[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] R&R..the unanswered points....
In a message dated 6/14/01 4:33:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> +++ Not my post. The "dregs" are welcome by me if they follow the
Could you please post those rules? I don't think I remember all of them. I'm
sure I'll have feelings about that.
> "Dregs" usually don't clearcut large tracts on the corridor's edge for
> condos. If anyone still takes the original 'Regional Planning' prospectus
> seriously, it shows that the AT was designed as a place where these persons
> could get it together in a healthy way.
If you listened to everything you've posted, honestly you would conclude that
we on this list are "dregs". If you don't believe that, I can go back in the
archives (which are NEVER deleted or edited) and show you what and when you
said that would indicate we here on this list are such "dregs".
> Vcat asked:
> > I do feel that much more approving of socializing hikes is encountered
> >websites by people intending well by accepting all forms of hike but not
> >realizing they are lending assistance to lowering Trail standards.
> My impression from this statement is that you believe people who weekend or
> section hike, and those who accept such hiking, are lowering trail
> Is that what you're saying?
> +++ This is my post. Wrong impression and, as usual, interpreting my
> opinions in the worst possible way in order to attach extreme connotations
> make them unpalatable. The response is designed to make me say "all
> non*through*hikers are illegitimate." 'Come on, I think we know better than
> that. It was meant more towards roving party, frat bender type hikes than
> the other mainstay usage's you speak of. These hikes will probably always
> there, but seeing people enforce HYOH in defiance of persons actually
> attempting to establish a standard (not a dirty word) creates an atmosphere
> of permittance and indirectly contributes to the problem.
R&R says above, (which VCAT's response was to): (in case anyone is confused)
"I do feel that much more approving of socializing hikes is encountered on
websites by people intending well by accepting all forms of hike but not
realizing they are lending assistance to lowering Trail standards."
Since this isn't a website, I assume you aren't talking about this list? BUT
- you obviously were . . . so that is an assumption I can't make.
"It was meant more towards roving party, frat bender type hikes than
the other mainstay usage's you speak of. By people intending well by
accepting all forms of hikes but not realizing they are lending assistance to
lowering Trail standards."
When did this list ever champion THAT? Quote me a post. And when did saying
HYOH (meaning - use your filter, or don't - bring your tent, or don't - bring
a heavy stove or thank the Amazing Tin Can Stove Man for lightening your load
- take a blue blazed trail (they are most often HARDER to hike than the
actual trail - anyone familiar w/ the Mau Har trail will wish later they had
done Three Ridges, if they went North), or don't - hike slow, or fast - take
6 months or 4 - stop in every town, or don't, run the trail or walk it, take
that ice cream challenge or don't). HYOH doesn't mean "party down and screw
the trail towns up for all of us". It means, "I may not want to hike your
way (umbrellas, cel phones or dogs) but I respect your right to hike your own
hike, at your own speed."
That doesn't mean HYOH when you raise hell in town and get Trail places
closed down for the rest of us. It means HYOH. If you can't see that, you
don't want to look, or you just want to make sure whatever anyone on this
list is saying is put in the worst light.
Hmmm. So you admit we intend well. That's a step in the right direction.
But HYOH doesn't mean partyin' down the Trail. It never has. You've never
heard, EVER, on this list, that partyin' down the Trail is a good thing, or
that drunken brawls or puking in public places is a good thing, on this list.
> DaRedhead asked:
> 1) In what way has this list, or the people on it, shown that we are *not*
> serious about Trail advocacy?
> +++ My first answer would be a unanimous naysaying of all of or friend's
> efforts at Trail conservation.
I repeat - will you ever answer? - how does us disagreeing about WF's methods
of conservation mean we aren't doing our own part for trail conservation??
I have not seen one budge of admitting ANY of > the achievements the banished
> one has done.
He left this list - he was never banished - a small point, I guess, but one I
Any superficial tool of tangential criticism of his efforts is permissible
in order to
> throw a wrench in his works.
