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

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

In a message dated 8/8/2005 1:54:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rafeb@speakeasy.net writes:
*
*
*

If you can't understand that Baxter is unique
and singular, I'd have to conclude that you're
just playing dumb.


         ***    Let's see, I accuse you of not mentioning the cell phone in 
particular and you turn it around as if I had failed to realize something. 
That's chutzpah! (Or a straw man)

         Did it ever occur to you that the AT is unique and singular? - or is 
it your job as an AT member to make the Trail as indistinct and mundane as 
possible in order to justify cell phone indifference to the Trail's purpose? 
>From reading your writings am I to understand that the AT is just sort of an 
accident with no real purpose but Baxter is a specially designed place with a 
purpose you recognize? You seem to be well learned and understanding of Baxter, 
yet you treat the AT as if you just heard of it and need these things explained. 
Sorry, that doesn't look sincere to me. Who is the one "playing dumb" here?

      

The limited-access nature of Baxter is entirely
relevant -- it's what makes the wildness possible.
Is that what you want for the rest of the AT?


       *** 
                    I guess you just can't help arguing in straw man 
diversions. That's a dishonest method of argument. You are posing the baited question 
that I want limited access on the AT. Again, you deliberately veer from the 
subject - which is Baxter's planned wilderness ethic. Slippery Rafe.

        It isn't surprising that the usual hard-time-givers try to distort 
MacKaye as a massive Appalachian developer, but they ignore MacKaye's lengthy 
writing on the wilderness ethic plainly seen in his published writings and even 
more directly in his private letters.




It's not just cell phones that are banished, it's
"Audio devices such as radios, televisions,
cassette players, or cellular telephones."


          ***  Doh. Care to discuss why?




Baxter's a dream park for fit, experienced,
well-equipped hikers.  It would be entirely out
of place anywhere except... exactly where it is.


           ***   The Appalachian Trail was positioned over an even more 
suitable stretch of wilds from the south to the north. In a fit of excuse making, 
you are trying to sell that Baxter was uniquely placed and the AT wasn't. That 
isn't necessarily true.

        The AT actually serves to allow more city people to taste a wild 
stretch of woods by being close to the metro northeast. It needs people to push 
for these places rather than rationalize why they shouldn't be protected as 
much. You should know AT developers argue your same points. 

          You didn't answer my point that Baxter was of MacKaye's day. I 
wonder what inspired Baxter?   




On a somewhat related note, I gather AT rules
now prohibit camping except at "designated
shelters and camp sites."  That goes well beyond
LNT principles, and it's a rule that I'll violate,
without guilt, as the situation warrants.


          ***    If they do it is to keep the narrow corridor from being 
trampled. (Although I admit I'd be tempted to stealth in a spot not prone to 
excess use) But God forbid hikers would ever work with ATC or Trail authorities in 
trying to keep the Trail as untrampled as possible - let alone wild. 






*