[at-l] (Guest Post) "so called"

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 8/6/01 4:06:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
datto_atl@yahoo.com writes:

<< I see this issue as one similar to that surrounding
 the Graymore Friary -- somebody at the ATC decides to
 stomp their feet and throw a hissy fit about an issue
 that doesn't amount to an ant hill of a problem. 
 
    ***  Datto:  I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one. I too was 
put up and fed by the brothers on my hike. I cringed when I saw what was 
happening with the corridor dispute. I think many on this List, and around 
the Trail, would agree that Graymoor was the last place on the Trail 
deserving to be aggressively confronted regarding a land dispute. Perhaps the 
government must see separation of church and state in an unconditional way 
sometimes.
    My only input on this one was an interview I read in the NY Times where 
the brothers spoke of the circumstances surrounding the dilemma. It was clear 
to me he was hedging around the possibility, that if the circumstances came 
about, it could be possible that the brothers would have to sell the land to 
condo developers to survive. He never said the words, "we will guarantee that 
this parcel will never be developed." 
   Again, I simply can't side against either one of these factions due to my 
personal values *so, I was hoping the publicity would get a sympathetic 
christian millionaire to assist with the problem for the brothers' sake. 
Unfortunately, that never happened. Truthfully, in the worst instance, I was 
hoping the brothers would observe christian temperance and offer a good 
example for conservation. But, in the real world, the brothers pay taxes too 
and are not exempt from worldly pressures. 
    Ultimately, I can see where it would look like an insensitive bite on the 
hand...
      
 
 <Then the ATC/NPS/Justice Department/Gument finds
 themselves looking like jerks just to prove a point
 and the whole thing gets out of hand. 
  >>

    *** I thought I would point out that I also disagree with ATC's actions 
regarding Saddleback. However, in this case they were not too aggressive, but 
too PASSIVE. So, in this case, they did not act as you are suggesting.
   ATC does a lot of good and tedious footwork that is obviously going 
unappreciated by some in the Trail world. They also hold a grandfathered 
technical familiarity that would be extremely difficult to replicate on the 
run and live up to. Any attempt to do so would probably end up in a lapse 
where the Trail suffered setbacks from which it might never recover. 
Splitting dues revenue between divided authorities would also compromise an 
already working funding system which currently does a lot of good for the AT. 
 I don't see a need for a 'schism' at this point.
    I was a ruthless critic of our local club when I hiked. After becoming a 
maintainer, I quickly realized why.