Tell me what he's achieved.
That last sentence - "Any superficial tool of tangential criticism of his
efforts is permissible in order to throw a wrench into his works". . . .what
the hell does that mean???? What does it have to do with what THIS LIST does
for Trail advocacy???
Nothing. Sure, we disagree with "my way or the highway". Most of us are
pretty independent, and believe in our Declaration. Sure, we disagree with
his methods for advocating - not the TRAIL - but his part in it. Does that
mean we aren't doing anything for the Trail? Once again, you dodged the
question. In case you forgot - the question was, how is this list not doing
anything for the Trail??
There ya go. I ran that thru a plaigerism website. Guess what? It was
almost word for word what the ATC says about getting 2000 miler status. Now
- WF puts the ATC down, says they don't take enough time to INSURE and PROVE
that 2000 milers really EARNED thier status. Well, point to me there, in
WF's OWN words (or the ones he pirated from ATC) what he was doing
differently? The only thing you can say about it is that if a newbie comes
to WF's place, they'll read that and think the "Center" (notice how he says
"we"?? We who? He has a mouse in his pocket??) is the place to get such an
award. Except it's not a 2000 miler rocker anymore - it's an Avery Award.
Does he mention that "traditionally" that 2000 miler status is certified thru
the ATC, and a rocker given? Nope.
Go ahead. Tell me how that's justified. He puts down the ATC, then turns
around and gives the EXACT SAME CRITERIA for getting 2000 miler status,
except it's his OWN award, not the ATC's rocker. Go ahead. Tell me. Tell
me how that shows that WF is really "concerned" about how loose the ATC has
made the standards for 2000 miler status.
I personally don't give this list the power - that bitching about WF's
methods means his efforts for the Trail - whatever they are - are
diminished. It just means we think that threatening people into filling out
an autoform is the wrong way to do it.
> efforts on their own, any outsider reading this site will be lead to
> that Trail efforts are all bogus
you mean that we think the way WF forces people is bogus, not ALL Trail
> stand for the Trail will be cut
> down as being egotistical quacks by the Trail insiders. This sets a bad
> precedence. What this outsider will learn is that childish taunting and
> reckless attacks on the other site are the first priority and stepping up
> and participating for the Trail will be done only
> after a gauntlet of pillory is survived by the protagonist.
So you are saying that childishly taunting and making reckless attacks on
Trailplace and WF ( I won't make a judgement call there) are the "first
priority and stepping up and participating in and for the Trail are only
after we've survived pillory of the protagonist?" Hmmm. No. Our first
priority IS the Trail. THEN we indulge in discussion of why we think his
methods are wrong.
> doesn't help himself is secondary to this.
Ha. If WF isn't helping himself, he does nothing. He doesn't go to
Washington. He doesn't travel to the places where these decisions are made.
He doesn't maintain any trail, let alone part of the AT. He doesn't even
HIKE anymore. He only sees thruhikers or mere section hikers if they've
communicated with him before hand and expresses HIS opinions - THEN he'll
spend hours with you.
> is exactly why he does it. In this
> instance, I believe Wingfoot acts appropriately in proactively organizing
> and filling the need for first
> response advocacy.
How does he do that? By threatening people with dismissal if they don't do
it his way (his way which is proven to be ignored for the most part by the
people who make the decisions??)
> 2) How, given the earlier post by Paddler, can you say that the scales are
> tipped in WF's direction on this matter?
> +++ Simply because WF cuts to the chase without wallowing in popularity
> contests before figuring out what to do.
Forgive me while I laugh here. WF has done nothing for the Trail unless it
involves him getting publicity - that's much more lucrative than popularity .
> focusing on complaining about other
> site's techniques.
