[at-l] On the cell phone argument

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> My question came first. It was relevant to the string
> of thought and progress of the discussion. I perfectly
> understand why it wasn't answered. It most definitely has to
> do with "my not understanding" what you great
> people philosophers are saying.

Actually, you didn't ask a question.  You made a statement.  The statement
was:

"To prove MacKaye was more interested in wilderness than the contrived
"people" argument some use to avoid his wilderness ethic - When MacKaye was
forced off the Trail by road blasters he formed the Wilderness Society
creating large public wildernesses out west. These wildernesses were mainly
for conservation with none of the "people" element so badly forced on
MacKaye by others. They were indirectly for people - but not in a way that
pushed out his real intentions..."

I then responded with the words of the man you claim to respect so much:

In "Memorandum on Regional Planning," MacKaye defined his terms. Regional
planning, he wrote, is "the conscious deliberate working out of a systematic
method for developing, as far as still possible, the natural resources of a
region (or locality) so as to convert those resources into human needs and
welfare."

Your response to this was to accuse me of ignoring the point, went on about
something about development (which I hadn't mentioned) rather than come up
with anything to support your position that MacKaye was more interested in
wilderness itself than in the benefits that wilderness brings to people.

You still haven't.  Probably because you can't.

Shane