Fwd: Re: [at-l] Wilderness "Mechanism"

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> wrote:
>***I have nothing against national parks. I've visited and enjoyed many of 
>them -- even sky line drive. I prefer wilder places. I was objecting to a 
>post that objected to RnR's comment -- garbled as it tends to be -- that 
>seemed to be saying that if the drive had never been built, it would not be 
>built today. If that is what he was saying, I think it obvious, just as the 
>AMC huts would not be built today in some of the most fragile environment 
>in the country.***

Bob -
If you go back in the archives a couple months (actually shortly
before you showed up on the list) you'll find my views on
wilderness.  Bottom line - there's no place on the AT that qualifies
as "wilderness" for me. There are a few places that might be "wilder" - but 
barely.  YMMV

As for the Drive - my feelings about SNP in general are vitriolic at
best.  But that has less to do with the Drive than with the methods
by which the Park was created.


>*** There is no doubt in my mind, based on decades of trail use and 25 
>years as a trail maintainer that sharp-pointed sticks cause erosion. But 
>neither do I want to debate the issue. Most hikers find them convenient and 
>beneficial to their hikes. Most seem to care less about the damage they 
>cause.
>
>As for trail "angels", sure it's been a tradition from the earliest days. 
>But it's reach the point of absurdity. When a guy who is unemployed, two 
>years out of jail, driving a clunker with bald tires
>tries to hand what are for the most part yuppies and children of yuppies a 
>coke and a donut at a road crossing.... When the Maine Chapter, AMC, climbs 
>half way up Bigelow to hand out goodies to thru hikers ....***
>
>I have no objection to people doing favors for others. I encourage it. But 
>I find organized efforts a little sick. Angels need to think about their 
>reasons. For many it is just a way to vicariously share in an experience 
>that they lack the courage to try themselves. For others
>it is an act of ignorance. They think a majority of hikers are 
>impoverished. Most of us tend to run short of cash from time to time. But 
>the reason tends to be too many beers in the trail town, not some 
>fundamental povery of the hiking class.****

The sticks may well cause erosion - so does rain, natural
rockfall, blowdowns, horses - and boots.  The question is "how much
erosion?"  Haven't seen an answer to that yet, but I'm sure someone
will get around to doing a study about it.  The other side is that
the sticks make it possible for some people to hike - those who
don't use them don't have a clue about how much they "save the
knees" among other things.  On the other hand, I strongly suspect
that, depending on how they're used, they do other physiological
damage.

I don't think we're all that far apart concerning Trail Angels - our 
definition of Trail Magic is that it's only "magic" if it's unexpected.  The 
organized feeds aren't "magic".  Those thruhikers who "expect" Trail Magic 
are foolish. And WF's contention that ALL Trail Magic is bad is just as 
foolish.


>*** No, I haven't spent much time in third world countries -- though some 
>think of Maine as a third world. But our system is based on "me first." I 
>don't object to this. It's the secret of our standard of living. I'm just 
>reporting facts. We are the world's richest country
>because we happened on a system of government that allowed  it to happen. 
>I'd have to write a small book to explain the details. But by happenstance 
>or design we have a system that allows virtually unlimited exploitation of 
>natural resources and a better sharing of the profits from that 
>exploitation than almost anywhere else in the world.***

I have a lot of objections to the excesses of the system we live with - and 
a lot of reasons to think the future isn't as bright as some of us would 
like to believe. But it beats the hell out of what most of the rest of the 
world lives with.  And part of the problem is that most of them live like 
that by choice.  I know - that's not a politically correct view.  Tough.  In 
general, PC = BS


>*** I haven't figured out what this list is about, other than a lot of 
>meaningless, though pleasant enough chit chat. During my short tenure very 
>little of substance dealing with the trail has emerged. I hear repeated 
>assurances that we are dedicated to the trail. But so far I've seen almost 
>no evidence that that is so.

Gotta split this one out - the list is about hiking, it's about friendship, 
it's about people and a common interest, it's about Skeeter going off to do 
the Colorado Trail, it's about supporting Ginny and me during both CDT and 
PCT thruhikes, it's about concern for Conni when she dropped off the list, 
it's about the Pennsylvanis horse wars, -----  how much do you want?  It's 
NOT entirely about the AT and political struggles and *dedication to a 
cause*.  It's a campfire, Bob - and it's a rare individual who finds 
themselves unwelcome here -  regardless of political, religious or any other 
persuasion.


>But anyone who thinks this trail is not a political institution, created 
>and maintained through political efforts simply has no understanding of the 
>facts. I agree that
>some of Wingfoot's issues have little immediate basis in reality.

Of course it is - there's no one here who doesn't understand that.  But 
there are few of us who make a "life's work"  out of "political" issues 
either.  We're a lot more interested in hiking those trails (not just the 
AT) than in constantly wrangling over "political issues".  You may have 
spent too long on WF's list.   He's spent too long on his list without 
actually hiking.  He's lost touch with reality - and I believe his list 
probably has as well.


