[at-l] AT Blaspheme

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

Jim wrote:

> The answer is -- nothing.  In spite of RnR's wordiness, it comes down to 
> this - they're both dead, their clashes are of no more than historical 
> interest to anyone who isn't obsessed with one or the other - or both.  
> With 
> one exception - they provide an illustration of the necessary symbiosis 
> between the visionary and the "doer".
> 
> 
     *** If that is how far you see them then I think you missed the point 
altogether on what the Trail is. I can't think of a statement that outlines 
so perfectly what I was trying to say about today's AT generation -they just 
don't understand the AT at its fundamental base.
    The "clash" is not an entertaining historical drama, it's a divide or 
rift in the Project's philosophical blueprint that resulted in a drastic 
change in final form for the AT. It is where its physical form became a 2000 
mile long path and corridor vs a chain of large wilderness preserves centered 
around a practiced form of American environmentalism on a social scale as 
planned by MacKaye. This is what I meant by AT "mechanism". The Project was 
to serve as a nature college where citizens were to emerge as environmental 
servants bringing a healthy sense of conservation and natures role back into 
civilization. 
     I regret efforts made by some to diminish this by overt moves to brand 
it "somebody's contemporary personal interpretation" when it is so plainly 
clear in MacKaye's own words. What these posters are doing is exactly what 
they did to Benton back then. They just didn't get it...
    Very simply: if the Trail still faces the same pressures as it did then 
(it does + then some); and the need for implanting an environmental mindset 
in the general public still exists (check), then Myron and Benton are right 
here alive and well on each of my shoulders giving me a cheer! You might as 
well say George Washington and what he did is dead, gone, and irrelevant in 
America...
  

> 
> 
> You also need to go back and read MacKaye's original document.  That wasn't 
> MacKayes original plan and the way the Trail was built precludes adherence 
> to that original plan.  Don't be pullin' revisionism on me here, Bob.  That 
> wasn't MacKayes plan - it's yours.
> 

    ***   Shame, Jim, Shame. Don't you understand the conflict was based on 
Avery's not going strictly with MacKaye's plan for remote wilderness? It 
isn't "revisionism", it's trying to restore the original philosophical ideal 
in today's age. MacKaye backed off because the Trail's negotiators and 
developers veered from his primary "vision". In that case you can't revise 
what never came to be in the first place. Weary speaks of doing justice to 
that failure in today's age now that we have a complete Trail. Upon reading 
MacKaye, it was very clearly his intention and not something Weary is making 
up... 

   Why not?

>   
> Flyways - are and should be a major consideration in siting installations.
> 

    *** According to National Geographic, New England forests are prime 
migrating bird habitat due to their location at the northern end of flyways 
and fast regrowth rate to mature forest. They are also less fragmented than 
other eastern forests providing deep woods habitat critical towards warding 
off cow birds and other invading species. Many threatened songbirds use these 
forests for nesting. 


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---