[at-l] Re:Hiking for causes/Wingy

[RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 4/25/2003 8:43:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:


> So what's wrong with a variety of opinion? I thought we lived in a democracy
> where we are all entitled to express our views. Some (including you?) seem
> to support that right only when the opinion agrees with theirs.



      ~~~ Trail advocacy tries to support tried and true Trail goals with
productive recognition-of, and participation-in, the Trail's purpose. I can
tell you exactly what is wrong with "varied opinions" (Hey Jim, he asked!).
The cell phone towers in Maryland are exactly what is wrong. You see, this
sense of varied opinion over Trail protection has left critical events like
the Maryland cell towers to be built ON the Trail uncontested. After all, if
so many take pride in flaunting AT advocates' assertion that these devices
and their infrastructure conflict with the Trail's purpose, why should those
installing them care? All they need to do is see posters ridiculing people
who point out their incompatibility to see they'll have no problem at all
installing them due to this wonderful spectrum of opinions. After all, people
worried about cell towers are nasty extremists who just don't get what it's
about. Stupid!

     I'm sorry but what you wrote above is a rather limited way to look at
it. The idea is the Trail has a written, recorded purpose that should be
understood by its members. This is the real issue here, not civil liberties.
ATC is also against the towers: 1) because it understands, acknowledges, and
operates under the realization of the Trail's purpose; 2) because it puts the
Trail's directed purpose before unrelated concepts of opinion. Because we
live in a democracy does not preclude us from purposefully organizing for the
Trail. Subsequently, variety of opinion is useless to the AT if it fails to
conform to the Trail's objectives. Of course, people are free to organize
against these objectives if they decide. Needless to say, cell phone
connection and technology promotion are not some of those objectives (though
some don't seem to care if they aren't).



>
> And not everyone "familiar with the situation" agrees on the explanation. I
> wish you would be more tolerant of the variance of opinion on AT-L. The
> measure of validity is not whether you agree.
>


        ~~~ I'm not certain, exactly, what you are saying. Certainly, with
the AT, the measure of validity is how something serves the Trail's purpose.
Since that purpose doesn't get much discussion I don't see how that could be
accurately rendered with so little exposure to what really matters. When
opinions are scrutinized against real Trail guidelines and history interest
in the subject seems to dive. One thing can be said with certainty, however.
That would be that both the Trail's conceiver and those currently working for
it would hope people would look at the AT as something more than just a place
for "varied opinions." That view seems to underplay much greater and more
specific hopes for the AT lengthily-described and available for those
interested. It seems more of a subject for a sensitivity group than ardent
Trail Project...