Yea - WF has never said *anything* about this site (mailing list) - never
kicked anyone off - never complained about the ATC. Never complained about
ALDHA. Never threatened to sue either one of them. (uh, did you know that
he got his mileage stats for the Handbook this year FROM Daniels databook,
with Daniels okay? Because hey, better they have right info than wrong info
)(from a TRUE trail person advocates side . . . lets not mention that I had a
hand in this years databook, and quite frankly, the ATC, and Daniel, were
much nicer about it than I would have been, simply by virtue of the fact that
I take *your* attacks seriously. I can't take WF's as such, he stopped
posting here a long time ago (even though he's still here). Thankfully, the
ATC is not as subject to my shortcomings, and felt that the best data out
there for a thru hiker was the main concern.
Trailplace could become the public constituency needed to go beyond the
> is bound by because it is a formal institution. Wingfoot was preserving the
> Gulf Tract while others were busy talking about him.
I notice you totally ignored my point, which you are big on. (and I wasn't
aware we here are wallowing in popularity contests - next time I'll buy a
bikini . . .) The point being, WF's efforts, in threatening his listers to
participate HIS WAY OR NO WAY, led to his listers being ignored while the big
decisions were made. What if WF had been different? What if he had used his
oh so popular site to simply tell folks "Please write to xxxxx, and tell them
THIS is what you want/see right as per the Saddleback issue". What if he had
done it that way? THEN over 400 people would have helped Saddleback.
Instead, about 100 people didn't - thru using his method, under threat.
> Furthermore, although Wingfoot may toot his own horn, I don't see ATC
> giving back the money from the new memberships corresponding with the surge
> in Trail use following his efforts.
(Uh - lets all count up the money WF has given to the Trail . . . after all,
he solicits "donations" - of course, they are donations for the CENTER, not
for the Trail. And as we all know, the CENTER is "WF". Then lets count up
where the ATC's money goes. I think, gee, I could be mistaken, that the ATC
gives more back to the Trail than WF does, even after paying its employees -
but I could be wrong. Has WF ever donated money to a legitmate Trail
organization? You seem to know a lot about him, perhaps you can answer that.
. . .)
> include the spike in ATC sales and
> contributions following the Wingfoot egotistical self*advertisement if he
> wanted to be totally objective.
How could you expect anyone to honestly say that WF had a hand in that, when
he SPECIFICALLY put down the ATC and ALDHA in his posts. If people are
donating because of WF, they are donating to HIM, to the CENTER, because if
they're donating because of WF, odds are they never even HEARD of the ATC or
ALDHA. WF called them names. Basically said if you support the Trail, you
support me. If you support *those* organizations, you can't be on my list.
In fact, I'm suing them. (his words, not mine) (and he only said them to
people who already knew what the ATC or ALDHA was - he never enlighted people
on his list that those organizations existed, and he took steps to make sure
they could NOT be mentioned on HIS list by anyone but himself, in his light.)
> somebody will make an effort to respond that there is no evidence
> of this or
> this is one of WF's lies. At this point I start feeling sorry for the poor
> %$@#$*. These are usually the facts left out during a witch hunt. And no,
> doesn't extend any hand for reconciliation (I wonder why?).
This isn't a witch hunt. You just want it to be. Otherwise where else could
you write these eloquent words? Not on WF's site. I can PROVE, in writing,
that the hand extended for reconciliation, YEARS AGO, was an honest, caring
hand. And even though he erased HIS archives, you can still go back in ours,
when WF was a member, and see just what kind of hand extending went on. Once
you do that, of course, once you see just how nice OUR admin was, and how
abusive WF was . . . . it'd be hard to justify what you're saying. So maybe
you won't do that. But if you DID. . . you'd see.
> +++ Well, Garvey for one. ATC for another. Let's see an ALDHA member
> trash talk this venerable icon! I see little mention of this famous hiker
> responders. I was inspired to hike the AT after finishing 'AH 2'. When I
> speak of this wickedly unsubmittable "traditionalism" I compare Garvey to
> naked hikers being jailed for public drunkenness and yellow blazers
> submitting for 2000 milers status.
