[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Clarification [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book

Subject: Clarification [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
From: kahley7@ptd.net (kahley7)
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 14:43:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010203134042.01d45d40@mail.ptdprolog.net>
References: <20010203144110.23992.qmail@web3206.mail.yahoo.com><86.66a4d3a.27ad6226@aol.com>

I'm sorry for poorly wording the following:

At 01:56 PM 2/3/01 -0500, kahley7 wrote:
>  How are people ever to know that he has actually
>admitted that those seven thrus are bogus?

The wording of the above should be "that the number of seven
thruhikes is bogus".  Dan has stated that not all his "thruhikes"
would be classified as thruhikes by the currently accepted standards.
He has not specified which ones or how many would fail that classification.

References:
- [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
  - From: orangebug74@yahoo.com (Orange Bug)
- [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
  - From: OIdMaster@aol.com (OIdMaster@aol.com)
- [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
  - From: kahley7@ptd.net (kahley7)

Prev by Date: [at-l] tuckerizing
Next by Date: [at-l] Fur's Gear List---
Prev by thread: [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
Next by thread: [at-l] WF filters, was Wingfoot's book
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread