[at-l] Re: Who cares about MacKaye?

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

In a message dated 4/10/2002 4:34:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
dfaddleton@mindspring.com writes:


>  Seems a pretty clear statement for shane's argument, to me anyway. Times 
> have indeed changed, haven't they?


     ***   Like yourself, Shane makes the mistake of thinking an inferred 
logical discrepancy provides cause for ignoring the greater weight of 
MacKaye's ideas, which are clearly visible to me within his writings...
       Times have most certainly changed. Today we see a much more drastic 
need for what MacKaye proposed with threats to the Trail almost universal. In 
any case, it's no time to be undercutting the Trail's creator's purpose...


> 
> We need camps developed along the AT, in keeping with McKaye's vision. I 
> say put up four walls and doors on them shelters. And put up more of them. 
> Too many people are tramping down the treadway and the loam. Put in a 
> concrete treadway to prevent erosion. It'll allow us to Seguay between 
> Springer and Katadin and have better accommodations at the "camps" along 
> the way . . .



      ***  Actually, addy old chap, I would agree with this if the lands 
surrounding the Trail were remote enough to make such camps logistically 
necessary for traversing the Trail - as per MacKaye's plan. (not the concrete 
though -although I did see a fairly practical concrete jungle trail once in 
Malaysia). Since they aren't, your response just becomes the 
counterproductive nonsense reaction some feel replaces the need for 
productive input when confronted by the Trail's necessary ideological side... 
  



>     <If you read MacKaye 
> closely, you would understand that the mentality you pose is the same one 
> that most do towards unpreserved lands.> 
> 
> Why the sudden shift to (a) an ad hominem argument and (b) to "unpreserved 
> lands"?


      *** Why? - To explain how MacKaye intended the wilderness challenge to 
be more than just a pleasant interest. It was meant to set in place a solid 
representation of that which confronts man's relationship to nature in 
everyday thinking. Do I need to explain that to you? I honestly believe that 
if you understood it you would be more willing to back it rather than picking 
it apart. I assure you this exists both in MacKaye's writings and today's ATC 
activities and is fundamentally sound... 


> III.
> 
> Shane's unremarkable point was the relevance of McKaye to the question "how 
> shall we use the trail today and in the future?" and he used a perfectly 
> apropo example of the relevance of Washington's proposed interstate canals 
> to modern interstate transport issues.


    ***  Actually he didn't. He used a simple inconsistency to validate 
ignoring or dismissing an otherwise relevant AT precedence. What he did was 
like saying the US government is irrelevant because Washington promoted 
obsolete canals. The AT's ideological conservation cause and its relationship 
to civilization's economic dependency on sprawl is VERY relevant and clear to 
anyone who isn't bent on undermining the Trail's purpose as their main AT 
objective. AT members really shouldn't have this much difficulty 
understanding this. I feel that MacKaye's vision has been subverted by 
contemporary Trail practices and popular outlooks...



> 
> Shane's "mentality" and the general "mentality" to "unpreserved lands" have 
> no relevance at all to the subject of this list ...
> 

     ???  It has everything to do with what MacKaye wrote, which has 
everything to do with the AT. He specifically wrote that civilization, as it 
is, cannot be relied upon to acknowledge the need to preserve wild lands. The 
AT was formed and built upon this premise. I'm sorry it so unfamiliar to you 
that you feel a need to exclude it. Again, we are digressing into minutiae 
about debate tactics while the greater AT question passes by untouched. At 
some point we should try to explain just exactly what the AT is instead of 
wasting bandwidth criticizing other's methods of argument. *That* is what is 
relevant here...


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