[at-l] Purism...to me.

[AThiker@smithville.net (Felix)]

RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:

> Felix wrote:
> << I also don't think I said that people
> cheat because of popular sentiment. Partially because it's
> an asinine thing to say.
>
>     ~~~  No, not really. People who follow the Trail see trends. I have no
> doubt that popular Trail culture makes it easier to hike your own hike rather
> than commit yourself to finishing the AT as a goal. I'm sure the yellow-blaze
> network is easier to access now a days. There's no way to measure how many
> attempted through-hikers finished or fell short back in the early days vs how
> many fail today because they simply lost track of the goal due to presently
> existing alternatives. Just making a point, no need for offense. The topic
> was how the Trail has changed and why...

Well, the topic was NOT how the 'trail has changed and why'. The topic was what
"I" consider to be a PURE thru-hike.See the subject line up there? I usually
become offended when someone takes something I said, with a fairly obvious
meaning, and twists it to mean something totally different for the sake of
starting another argument. You, for some reason, have a penchant for this. I'll
swear, if you'd take your wit, intelligence and verbosity and use it for
something good instead of picking things to pieces for the sake of an argument,
you might actually accomplish something more than pissing people off and proving
yourself to be an ass.


>  And, I don't think about
> things as deeply as you do...or, as you like to think you
> do.
>
>     ~~~  ???

You turn mole hills into mountains.  (parafrazing: "Well, I wasn't there, and
have no clue what happened, but Warren was right and you guys are wrong.")


> >      ***   Yes, but there is a legitimate claim that
> > conscientious blue-blazers are doing a better hike
> > involving more Appalachian experience. There's obviously a
> > need here for a review of the hike to see if it covered
> > the requirements.
>
> A 'better hike'? What the hell does that mean?
>
>      ~~~   It means a hike that goes over more mountains, passes more natural
> features and oddities, passes a better variety of forest and habitats, spends
> more time in the wild, diversity, wildlife, streams rivers and lakes,
> Appalachian hollows and small towns, overlooks, waterfalls, campsites,
> historic places, geological formations, cliffs, etc etc etc...

That might, might...be a better hike...but, it isn't the AT...is it? And,
therefore isn't a pure thru-hike of the AT. That is what I said.


>  Doesn't
> 'Hiking the Appalachian Trail' mean just that? It doesn't
> mean 'Hiking NEAR the Appalachian Trail'. It doesn't mean
> 'Hiking a lot of the Appalachain Trail.' I'm not saying that
> hiking every blue blaze along the way isn't more enjoyable,
> or longer, or harder or whatever you want to say. I'm saying
> IT ISN'T HIKING THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL.
>
>     ~~~ Well, isn't the intention a tour of the Appalachian range and all it
> holds? A well designed blue-blaze could then actually be a better
> 'Appalachian trail' than the official path.

When I left for my thru-hike, my intention was to follow the AT from Maine to
Georgia. I'm not saying there is or isn't a better 'official path' out there. I
just did every step of the official path that was there when I hiked it. That was
my intention. That's what I did.


> After all that you've said, how can you say that hiking it
> 'clean' will help someone 'get the most out of the
> through-hike challenge'. Isn't that what you're trying to
> disprove?
>
>     ~~~I was just trying to see all sides. I believe the central point was
> doing the whole deal in order to do justice to it. True, section hoppers
> could claim that they did justice to as much as they wanted to do justice to,
> but the line will always be the whole Trail. My point was that conscientious
> blue-blazers should be given credit if they walked a similar or harder
> equivalent.
>      The more you stick to the Trail the more it sticks to you. I honestly
> believe those who commit to a continuous traditional (ATC) hike will end up
> having a better experience and am trying to convince newcomers to keep
> going...

Have you ever thought that going about your 'convincing' in a more friendly, less
contrary way would be more beneficial to those you're convincing? Seriously...you
have a wealth of wisdom but seem to be more interested in stirring up trouble and
stepping on toes than actually doing something positive.


> Guess what...I didn't care what Wingfoot would let me get
> away with. Guess what else...
>
>      ~~~ You wouldn't be the first. Lighten up, it was a joke. Though I
> *would* have to question the sanity of a hiker who denied himself
> through-hike credit because he missed 100 feet...  ;)

Listen my friend, I'm the 'lightest' guy here. I don't get pist off very often
and typically would rather do nothing more than try to make someone smile. You've
pist me off. I don't think I'm going to eat any ice cream when I get home.
And, it'd be impossible for me to miss a thru-hike by 100 feet...because I always
go back to where I stopped hiking...that's easy.



--
Felix J. McGillicuddy
ME-->GA '98
"Your Move"
http://Felixhikes.tripod.com/