>>>>>My question for the hunker down in bunker survivalists:
>>>> Address young Christopher. Or use m.s.
>>>Not really my interest.
>> Learn to talk to direct sources.
>> I can see you did finally reach him.
In article <48b6f897$0$28764$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Jon <jonmein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>May not be much there, there... Hard to tell.
Learn how to ask the right questions.
Follow Usenet extraction protocols and interrogation technique.
>> The question of National Parks in Europe is tricky and inconsistent.
>
>Even more so, the concept of "backcountry" is tricky and inconsistent.
It really has no legal and barely any literary meaning (less and less as
law asserts its single definition way of doing things). One has to
resort specifically to certain legally defined terms like Park,
Wilderness, Reserve, Refuge, etc. We can allude to Front-Country like
we allude to the Rockys Front Range. That which is not: not urban, not
suburban, not rural. Avoiding the biases of "the woods" from
"backwoods" another somewhat meaningless restrictive term which insults
deserts, the Everglades, oceans, the Arctic regions.
{European}
>> Most for instance don't allow even over night tent camping in the sense
>> of US park backpacking. They have campgrounds,
>
>It's an issue of population density, close proximity, and scarce
>resource... Also cultural? Does lack of local backcountry
>make for more "explorers" and "adventurers" who seek
>overseas destinations?
That's part of it.
You also need a rnage of hazards of which wild animals, talk to Martin,
are but one fact which Europe has a hard time with because they killed
most of them off, except in Siberia. No one does the most remote point
from a road in European countries.
Some explorers and adventists were in it for the conquest, their plot of
imperially designated land (some with slaves).
>(invoke Monty Python: "twin peaks of Kilimanjaro" sketch)
I put my hand over one eye.
Street climbing was more fun. (Arrrgh!)
>> Count Siberia as backcountry.
>Likewise many non-western Europen locales.
Like?
>> I think the idea of art kills creativity.
>> --D.N.A.
>
>Now we're back to "what is art".
So skip art. Stay objective.
>>>> it's the fact that there are limits which makes knowledge possible.
>>>But many things we knew were so, we now know were not so.
>> So you think we have information fads which change like stop lights?
>> Like basic elements?
>
>No, but knowledge and understanding aren't static.
Only as a generalization.
Do you believe in "constants?"
>Perhaps we won't be proven *as wrong* in our current
>understanding as we previously have been.
No, I would hazard guesses that some stuff in our universe will stay
universal. It's true we live in an inbetween world which has things
which change and a few things which don't.
This isn't the same as cultural relativism or natural law.
Things weren't called elements for nothing. And it's no longer just
"four."
After all we have learned, will this mean that humans will have
no "free will?" Making the big jump. I think 1) we still have lots to
learn.
2) lots of it, we won't "like." "Like" has nothing to do with it.
3) The problem is more linguistic and literary than objective.
It'd be like philosophers arguing about suspended trans****t.
>> Disney was a practical kind of guy, he just loved impressing
>> children. And making a buck doing that.
>
>Marketing.
>Imagineering: recursive marketing.
No, I would not say that.
I grew up SoCal, and I looked at a job as an Imagineer. I know a few.
I have letters on file asking for Disney IP (and they nicely gave it).
Marketing is certain a part of WED Enterprises, but it wasn't everything
to Uncle Walt.
I'm out of here for 5 days.
--
|
