[at-l] R&R and HYOH

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 6/15/01 12:31:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:

 
 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***.


     +++ Let's at least admit that there are many more types of use going on 
than back then. Nothing wrong with a little reckoning to see if we are still 
serving the Trail the best way. You're not challenging community 
self*inspection to see if the Trail is being observed to its best interest 
are you? You also ignore the fact that many of those persons would never do 
some of the things occurring today. The original challenge of the hike has 
been compromised and has been done so on the ethic of HYOH. Honestly Jim this 
comes across as excuse making. You might as well say outright that it was the 
destiny of the Trail to change for the worse and interfering with this 
natural process would be unnatural. Foolish. I met one of them too, his name 
was Ed Garvey...
 
 
 >    *** 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.

    +++ Thank you. Perhaps ALL forms of use should not be so readily 
accepted, but then that is easier than doing anything about it isn't it? Just 
like it would be much easier to pretend we are backing some kind of higher 
thinking instead of just letting the crowding happen because it is easier 
than doing anything about it. I don't see anything here which precludes 
making an attempt at promoting better usage.
 
 
 >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.

   +++ But Jim you are wrong again. The NPS and ATC regularly "force" people 
to obey Trail rules on the Trail. Many experience better hikes as a result. 
This is just another flurry of likely excuses seeking to avoid the issue with 
scattered irrelevancies which insult the argument. The fact that the AT is 
such an inherently open place necessitates the need for some kind of common 
guidelines. This last paragraph is childish nonsense. You wear chains in a 
lot of the things you do in life. The recommendations are always voluntary 
since, as you say, they are impossible to enforce. I see you attacking 
Wingfoot for cell phones yet not mentioning Baxter where they are "forced" to 
not be used. Is Baxter violating HYOH Jim? Who doesn't have a clue again?  
Filibuster the argument in endless semantics and the point will be lost. This 
is where Wingfoot gains the advantage by getting to the point without 
resorting to the closest available excuse. 
 
 "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**.

    +++ Already answered. MacKaye, ATC, & Trailplace. I mean you could 
challenge ATC's guidelines with endless sophistry too, but I accept their 
credibility. You can deliberately give somebody earnestly trying to help the 
Trail a tough time to drive them off, but it doesn't mean anything has been 
done for the AT in the meanwhile. It shows.
 
 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.

   +++ Well if you haven't seen the standard how can you know it is against 
everything you believe?  Your opening comments charge me with not checking 
facts only for you to make direct accusations against something you haven't 
even seen further down. Or are you just knee jerking without having to see 
it? It is a reverse argument that rejects the content because of the package. 
Well, many people feel safe to yellow blaze 300 miles and still claim 2000 
miler status. They feel safe because they see members doing their best to 
impugn "standards" in general while indirectly leaving open doors to false 
claims. Wingfoot doesn't. No oppression or "chains", just truth.  
 
   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.

    +++ You expose your argument as fraud when you claim in your opening that 
hikers haven't really changed since the early Trail then simultaneously refer 
to such a drastically changed Trail that hikers from only a decade back are 
not current enough to qualify for comment. Looks like taking both sides to 
avoid confronting the truth. But I'll answer anyway and say because it 
contains inherently valid qualities that conform to Trail requirements.
 
 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.
 
 
 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 judgment is that badly flawed, whose sense of 
 reality is that underdeveloped?   Get real -

    +++ I suspect he didn't waste his time criticizing the other lists 
methods. I can't spite him for trying. 12,000 acres and 3 million. Really. I 
sense your focus is more on discounting Wingfoot's efforts than on genuine 
Trail advocacy.
 
 
 >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.

    +++ Honestly Jim who are you trying to fool? That is like saying sex, 
drugs, and rock n roll actually means religious celibacy and sobriety. Give 
me a break. Look at the words. They are saying hike your hike as you wish. If 
HYOH did encompass a gentlemanly higher awareness which included a sense of 
best conduct its label has now been used as a direct interpretation and an 
exemption from these things. It now means don't bother me with standards and 
piss off! What this does is paint the innocent intender of creating a true 
standard with dubious intentions. It responds more to site feuding than 
objectivity. Euphemism and clever cop out from Trail responsibility. Stating 
a higher goal without needing to actually come through. Claiming 2000 miles 
without actually needing to do so. But who cares, Right?!
 
 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 -

    +++ Convincing Jim! About as equally unaware of Wingfoot's agenda as you 
are I suppose. You are enforcing one or the other either directly or 
indirectly there is no way around that. You have to ask which will adequately 
and effectively deal with Trail problems? Wingfoot spoke critically of hostel 
problems and low and behold the incidents are down this season. Was that 
domination or overbearing control or any other of the cheap labels used for 
avoidance, or was that effective?
 
 Playing with rocks -

   +++ Better known as throwing stones, but semantics is an art form in here 
isn't it? ("playing" = not serious)  

 Jim >>