[at-l] Cell Phones - Yawn

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

In a message dated 6/28/04 4:40:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:

<< Balderdash! If they were both "purists" of one mind, why did MacKaye and 
 Avery have a falling out over the building of the trail? 


           ***   When asked to honestly admit what Avery would have been 
doing without MacKaye posters usually remain silent. It's obvious enough from the 
Trail's present surroundings and how they came to be that the AT was a 
gigantic conservation project that complacency and fear of actually pulling it off 
managed to curtail. That type of fear is shown in your response Saunterer. To 
make such an argument is to argue against what exists and what ATC currently 
pursues in its own diminished way. To argue for diversity of opinion is only to 
argue against what which is responsible for the best part of the Trail that 
those who argue enjoy. Why is it we are asked to unplug our electric devices, not 
use oil or coal, etc but not asked to leave the AT if we really don't like 
conservation and those who push for it? The irony that the AT is the result of 
all that "unplugging" isn't lost on me. It humors me that those who make that 
argument don't realize it.

           You are asking yourself the right question above. I think I have 
answered it. Think about what MacKaye, the designer of the AT, was having a 
problem with?


 
 Honest people recognize that it takes cooperation and tolerance to create a 
 project the size of the AT and that you can't get that by being an elitist, 
 suggesting that those with different motives/viewpoints are not worthy 
 because they don't see things exactly as you do.


                 ***   I think you might be surprised at who exactly is being 
"elitist" here. With so much obviousness being denied and ignored it would 
seem to me that those who wish to do so and still demand equal footing as far as 
value of opinion exert a sort of elitism of their own. Myself I would think 
it would be fairly elitist to ask that those who support the Trail, and can 
articulate it, accept views that work against that cause as normal and 
reasonable. I would ask those persons only one thing, if you really don't like the Trail 
be honest, don't use general politics or rhetoric to nip away at it, just 
come right out and say you would rather see the land developed and buffer taken 
away from the Trail. That your status politic or casual sensibility is stronger 
than your support for the AT and what it is as expressed by those who best 
know and can articulate it without name calling or derogatory labels, or calls 
for shutting it off.



  All I've said was 
 that they don't destroy wildness except in the minds of those who are 
 hypersensitive to the presence of them. I've also said we should be 
 focusing on keeping coverage from extending to wild areas (i.e. no cell 
 towers on mountain tops please). I *thought* I'd been pretty plain about 
that.


                    ***     If you are calling for honest evaluation you 
should practice it yourself. If you are for restricting cell-phone infrastructure 
into wild areas you should admit that taking a mild stand won't work with the 
forces that threaten [AT] wilderness. Honest observers would see that the 
issue is shut down and avoided by those most directly concerned. Those who simply 
see it as a matter of etiquette miss the entire point. To make the argument 
that cell-phones have no impact on the AT's condition is to ignore how they have 
already changed the Trail. If people don't like hearing that or care doesn't 
really make any difference. Honest evaluation would see that those closer to 
official Trail involvement see the threat, those least interested don't. Never 
should equal say or value of opinion be given to those least interested. 
Calling people 'elitist' doesn't solve that. 

          
 
 
 
 Now just who ridiculed cell phone users by saying that are too frightened 
 to go into the woods without their phones. All I said was that notion was 
 nonsense and if you can't see a cell phone without your hike being ruined 
 you need to look inside yourself to see why. 


                ***     Of course, when persons concerned with the AT try to 
impress that the Trail was *designed* to do that very thing they hear 
"balderdash"! Is it perhaps "bad etiquette" to scoff at persons who try to push for 
more Trail understanding? Maybe we should be looking into ourselves to see why 
we think Trail organization will ruin our experience as well?