[at-l] Buffer around Baxter?

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

In a message dated 4/18/04 6:25:13 AM, jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:


> When I learned to debate, I was taught that the starting point of any
> productive discussion is to define your terms.   -snip- Your preference for 
> vague meanings of the terms over generally
> accepted ones puzzles me.
> 

            ***   Well, that was my point actually. I believe my post was 
actually quite extensive in its definition of terms in relation to the AT, 
Baxter, and the creation of wildness. So much so, in fact, that dictionary 
definitions are what are "vague" here in real context. The person who looks into the 
Trail's history, defines exactly what was meant in terms of wilderness and its 
purpose vis a vis the AT, and then elaborates on it is not the one who is 
failing to define terms adequately. I did notice, however, that most average Trail 
views are somewhat sparse on recognition of wildness and its intentional 
purpose in the Trail's design. Clearly the best application of the "terms" you cite 
is a dynamic one versus the form and being of the Appalachian Trail. Since I 
believe I can support my descriptions of wildness' place in the AT, you can 
understand why I might take umbrage with being accused of being "vague" when 
perhaps I have offered the more complete and relevant version of those terms.     




> I'm glad to hear that you are in favor of reasonable technology to insure
> safety. In fact I never had any doubt that MacKaye placed great value on
> his fellow humans. He was a socialist and socialists, by definition, put
> people ahead of money and land. From the strident tone of your rhetoric
> though, I have had occasion to wonder about you.
> 

          ***     Try to understand, Saunterer, my discomfort with your lack 
of any mention of wilderness in your last answer. There are many things 
happening today that deserve a well-applied sense of "stridency" in terms of the 
environment and AT. Your answer leads me to think that once a person accepts 
rescue communication they have satisfied the main concern for the Trail. Sorry, 
but my main concern for the Trail isn't exaggerated examples of rescue or 
safety. I almost think these examples are thought of in order to get around 
confronting the more AT-relevant case of preserving the Trail's philosophical purpose. 
That purpose is clearly available in Trail archives and ATC. Why isn't it 
ever mentioned? So, you can see why I worry that examples like ranger's radios 
are really examples meant to blow open the dam and are really saying radios are 
OK for safety - so cell phones are OK also - and eventually civilization 
connectivity and so on (blah blah)...

         Benton MacKaye put great value on another thing Saunterer. That was 
the AT and its purpose. So much so that he quit his own creation when that 
purpose was drowned out by popular expediency. I would bet if we could bring 
MacKaye back I know which position he would take. To keep this short, of all the 
things threatening the AT, rescue facility is not on the short list. However, 
if the AT is viewed in its entirety, wildness and its preservation is under 
serious threat. I honestly think that is reasonable...
 

>  If rangers can't call their cohorts
> for assistance when they find an injured hiker because their radios are
> banned, the public gets the message that environmental radicals are more
> concerned with unseen radio waves than with the safety of the public. That
> turns it into a wilderness vs people issue and is the wrong message to send
> if your goal is to inspire love of wilderness.
> 

          ***    It's a double-edged sword. There are other things that also 
send the wrong message. For instance, establishing a need for technology in a 
place dedicated to its non-existence. I seriously don't think the need is that 
drastic for instant radio communication in Baxter. But this is all moot since 
Weary suspects they are switching to other means. 

         Where you've made *your* mistake is calling radio waves "invisible" 
and calling people who uphold a sense of wilderness "radicals". We'll leave 
that because it has been covered ad infinitum. Civilization communication leaves 
very "visible" marks in wildness. Trust me, there are people out there who 
see the Baxter restriction of mud bog races in big-wheeled trucks as 
"environmental radicalism."   



> Come on now, let's not pile on Canada over the acid rain in the
> Adirondacks. The bulk of it comes from the US midwest 
> 

        ***    While the entire Adirondacks are bathed in midwest acid rain, 
Canadian coal plant smog has pushed the uppermost NY counties over EPA 
limits...