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

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

In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:22:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gwbrown1@gmail.com writes:
*
*
*
Not factully true, this is your *opinion*.  I want the AT preserved as
much as anyone else on this list.  I hope in 200 years the trail is
still intact and a way for one to spend six months walking the trail.

               ***   gw, you're not reading this closely enough. The 
"preserved" you refer to is physical corridor. Good for you. I want that too. I think 
if you were reading the many posts on this already accurately you would see we 
were talking about the psychological or 'experience' part of the Trail. Even 
pro-cell phone Sloetoe admitted that people who deny cell phones influence 
their experience were not telling the truth. Unfortunately, like many others, 
your pro-cell phone view completely ignores the "disconnectedness" argument and 
its affect on the hike and Trail's purpose. I am forced to point out that this 
is a consistent syndrome verifying at 100%. Cell phone promoters don't 
recognize the wilderness ethic.


You have not proven anything.  When and where did you prove this? 

            ***    What you have not proven is how the instant communication 
of a cell phone or knowledge of its availability DOESN'T affect the hike and 
experience. We are talking basic stuff here. The worst impact cell phones have 
on the Trail is reinforcement of disregard for the ethic. As you prove here. 
In this case I recommend banning them, like in Baxter, so hikers can be forced 
into what the Trail is about. They'll be better off for it. 

            I don't have the inclination to conduct months of research to 
show how cell phones impact the Trail. But it's common sense that instant 
communications destroy the psychological feeling of remote disconnectedness. If you 
don't understand that I'm sorry, but in no way have I failed to prove anything. 
Having to prove anything at all over such a basic AT point is already 
starting one step back on what the Trail is about. Ask Baxter why they banned them 
and you'll be on the right track.

              Let's be honest. Hikers who carry cell phones tend to be fuzzy 
on the wildness ethic issue. The overall effect is weakening what the Trail is 
about and taking it down on all levels. Believe me, you say you are for 
buffer protection, but developers use your exact same logic to blow-off the need 
for even that.



Somewhere I missed the your theory passing into fact.  As I stated
before I had a cell phone with me on the trail last week and it's the
same trail this week as it was then.  Did I bump into you while on the
trail?  Nope.  Did you even know I was out there?  No.  Did my phone
have any effect on anyone else's hike?  Nope.


               ***   An environmental sciences grad really needs to do a 
survey on this. If we started with the pre-cell phone AT and compared it to now 
you would see large perceptible changes at many levels. This runs the gamut from 
hiker gear lists, communications planning with relatives, communications 
routines on-Trail, hiker community perception of communications needs and 
routines, shuttles arranged by cell phone call from the Trail in remote areas, shorter 
periods between communications by hikers, outside perception of the Trail by 
persons who now see the AT as a place where you'll receive an evening call 
from the deep woods - this list would prove to be very long and very real. So, 
your pat answer isn't anything close to being respectful of the reality - which 
in itself is a symptom of what I'm talking about. Yes, indeed, you did miss my 
theory (MacKaye's and ATC's as well).

         As I said to another cell phone promoter, we are dealing with this 
on different levels. One protects the Trail's state of wildness the other 
doesn't. What you fail to input is how these listed changes effect the Trail's 
wilderness (wildness) purpose. 



Knowing that some people illogically think that cell phones are
destroying the AT makes the people that carry them use them
discreetly, which is what I did.

              ***    Sorry, but the sign of members who don't follow the 
argument correctly is hyperbole like "destroying the Trail". Well, then again, 
they probably are. In an insidious way that has been described many times 
already. They are the wedge, or means, by which people are lead to disregard the 
Trail's wilderness ethic as a common goal. If you understand the Trail at the 
level ATC deals on the "remote" and "disconnected" parts of the Guidelines were 
not put in there for poetic reasons. They were put in there specifically to 
emphasize the Trail's plan for decivilization (wildness). Just as the corridor 
needs a physical buffer, the psychological corridor needs a designed buffer as 
well. The fact that no cell phone promoters deal on this basic ATC level 
illustrates the problem. Hence, the cell phone is provably a source for deterioration 
of hiker respect for the Guidelines and their purpose. They are a direct 
impediment towards hiker understanding of the Trail itself. That's not 
insignificant.

             I asked one cell phone promoter to justify his position via the 
Guidelines. He responded that they weren't meant to be taken that strictly. I 
assure you developers building huge projects on the corridor's edge love 
hearing that because they think the same way. 



> 
>             People who defiantly promote them in full knowledge of this are
> outright hostile to the Trail's purpose.

Wrong.  Not true, etc, etc. etc.


              ***    1)   Show me one single instance of a pro-cell phone 
debater even mentioning the Trail's purpose in any other way but questioning it.

                      2)    I expect your comment of "wrong" is also based on 
such a partial viewpoint that won't relate any reasoning to the AT wildness 
ethic we've discussed at length.


> 
>            So far, Rafe's, or anyone else's, answers haven't shown any
> understanding or appreciation of this basic Trail premise. You can't make a 
valid
> argument about this without including all the involved Trail aspects...
> 
I don't even know where to begin on that one and since I do have work
to do today I'd rather not burn an hour or so rebutting.


           ***  Sloetoe and several others said that exact same thing when 
they got to this point. Your post continues the streak of not mentioning one 
single thing about this wilderness premise. Seeing a pattern? 

               What I'm talking about is looking at all the factors involved 
starting all the way back at the Trail's conception. Mostly understanding, 
interpreting, and putting into functional perspective, the Trail's wilderness 
ethic and how cell phone proliferation affects it.

                I appreciate your response. It was sincere without sneering 
or name calling or gratuitously advertising how you ignore me.






*