[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] People vs LAND



In a message dated 6/15/01 3:41:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:

<< What I see in R&R's posts, his attitude, his ideas - is a total ignorance 
of 
 and misunderstanding of what the Trail is, what it's about, what it means.  
>>

    This is a little harsh isn't it Jim?

     If you don't read this OK, but you say some things that should be 
answered. 

     First, I am aware of the need for people in the AT formula. If you 
fathomed my point you would have understood that I was responding to a 
one*sided view of the Trail's "social" element as being paramount. It was 
merely a reminder that the AT is in its best form when embodied by a full 
extent of wild lands. I believe MacKaye said this too. So, if you choose to 
misquote and nickpick out one flimsy aspect of my argument and overblow it on 
a generic brand soapbox, go ahead. I should have said people were the most 
important thing and you would have responded with the sole need for land. 
Your style berates the nasty cracks in a Van Gogh without seeing the whole 
picture. 

    It is embarrassing to see such a wrongheaded reversal of the truth being 
used against me. You only need to simply read MacKaye's prospectus to see 
that the man whose head the Trail was born from spoke mainly of preserving 
wild Lands in the AT project. If you even had an inkling of what he intended 
you would see the unprotected lands you praise were anathema to the project 
and the project was a response in itself to save wilderness from the 
inevitable result of unprotectedness. The people you lament are also the 
ancestors of people currently cashing in on their land and selling out to 
corridor boundary tract developers. Sentimental Jim, but reckless and 
irresponsible. It is funny to see a person so lacking in the slightest hint 
of Trail understanding upbraiding me so loudly in public. Tertiary? Your 
great social trail could then exist in NYC boroughs and forego the land part. 
I'll take the woods.

    Sorry you quit the debate Jim, for a while there I was worried that I 
hadn't given you any recourse...