[at-l] Advocacy List And "Newbies"

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

In a message dated 6/18/2002 11:31:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:


> Shane -
> That's not theory - it's fact.  And it doesn't just apply to newbies.  My 
> wife has 4 thruhikes and over 16,000 miles under her boots - and rarely 
> posts on at-l even though she was a major contributor to the list until a 
> year ago.

  
        

   *** I feel it's entirely unfair for a group inside AT-L to be isolated and 
criticized, yet be disallowed to respond in defense. Up to now of all the 
list members being accused of drifting off topic, I've noticed that is those 
who are making the complaints who seem to disregard the on-topic request yet 
at the same time preach respect for Ryan and following his rules. Of the 
people I suspect are the objects of this move I have yet to see a single one 
of them vilify and deride with such scornful contempt to the degree I've seen 
the self-proclaimed 'victims' do with impunity and no "off-topic" warnings or 
citing of their posts. If you remember, it was when the discussion got to 
this point last time that Ryan threw down the "off-topic" rule. If you care 
to notice, it wasn't me or any of the accused who brought the list back to 
this situation again. 
     If your wife wants to post or not post is up to her. For you to sell 
some kind of fear of posting image is merely posing and doesn't cut it. I 
remember you tried the same trick with Redhead and she posted in my defense 
as a response. I know posing when I see it, this is it. In the same light I 
wonder how many maintainers or AT thinkers fear posting on AT-L because they 
fear this kind of harassment? The site was doing fine until this came up...  




  How many others no longer post?  How many of them have "real" 
> information to share - and aren't posting because they have no use for the 
> present "tone" of the conversation?  And there are those who've tried to 
> tell us that the increased level of stridency, conflict and nastiness on 
> the 
> list doesn't affect the list content, structure or information flow.
> 
> Bull.


     ***  This sounds like "tone" as an excuse for ducking issues to me. The 
same question could equally be asked, "how many have shown increased interest 
because substantial Trail issues are given fair airing and the AT 
environmental side has been accurately represented?" For someone so sensitive 
about 'tone' Jim you post in a less than merry way yourself.
    As long as the questions are being asked, why don't we check how speaking 
of Trail advocacy in such negative terms and portraying it as a detriment to 
a Trail concerned group affects the AT? Not AT-L, but the AT! It's a cart 
before the horse issue. As much respect as I have for the great experiences 
people get from the Trail and the magical universe that grows around it, I 
can't seem to understand how some would directly attack the basis upon which 
the Trail exists? It seems like a contradiction to me and a failure to take 
up what provided that magic in a meaningful way. Magic is great, but what 
will be here in a 100 years to show for it? What exactly are you passing 
along to the 'newbies'?    



> 
> But let's get back to the newbies. There was a time when newbies showed up 
> here regularly - asked questions, got answers, went off to thruhike (or 
> maybe section hike), came back, and participated in helping others to do 
> what they'd done.  That's what this list is about.  Some of us have watched 
> 
> that cycle for a number of years. 


     *** If the List built up to that state and people were happy with it 
more power to them. I wasn't here. But I have to ask myself as a person who 
found fascination in the Trail, learned about it, hiked it, and eventually 
maintained it, what exactly is the Trail and what is the Trail community? 
When I honestly answer that I find that the community is a varied and diverse 
cross section of people and hikers who for one reason or other show interest 
in the AT. What I saw the list moderator ask in keeping with the list is that 
members try to stay on topic and not disturb a sense of community. When I 
ponder that and look at the actual community, I find that when it's honestly 
and objectively considered, it contains some members who are "strident", 
god-fearing activists and promoters for the AT. Not only that, they are Trail 
maintainers, overseers, land preservers, and advocates with credible Trail 
backgrounds who speak with knowledge on Trail matters. Objectively observed, 
I find it hard to see these people as the subversive front they've been 
accused of being by some. I think they're just talking Trail as it is amongst 
the Trail community. Straight and real and without any magic kingdom 
prerequisite. Certainly that can't be anything wrong for the AT... 
      There is another special cycle that some have watched through the years 
as well. It was the cycle of hard working volunteerism, sacrificing and 
fighting the tough battles for the AT that put the Trail there in the first 
place. Put the Trail there for hikers to enjoy and experience their Trail 
magic within. That process didn't happen magically without strife or 
disagreement. Still, some feel it gives them an equally fulfilling sense of 
magic in its own way. One that is certainly worth exposing to the AT 
community. A community that would then possess a more wholesome understanding 
and respect for the Trail they love... 

 

 And we've watched it broken by a few 
> (very few) people who have no interest in the "real" purpose of the list - 
> only in their own agendas.  For 6 years this was a "hiking" list.  We 
> talked 
> about gear and weather and the AT and how to hike it - and about other 
> trails, about where we'd been and what we'd seen, about problems and 
> solutions.


