[at-l] 1st thru?

[bullard@northnet.org (James Bullard)]

At 02:45 PM 3/21/01 -0500, Ferguson, J. Mark wrote:
>Enough, enough, enough already.  Please go read the contents of this page:
>
>http://www.atconf.org/hike/thru_hike/after.html
It's interesting that the page has a photo of Earl Schaeffer and the 
caption says "Second thru-hiker". They don't even give his name and they 
credited 6 Boy Scouts as the 1st which would make Earl the 7th not the 2nd 
(much less the 1st).
>and lets talk about *mbr@ll&s, c*ll Ph#n@s, or something useful...
>
>Skippie...who finds this whole subject less and less useful
I'm sorry you find this to be a useless discussion but I think this whole 
mess (despite ATC's protestations) Earl's thru is being dissed by ATC. As 
for proof that a thru was done, Jack wrote:
> > The ATC doesn't verify through hikes anymore, they used to require a
>'report'  decades ago.
>The ATC required a written report of your thruhike in 1991. They asked for
>your general impressions, names of some folks you hiked with, etc.
When Earl completed his thru and reported it, they didn't believe him (it 
was thought to be impossible) and required submission of his journal, his 
photos and other evidence. He was required to give more evidence than 
anyone since. Since then they have been progressively more relaxed as it 
becomes more common. From the 'new' 1st thru-hiker and his 5 companions 
they took the evidence of a reporter's interviews with a 70+ year old man 
who never reported the alleged hike or asked for 2000 miler status. The 
irony is that the AT wasn't even complete until the year after the alleged 
thru by the these Boy Scouts.
Finally Orangebug wrote:
>Speaking of important issues, what do you think about the Red Sox's 
>chances this year?
Red is my favorite color for hiking socks. I'll give them every possible 
chance for an outing. :)

Saunterer