[at-l] Knowing that it's there.. and atml

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Rafe wrote:
>First, I don't see myself as a cell phone advocate.
>I just don't go along with creating spurious and
>destructive "class divisions" between AT hikers
>over such matters. Us vs. them, strong vs weak,
>pure vs. impure, wise vs. naive, etc.

What "class divisions", Rafe?  Thruhiker vs non-thruhiker, perhaps?  Go take 
a look at the ATC website - they make the distinction between hikers and 
thruhikers.  Always have.  They used to  keep a list of thruhikers who were 
willing to talk to prospective thruhikers.  They don't keep  list of 
non-thruhikers for prospective thruhikers to talk to.  You wouldn't go to an 
engineer to deliver a baby - well, maybe in an emergency.  But not by 
choice.  <g>

For the cell phone thing - on-trail, I don't mess with those who "carry" as 
long as they don't mess with me.  Tomorrow, I'll try to finish something I 
started last week - we'll see if you object to it.  It's about "connection" 
as opposed to "disconnection."  Won't happen tonight though - it's been too 
long a day with a paint brush and drywall mud.

>Second, I think it's unfair to suggest that all cell
>phone users or carriers are unaware of their
>impact, consequences, and implications.

I don't believe I ever said ALL cell phone users were totally ignorant of 
those things. But too many of them are.  In fact, the ONLY places I talk 
about cell phones at all is in this context (the Trail) - and with some of 
the people I work with.  I should maybe mention that many of the top NASA 
managers refuse to own cell phones?

>You know, I wish there were far fewer automobiles
>on the roads today.  The consequences of auto
>(and fossil-fuel) use are enormous, possibly
>catastrophic on a global scale.  But since the
>alternatives are few in the USA, I own a car and
>drive to most places.

Ain't gonna argue this with you here - it doesn't belong on this list.  If 
you want to tralk about it, get to me privately.


>Third.  If we want "the general public" to become
>more aware of these issues, we need to get them
>on the trail, and have confidence that the trail
>itself will impart some enlightenment. We can't
>bludgeon the unwashed onto paths of righteousness.

Agreed - BUT --- if some people get their way and the trail corridor becomes 
a 20 mile wide swath for it's length, then access will become more limited 
than it is now.  Not saying that'll happen - but that's "The Dream" for some 
people.  I'm not saying this well - and there's a lot more to the subject.  
Another time.


>There will always be tension between these goals:
>keeping the trail wild and keeping it accessible.
>It needs to be both, somehow.

I'd agree - except that the "wild" part is too vague.  Otherwise - I think 
we're at least in the same book, if not the same chapter.

Have a good day,
Jim


http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/
>
>