Re[2]: [at-l] AT Fund On Income Tax Form

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

This is the "selfishness" that makes for poor PR. The AT, as well as this
list, exists within an environment. Obsessive exclusion of reality in the
service of any cause dooms any project to failure. Realpolitik has been
around for awhile, and will continue to rule - at least in the real world.

We have many national interests including healthcare, public safety,
homeland security, transportation, education - all based within our
borders. We even have the threat of war and real concerns about our
national defense. If these issues are not addressed as a very high priority
- often higher than AT corridor issues - there will only be a memory of an AT.

What is "on topic" is the fact that you offered this little rebuttal in a
coherent and more measured style. It still comes across as "holier than
thou" when you attack the idea of maintaining a balance among issues. I'd
like to understand how a national earmarked fund would provide additional
efforts to stop encroachment or race tracks - specifically why millions
would be needed for this. I suggest that millions of dollars for the AT
would result in the paving and destruction of the trail as it has
developed. I suggest that creating a very "deep pocket" would doom the AT
to more Saddleback Mtn. blackmail schemes. Yes, we could love the AT to death.

OrangeBug

At 12:28 AM 12/17/02 -0500, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>          There are several important considerations in determining how much
>need the AT deserves to claim over other trails. The first one is obvious and
>saves us the trouble of figuring it out. This list is concerned with the AT,
>therefore fighting for better corridor protection can be considered
>inclusively without reference to outside trails, issues, or personal
>differences. Consider it "on topic".