>RnR tends to be inarticulate, but he is genuinely devoted to the trail and 
>for the most part his views are reasonable and should be considered. ***

RnR - now there's a subject.  He uses too many words to say too little.  
Then he sometimes uses too many words to cover too many subjects.  He many 
times exhibits either a reading comprehension problem or a propensity for 
playing word games by misquoting, misunderstanding or misinterpreting what 
others have said.  I've sometimes suspected that he writes after too many 
fingers out of the bottle - but that's pure speculation.  But the real 
problem - well, see the next paragraph.


>The other part of this is that, personally, I have no respect whatever for 
>those who have no respect for others.  Regardless of the rightness of their 
>cause, those people invariably do "some" of the right things for the wrong 
>reasons and a whole LOT of the WRONG things for reasons that are related to 
>ego, money and power.

>*** nor do i that's why I'm appalled when attempts at voicing a position 
>are met with accusations of facism and vilified as "manure" and 
>corruption.***

And now we're down to the central problem -
I spent a fair amount of time and energy "talking" to RnR.  You saw some of 
that - but not all of it.  What I discovered was that he's not willing to 
learn, to change or to compromise.  He's entirely convinced of his own 
righteousness and unless you agree totally with hm, he has nothing but 
contempt for your views.  And if you do agree with him then he has contempt 
for your lack of independence.  Sound like anyone else we know?  It's a 
"game" - a mind game.  Refer to the book "Knots" by R. D. Laing - it's an 
education on mind games.  I'm an "expert" on mind games - I was the target 
of "mind games" for over 25 years.

In any case - he believes that "combat" is the way to accomplish his 
purposes.  I've been in "combat" - and killing your "enemy" doesn't convert 
them, it doesn't make them (or their people) your friend or supporter.  It 
makes more enemies - and it makes selling your cause an unnecessarily long 
and arduous process.  For some people that IS a justification - they 
generate their own problems and then glory in the struggle.  Most of us 
recognize the foolishness of that method of operation.  Some don't.  Che 
Guevara was a fool - and died a fools death, but there are still people who 
consider him a hero because the idea of the "struggle" feeds their ego.

On a personal basis - RnR's logic sucks.  Not because there's no logic to 
what he says, but because he starts with the wrong basic premises, because 
he excludes the most important elements from his logic. An analogy - in many 
areas of mathematics the result of an equation is dependent on what are 
called "boundary condtitions".  If you start with the right boundary 
conditions you get the right answers - if you start with the wrong boundary 
conditions, you get crap.  RnR consistently starts with the wrong boundary 
conditions because his basic assumption is that the Trail - the LAND - is 
more important than the people.  He has no respect for people or for their 
opinions, knowledge or experience.  It shows in everything he writes - and 
it puzzled me for a while because that degree of self-centered, egotistical, 
arrogant contempt for others is rare.  Why is it a surprise that his logic, 
his conclusions, his cause are not accepted by others?  You get what you 
give - and if you give anger, arrogance and disrespect, then expecting 
others to respect and agree with your arguments is simply a form of madness.

There are parts of what he writes that I agree with.  I think that's true of 
everyone on this list - but we never get to those parts because we don't 
have the time, energy or inclinatiion to wade through the cess pool of his 
attitude to pick out the few nuggets of good.

To answer his question (yes - I did read that post) - I won't talk to RnR 
directly because he's not worth my time.  I have better things to do with my 
life than argue endlessly with someone whose only point is the argument, not 
the solution. I'm a problem-solver - and for the moment at least, I've 
solved this problem.


>***Frankly it is absurd to speak of "mass support" for the trail, either 
>now or in the past. The masses don't even know the trail exists. When I met 
>with my Congressman and pushed for protection of Saddleback, he had only 
>the vaguest idea what I was talking about. And he is one of the brighter 
>younger members of Congress. Trail victories are the product of dedicated 
>people pushing for a piece of the political pie.***

You need to get out more, Bob.  We've met people all across this country who 
know about and support the AT.  We're constantly being asked about it - 
we've talked to prospective thruhikers in Arizona and California and 
Wyoming, we've talked to others who know about it, supoport it, are curious 
about it, want to talk about it.  And so have others on at-l.  In fact, at-l 
members are scattered all across this country - with a few in other 
countries as well.  The "masses" aren't as dumb or uninformed as you seem to 
believe.  Your world is too small  :-)

Which, incidentally, is part of RnR's problem.  And WF's now that I think of 
it.


>***I don't know what an INTP is, but my rule is to always be suspicious of 
>folks who think they are wise enough to almost always discern the truth of 
>complicated matters. ***

Ginny pointed out that that sounded like I was bragging.  I apologize for 
that.  I was just trying to give you an idea about who I am.  Sometimes the 
best of intentions go wrong - or maybe it's more like "the road to hell is 
paved with good intentions."  In any case, I don't claim either omniscience 
or wisdom.  But logic is another matter - and I get paid to, as you put it - 
"discern the truth of complicated matters".

>My apologies for these brief notes, which I know are an inadequate reply to 
>the points raised by soft-walking Jim. I simply don't have the time at the 
>moment to do more.

They're perfectly adequate - and I've run out of time, too.  It's been a 
pleasure, sir.  Maybe we can waltz again sometime  :-)

Walk softly,
Jim



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com