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

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Jack Tarlin wrote:

>recent strident comments demand a response.

So far the only stridency I've seen is yours.  And you really must have been 
cranked this time cause you used a LOT of words to say very little.  You 
need to use your time better than that.

>    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.

What exactly would you consider "sufficient, supportable evidence"?
Define your terms, Jack.  I think we'll get to more of this later --

I sign my name, Jack - every time.  What's your problem again?


>    I am not yet convinced that this is taking place.

It's not my business - or anyone else's - to convince you of anything.


>I am unaware of Dan "admitting" that several of his hikes were incomplete, 
>as this "admission" evidently appeared while I was on the Trail. I would 
>like very much to see this admission in print}

Then go ask WF for it - it was HIS admission on HIS list.  He's the 
originator, so go to the source.  Your ignorance about what he said doesn't 
confer on you the right to call anyone on this list a liar.


>  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?

By me - and several others, but the other mnames are really none of your 
business.  How was it estimated?  Well, let's see now - how about a direct 
quote from someone who was there -  "he finished his '92 "thru-hike" (all 
150-ish miles of it) in the Nantahalas and then jumped into a borrowed car 
and showed up in Hot Springs.  Then he drove to Damascus for Trail Days.  He 
then drove up the trail for the rest of the season getting info for his 
book, and doing a few little hikes here and there (including the 100 mile 
wilderness). And he called it his 7th thru-hike."

You see, Jack - the 400 miles was a generous estimate.  Keep in mind that WF 
has no switch between his brain and his mouth - at that time he saw no 
problem with telling others what he'd done.  It was only years later that he 
conveniently "forgot" those details. I heard the story then from those that 
he'd told it to - and partially from his own mouth.  Hearsay?  Hmmm - 
really??

As for what he said at Dots in Damascus - I was standing next to him when he 
said it - he was whining to the bartender.


>       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."

Most of the 'evidence' is anectdotal from more sources than you'd believe - 
I've got 5 messages in my in-box right now corroborating that "considerable 
doubt".  On the other hand, I personally know specifically where he was in 
July of 90 cause I was there too  - and he may have been 'hiking', but he 
sure wasn't "thruhiking".

The bottom line though is one of my life principles - It goes like this -- 
"Never explain - your friends don't need explanations and your enemies won't 
believe them".  If you're not willing to believe me, then you wouldn't 
believe anyone else either, so their names are immaterial, aren't they?

Enough - I've got less time than you do to screw around with this thing -- 
Bottom line is that there's no reason why anyone has to convince you of 
anything.  A number of us have stated "our" observations, experiences, etc. 
and all you've done is to level accusations of cowardice, maliciousness, 
lack of credibility, lack of responsibility, vulgarity, etc.  Try doing 
something constructive.


>Then, for God's sake, hold your tongues in the future until you muster the 
>fortitude and integrity to stand by your accusations.

I'm here Jack - I'm the target because I've probably got more knowledge 
about the dark side of WF than anyone else.  So what would you like to do 
about it?  Sue me, maybe?  Go for it.  That kind of suit would break 
Trailplace because I wouldn't roll over like the ATC did.  And as I said 
before, I really want Trailplace to survive - but just not for the obvious 
reasons.  On the other hand - it would probably be better for the Trail if 
Trailplace didn't survive.  Don't tempt me - lawsuits cut both ways.


>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.

We don't have to provide anything - he's the one who made the statement 
about his hikes - all we've done is to confirm his own judgment of his own 
hikes.  And your ignorance, your demands for "proof" and your protestations 
don't change a thing.  If you don't like it - go talk to WF - not us.


>telling us Dan's figures  "have been estimated" or merely telling us 
>"there's considerable doubt" without supporting facts essentially tells us 
>nothing.

Again - the "estimate" was a generous one, but even if it were off by 100%, 
that still wouldn't constitute anywhere near a real thruhike, would it.


>{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?

Really, Jack - I've told you before that you're not stupid - so use that 
brain and stop asking dumb questions.  Why would it have ever mattered to 
anyone whether he lied about his hikes before?  The thing that's different 
now is his insistence on "purity" as a condition of recognition of a 
thruhike (i.e. - the "establishment" of the Avery Society) with WF as the 
final arbiter of purity and therefore of who's a "real" thruhiker or not.  
And that's not tolerable - it's simple hypocrisy extended with the intent to 
control as much of the trail community as he can.  I've run into his 
"purist" philosphy in other places - and it's very simply dangerous.  Sooner 
or later some poor idiot is gonna go out on the PCT or the CDT and get 
themselves killed by following WF's "purist" dictates.  But I'm getting off 
topic here.  Or am I?  I've already run into one AT thruhiker who claimed 
that "purity" was a universal concept - that it applies anywhere on any 
trail.  He was talking about the CDT - but he hasn't hiked the CDT.  Sorry, 
guy but that's pure schiesskopf stuff.

Again - WF has no right, reason or authority - much less the knowledge or 
intellect to determine my thruhiker status - or anyone elses.  His own 
record is less than sterling, but he wants to set himself up as the 
"thruhiker authority" for the rest of the world?  That's why his record has 
become of interest.  Can you understand that?

Fact is that even if he had actually done seven pure thruhikes, I still 
wouldn't allow him to speak for me - much less allow him to judge my life or 
my hike.  I don't even allow Warren Doyle with his 12 thruhikes that much 
authority over my life - and Warren is a personal friend.


>The comparitive silence regarding the "proof" behind these allegations is 
>deafening.

There's no silence, Jack - you're just not listening.


>I must say, and not for the first time, that I think the good folks who 
>frequent this List are capable of better things.

And I think you're smarter than your words indicate.  Have a good hike.  
When will you get around to doing the PCT?  Then you'd be ahead of WF by a 
considerable margin instead of still trying to catch him.

Walk softly,
Jim


************************************************************************

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
-- SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence



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