Long, as usual <g> Re: [at-l] Re:Hiking for causes/Wingy

[RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 4/26/2003 12:38:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
DaRedhead@aol.com writes:


> Instead, WF said you WILL send your support thru THIS sites email campaign,
> or you WILL be kicked off my list. Then he proceeded to do so. His list
> membership dropped by hundreds. Why is it that every time someone brings up
> his "significant contribution to trail advocacy" they fail to mention this?
>


      Good post Redhead.

       I believe I did explain this before. You have to understand with
Trailplace that it is a site designed to promote active participation in the
AT. WF had great expectations for his site to become a powerhouse of AT
advocacy and a central location for Trail promotion.

     (   ) is a character with no shyness towards acting on people. It's a
rather unusual trait in today's easy-going day and age. Many are offended by
it. Your summation of our support for his cause isn't quite complete. Many
who support his efforts openly question whether he has hurt himself more than
helped himself with this tack. He says he doesn't care, so he'll have to deal
with the results. One of the results, however, has been a rather clear and
correct interpretation of the Trail's purpose.

    I suppose the method to his madness was caused by frustration over lack
of participation in his Trail advocacy designs. TJ would probably say he
wasn't getting enough credit, so he hit back. The truth is probably more like
he really had sincere hopes for a community showing galvanized by Trailplace.
After all, if you took interest in the AT, how could you not support the
campaign? Simple enough.

      Of the two issues, if I were to consider which was more important, I
would think taking a half-hour to write an e-mail on a site designed for
Trail advocacy wasn't that drastic an imposition over personal choice or
rights. At least his site was making the effort. I'm having a problem seeing
the serious wrong that would lead to such strong reactions against the form.
The community was asked to put up or shut up and it decided to see it as a
matter of censorship and control instead of challenge.

     Yes (   ) can be less than tactful with his control urges, but in the
end, they only asked that a letter be written to preserve Saddleback. Crazy
notion, eh? Meanwhile, other places were discussing "whether the AT had too
much land" or whether land right issues were more important on Saddleback? -
I'll take the campaign...