     *** No matter how it is phrased, I have yet to see anyone justify 
separating the List and its agenda from the AT. I think it's a self-defeating 
act to try and I wonder who is committing the greater interruption of agenda 
here? Is having a special interpretation of the AT that gives such pleasure 
really worth campaigning against all other forms of Trail involvement for? Is 
it a recruitment that will cost the AT in the long run by isolating and 
labeling its more productive elements as disruptive and conflicting with our 
sense of Trail? Would a total more inclusive representation, however that 
arrives, be a more healthy Trail model to promote as a Trail community?  



> 
> We even occasionally talked about things like Saddleback - but without the 
> stridency and insistence that such things are more important than anything 
> else that could possibly be talked about here.

 
     *** Why do these list movements always occur after someone has argued 
their points well on the List? My spin on this is that it really isn't a 
concern over List tone, but an end around after realizing that some points 
don't fair well after being critically analyzed in Trail terms. Some won't be 
able to float their views as easily and don't like it. The Trail's 
environmental structure is too confining for HYOH freedom. What I'm sensing 
here is that some considered themselves AT-L personalities and took pride in 
being a noted Trail voice or source of advice and want to keep it that way. 
Even if that meant giving advice that didn't necessarily jibe with Trail 
definitions or desired Trail goals. The worst thing that could happen to this 
franchise would be alien groups coming in and telling people that maybe they 
weren't doing the best thing Trail-wise and could perhaps reconsider the 
Trail in a different way (the original way). It's obvious to me that such 
petty, overblown concerns suddenly become important when one's own personal 
politics suddenly become in obvious conflict with the AT and its purpose when 
it is adequately explained. Sometimes forcing an issue and working out a 
consensus by AT guidelines is more productive than making everybody feel 
good. Sounds to me like somebody wants to tell people building condos on the 
AT is OK and doesn't want to be challenged. Maybe this is a case of an inside 
list circle not wanting the List to actually be free to the point where they 
lose control to a more objective representation of the AT?  


> 
> Two points - the first being that the list has failed for the last year to 
> achieve its purpose - and that if it continues to fail, it will die.  It 
> may 
> take several years, but if it serves no useful purpose, then it won't hold 
> the membership and it will slowly fade away.


     *** This strikes me as more melodrama. If it is true then it's a 
legitimate problem. I don't think chopping off a heightened level of 
legitimate Trail advocacy is the answer to that though. There was a list that 
provided a huge source of newbie practical information. I believe it was 
boycotted by you...



> 
> The second point is that Ryan is apparently not happy with the present 
> situation.  It's his list - not mine or yours or anyone elses.  This is the 
> 
> second time he's offered to set up a separate list.  I think it might 
> behoove those who object to that action to take a second look at their 
> reasoning.  Personally, I haven't seen anything yet that comes even close 
> to 
> convincing me that the massive influx of "environmental" and "advocacy" 
> subjects has done anything useful or positive in any way for either the 
> list 
> or its members.


    *** If this List and that concern were the extent of the AT I would 
agree. They aren't. Have any of you anti-environmental topic members ever 
considered that maybe the extreme negativity and contempt that even benign 
attempts at mentioning a Trail ideology topic are met with could be causing 
that problem too? Maybe if advocacy was given a little more mature respect 
and viewed in its proper way in relation to the AT the newbies would be drawn 
into that AND hiking? That seems basic to me, but I feel that some are so 
convinced of their Trail understanding/politics that they won't even consider 
it. On which side does the intransigence lie?




> What "good list synergy"?  We've lost that - and the pitiful thing is that 
> some people can't even see that.  And that a few others don't care as long 
> as they get to exercise their right to free speech.  And others just want 
> the excitement of the divisive arguments.


     *** Not being able to press for just what we want the Trail to be 
amongst its most interested members seems like monotonistic, labotomistic 
conformity and mind death to me. The end result will be the Trail being 
controlled or "dictated" by people who only want to talk pleasantries without 
possibly upsetting anyone. The level of Trail involvement will be minimal as 
a preferred goal. What *is* good synergy is the real Trail as it exists in 
reality accurately be represented on a List organized around it. People 
insisting that only the part that makes them feel good be restricted to 
permissibility only act in hedonistic selfishness and show little respect for 
the formal AT. Why can't members still post information to newcomers if they 
like? They can...


> 
> We can continue this discussion if you like - I haven't even gotten 
> started. 
>   But for now, I'm tired and it's gonna be a long day tomorrow.
> 

    ***  Thanks for your offer -And WF is always welcomed to rejoin the List 
too.

      A hundred years from now I would like this controversy to be presented 
as an historical event to future Trail people. The question would be asked of 
them, what choices did the Trail community in 2002 have and how did they deal 
with them? What were the long term effects of creating a good feeling of 
campfire community for the future of the Trail and what result did pushing 
for Trail advocacy and conservation involvement have? When the Trail 
community had the decision to make, which did they choose and why? How did 
that ultimately change the Trail's future? Hard questions, hard results, and 
certainly not a "talk show"...


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