Re[2]: [at-l] ATC ad policy

[kahley7@ptd.net (kahley)]

At 08:24 PM 8/9/01 -0400, James Bullard wrote:

>At 08:07 AM 8/9/01 -0500, kahley wrote:
>> >I don't think there's any way to insure accurate and current 
>> information of this type in shelters besides... I thought a thru-hike 
>> was supposed to be an "adventure".
>>
>>errrr.....friend sAunTerer.....sez who?   Who says what a thru-hike is 
>>supposed to be?  And what about the rest of the hikers?   I'm not sure 
>>you can assume that all the people who might want to see such ads would 
>>benefit from not seeing them.
>
>Okay so "I" go for an adventure.  Day trippers/week enders don't want 
>adventure, they want convenience and thru-hikers (some at least) don't 
>want adventure either (so why not "drive the AT"?) but let me rephrase my 
>response.

Actually, I'd disagree about the short term hikers, or at least some of 
them.  In my work I dealt with
people heading out on the AT for the first time and they generally are 
looking for an adventure to
some degree or another.  And mostly they find it, to some degree or 
another.  Just as New York City
was an adventure for me at 13, the AT is an adventure for people not used 
to the woods.
I was just going to say that they have an odd sense of the term adventure, 
but since I have been
caught once this week misusing the language <BG>, I decided to check with 
Miriam first.
1 a : an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks
    b : the encountering of risks <the spirit of adventure>
2 : an exciting or remarkable experience <an adventure in exotic dining>
3 : an enterprise involving financial risk

Looks like the AT does fit the factual definition of the word......just 
barely in my book
but at least as much as exotic dining <vvbg>.

Personally, I don't want an adventure.  I want a pilgrimage.  I want 
respite from the hassles
of life.  Easy access to info that will facilitate that respite would serve 
my purposes., but I
see this as another aspect of the conflict about organized hiker 
feeds.  Some of the hikers who
don't want to participate not only don't want to participate, they don't 
even want to be tempted
to participate so they want to deny the rest of the hikers the opportunity 
by banning the event.

>  The idea of a book of ads in shelters reminds me of those books.

A lot of the Trail conflicts are based in the same point.  I hate the sound 
and the smell of
liquid gas stoves because it reminds me of my other life.  You don't like 
the motel room aspect
of an ad book.  Other people hate cell phones or palm pilots.  It's all the 
same argument and
impossible to be resolved in a way that makes everyone happy.  I just like 
the compromise
aspect of Phil's idea....worked for me!  I might purely hate to see a 
clutter of ads at every shelter I
visited but, at the same time, I think of someone who needed a dentist or a 
manipulater <g>
and didn't know whether to hitch left or right at the next crossing,  Sure, 
they can pick a direction
and look for a phone book and then spend half the morning in a payphone 
trying to find someone
who appreciates the problems of a thru hiker.  It just seems like a better 
idea to me to find the
notebook and see if there is a hiker friendly dentist listed who will go 
out of his way to squeeze
you in or a list of shuttlers to facilitate bailing, if need be.  A small 
inconspicuous notebook
doesn't seem to be to much of an intrusion for the adventure seekers since 
they don't have to
read it if they don't want to.  Of course that's my opinion and maybe I'm 
more 'intrusion
tolerant' than most.

As to the hassle for the maintainers, ignoring a book for a year before 
clearing it out would
seem less of a hassle that ripping down the ads that get tacked up year round.


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
---