[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [CDT-L] Politics and the list
- Subject: Re: [CDT-L] Politics and the list
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:39:27 -0500
Earl - and others -
I understand your aversion to "politics". I left Pennsylvania over 40
years ago because I got too close to the politics at the state level and
burned out. And I was 20 at the time. But I finally realized that what
my grandfather had taught me was almost universally true - and that
whether I like it or not, I have to live with "politics". What he taught
me was that if you have two people together - you have "politics".
The bad news here is that there *will* be politics on this list
regardless of whether any of us like it or not. Talking about the CDT
makes that inevitable. Let's take a short look at this - gear
discussions on this list are likely to be *really* short. Those on this
list are generally too experienced to be playing the "gear game" that's
played on some of the other lists. Newbies worry about gear - because
it's about the only thing that they *think* thay can control. Many, if
not most, of the people on this list have already thruhiked one trail or
another. The CDT may be a challenge for them, but they know it's
possible and they know that with the right attitude and a little luck
they can do it. And most of them know that it ain't the gear that gets
you there. So there's not a lot of point in talking about it.
So - maybe we'd all like to talk about the trail. Cool - if I can get it
together I can tell everyone what the water sources were between Cuba and
Grants - or through the Great Basin -- for the route we took. I can tell
you details about the route we took, and what we saw and what we felt
about what we saw (the journal's coming - before we leave for Cal). And
others can tell you about their routes and water sources and
experiences. But then what do we talk about. Kinda like sex - what do
you talk about for the *other* 23 1/2 hours of the day. :-)
And then there's the "trail", but if you talk about the trail (as in
where it goes and why) - then you're automatically talking politics.
How could it NOT be - when you have people determining the routing for
the trail who haven't the faintest idea about long distance hiking? How
could they - they have not and most likely will never do a long distance
hike nor are they even interested in long distance hiking - or hikers.
So what criteria do you think they use for "trail design"? It's kinda
like asking a psychologist to design a spacecraft - the end product ---
well, lets just say it's not the best possible design.
I don't know if "politics" with respect to the upcoming "election" is a
legitimate subject for the list. Maybe. All I can say about that is
that I'm glad we'll be on the trail this summer - I'd just as soon miss
all the campaign cr*p. My problem in that respect is deciding which ones
I could vote for and still live with myself. At the moment, none of them
represent anything I could vote FOR. Hmmm - maybe Lyndon Larouche? Not
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:18:04 -0700 Earl Needham <KD5XB@amsat.org> writes:
> At 08:46 PM 2/25/00 -0700, Michael Bleakley wrote:
> >Hi Kelly and Earl,
> >Well I absolutely disagree.
> I agree that political candidates can affect every part of
> our >lives, how the Trail is managed over the years, and possibly even
> who is allowed to hike the trail. That's not my objection. I pushed
> for CDT-L (some people say "founded") because I wanted to know more
> about the TRAIL.
> I hate "politics" with a passion! "Politics" can have
> otherwise friendly people ready to kill each other in a minute. I
> that, and I don't think that has any place on CDT-L.
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
Message from the Continental Divide Trail Mailing List
To: <email@example.com>, "Earl Needham" <KD5XB@amsat.org>