[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] (no subject)
I'm gonna back up here a little - I've been busy so I haven't gotten
involved lately, but let's nail something down here - And I've picked this
one example at random out of the plethora of holes in R&R's arguments.
>I would be all for numbers control at Springer. We are now indirectly told
>to ignore the cranks and go crowd if you like. That can't be good for the
>Trail or anything else for that matter.
To which I replied:
>Now you'd better get specific - exactly who is advising that? And who told
>you it was true? And where do they get their facts? And what ARE the
>facts that back it up? I know the ATC has been promoting non- traditional
>itineraries - has Wingfoot?
To which R&R replied:
> *** Every time I see AT*L posters write "and WF is even trying to
>control the Trail by imposing quotas" I see serious tacit suggestion that
>not doing anything is the best way here. There is a problem. Something has
>to be done. Even worse is that Wingfoot disagreed on me with this and was
>against quotas. So, it was my idea not his. You can't replace a spring
>season traverse. NPS controls numbers elsewhere, why not the AT? Or do we
>just crowd it over until we wreck the quality of the experience?
If you read that exchange you'll see that R&R's answer bears no relationship
whatever to the question. The questions remain:
WHO is advising "to ignore the cranks and go crowd if you like".
HOW are they advising that?
WHAT facts support that contention?
I haven't seen answers yet. How about it, R&R? Do you have answers or are
you just blowing smoke?
What R&R is doing is a version of the "Big Lie" tactics that were developed
by certain groups during the last century to take advantage of the advent of
mass media. The basic philosophy is that "the ends justify the means". The
basic tactics are to be sure there's a kernel of truth in your proposition,
but only that "truth" which supports your particular position. Once the
"truth" is established, then it's entirely permissible to lie, to twist the
facts, to eliminate any information which would not support your position -
and to draw conclusions which have no logical relation to the "facts" or
even to the argument itself. If all else fails and there ar no facts at all
to support the argument, then make an accusation and completely ignore the
question - in other words, start another "issue".
It's amazing how many times people will fall for that.
Not walking softly - and there's more coming,
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com