[at-l] More Musings Sparked by Recent Digest Reading

[jestbill at yahoo.com (william fitzpatrick)]

I once started a conversation by stating (what I consider an axiom) "Everybody
needs to get fed."  The guy I was talking to snickered.  The conversation was
over: there was no common ground.  We may as well have been speaking different
languages.

I read the post and link and can say that I disagree strongly.  I believe that
the fact that some people may not have enough money to satisfy the sellers of
food is not, in itself, sufficient reason why they must starve.  (Substitute
"land" for "food" and choose your own land use for "starve.")

I can also say that there is almost nothing either side can say that will make
any sense to the other.

--- RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/2005 7:25:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> texas12step@nym.hush.com writes:
> *
> *
> *
> > Funny I don't see many land rights posts lately...
> 
> You want one? I mean, it's been a couple of years, but
> I suppose that I could throw one together *just* for you.
> 
> 
>            ***
> 
> 
>                       Texas:
> 
> 
>               I read your post and it's link. I concluded it is nothing but 
> ideological land rights trolling in contempt of the Trail and its purpose.
> 
> 
>               If you could phrase something that:
> 
>            1)  Showed respect for the Trail's purpose in some way other than 
> a perverted land rights prism through which all things must pass.
> 
>            2)   Were able to argue a sensible Trail viewpoint other than 
> extreme interpretations of land rights dogma. 
> 
>            3)   Realized how that perspective was part of what threatens the 
> AT without reacting to it in a purely political, but completely AT-devoid
> way.
> 
>            4)     Realized land rights and property turn over isn't God. 
> 
>            5)   Could articulate the inherent environmental value of 
> preserved AT lands.
> 
>            6)    Registered a sense of morality towards craven speculation 
> over critical preservation grounds. 
> 
>            7)   Admitted your theoretical land rights based acquisition plan 
> is impossible and would discover so only after chewing up all available open 
> space.
> 
>            8)    Confess that pure land rights arguments are a ruse to paint 
> conservationists as misoriented leftists while the land is being eaten up 
> figuring it out.
> 
>            8)  (I know I don't like flaming but) Put down the land rights 
> pipe and smell the destruction.
> 
> 
> 
>               I thank you for your response because it shows us the real 
> 'insanity' being faced here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> 


JestBill  Ga--->Me '03


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com