Fwd: [at-l] What do you do...

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

>RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>   However, to answer your post is easy. It only requires commenting 
>whether some also have no respect for narrow minded focusing on one single 
>aspect of the complex scope of issues surrounding corridor preservation.

Since YOUR narrow minded focus is entirely on land acquisition with, as I 
told Weary, no understanding of the larger effects or "human cost", you're 
exactly right -- I have no respect whatever for your ideas or preferred 
methods.  Smash and grab isn't something I approve of - I consider it to be 
theft.


>The full respect and preservation of persay theoretical landowners rights 
>is too flimsy a platform on which to expect to support the future of 
>mankind on the planet.

What I read there is that "the ends justify the means" and NOBODY has any 
right that interferes with YOUR particular and very narrow interest.  
Specifically that NOBODY has ANY property rights if their property is within 
sight or sound of the AT.  That's a level of selfishness and monotonic 
short-sightedness that's found only in those who have failed to grow beyond 
the moral and ethical standards of the "Terrible Twos".

In point of fact, you may be very close to agreement with Thoreau in that 
that statement is a magnificent, but misguided and totally erroneous, 
argument for anarchy.  If true, it would mean either that the government 
also has no property rights (anarchy) or that the government owns ALL the 
property and we would live in a monolithic society where only "civil 
servants" would not be slaves.  Be careful of circular logic - it sometimes 
bites you in inconvenient places.


>     Others could equally say they had no respect for persons who abide 
>total destruction of nature in its undisturbed form for the sake of ever 
>evolving social principles.

You've got that bassackwards, RnR - you're talking about land which has been 
farmed and lived on for several hundred years - not virgin forest that's 
never seen a human footprint.  And your point is evidently that it's 
acceptable to steal the land from those who have lived on it, using your 
weasel words "nature in its undisturbed form" to disguise the theft as 
"protection of the Trail".

That statement is also a vivid illustration of your lack of comprehension of 
the (in your own words) "complex scope of issues surrounding corridor 
preservation".  Where did you miss the point that the expression "nature in 
its undisturbed form" is nonsense in and of itself anyplace in this country 
and particularly anyplace in the Eastern states?


>Believe it or not, this is the core around which MacKaye formulated the 
>AT...

And this is pure, unadulterated, gold plated, grade AAA bullshit.  Go read 
MacKaye again and quote me the passage where you find anything that would 
even remotely support that statement.

Answering Bucky's post is only "easy" if you ignore what he said and 
continue to "preach" without regard to facts.

Jim


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