[at-l] Cell phones VS Nature - An attempt to clarify - LONG

[rafeb at speakeasy.net (Raphael Bustin)]

At 01:17 PM 8/2/2005 -0700, Robert wrote:

>I find it interesting that these lines appeared together. The suggestion 
>is made to try two hikes, one with a cell and one without. Thus, you can 
>compare the two hikes and see how they are when held up against each other.


I know it's not your idea but Weary's -- but it's
a dumb idea nonetheless, because a hike is
determined by countless factors apart from
the stupid phone.

I've been hiking seriously for thirty years.
For the first 28 there was no phone, and even
so, each of those hikes was unique.

The hikes I took "back then" are different from
the ones I take now... for all kinds of reasons.

Equipment, weather, company, terrain, scenery.
Age, attitude, physical condition.  Changing
all the time.

Does anyone believe the effect of the phone can
be measured against all these other changes?

To suggest such a test (as Weary did) is to grant
far more significance to the phone than it deserves.


rafe b
aka terrapin 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005