[at-l] R&R and HYOH

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

I'm gonna take a few more excerpts from R&R's posts to comment on - keep in 
mind that WF is only a peripheral character here.  This is about R&R -

>Let's start with through*hiking being an accepted
>modern method of Trail use. I think it is time to stop using the lack of 
>through*hiking at the time of the Trail's formation as an excuse not to 
>support it. There is no reason to not take up the original Trail cause with 
>this new form of use involved.

Remember what I said about tactics - when all else fails, make an accusation 
- especially if it's not justified, not supported by facts.  That makes 
people REALLY angry - and they miss the disconnects and concentrate on the 
attack.

The disconnect here is that you says "start with through*hiking being an 
accepted modern method of Trail use" but wants to return to what you 
perceive as the values that were in effect 50 years ago.  You ignore the 
fact that those "values" were no more universal then than they are now.  You 
ignore the fact that those people (thruhikers) that you perceive as having 
and espousing "your" "values" would laugh at you if you suggested it to 
them.  I've known some of those people and you're full of s***.


>    *** My inference was that most often I see HYOH as a way to avoid 
>confronting the legitimacy of particular types of use. Touchy, but Trail 
>affecting never the less. The Trail will see many types of use anyway, but 
>let's not condemn suggestions of best use.

HYOH is something that I've come to believe you're constitutionally unable 
to either understand or accept - so your only recourse is to attack it.  The 
only things I've seen from you on the subject are a parroting of WF's views. 
  You have yet to show any understanding of what it is.  You don't have a 
clue.  HYOH is an implicit recognition of ALL forms of Trail use - including 
purism.


>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 
>be 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.

You REALLY don't have a clue - any attempted enforcement of HYOH is a direct 
and blatant violation of HYOH. More than that - enforcement is a null 
concept - it's not even a possibility.  You can't "force" someone to be free 
- or to think.   A slave will be a slave as long as they believe they are.  
Taking off the chains doesn't make them "free" - it just confuses them.  
Those who believe much of what you're promoting (like limitations on 
numbers, bans on cell phones, no variation in hiking styles - ala the Avery 
Society, the establishment of "accepted" and "unaccepted" forms of hiking, 
etc.) are still wearing the chains.  I don't wear chains - not now, not in 
the past, not in the future. If you chooose to do so, it's you're problem, 
but don't tell me how wonderful it is - I'll just laugh at you.

"defiance of persons actually attempting to establish a standard" is a 
nonsense statement.

First question - who's establishing the "standard"?

Second question - What "standard"?  You have yet to define anything that's 
even related to a "standard".  You've put out a lot of fluff, but I deal 
with "standards" (requirements) every day - and I'm not sure you'd know a 
real "standard" if it bit you on the a**.

Third question - Why should I accept a "standard" that's in direct 
opposition to everything I believe?  And I have no doubt whatever that your 
"standard" would fall in that particular box.

Fourth question - Why should I believe or accept a "standard" that's set by 
someone who's proved themselves incapable of meeting the "standard" that 
they're setting for others?

Fifth question - Why should I believe or accept a "standard" that's set by 
someone who's telling me how to do something that they haven't done in at 
least 10 years when that activity (thruhiking in this case) has changed 
drastically - and they don't even have a clue about how and why it's 
changed?  And that's not about WF (although it could be) - it's about you.

I don't think you can answer those questions.


>   ###  But you are wrong. It is very apparent that there is a dead set 
>against view on establishing a traditional agenda. Somewhere the problems 
>presently existing on the Trail arose from a feeling of acceptability for 
>doing them. If you shut out the solutions, you are indeed "enforcing" HYOH.

The "traditional agenda" you're pushing has yet to be defined - what I've 
seen so far is a little "truth" mixed with a LOT of bullshit.  Rick Boudrie 
wasn't too far off, but his idea had problems too - by his own admission, he 
DIDN'T HYOH - he allowed others to "control" his hike.  I'd like to think he 
learned better - before he finished the Trail.

No one is "shutting out solutions" - but the "solutions" you seem to think 
are the ultimate answers are neither viable nor acceptable to any but those 
who still wear the chains.  You can't even accept the reality of how and why 
most of us know that WF's email campaigns were useless - a waste of time, 
effort and resources.  Saunterer said the same thing here that I told WF 3 
years ago.  He ignored reality then because he "knew better".  And you want 
us to follow someone whose judgement is that badly flawed, whose sense of 
reality is that underdeveloped?   Get real -


>Persons ripping the insulation out of hotel walls in a drunken stupor do 
>not feel validated by threats of traditionalism, they feel they are hiking 
>their own hike without anyone trampling their sense of freedom by daring to 
>question it. It isn't me who doesn't see the picture here.

You really DON'T have a clue.  I'm not sure which incident you have in mind, 
but what those people did is NOT HYOH.  In fact, those actions are in direct 
opposition to HYOH.  You've obviously NOT read the Thruhiker Papers as I 
told you to do some time ago.

HYOH - REAL HYOH, says that you don't damage the Trail (either physically or 
in reputation), the hikers (past, present or future), or the towns/people 
along the Trail. REAL HYOH says that you call people on what they're doing 
that would damage the Trail.  REAL HYOH (for me although not for everyone) 
means that if they don't listen, you either call the cops or you pick them 
up and slam their sorry ass against a tree until they wake up and fly right 
- or leave the Trail. REAL HYOH says that you act courteously and 
responsibly toward the Trail, the hikers, the maintainers, the townspeople, 
the infrastructure.  HYOH is a form of responsibility - both personally and 
with respect to the Trail.

All you've done is to take the version of HYOH that WF teaches and ASS-U-ME 
that it's what's being promoted on at-l.  But you didn't bother to ask about 
it, you didn't bother to get the facts - you just ASSUMED.  And you want us 
to believe what you have to say - when you're so obviously ignorant about 
what "we" on this list have to say - and about what HYOH really is?  Get 
real -

Playing with rocks -
Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com