[at-l] Appalachian Trail history question

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

In a message dated 10/30/2005 11:18:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rcli4@comcast.net writes:
*
*
*
###The reason is I think communes are the wrong way to live.  I think you 
should work for what you get and when you got yours if you want to go live in the 
woods, go for it. If you want to help destroy the environment buy a house on 
a barrier island.

     ***   Ah, but there's faster way Clyde. The best way to destroy the 
environment is to attack and slander anyone who stands up for one of the few and 
only manifest environmental projects in America. 

          AT-L is a 'commune' of sorts. The volunteer structure that 
currently upkeeps the Trail is also one. ATC does AT 'advocacy' too. 

         Since you assert buying a house on a barrier island is bad for the 
environment (which it probably is) I assume you are recognizing the need to 
limit development? The best organized institution I know of that deals directly 
with that is the Appalachian Trail. So, support of its purpose is pretty much 
what you assert (albeit in an 'indirect' way). There's a lot more to the AT 
than accusing someone of violating his own standards. You can't just leave off at 
that point. By doing so you've avoided the entire discussion.




 It strikes me as wrong to the point of subversive that so much effort is 
made to diminish MacKaye and what he represents... 
### I am not subversive.  I said it as plain as I could.  What part of idiot 
or short sighted didn't you understand?  Nothing subversive here. A lot of 
people agree that a small part (The trail was barely mentioned and then just as a 
way to connect communes) of what MacKaye wrote in his article is a good thing 
but most was crap.

           ***   Sorry, but one-word slights are no way of dealing with 
MacKaye's otherwise complex plans. My question to you would be: "Name me the other 
way the Trail could have gotten built without MacKaye and what would we have 
now without him?"

               I've written numerous times that the original Project involved 
much more land and therefore the 'developed' work camps would have easily fit 
into them. I see no answer has been given to that yet. 

         The worst thing here is the lack of realization that the Trail 
itself was built by 'commune' workers in many places. I disagree that it was "crap" 
as you say. In the 1920's a large conservation project, that would have 
resulted in large swaths of preserved land, had to have a functional justification. 
To go further, I suggest MacKaye knew that once people came to understand 
these mountain biospheres they would be more likely to approve of their 
preservation. This is something true even today in the Trail's planned effect on 
people. Your criticism conspicuously avoids the fact that the "idiot" project would 
have contained a wild core. It is silly to not realize the Trail, with one 
person every 4 feet, would have been wide enough to spread those people out over 
huge distances. So much so, that the Trail would probably be wilder than what 
it is now. The Trail today is surrounded by increasing nearby development. Too 
many people get away with gross distortions of what would have been. As is 
typical, this one-person-every-four-feet example completely omits the width axis 
or its context.



   

###My original post was not directed towards you.  I was hoping for 
intelligent responses such as Weary's.  Once I got by his speculation I actually 
learned something.

             ***   Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps next time I'll reduce it to words 
like "idiot" to meet your standard. The "speculation" you accuse Weary of is 
pretty much accurate. I find your doubting, and its cause, to be what is suspect 
here.

      Weary is a nice guy who writes according to professional AMC public 
standards. He also collects money for the Trail. As you display, sometimes his 
style allows people to miss his meaning. In a way, the AT isn't 
"confrontational" enough. Frankly, I see that as an excuse myself. (I strongly support Weary)



###If you have an intelligent response to clear up my misunderstanding please 
respond.  I have spent the last year working with the St. Johns River 
Management district studying the effects of barrier island development on the 
environment.  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  Plan carefully your 
response
Clyde
> 
                      ***    How does that work for the Trail? If you've read 
recent comments by the AT's worst developers, they mirror your accusatory 
rationalizing. In effect, you are using their exact logic. 

            I find it rather incongruous to accuse me of not having an 
"intelligent opinion" when I seem to be the one spending so much time trying to 
elaborate on this. - What did Solar Bear leave for again? If you were honest you 
would admit this subject wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for me.

         As usual, I expect no answer to the germane points I've made. 
Perhaps we can focus on hypocrisy of home location instead? (But not hypocrisy of 
intention or method via the AT and its purpose). You've picked a bad example for 
this. My barrier island is the most preserved in Florida. This scrutiny most 
assuredly arises because I stand up for the Trail. That's the hypocrisy here.

       You can see people who come to the AT through internet lists are prone 
to not understanding this from this very example. 







*