[at-l] On the *#(&% argument

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

In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:42:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rafeb@speakeasy.net writes:
*
*
*
You relentlessly refer to an ideal which exists
only in your mind, defined in a way so as to
make you the One True Believer.  So what's
to argue?  What would be the point?

I despise fundamentalists of all stripes.
They're the scourge of the planet, IMO.
*
*
*
        ***     If you are trying to suggest that the extensive discussion of 
MacKaye's (and even ATC's) implementation of a written and recorded 
wilderness ethic is something I have made up you are simply in reckless denial of 
everything that has been written here. In this case we have proof of the contempt 
some hikers show towards the Trail. This is just a simple explanation of the 
Trail's wilderness purpose - it isn't elitism, zealotry, or any other negative 
label put on it by those seeking to ignore this established purpose. It's the 
AT (and you don't like it). I think it is clear to honest and objective 
readers, that people who don't allow ANY recognition of an AT wilderness ethic are 
not those who should be determining who is extreme or not. At that point it is 
just flagrant ad hominem slander designed to avoid the obvious. Trying to group 
up and portray simple Trail apologists as extremists isn't working simply 
because the real Trail background you are trying to ignore keeps emerging... 






*