[at-l] Miss Janet

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

In a message dated 7/19/2003 9:48:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
redhead@hack.net writes:


> The biggest threat to Janet right now is not losing her business - although 
> 
> that could result - but her kids. Johnny has convinced officials that Janet 
> is 
> putting her children in HARMS WAY by exposing her to hikers in her 
> home/business.  He's managed to portray hikers as "homeless" and "dangerous" 
> 
> and now DCS has gotten involved and is investigating. And we all know that 
> non-
> hikers have a hard time comprehending the hiker community. So even if she 
> keeps 
> the business - which she HAS all applicable licenses for, because she 
> got "special" treatment when setting it up thanks to Johnny, including much 
> more in depth inquiry and monitoring than for most people setting up a 
> business - she still ends up being investigated by DCS.  And no offense to 
> the 
> people who work there who's job it is to protect children - but it very 
> frequently takes a long time to determine the truth of an allegation, so a 
> false one can cause a family a lot of anguish and heartache before it's all 
> over and they say "oops, well, nothing wrong here, sorry to bother you."
> 


            ***   Yes, I agree with Redhead that the deliberate 
mischaracterization of well-meaning persons serving a positive Trail function is something 
that should be considered. I can imagine Ms Janet's frustration in trying to 
operate in a helpful way within the AT while being sold as bad by inside Trail 
persons intent on making it difficult for her. 

       Not being involved, I'm trying to objectively consider what the honest 
situation is here. I stayed at Uncle Johnny's 3 years ago on a car trip down 
the AT. I was welcome -even with a dog, and found the accommodations 
convenient, cheap, and close to the AT. I didn't visit as a through-hiker though, so 
maybe I didn't get the full edge. On my 1986 AT hike, I walked right through 
Erwin with supplies enough to skip it. 

     As far as "already having the town hostel franchise," that's a tough 
one. I suppose I would feel sorry for someone who depended on his hostel for 
income only to be undercut by a second hostel. But, in the real world, that is 
reality and fair game. It's also bad conduct to try to intimidate the competition 
by harassment. I suppose if I were the recipient of such hostility I'd be 
less forgiving. 

     After the "FUBAR" incident, I'd bet Ms Janet would have more trouble 
convincing a social services agent that hostels were totally safe for children. 
I'm sure Ms Janet feels frustrated knowing the AT isn't like that, but knowing 
that social services will pretty much ignore that and play their role as 
government controllers. I can imagine her plight...

                                          - "R&R"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20030719/330e3665/attachment.htm