Talk to your role model about at least one of his hikes. Find out about the
partyin' down the Trail HE did that year. Hear first hand accounts (i.e.
THEY WERE THERE, it isn't OUR LIST saying it) of WF puking in a place and not
even cleaning up after himself . . . of being drunk and disorderly in a town
bar - of yellow blazing - (let me make clear here this is not from a lister,
this is from someone who actually hiked that year, who was there) yea, lets
talk about ruining the experience for the next thru hiker who comes to town .
> commandments. When you press
> traditionalists for exact justifications you take the wrong side and aid
> what you already know to be a detriment to the Trail.
In other words - correct me if I'm wrong - if we ask "traditionalists" about
what that means, we're taking the wrong side and we're a detriment to the
Trail. If I got that wrong ( it was only two sentences, I don't think I got
it wrong) please tell me.
> the screen in AT circles. These fundamental principles of AT hiking should
> at least be given a chance to present themselves in order to educate hikers
> for the Trail's sake.
(I'm still waiting for you to explain what "tradionalist" really means in
terms of the AT)
If Wingfoot has burned all the bridges around him, I think he sees it as a
way to be
> able to present these views without hindrance. The conservation then goes
> beyond that. An isolated tower, maybe, but at least a place where his
> "Grail" is safe. '
Ever read Lord of the Rings? All of a sudden, from what you said in that
last paragraph, I have visions of Isengard - and the Palantir. I'd cast you
as Treebeard, except he had more of a view on how reality was, and he still
let Saruman go . . . so maybe you can't help yourself, I dunno. Anyway - we
have what we consider traditionalists on our list. I think the only way
we've ever defined it is passing every white blaze. With your pack. (the
purists, I mean <g>) I know that isn't the 2000 miler ideal - but some on
this list thought it was important enough (the NOBO's) to hike up to Katahdin
WITH THEIR pack. Didn't have to. Could have carried a day pack. But they
figured, hell, I've hiked this far with it, passed every white blaze, might
as well finish with my pack.
Or SOBO's. We have some of them too, who passed every white blaze, who
didn't take the side trails (and when they did, they didn't trumpet (look,
I'm passing every white blaze AND hiking side trails). They did it how they
did it because that was their idea of a thru hike. And we respect them for
that, and don't put them down. Remind me again, how are we discouraging
Either way - we have people on this list who flip flopped. We have listers
who yo-yo'd. We have NOBO's and SOBO's. We have some who carried their pack
every inch of the way with their pack on, and some who slackpacked. (notice
the 2000 miler status, either wf's that I quoted the url above OR the ATC,
dont' care if you had your pack on - if you WALKED it that was okay, with or
without pack - or even if you RAN it, as long as you ran the whole trail,
that means you passed those blazes, or even if someone was waiting to take
you to a hotel at the end of every day - if you went past the white blazes,
whatever direction, you are a 2000 miler) (but contrary to WF's OWN
definition, he puts down slackpackers or trail runners . . . )
We have people who took 20 years to section hike (and we cheered them on when
they made those last miles). We have people who will never thru hike - but
just think the Trail is a special place, and they are glad to be a part of
it, even if it's only in day hikes.
> And i would like a few more details (that's where the devil lays(lies ?)
> *** We'll start at the form of serious hike that ATC once took as important
> enough to require proof.
> Please explain a serious hike under traditional definitions or your
> +++ I kind of agree that the main trail should be required to have been
> followed to claim a through*hike. I believe most of the Rodale hikers at
> least set out to do that *
I don't know of anyone on this list who thinks they should claim a thru hike
if they didn't follow that main trail the whole way. I know of at least two
personally who skipped more than 20 but less than a 100 miles who DIDN'T
claim thru hiker status thru the ATC. I also know of one who hiked the whole
thing, purist, white blazes, pack on his back, who couldn't summit Katahdin
because of the weather and the rangers not letting him. HE didn't claim
anything - and he came back the next year, travelling lots of miles and
spending hundreds of dollars, just to make those last 5 miles up (yea, 5.8,
whatever) to Katahdin to finish. Would you say to his face he isn't a thru
hiker? Well, I wouldn't. It wasn't his fault he couldn't summit - and he
came back and did so the next year, because it meant that much to him to make
those last few miles. I don't know about you (when did you thru hike?) but I
think that was so worthy it made me cry.
