[at-l] Lean-to Liability

[yumitori at montana.com (Ron Martino)]

>        ***  I meant east coast trails. Since shelters are part of the east coast trail concept, where exactly did I make an "outrageous claim". I have nothing personal against you Ron, but it
> isn't me who "doesn't get it." The basic contempt I'm talking about is the refusal to acknowledge the AT's ATC-level conservation ethic. That is why you can make a legitimate post about
> liability being out of place on long distance trails and be confronted on it as if you were wrong. It's become a knee-jerk reaction. 

	And where did I refuse "to acknowledge the AT's ATC-level conservation
ethic," whatever that's supposed to mean in English? What I /did/ do was
call you on your excessive generalizations. Since you acknowledge that
your words were indeed much too broadly chosen, then you clearly agree
with me.

	Why are you going on about this further then?

	But you do, and once again delve into your standard mantra -

>             The AT is more than the talk on this list...

	Which fails to address the other questions I asked. But since you
brought it up, what are you doing for the AT these days, besides talking
on this list?

>              ***   Case in point. I believe my Trail views to be valid and originate from valid AT ideas. What you say here is more of the static that is used on this list to drown out real Trail
> philosophy. The problem isn't coming from this end. That is why "driving people from the list" is what ends up getting discussed instead of the points themselves... 

	Why are you unwilling to address any basic question, and instead try to
deflect the conversation every time?

	Simple questions - 

	How do you believe insulting people and calling them names will
encourage them to seriously consider your viewpoint? 

	If it will not, then why do you engage in such behavior? 

>        ***   No Ron. What your argument is, is a way of avoiding recognizing larger regional and philosophical conservation interpretations attached to the AT. What you fail to realize is that
> your clever little wrench thrown in the works here is merely a way of dodging the greater issue. Yes, I believe you are sincere, but it doesn't make its intent any more valid. Your argument
> suggests that since the AT allows shelters, that therefore the greater regional conservation goals are either invalid or hypocritical. 

	Show me where I have said that. My words are part of the public
archives. I eagerly await your missive quoting them. If you cannot, I
will thank you for not putting words in my mouth, yet again.

	What I /have/ said is that you cannot argue that the AT must be managed
as wilderness when it is in fact not. To do so is hypocritical and only
hurts your position. What you again fail to acknowledge is that this is
not a situation involving only two options - wilderness management or
unlimited development - but rather one where a multitude of options
exist. The idea should be to choose one that is most appropriate to the
resource.

	Shelters are a case in point - if you demand that the AT be managed as
a wilderness trail, then you must also call for the removal of all
shelters, since they an obvious violation of wilderness principles. If
you feel that shelters should remain, for their historical worth, their
value as ways to concentrate use, or for other reasons, then you may
still desire extensive protection of the AT, simply not as wilderness.

	This should be an easy concept to grasp. I am at a loss to understand
why you fail to do so.

> That is the same argument the race track developer made
> by the way. When I pointed it out your reaction was a flame fest and call for shunning. 

	So you say. What you 'pointed out' was that I was calling for open and
uncontrolled development of the trail corridor, which was a bald-faced
lie. I have never said anything of the sort, and to claim otherwise is
as offensive as you can possibly get. When I called you on your lie, you
refused to apologize, and instead tried to parse your sentences in
bizarre ways to defend yourself. Why is it that you cannot debate a
point, but rather need to call people names or lie about their
positions? Quoting someone on the Internet is about as easy as it can
get; you should have no trouble whatsoever finding my actual words and
suing them. Instead, you repeatedly make things up. It's quite sad,
really... Should I take it as acknowledgment that you cannot defend your
arguments with honest evidence?

>>        If you wish to keep insulting me, do it in public instead of hiding
>>    behind e-mail. Any further posts from you will be answered on the AT-L.
> 
>         ***    It is cowardly to label something insult in order to engender list discontent. That is the doings of persons who can't make their arguments stand and need to resort to lower
> methods (like Jim Owen). It's kind of obvious. The enemy here isn't nasty old R&R and his "insults". What you people really don't like is a correct interpretation of the AT posed the way it
> should be. 

	Let's see. The e-mail I was responding to called my words 'gibberish',
a 'knee-jerk reaction' and 'petty backtalk', and said 'it's obvious you
are only capable of contempt based on personal gripes'. Oh, and now I'm
'cowardly'. You did not consider your use of such words and phrases as
insults?

> There's a reason why Wingfoot gets commendations from ATC and conservation officials. The fact that most who dislike him ignore that and focus on his personal shortcomings
> only accents the ignorance involved in this whole issue. That is the contempt I'm talking about. I have yet to see any formal approval of this contempt from any Trail authority given to those
> who group around it... 

	What in the world does Dan Bruce have to do with the presence (or lack
thereof) of shelters along long-distance trails (which was the topic,
after all)? Are you incapable of sticking to whatever point is under
discussion? Why is that?

>       If you want to take it to the list pose a question. Don't cut from this because it is meant for off-list.

	Well, then, you should not have sent it, since you were told quite
clearly that I would respond on the AT-L. Since you cannot refrain from
name-calling in personal e-mail, I won't play that game. If you wish to
insult me, do it in public. You will be pleased to see that I have posed
numerous questions...

	Ron
-- 

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will
determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate
discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor
must preside at our assemblies. 
	William O. Douglas 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com