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

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

In a message dated 3/25/2002 12:40:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
AThiker@smithville.net writes:


> 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 think I introduced the purism topic first. So, I assumed your post 
was a continuation of that...


 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.


    *** I also become quite frustrated when people prefer to see serious 
injections of thought designed to inspire a more thorough understanding of 
the subject as "twisting"...



 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.


     ***  Hey now! Who is the one committing the offense here?


> 
> 
> 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.")



    ***  Funny how somebody who wasn't even there possibly understands it 
better than people who were...

> 
> 
> 
> 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.


     ***   No it isn't. My post was meant to illustrate the valid need for a 
broader definition by ATC for a through-hike. I don't think we're as far 
apart here as you think Felix...


> >
> >     ~~~ 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.


    *** Bravo... I was analyzing the value of purism in my thoughts...


> 
> 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.


     ***    Mind you, this is coming from someone who reacted to my sincere 
thoughts as "asinine" and called me an "ass". I would take this seriously if 
you had posted similar complaints against the pranksters in here who 
regularly rip my posts with less than honorable intentions...
     I am genuinely trying to promote a historical sense of Trail purpose 
here. If it involves brawls with aggressive know-nothings, I can't help it... 



> 
> 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.
> 

   
      ***  There's good "pist" and bad, but I'm of the feeling that you 
misconstrue my meaning. Whether you accept it or not, I respect your sticking 
strictly to the Trail on your hike and think it takes something to do so and 
wish more hikers would...


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