[MA-RPC] RE: Proposed accessibility directives

[James Hooper]

It is not the public at large but the ADA activist that would want to 
pave the AT (that is where it is headed)

Unless the religious activist take them on, the ADA activist get their way.

Walt Daniels wrote:

>Sorry, but the public at large does not agree with your view of the world.
>Without changing the public's view there is NO chance of your proposal being
>taken seriously. 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Hooper [mailto:james.hooper at worldnet.att.net] 
>>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:47 AM
>>To: Walt Daniels
>>Cc: 'Kerry Snow'; MA-RPC at commerce-02.cilia.org; 'Susan Daniels'
>>Subject: Re: [MA-RPC] RE: Proposed accessibility directives
>>
>>I should be a right for access to public building such as 
>>court houses.... but not wilderness areas.
>>
>>Walt Daniels wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>I think the AT should be exempt from all of these 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>requirements.  That 
>>    
>>
>>>>would take congressional action!
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>At the very least it would take Congressional action. But it is 
>>>actually much deeper than that. It would take a fundamental 
>>>      
>>>
>>change in 
>>    
>>
>>>the mindset of most people who think that ADA access is a right.  
>>>Without a change in the mindset, congress would not act.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>