[at-l] AMC's "miscues" in the 100 Mile

[lbooher at pure.net (Leslie Booher)]

I've been away for several days, and I just got back.  It's good to have the list back up.  Frankly, I thought the discussion was going pretty well.  The more nagging from the sidelines with lines like, "I am totally floored to read a very balanced and thoughtful response from RnR," the less likely the discussion is to remain neutral.  That, in itself, was a form of sticking the knife in and twisting.  It's a sublte form of flaming.  It wasn't a neutral statement.  I've been enjoying this thread.  It's an excellent example of two people reading the same thing and getting totally opposite meanings from it.  Happens in church all the time, and I'm REALLY familiar with that.  <G>  Carry on.  anklebear

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: W F Thorneloe 
  To: at-l 
  Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:47 AM
  Subject: Re[2]: [at-l] AMC's "miscues" in the 100 Mile


  Bob asks: "Tell me again that this is a responsible
  list..."

  Might not be a very responsible list if trail advocacy
  discussions are demoted to discussions of "rape,"
  "whores," "crap" and unrelated third parties. It would
  be refreshing to read a trail advocacy discussion that
  didn't earn a delete key because of irresponsible
  behavior by very few participants. 

  On AT-L, these participants are allowed their own
  opinions. I hope they will articulate these more
  effectively. 

  OrangeBug
  _______________________________________________
  at-l mailing list
  at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
  http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l