[at-l] A Clear Choice for RnR

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

In a message dated 8/5/2005 11:36:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rafeb@speakeasy.net writes:
*
*
*
I've asked you this question two or three
times, RnR, and you've avoided it
consistently.

          ***    I'm sure the list is anxious for another long 
quote-and-response reply. However, we have covered this many times. 



We have family.  For mutual benefit, we use
our phones to keep in contact with our families
when on the trail.

        ***   I also had relatives I kept in touch with on my hike. If you 
were honest, you would admit you brought the cell phone simply because you were 
using it for what it was designed for. I'll bet you never gave the AT wildness 
issue any thought. 



I suspect this is a very common situation, and it
may be a condition for some folks hiking at all.


           ***    Yes, of course. But it is also the civilizing, development, 
technology, hard wiring of mankind as well. We have repeated enough times 
already how the Trail was intended to counter that. Frankly I'm getting tired of 
answering questions that ignore the answers only to proffer lesser AT 
opinions. 



Are you saying that this is contrary to some
higher trail ethic?

         That "some higher Trail ethic" has been described repeatedly. Since 
I haven't seen anyone disprove that ethic, I'll assume it is a valid 
translation of the Trail's purpose. Frankly your wording sounds less than respectful of 
that otherwise clear and apparent 'ethic'. 

         Well, the answer is "yes," it is contrary. (Haven't you been paying 
attention?) There's no arguing that a cell phone hike is less wild than one 
without. Taken to the extreme a cell phone can be used to virtually eliminate 
all sense of remote disconnectedness. But overall, the Trail will change 
directly because of them. 


  Does our commitment to
family consign us to a lesser experience in
the woods?

         ***    That's a baited question. Glenda said she keeps hers only for 
town and extreme emergencies. That is about the least intrusive type of use. 
But, as Jim Owen said, the real usage pattern is much more liberal and 
involves injecting cell phones into the Trail as an expected item. 

            Once again, your question is posed towards yourself and how it 
affects you. I have repeated over and over that no one in here arguing a 
pro-cell phone viewpoint ever addresses how they affect the Trail. You continue to 
prove that correct. If the Trail is designed to immerse hikers in remote and 
detatched wildness (which it is), and cell phones interrupt that (which they do), 
you can't have it any other way. But your arguments strike me as not allowing 
recognition of this established ethic at any cost. Not a coincidence for 
somebody who wants to carry a cell phone.



Does "the wilderness experience" take
precedence over family?  In the spirit of
MacKaye, should I tell my wife to shove off?

             ***   Again, these are seriously baited questions with less than 
full respect for the Trail. You want to pose me as the mean home-wrecker. 
This is why I mention that the outside view of the AT is so important. Those 
worried relatives should realize what the Trail is and not make demands on it that 
damage its being. God forbid anyone would ever collectively work towards the 
Trail's wilderness goal.

             If you put me to a choice, the answer is yes. Your family will 
survive as many families did before cell phones. But that was the harsh and 
cold answer you were fishing for wasn't it? Meanwhile the Trail is flapping out 
there in the wind.

           The real question (which was said many times already) is "is 
unnecessary worrying by Trail-unfamiliar outsiders worth diminishing the Trail?" 
You are the one who didn't answer. It's easy to argue a pro-cell phone opinion 
if you don't give much worth to the Trail's purpose.





*