[at-l] Emperor Jim

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

  Jim wrote:



> There are other versions - one of which is that he's Bipolar and trying self 
> 
> treatment with alcohol.  And that didn't come from OB but from another list 
> 
> member.


    ***   I guess if you can't answer his thoughts you can try to malign him 
with personal attacks? See the problem here Jim is that I try to express a 
difficultly explained translation of MacKaye's higher intentions and I end up 
being the target of a barrage of personal invective that I then answer in 
kind and end up being cited for being "disruptive" or against the list. 
Sometimes I'm not sure if this is deliberate enticement to get me to explode 
on the site and get chopped, or you really aren't grasping what I'm saying. 
That is why I'm trying to stick to the topic and avoid this nonsense. 
     In any case, what you wrote about me personally above here is out of 
bounds and off limits as far as ANY list's rules. It shows how far some will 
go when they can't succeed in their arguments. It has nothing to do with the 
topic and is pretty low to the point of violation. It speaks more about 
yourself than I...



  RnR's perspective and vision are static - and not even his own, but 
> what he acquired from (by his own words) a single reading of selected 
> passages by MacKaye while sitting on WF's porch.  "Selected passages"???  
> What a crock -- translated that means passages selected to fit WF's 
> particular biases about the Trail.  RnR's "vision" is WF's vision.  He 
> doesn't even have the intelligence to form his own.


     ***   Did it ever dawn on you that some of the things WF believed were 
accurate to the Trail and its mission? Wingfoot was neutral on MacKaye when I 
discussed it on ATML. These ideas are mostly my own from my understanding of 
the Trail what I believe MacKaye was saying. As far as your claims above, I 
feel reluctant to feel obligated to justify myself to such sneering 
ignorance. You see Jim, if you read my posts about MacKaye for the last few 
days you would have noticed that they deal with actual Trail realities and 
how they relate to the Trail's history and environmental objective. Your 
posts (and OB's), on the other hand, seem to be a hostile assault on my 
person rather than what I'm saying. If you care to notice, for all the lack 
of intelligent originality you claim, neither yourself nor OB mentions a 
single word about MacKaye or how I related him. Almost as if you never read 
(or understood) a word. Jim, both MacKaye's view of the AT and ATC's current 
view are good enough for me. They are certainly nothing I would describe as 
"static"...




  The only thing he has 
> is a fanaticism that's out of tune with both the Trail and with hiking - to 
> say nothing of this list.


      ***   Except for the fact that that "fanaticism" built the AT. I 
suppose you've revised that and know better now. No, Jim, unfortunately, what 
is out of tune with the Trail is taking a property rights perspective and 
consistently coming down on the side of developers as you do on this List. I 
have yet to see you describe the conservation side of the AT and how that 
fits into a Trail member's view. The only thing I've seen you say is that the 
acquisition agents are hurting the Trail and it should be back out on the 
roads where development gets thicker every year. I'm sorry Jim, but when a 
warm fuzzy list pranker makes a post implying MacKaye was pro Saddleback 
condos from his writings and others happily agree -it ain't me who's out of 
touch... (you never answer these points btw) These are valid AT points -not 
"insults to the list members", which is just a little too conveniently vague 
for my sensibilities...


> 
> If you want to insult the list as a whole, Weary, surely you can do better 
> than claiming that we're not smart enough to accept a second-hand "vision" 
> that its most vocal disciple can't even adequately defend.  Personally, RnR 
> 
> has failed to convince me of anything 


     ***  On the contrary, I feel I answered the points well enough to 
receive this kind of twaddle as a response. I'm the one who provided actual 
Trail related information in my posts to those who questioned it. You, on the 
other hand have only offered this topic-unrelated blown smoke...



> 
> He's failed to produce ANY evidence to support his contentions, he can't 
> even come up with references from MacKaye's writings.  Even I can do that.
> 

      *** I believe what I said in my posts was true to MacKaye. It's obvious 
from just reading them. This isn't a courtroom Jim. Why are you in such a 
rage over a simple relation of MacKaye's AT writings? Let me see... a man who 
doesn't mention a single MacKaye word when answering my posts demanding 
references??? I myself prefer healthy intellectual curiosity over draconian 
obstructing of the Trail's precious philosophical origins...



> He's insulted nearly everybody who's ever answered ANY of his posts (with 
> the possible exception of "you").  


     ***   Um, if you take standing for your views as insult, then you need 
to be a little less sensitive. Jim, are you posing that no list member has 
ever insulted me for just posting an AT belief? Or are you trying to justify 
a lynch mob because I cited some valid AT ideas that I felt needed exposure? 
That isn't a fair summation of my efforts Jim. I feel it's mostly a temper 
tantrum from your failing to achieve a HYOH, Hikers Papers redefinition of 
the AT against MacKaye. The AT is not proprietary to those who assume to 
speak for this list. It is, however, to it's traceable history and 
documentation as it exists in its writings, constitution, and finer purpose. 
If that conflicts with your 'rootin tootin' 'blowin smoke' list posse militia 
version of the AT, then it's YOU who needs to get with what the Trail's about 
and back off. Occupying list space with ruminations over somebody's 
unworthiness is not how I myself would approach the AT... 



> If you really believe that he's an effective advocate in any way, then I 
> think you need to find an elementary logic course - or see a good 
> psychiatrist.  I can recommend one but I'm not sure he'd agree to take you 
> on.
> 


       ***   When did this come down to my effectiveness as an advocate? 
Really Jim, I would prefer you answered my thoughts on MacKaye directly to my 
points if you thought they were off. The rest just detracts from what I was 
trying to say and from this List... 


       Benton MacKaye intended from the start for the AT to be a place of 
environmental consciousness and the Trail's corridor to be a living 
sociological mechanism. I bet you and OB really hate hearing that (as do 
developers). Let's stomp MacKaye back into his dusty old box so we can 
continue throwing smashmallows at each other without interruption...


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