[pct-l] [FWD: Re: Pct-L Digest, Vol 59, Issue 2]

[Linda Sheehan]

I could not agree more and am about to unsubscribe because of this bike
buisiness getting out of hand. I also notice that other issues have at
times sprouted uninteresting and unproductive responses from subscribers
whose time would be better spent writing emails or letters to the governing
bodies actually involved in solving and soliciting such 'information'.
Thanks to the person who has given a space for them to consider this issue.
I am a lowly section hiker and newish to this listserve. I am using the
subject line to delete these from my email list but it is irksome.
Also I want to make sure I am responding to the listserve correctly. Should
I be 'reply all' to post a comment or question?

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:51 AM, <cg at lunky.com> wrote:

> There is a moderation queue that newer posters are all in which you
> might not be aware of.  Anyways, I was responding via Brick's message to
> the list.
>
> My point is, and I can't speak for everyone, but I have grown tired of
> PCT-L being used as a discussion platform for having mountain bikes on
> the PCT.  I'm asking you and the fellow MTB lurkers on this list, please
> stop posting messages about sharing the PCT with mountain bikes.  I and
> several others have already joined in and contributed to the
> conversation......THREE WEEKS AGO.
>
> Thank you for making the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook pages and websites
> (bonus plug: http://facebook.com/sharingthepct and
> http://www.sharingthepct.com).  Please have the discussion there since
> they are a more appropriate platform for it.  I know the discussion is
> not over, but please stop having it here. Here we talk about something
> for a week or so and move onto something else.
>
> I've been on Internet listservs since 1993 and I know that never-ending
> threads like this will drive regular subscribers away and kill a list.
> I was nearly to the point of unsubscribing from PCT-L because I was
> getting so furious at the posts from fellow mountain bikers.
> Fortunately, like all other threads on PCT-L, it died out and I stayed
> subscribed.  I (optimistically/naively) thought it was done due to the
> other sites being created. (extra bonus plug:
> http://facebook.com/sharingthepct and http://www.sharingthepct.com)
>
> If you think I should have to look forward to six+ more months of
> postings like yours on PCT-L, no, I will just unsubscribe and walk
> away...much like I would if the Pacific Crest Trail were ever open to
> mountain bikes (or motorcross, ATVs, 4x4's, etc).
>
> - Craig
>
>
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [FWD: Re: [pct-l] Pct-L Digest, Vol 59, Issue 2]
> > From: TrailLover at Tassociates.com
> > Date: Sat, November 03, 2012 1:27 pm
> > To: cg at lunky.com
> > Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
> >
> >
> > Hello, Craig. Please indicate how my post was not 100% factual and
> accurate. Although I have cc'd
> > the PCT-L on this message, please note that it will not appear via the
> PCT-L because, exactly as I
> > predicted, I have been blocked yet again by the administrator. That's
> not a "faux victim" of
> > censorship, that's an actual victim of censorship. Of course, it's
> Brick's right to do so, and it's
> > even his right to lie about and mis-characterize the situation. And it's
> your right not to demand
> > greater integrity.
> >
> > "Platform to promote my agenda?" It's not MY agenda, it's USFS' agenda
> to consider bicycles on the
> > PCT. If that's not relevant to the PCT-L, then wouldn't the PCT-L
> administrator need to also block
> > the comments from anti-sharing folks as well? Instead, the PCT-L has
> become the definition of
> > hypocrisy. And that is why, as you noted, I have offered an alternative
> place for interested
> > stakeholders to discuss their views.
> >
> > You may think - or wish - that the shelf life of "bikes on the PCT" has
> passed, but the fact is that
> > it has only just started now that USFS is considering the issue. I hope
> you'll choose to join in and
> > contribute to the conversation so that your questions and concerns can
> be heard.
> >
> > -TrailLover
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Pct-L Digest, Vol 59, Issue 2
> > From: <cg at lunky.com>
> > Date: Sat, November 03, 2012 12:42 am
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> >
> >
> > Although the list admin already called BS on the faux-victim nature of
> > your post, thank you for giving up on trying to use the PCT-L as a
> > platform to promote your agenda. I've been on this list since it
> > started in the mid 90s and one thing I've noticed is that all
> > arguments/discussions have a shelf life and the "bikes on the PCT"
> > discussion is way (way) expired. If PCT-L subscribers wish to continue
> > your discussion they know where to go now.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >  > Because the PCT-L no longer serves as a forum for such a discussion,
> I'd like to encourage anyone to
> >  > visit the either the Facebook page set up by some of the
> trail-sharing folks
> >  > (https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct) or their website (
> http://www.sharingthepct.org/). While
> >  > both those sites are obviously oriented positively towards the
> prospect of potentially sharing parts
> > _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>