground.  And you prabably could 
have found help from those who enabled WF to operate.  But you both rejected 
the suggestions - and the help.  And that rejection, in and of itself, 
translates specifically as: "at-l" is a "captive audience" where we (Bob and 
RnR) can fish without needing a license, where we're immune to expulsion 
(something you didn't have on atml, did you?), where (if we can drown out 
the other voices or drive them off the list - as you have to so many) we can 
proselytize without restriction or opposition regardless of the logical, 
moral or ethical merit of our "message", where we can (like Wingfoot) steal 
material and people (advocates) without having to work for them.

The word that comes immediately to mind is "slimy".

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com