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

[rafeb at speakeasy.net (Raphael Bustin)]

At 09:37 PM 8/7/2005 -0400, you wrote:

>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/
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005