[at-l] Cell phone connection availability

[thornel@attglobal.net (W F Thorneloe)]

Please note, Bob, that you misquoted. "Perception"  should have filled in 
the spot of "(cell phones do)"...

The perception thing deals with a rigid world view that excludes the 
possibility that someone would find a particular tool of technology useful 
and desirable - in this case a cell phone. In prior flame wars similar 
angst was expressed over guns, umbrellas and ultralight gear. My point was 
that technology is commonly used by all hikers, and would be foolish to 
avoid such technology. For instance, you use a battery powered Zip stove 
rather than a campfire for very good reasons and with very sound results. 
So far, Zip stoves haven't resulted in the denuding of AT forests.

Some appear to oppose the very idea that someone might carry a cell phone 
in their backpack, or horrors of horrors, actually use it to receive news 
of family emergencies or to contact authorities for other emergencies. This 
seems a mighty rigid orthodoxy that has little connection to the AT, but 
evokes images of a crucifixion on a cell tower.

I suppose if life is so comfortable that a cell phone on the AT is a major 
insult, then you might have too much time on your hands. I suppose that if 
you have the time to respond to messages, you might afford the courtesy to 
quote accurately given that surfeit of time.

OrangeBug

At 12:53 PM 3/19/2002 -0500, Bob C. wrote:
>"...silnylon, lightweight sleeping bags, stoves and other benefits of 
>tecnology.
>(cell phones do) not make any more or less sense than other items 
>controversial
>to this list..." claims Orange Bug.
>
>  While Shane complains that sentiments like, "'if you don't understand 
> you never
>will' are non-information."
>
>Well, Shane, let me say that I lack the words to explain these matters to 
>folks
>who think the use of silnylon equates with the use of cell phones.
>
>RnR, being braver than I, has posted a very coherent, obvious and rational
>explanation of the difference -- so obvious in fact that neither his words nor
>any that I might create has any chance of being understood by those who equate
>silnylon and cell phones.
>
>But let me at least offer a hint. You and others profess not to "like" cell
>phones. I have yet to hear anyone claim not to "like" silnylon, at least in a
>philosophical context. Some may question its endurance or breathability, 
>but not
>it's use if it serves the purpose intended.
>
>Why do you suppose some oppose cell phone -- or at least when used in the
>presence of others on the trail -- and in restaurants, for that matter?"
>
>Does this not suggest, at least, that many perceive a distinction between
>silnylon, lightweight sleeping bags, stoves and other benefits of technology,
>even if OB does not?