> overseeing the Trail. If
> this agency once felt that through*hiking was serious enough to require
> detailed proof positive of actually having walked the entire Trail, well
> that gave more meaning to a through*hike. It has been suggested that many
> of the mentalities who end up trashing hostels or gaining a bad reputation
> for the Trail were ones with less than a conforming attitude towards the
> old school approach. Idle hands etc... In any case, I don't see the evil in
> encouraging people to hike the entire Trail and uphold old
> standards. If this is brought up on AT*L, most likely the poster will be
> accused of being a Wingfoot "toady" or something. Not good. What would be
> wrong in making it a "new" standard?
> ******The next would be one that promotes behavior true to the Trail's
> definition by ATC as a primitive place to be upheld.
> Please specifically define the desired behavior.
> +++ The best way would be to first read MacKaye's intentions in the
> prospectus and then the ATC desired guidelines. The more one keeps things
> simple and natural the more he is on the true Trail. Cell phones fit in
> nowhere in these desired conditions. The AT is still a project and
> It requires participation and a preexisting mindset of existing in the
> corridor according to these definitions. Most Trail enterers don't get that
> deep. The Trail wouldn't even be here if MacKaye hadn't.
> *******I guess traditionalism would best be described as keeping such a
> level of new interest in the Trail controlled to the point that it doesn't
> with what the Trail is.
> Since you have not responded positively to my suggestion that dan shut down
> TP,I'm assuming you think it should continue (with the new emphasis on
> "traditionalism"), Should we take it then that you feel all other's sites
> should shut down if they fail to do likewise?
> Specifically...how do you seek to suppress new interest?
> +++ No. That is putting words in my mouth. I like the ALDHA Gatherings
> consider them to be an essential warm component of the Trail's universe. If
> AT*L managed to save the Place, well they have earned their place right
I've been at the past Gatherings for the last few years - I'm an ALDHA member
- have you been there? If you show up at the next one, I'll buy you a drink
- be that Pepsi or a Moosehead. Why do you say IF we saved The Place? It is
a proven fact. Something you seem to have a problem with - facts.
Not according to you. According to you, we are doing nothing but denigrating
WF and spliting hairs about trail advocacy.
> is, if he banned the Place drive he probably knew it was covered and wanted
> to focus his energies elsewhere.
I was thinking you were capable of intelligent thought til I read that. Yes,
I know, the wrong kind of remark to make here. I shouldn't answer your put
downs with one of my own. But come on. Even if he thought it was covered,
why would he not ALLOW his own listers to even know about the effort, make up
their own minds if it was a worthy cause, and participate if they so desired?
The more for the Trail the better. Sadly, it could already be the case that
> has been technically shut down as a community participation site by
> withdrawl of support (I won't comment on why in either direction)
Perhaps because no matter how good with words you are, you realize that WF
shunned the community as a whole, and only allows those in who agree with him
on every point? Even you, you are so well spoken, can't explain how it is
*good* for the AT community as a whole that WF say MY way or NO way and toss
off at will those who disagree with him - whether it was over politics or
whether you use a ground cloth?
> Finally......about quotas.
> How would these be allotted, specifically. what percentages to
> thru hikers,
> section hikers,
> Groups such as Scouts?
> How would they be allotted?
> First come first served?
> If the thruhiker quota was filled, and X percentage of the thru allotees
> dropped out at Neels, would those slots be reallocated to other hikers?
> Would there be a staging area where hikers could await a washout slot?
> How would the NPS decide if a hiker had washed out or was taking
> town time to reorganize or heal?
