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

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

Since you didn't do anything but mount a long personal attack without
addressing any points, I really can't have a conversation with you.  The
rest of the list will have to determine which of us is the troll.  To
summarize your attack was at least amusing:

> evasive sophistry.
> mental opiate
> Don't patronize me Shane, you haven't earned it.
> Only if you want to detour into the ridiculous
> Your statement above is  wrong
> Your attempt ... is a strawman argument and a cheap one
> Your false argument completely ignores the reality of cell phones'
> affect on the AT at many levels, including physical changes to the Trail
> your response is so airy and evasive, and so avoiding of my main points,
that it looks like
> a troll
> no rational or honest argument
> foolishly inappropriate and irresponsible argument
> This is just utter semantic-based bs
> dishonest filibuster into airy philosophy
> insincere ruminating off the point.
> means of bizarre doubletalk.
> attempts at philosophizing
> a foolish argument designed to avoid the obvious.
> just a silly way of avoiding the obvious.
> flaw in your approach
> Something you haven't adequately answered.
> That's a false argument.
> lead off into sophistry
> philosophical shell games.
> not being honest
> You haven't made a point here.
> You're blatantly trying to change the subject.
> trying to engage in contrived complexities
> Goobledigook.
> Filibuster.
> Hokey sophistry and filibuster.
> Shane wants to bring a cell phone to the Trail and anything that justifies
that sounds good
> to him.

(Something I NEVER said or even implied.)

> Since the AT is for people, then what he feels is all that matters.

(Nope.  Didn't say that either.)

> your last paragraph implied was that there was an
> acceptable case where condos across the Trail were OK by that standard.

(I don't think any reasonable person could possibly construe my post as
saying such.)

> you are grossly misquoting MacKaye

(I don't think you've ever actually read MacKaye...)

> your message implies "chuck the wilderness stuff, it's for people".

(Not something I said or implied.)

> Ridiculous.
> looking to obfuscate them for self-serving purposes.
> scientific reality behind the cell phone's impact on wilderness.
> shameless sophistry
> You are trying to sell yourself as a deep boreal wilderness veteran with
experience and
> outdoors credibility - all for the purpose of justifying cell phone use on
the Trail.

(I have to admit here that I had to stop for a few minutes while I laughed.
I have no idea how you could possibly misconstrue something so badly.)

> Even having said all that, you will still accuse me of trying to destroy
the
> ATs wilderness ethic.  Of hating wilderness.  Of trying to civilize the
> trail.  I have said nothing of the sort.  You will also accuse me of not
> answering the question, so allow me to do so directly:
>
>         ***   Another pathetic strawman. And, yes, you have said nothing.

I hate it when I'm right.  Do you even know what a strawman agument is?

> You are looking at this quite backwards.

Oh.  So it's actually the existance of cell phones, and not people's
attitudes towards wilderness that is the real problem?  Didn't you READ what
I wrote AT ALL, man!?

>            ***   An utterly conflicting - to the point of blindness -
example
> of doublespeak. What rankles me about it is it takes my words about the AT
> and bastardizes them in an almost sacrilegious way.
> It's not honest Shane.
>
>                 ***     This is grindingly indifferent to the real changes
> and effects cell phones have and how they actually do alter important
Trail
> elements.
> weaseling around the difficult.
>             ***   Another criminal misrepresentation
> committing the oversimplification

I suppose I shouldn't really be suprised.  You have never shown yourself
capable of an honest discussion.

I did like this:

> You try to get around this by saying the AT is inanimate and meant for
people

I guess you're trying to say that the AT is animate and not meant for
people?

Sad.

Shane