[at-l] us/them was] Is this true?

[KLandau364@aol.com (KLandau364@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/6/2002 7:36:10 AM Central Standard Time, 
orangebug74@yahoo.com writes:


> In defense of Thru-hikers, I think there is some explanation and
> consideration for the "attitude." The further north they get, the more
> friends and acquaintances have fallen by the wayside. Like hardened
> infantrymen in battle, there is avoidance of getting to know people who
> aren't going to be around in a few hours or days.

I don't know that this is such a valid defense.  First of all, the further 
north (or south, if he/she is going backwards) one gets in a thru-hike, the 
more aware one is that most trail acquaintances are transient.  And this can 
often be something to rejoice in.  It's part of the rhythm of the experience 
that people come in and out of your hike...sometimes for good...sometimes to 
reappear days, weeks, or even months later.  I always thrilled in the 
surprise encounter with someone whom I hadn't seen in weeks or more.

Second, however, is that none of that is an excuse, in my mind, for having an 
"attitude" towards non-thru-hikers.  Yes, a thru-hike is a special 
accomplishment, and certainly a different experience; but in no way is it 
inherently "better" than any other trail experience.  Any thru-hiker who 
exhibits an attitude that his/her hike IS better is, in my mind, 
self-centered and arrogant.

 
> Their focus becomes the mental struggle of the journey.

True...but, again, that's no excuse to become self-righteous or discourteous.


> Even on this list, there are those who focus solely on the thru hiker
> as having special entitlements

I suppose so...but here's one thru-hiker who finds that attitude an 
embarrassment.

Walkabout AT99


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