Re[2]: [at-l] Re: MacKaye's writings

[Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net (Bob C.)]

"...But if the answer is a negative, why is it necessary to answer at all?" asks
Jim and/or...

It  wasn't NECESSARY to answer. I just thought I had some insights to offer. Why
do you ask?

"...So  does  that  make  you,  being the "Sighted One", King of the Land of the
Blind?" persists Jim.

No.  Just  someone  who  thought  he might have some insights and perspective to
offer in what otherwise had become a rather silly debate.

Jim adds, "And you've consistently said "I agree with RnR"."

This simply is a false statement. Sometimes I agree with RnR. Sometimes I don't.
I've  explained  this  numerous  times,  as  Jim  knows.  He  once chided me for
criticizing RnR.

Finally,  Jim  claims,  "(MacKayes)  definitions of "wilderness" are fairly well
defined - and not consistent with what you and RnR seem to imply - or apparently
want."

I  really  don't  know what MacKayes definition of wilderness was. Nor do I know
RnR's definition, though I disagree with a number of things that RnR says should
be permitted in a "federally designated" wilderness.

As  I've  said  repeatedly  I  don't  think wilderness exists in the East by any
definition  that makes sense to me, and since I'm active in the east, I doubt if
I've ever spelled out my definition of wilderness, on this list anyway.

I  agitate  to keep the trail as wild as possible. I have no illusions that this
wildness will equate to wilderness.

 But  since  MacKaye's  conflict  with Avery came to a head over the skyline and
parkway  drives  in the southern Appalachians, I suspect MacKaye WOULD have been
opposed  to  the  development  of Putnam mine within the AT viewshed, WOULD have
been opposed to wind turbines on Redington, WOULD have supported the purchase of
a  buffer  along  the  trail  near  Max Patch, WOULD have opposed the Saddleback
fiasco ....

However,  these  are  suspicions. If anyone has real evidence to the contrary, I
would welcome hearing it.

Weary