Re[2]: [at-l] R&R Why are you here?

[dfaddleton@mindspring.com (David)]

>Like most of us, RnR is better at telling a personal experience,
> then expounding on philosophical matters.

I actually enjoyed those grizzly posts . . .

> His central message is "If
> you can't deal with Wingfoot OK," but don't let your hatred of Wingfoot
prevent the need to advocate
> for the trail.

I reread his posts last night, too . . . he posted privately to me also . .
. I concluded otherwise . . . RnR's central message appears to me as an
ethical judgment of AT-L'ers that absent strident advocacy for RnR's view of
"tradition" or "wilderness" we aren't "true" to Avery's or McKaye's vision
for the AT; i.e., his understanding of Avery's and McKaye's writings
provides the *only* goal worth striving for in connection with AT advocacy.
Failure to espouse that vision in a list purportedly addressing the AT
violates what he views as a paramount ethical obligation. The AT-L community
isn't interested in politics except insofar as matters affecting the trail
get reported so that its members can do whatever advocacy they deem
appropriate. This AT-L attitude is something like the attitude of the
leagues of voters who advocate registering to vote and voting and not
pushing any candidate. In fact, pushing partisan candidacy or positions in
such an organization would take it out of the 501(c)(3) definition of a
charitable organization and place it within the definition of a political
organization. AT-L isn't a political organization and doesn't push political
view points. RnR would have it otherwise. This puts RnR at direct odds with
the purpose of the AT-L and the reason for the existence of its community.

> None of his postings strike me as  "irredeemable BS", none qualify as
manure or corruption. Rather I
> saw deliberate distortion by those responding to his posts -- a distortion
triggered I suspect by
> the unreasonable and destructive hatred of Wingfoot that some in this
forum seem to have.

Lots of AT-L'ers do not agree with RnR's political views or his ethical
views and more importantly, don't care to argue those views in this forum.
Other sites provide a place for such debates. The distortion arises when an
ethically and politically diverse community coheres because of some other
independent interest -- such as AT-Lers who like talking about hiking on the
AT -- have some one stop in who ignorantly or deliberately tries to alter
that coherence.

> but they surely will recognize a sincere, honest and dedicated supporter
of the Appalachian Trail.

I have little doubt about his sincerity respecting his own interpretations
of Avery and MacKaye and his vision for the AT. I have substantial doubt
about either his intelligence or his integrity. He's either too ignorant to
comprehend why anyone group of hiking enthusiasts would want to talk just
about hiking and not about the politics of the trail, or, he hopes to
fundamentally change the character of the AT-L towards his type of advocacy,
or, he just getting a bully's adrenaline rush from stirring the pot.