[at-l] Body of Evidence.....and non-evidence

[baltjack@hotmail.com (Jack Tarlin)]

First off, I hope this post is readable; I gather that some of my recent ones have been a bit garbled.  There's not a whole lot I can do about it, as the only machine I have access to these days is a public library one, that suffers recurrent setting problems that I can't fix.
 
    Having said my say re. Wingfoot and his hikes, I was going to stay out of this altogether and concentrate on my packing, but recent strident comments demand a response.
 
    I should say at the outset that I never objected to anyone criticizing Dan on AT-L, nor, as someone suggested, did I find it "improper" to question the validity of his hikes.  What I did expect, tho, was for people who wished to raise this point  do so fairly and properly, i.e. with sufficient, supportable evidence, and that they should also  sign their names to their accusations and take public credit and responsibility for their claims and accusations.  
 
    I am not yet convinced that this is taking place.
 
{nbsp;{nbsp} I am unaware of Dan "admitting" that several of his hikes were incomplete, as this "admission" evidently appeared while I was on the Trail.{nbsp} I would like very much to see this admission in print} so far, only a few people have mentioned having seen it, which seems unusual considering how many people on AT-L were former regulars on Trailplace.  Also, considering how many folks on this list have continual issues with Dan, one would have expected 20 or 30 folks to have immediately come forward by now claiming to have seen this admission, and not just a handful.  Curious, to say the least.
 
  Regarding Jim Own's letter:  Jim says "His (Bruce's) mileage on the AT that year (1992) has been estimated at 400 miles."  Estimated by whom?  Names, please.  And how did they come by that figure?
 
       And later, Jim wrote : "And there's considerable doubt about 89 and 90."  Again, evidence please?  Considerable doubt according to whom?  Without solid corroborative evidence, this is merely malicious hearsay, and proves nothing.  I would like to know who these doubters are, and what really solid evidence they'd like to present us with proving their "considerable doubts."
 
     Which leads me to Kahley's post, in which she relies on various unknown and unnamed sources as her corroboration.  These folks were evidently unwilling to attach their names to their allegations, and considering the seriousness of the charges, this really damages their credibility.  I'm not gonna go into it again, but if you're gonna slag someone on a public forum, then be an adult---State real evidence, put your name on it like a grown-up, and be willing to take responsibility and credit for your allegations.  To do otherwise is incredibly shabby and really damages your argument.  And yes, Kahley, I know people who say controversial things on Trail forums open themselves up to all sorts of flak.  Believe me, I know all about it, having been on the receiving end of all sorts of unsigned pleasantries.  As I've said before, I've even received vulgar mail in the past from someone who is presently chiming in on this Wingfoot discussion, tho he wasn't adult enough to want to discuss it with me thru private correspondence---he sounded off like a four year old , and then blocked any incoming mail.  Really adult, no?  So believe me, Kahley,  I know all about the kind of correspondence controversial posts can incite, but that doesn't alter the fact that if you're going to say something serious about another individual, and you're willing to pass around stuff that you know will damage someone's name and reputation, then you don't do it like a cockroach scuttling around in the dark----you own up to what you're saying, you acknowledge what you've said, and you remain willing to discuss it with others, either ina public Forum or thru private correspondence.  To do otherwise is, essentially, gutless.  Anonymous accusations and gutter innuendo, issued by folks who bleat about "being afraid" to speak publicly, are worthless as evidence.  If what you have to offer to the discussion cannot be said in light of day, and you're not willing to o
wn up to it, it reduces your comments to the level of unsigned bathroom grafitti.  Certain folks are afraid to take credit for what they've said?  Then, for God's sake, hold your tongues in the future until you muster the fortitude and integrity to stand by your accusations.
 
{nbsp;{nbsp}{nbsp}{nbsp}{nbsp} I realize this thread is growing as tedious{nbsp}for some as it is for me.{nbsp} I'm leaving to go hiking in a few days, I really lack the time or desire to continue with this.{nbsp} All I'm saying is that the supportive evidence corroborating the multiple attacks on Dan's integrity as a hiker has yet to have appeared. 20-odd listers chimed in with attacks on Dan and his record} so far only a handful have responded with any supporting evidence, and nearly all of that is unsubstantiated---telling us Dan's figures  "have been estimated" or merely telling us "there's considerable doubt" without supporting facts essentially tells us nothing. Other early accusers and attackers have been notably silent so far.  They have, as yet, been unable to clearly establish the validity of their unspoken charges, and have also declined to admit that their comments, without being presented with corroborative facts, were essentially worthless.
 
{nbsp;{nbsp}{nbsp}{nbsp} So there is "considerable doubt" about Dan's accomplishments in 89, 90, and other years?{nbsp} I say again, considerable doubt expressed by whom?{nbsp} And why have these doubts only been bruited about in recent years----Dan's been a known author and trail "celebrity" for quite some time now} why is his reputation only now under such attack?  There seems no coincidence to me that the appearance of these "public" allegations only appeared in a Forum dominated by folks who, to say the least, have serious issues with Dan Bruce.   But I must tell you, that in my early days on the Trail----95, 96, for example, when Trailplace was in its infancy and had yet to produce so many disgruntled ex-posters, I heard NOTHING, not word one from anyone, either a hiker, trail provider, maintainer----nobody EVER questioned Dan's record in my presence.  In short, if he was widely and apparently universally known to have fudged his travels and accomplishments, then isn't it odd that this wasn't spoken of years ago?  
 
     Well, enough of this, I gotta get back to my packing.  If this conversation continues, it may well do so without me.  All I'm saying, and again requesting, is that if anyone has serious charges or allegations to make, particularly ones that negatively impact another individual's name and reputation, then provide real evidence, and don't tell us you're "unwilling" to speak in public but are still willing to talk trash.  So far, considering the extraordinary number of  posts from regulars on this list regarding Dan's hiking credibility, I've seen seen an extraordinarily small ammount of real corroborative evidence.  There have to be other folks on this list who hiked from '85-'92, so please feel free to comment.  Likewise, anyone from '92-'96 who heard anything re. this matter out there?  I mean, if people knew, for years, that there was some fudging or embellishing going on, how come we've heard from so few of them?  
 
     The comparitive silence regarding the "proof" behind these allegations is deafening.   If you'd like, I'll list the names of every regular contributor to this list who chimed in with accusations and snidely implied allegations, and challenge them to immediately substantiate their original posts.  But no, it's not worth the trouble.  If they had anything solid to say other than hearsay, gossip, or second-hand trash talk, we'd have heard from them by now.  As I said before, the silence here is downright deafening.   Unsupported accusations against others is simply wrong, whoever that person may be.  It does nothing to damage the reputation of the intended target, and reflects very poorly on the character of the accusers.  I must say, and not for the first time, that I think the good folks who frequent this List are capable of better things.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
http://explorer.msn.com

------------------------------------------




--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---