> Would there be a time limit to town time?
> Would a hiker need to keep to a proscribed schedule to maintain the daily
> and a smoothly managed flow?
> If not, how would the differing speed be handled to prevent bunching up?
> What would be the penalty for failure to meet such scheduling guidelines?
> Loss of ticket?
> Would dayhikers, section hikers, weekenders be banned during thru season?
> When would thru season be?
> How much will the ticketing and monitoring cost?
> Where will the funds come from?
> *** This is very difficult and deserves a whole post for itself. I will
> say that Denali National Park does it without all this resistance and
> questioning. Why not the AT too? I'll turn it around and ask what, then,
> would your solution to the high season crowding be?
Denali does it because it can. Can you imagine coordinating such efforts
over how many state and county lines? (my dad was a cop - McGruff the crime
dog was born in my living room - VICAP was a large part of my Dad's doing - I
know a bit about this stuff) Police or NPS people doing nothing all day but
standing at entrance points to the AT? ( I personally know of 12 points to
hit the Trail in a 12 mile section here). You can't compare the AT to Denali
- but wait, you just did. I assume that is because you haven't really
thought about it. If you did, you'd see how different the two places are.
> I admit there are a lot of questions here, but you came to convince us.
> If your serious in this quest for our support, the time spent answering
> seem worthwhile.
> +++ Thank You, * R 'n R
In other words - given your level of intelligence, and ability to write, and
knowledge of big words, we expected better from your answers. You still
haven't answered either of MY questions . . . you skirted them and twisted
them into an answer you wanted to expound on - even though it had nothing to
do with my questions.
Ya know - I've come to the conclusion that no matter what any of us say,
however we answer these posts (and you've seen some happy good posts
congratulating you for being nice, and you just put them down) you are going
to keep saying, in a nutshell, that WF is doing good while we sit around the
campfire roasting smashmellows and not giving a damn about the Trail. You
even said NO to smashmellows - I dunno if that was because he specifically
said "Red has the smashmellows" or because you just don't like any of us,
because we don't fit into your preconcieved notions.
I'm still saying "Grab a smashmellow" because if you care about the Trail,
maybe you'll stop being so rigid in your ideas that you will actually start
hearing what some of us are saying. And even if you don't - if you care
about the Trail, you're welcome here. Just because I so very totally
disagree with some things you say, (not all, just some) and just because
personally (thats just me, not the list, just me) I get extremely angry when
you say things that you just have no clue about, concerning us, as a list or
as people, that doesn't mean you aren't welcome here.
What I'm saying is - the Trail needs all the friends it can get, if it is
still going to be there for our children, grandchildren, or great
grandchildren. (someday go back and find out what my Mom said, how she asked
how could she get into helping the policies regarding the Trail - she learned
long before she died at 50 that it only takes a few people to make policy for
thousands more - don't tell ME I'm not doing anything just cause I'm not
doing it WF's way, because I AM. For the Trail, and for her.) So I don't
have to agree with your methods (or WF's) to agree *you* are a friend of the
Trail. Anyone who does maintenance is a friend of the Trail. There is no
glory in that, or advertising, or money. That is something you have - that
you do - that WF doesn't and never will. Maybe someday you'll figure that
out, and realize why we don't LIKE what he does, and says. But in reality,
that's all he does. Says. 'cause he ain't "doing". He isn't even hiking.
At one point a few years ago he said I'm going to hike next year. We ALL,
here on this list, cheered for him. (you can find that in the archives too)
We figured if he just got back out there he'd remember what it is all about.
Sadly, he didn't hike. And sadly, he isn't really doing much for the "Trail
community" except dividing it between lines.
Regardless of what you say here, or what you believe this list to be all
about, we don't do that. We believe in Hike your own Hike - not to the
detriment of the Trail, but to the freedom of all to go there and get what
they came for - and most times that is more than what they could imagine.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/plain (text body -- kept)