[at-l] C*ll Phones

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

Steve wrote:
>In my opinion this is a feeble attempt to slam the folks here at AT-L
>and is not very polite, since you have posted the same reply on TP
>claiming that you were replying to "another post".

Steve -
R&R's post on atml (as well as his entrance to at-l) showed a vast ignorance 
of the attitude and operation of at-l.  But give him time - he may yet 
learn.  After all, even Baltimore Jack has learned more than some people 
expected :-)

In any case, while you may be right, I've gotta say that regardless of his 
intent or tactics, he still has a couple points that I agree with.  I'll hit 
on a few of them ---


R&R wrote:
>Without being too critical, damaged feet is a relatively minor injury
>compared to what can happen out there.

The hiker in question was a section hiker, but even thruhikers can have that 
problem. I bought a new pair of shoes in Northern California last year that 
literally ate my feet - after 100 miles my feet were hamburger and the shoes 
were falling apart.  But R&R's point is valid - at least for a thruhiker - 
because I walked another 250 miles in those shoes (and on those feet).  At 
no time was a cell phone a necessity,  and frankly, I'm not sure it would 
have worked anyway.  What WAS necessary was using some Advil, some duct 
tape, some Moleskin, some ingenuity and a lot of stubbornness to keep on 
truckin' - because I never considered bailing out.  As I recall, on the AT 
bailing out is a lot easier than it would have been had I been so inclined 
on the PCT or the CDT. And it doesn't require a cell phone - just an active 
thumb.

One of the points that R&R doesn't make strongly enough is that thruhikers 
have been doing the AT for over 50 years - most of that time without cell 
phones.  Many, if not most of them, have acquired a case of "hamburger foot" 
somewhere along the way, but I can't think of a single one that died for 
lack of a cell phone.  Mostly, they either fixed the problem and kept on 
truckin' --- or they bailed out and went home.  And contrary to popular 
opinion - going home is NOT the worst thing that can happen to you.  As a 
side trail here - for R&R's enlightenment, with respect to WF's mythical 
woman who quit the trail after 2 days, our attitude was that we're sorry she 
quit - and we're glad she quit.  If she didn't have what it took to stick 
longer than that, then it's better that she leave and make room for someone 
who actually has the "dream".  She obviously didn't.  Shakeyleggs does.


>I can understand car use. I can't fathom Trail use.

Actually, I don't understand either one.  My lack?  Maybe - maybe not.


>It really deflates
>the AT's wild aspect and makes it a place not really separate from
>civilization.

Yep - that's what I said too - in a different way.  If you drag your 
"lifestyle" out there with you (cell phone, extra *anything*, radios, comfy 
mattresses, too much warm clothing, big tent, GPS units ........... 
whatever) then how is your life different out there than it was back home?   
And if it's not different, why not stay home where you'd be even more 
comfortable?  That question occurred to me a couple years ago when someone 
was thruhiking and complaining about how the AT was a pub-crawl.  I think 
it's still a valid question.


>We have
>gotten beyond that now a days and opinions by people new to or only
>superficially involved with the Trail are now given equal status in 
>formative decisions.

The AT is not the only place this is happening - it's a cultural problem - 
and an enigma.  The CDT has the same problem - that those who are uninvolved 
with the actual trail or with hiking think they have the knowledge and 
authority to make the decisions about the trail.  They sometimes call 
themselves "professionals".  Truthfully, it's less of a problem on the AT 
than other places because the ATC at least has thruhikers on the board and 
involved with the decisions.  But the world is overflowing with those who 
have become instant "experts".  And they're managing to screw it up rather 
spectacularly.  I could expand on this but none of us have enough time to 
cover it adequately right now.


>In my AT site scanning, I have seen a relationship between people
>who have not internalized the Trail's purpose or meaning or taken up its 
>cause very deeply and cell phone tolerance.

R&R and I part company here because "cell phone tolerance" is one small part 
of the overall tolerance that we, as a race, need to learn for each other.  
There are also those (many of them - seemingly especially among cell phone 
users) who need to learn common sense, common courtesy and sensitivity and 
respect toward others.

We also part company because the implication in that statement is that "if 
you don't agree with my viewpoint then you are less devoted to THE CAUSE 
than I am".  And there are too many of those CAUSES.  The corollary to that 
attitude is that those who disagree are lesser beings - that they and their 
opinions have less value and are not worthy of consideration.  I don't 
tolerate that kind of elitism very well (OK - not at all) - that's why I'm 
not on WF's list.  There are a lot of things that WF and I can agree on - 
but one of them is NOT his intolerance - for cell phones or non-thruhikers 
or even thruhikers who disagree with him.  As the somewhat sarcastic saying 
goes - I don't tolerate intolerance.

I'll also tell R&R bluntly that WF is NOT totally devoted to the Trail - or 
to the thruhikers.  If he were, he'd be working through an organization that 
would be likely to survive him and preserve his ideas and ideals, rather 
than operating as a "loose cannon" whose work will pass on when he does.  
Nor would he be setting himself up as a divisive influence in the Trail 
community.  So don't come on to me about those who have "internalized the 
Trail's purpose or meaning or taken up
its cause very deeply".  There are many on this list whose devotion to the 
Trail (and to the thruhikers) equal or exceed WF's.  Some of them even hike.


>      I really prefer an AT that is more of a dangerous place. I hope
>you can understand that the way I mean it.

Now we're back on the same page - I do understand that - and I agree with 
it.  That's why I went on a 'ramble' last week.  Some folks agreed, some 
didn't, some didn't understand it - some will understand in the future.  But 
that's all part of the "tolerance" gig.  While I'm sure there are many areas 
where we don't agree, I'm glad that we can at least agree on this point.

That point is also why our next long hike is more likely to be in Alaska or 
along the Canadian Divide than on the AT.


>Has anyone ever stopped to think about the strange coincidence between
>places far from pay phones and their prime destination status on the Trail?

Very good question.  I also wonder how many don't understand the question - 
and might not understand the answer.  The question applies to more than just 
the AT - it applies to the rest of the world as well.


>Don't fear the wilderness, fear the alternative.

That's a great line.  If it were mine, I'd use it as a sig line.

Walk softly,
Jim




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