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

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

Poor Roxey. It took you a few days to parse thru the message, and still you
fail to read or comprehend. Perhaps this is only deliberate distortion, or
there are tragic flaws in cognition. In either case - not a good thing.

I'm not trying to sell anything. You suggested that a check off on the
Federal 1040 was a great idea and I only disagreed. You concurred that it
was unlikely. Several others pointed out flaws regarding excessive focus on
a few states and on a single publicly and privately funded / supported
National Scenic Trail. No one has suggested that sprawl was a desirable
option. No one has suggested that participation in trail advocacy was a
poor idea. Trivia advocacy is up to the individual. Real live options
regarding financial assistance and support for trail organizations has been
offered by many. Few find "long shots" and empty talk about hallowed dead
white men a valuable practice, or related to honest support and advocacy of
the AT and the environment.

It is curious that you would cite WW2 as failing to destroy the AT. You
have claimed some level of involvement in the NY section of the AT, and you
somehow are unaware of near destruction of the AT and military use of
surrounding lands into fairly recent past. If you find the absolute
priority is AT land protection, it sounds as if you are soft on Homeland
Security.

You are unable to offer reasonable goals for use of the millions that such
a check-off might create, or why your proposal is the only worthy strategy
toward those goals. As you have indicated your proposal is at best a
"long-shot", you need to tell us why devotion to such a low prognosis
procedure is worthy of our time and support. Those reasons need to be much
clearer than vague interpretations of an architecture's essay, particularly
during current time of war and economic instability.

If this is a long-shot that avid trail users cannot fathom and oppose due
to some perverse logic, just what chance does it hold for a presentation
beyond the third assistant secretary to the freshman representative in
Podunk, WV (as a poor example)? If these trail users and supporters are
such nitpickers and naysayers, why would the Senator for General Dynamics
offer to include the check-off in the next spending bill? If trail users
and advocates are too unwitting to recognize extortion, why don't they join
in goose-stepping formation behind your distortions?

Have a Merry Christmas. I hope Santa brings you a life.

OrangeBug

At 01:11 PM 12/20/02 -0500, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>    ...I continue to be astounded at
>what can only be seen as AT members trying to sell the Project as an
>unworkable aberration in face of real world reality. As if the tide of nature
>consuming progress were the acceptable norm and the AT had to wait to see how
>it could properly suit its demands and somehow find its place. Myself, I find
>that backing the Trail's idea and cause as a member to be more serving of its
>cause. I can't imagine how backing what threatens it would be helpful to an
>environmental project that continues to be eaten away by encroachment. The AT
>is very much a "real world" plan with real goals. Urging people away from
>participation and still expecting good results for the Trail is the
>unrealistic event here...
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>              ***   WW2 almost destroyed modern civilization. The Trail
>survived it and no Trail backers used it as an excuse to drop its support. If
>you read MacKaye closely you would see that he addresses how all the social
>problems you list end up being dealt with by growth. Growth means land
>destruction.