[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] purism - long
I have other things to do with my life – but this argument is one of the
most useless – and divisive – pieces of crap that ever shows up on the list
– or on the Trail. And there are some things that are being overlooked – or
misunderstood.
Let's start with a couple questions - Did I blue blaze? Sorta.
Did I do so deliberately and with malice aforethought? Yes.
Would I do so again? If the Trail were what it was then - probably
(undoubtedly) yes. And possibly for other reasons as well.
Do I feel guilt that I didn't pass "every" white blaze? Not at all.
Why? Now we get to the nitty gritty ---
So - I blue blazed --- the first time was in Virginia - the Trail was badly
blazed and I took a right instead of a left and followed white blazes (the
"old" trail) rather than the "new" trail. Didn't figure that out until we
stopped a couple miles later. Second time was in Maryland - I told
Weathercarrot when we met him at Rainbow Springs that I "would" blue blaze
Pogo Campground in MD. The Pogo relo was senseless - I'd done it 5 times in
the previous year and I had no intention of EVER doing it again - period. I
took the Trail as it had been 2 years before I thruhiked - and as it was
again the year after I thruhiked (they changed it back). The third was in
PA - where I followed the Trail as I had walked it in 1953. My choice - and
I don’t and won't apologize for it. My view - the fact that the "white
blazes" went someplace else did not make the Trail I walked any less the AT.
You can look at it differently if you like.
Shelters - the coming out the same shelter entrance that I went in is fine -
if I do it. If I don't, then it's cause I don't care. Making a fetish of
it is anal nonsense - and I rarely tolerate that well. One friend told me
that that was the only regret he had - that he'd failed to do that at one
shelter. He also said that his next thru will definitely NOT be as a
"purist". A LOT of purists have told me that. In their words (not mine)
doing it once as a purist is one thing - doing it a second or third time the
same way is insanity cause there's too much to see out there to be a slave
to the white blazes.
Weary wrote:
>I suspect ATC 2000-mile registration is mostly a way to entice hikers >to
>join and thus provide the trail with desperately needed income.
>
>If we would all just join and thus pay our share, we could abolish >such
>gimmicks and no one would be tempted to lie and we could all HYOH
> >unhampered by poorly thought out purity rules.
You know better, Bob. Nearly all thruhikers (and section hikers) DO join
ATC – and the membership revenue from thruhikers (and section hikers) is
less than a drop in the bucket. And most of us DO pay our share. But
since you brought up the subject - let's talk about the ATC "rules". The
ATC "rules" were written about 4(?) years ago in response to Wingfoots
complaints. If you want to blame them on someone – start with him. They
didn't exist when I hiked - nor when I got the patch – nor when I wrote the
Thruhiking Papers. I was one of those who reviewed them prior to
publication - and I told the ATC that this kind of divisive argument would
be the result. In point of fact, they changed the original wording at my
suggestion - although not as much as I'd have liked. I know where the rules
came from - I know why they were published - and I know that they were a
feeble and failed attempt at short-circuiting this exact discussion. And
that there was NEVER any intention on the part of ATC to apply them in the
way the ultrapurists wanted. Why?
Simple - But let's take a look at another example first - the National speed
limit is 55 mph. How many people drive 55 mph? In many places, if you do
so, you'll be stopped and ticketed for obstructing traffic. My brother
found that out the hard way. The present 65 mph limit on many Interstates is
the result of the vast majority of people "voting with their gas pedal".
The 55 mph is unrealistic - and it was finally recognized as such.
So - those thruhikers who "pass every white blaze" comprise somewhat less
than 5% of the thruhiker population. That percentage hasn't changed
significantly over the last 30 years. As with 55 mph, the vast majority of
the people whose opinion matters are "voting with their feet". They're
saying that the rules are nonsense and the strict application of those rules
is unacceptable and eminently ignorable.
We're talking about "rules" that were written by ATC in the full knowledge
that 95% of those who would apply for the patch would do so without fully
meeting the requirements. And that they would send out those patches
regardless. And somehow this got turned around so that the hikers are at
fault and being called “liars”? I don’t think so.
In point of fact, ATC can do nothing else. For the ATC to suddenly deny 95%
of the applications would be idiocy. It would very soon affect their
Federal funding, among other reasons. It would certainly end up with them
in court, with all the attendant negative publicity. And it would break
with tradition. Who among you wants to tell Earl Shaffer that he didn't
thruhike? Some of you might support the 6 Boy Scouts who claimed to have
thruhiked in 1936 - do you really believe that they passed "every" white
blaze? That's foolishness - I was hiking the Trail in 1952 - and I know
what it was like back then. Anyone who made that claim would most certainly
be a blatant liar.
Just for information - what's in the Thruhiking Papers is the embodiment of
what the ATC attitude was toward thruhiking at the time those Papers were
written. It's what I used as the criteria when I wrote my letter for the
patch. The application of revisionism such that a set of "newer, stricter"
standards should apply to my patch – or Earl Shaffer’s - and thereby make us
"liars" is entirely unacceptable.
So let’s talk about "liars". One of the attitudes I've been seeing on the
list is that anyone who didn't pass every white blaze but still claims a
patch is a liar. Think about it - if 1% of the population calls 95% of the
population liars because the 95% does something (anything) differently than
the 1% --- who has the problem? Oh - you want to know what happened to that
other 4%? Maybe they're the ones who white blazed but don't demand that
others do it their way.
Those who believe that one should pass every white blaze on the AT are more
than welcome to hike with that as their goal. But expressing that belief as
the attitude that those who don't do it their way are "liars" is divisive
and insulting to the vast majority who went out and made their own
decisions, who walked just as far (if not further), with the same goal, the
same rain, the same pain and the same price – but would be denied the same
“reward”. Bullfeathers.
Now – some of this is just confusion – as Draggin’ Anchor said:
>The problem is that they seem to have done one thing and said they did
>another - which truly devalues all those who actually did what they >said
>they did.
And I have that problem with politicians too, Al. But the misunderstanding
here lies in the word “seems”. So let’s take a look at that.
First off – there are absolutely people who do deliberately lie about what
they’ve done. I can put names to some of them. And I don’t/won’t defend
them. But what’s been done here is to apply “blanket” statements where they
don’t apply. In fact, “blanket” statements NEVER apply.
Are there those who should be denied patches? Yep. So what criteria would
you use to sort them out? The “did you blue blaze? – yes or no” is
simplistic – and wrong. Do you want to be the one who sorts them out?
------- I hope not – those who are willing to do that are rarely, if
ever, qualified to do so. Kinda like politicians.
There are those who believe that the AT is defined only by the white blazes
- but the AT is more than that to me – and to a lot of others. It is not -
it cannot be - restricted to a 12" white-blazed pathway with no permissible
deviation.
If that 12” path and white blazes are all the Trail is, then there's no
logical reason whatever for any of us to be talking about "saving the AT" or
corridor buffers or viewshed or land acquisition. That’s just logical
bullshit – a contradiction in terms.
A long time ago there was a very bad book with a wonderful title - the title
was "Your God Is Too Small". For some people, I'd say only this - that your
AT is too small. And, as with God - if you choose to believe in that kind
of AT, that's your choice, but it's not mine.
In fact, it's not mine to the extent that I would (and have) willingly
contributed to and worked for alternate trails to promote the "network" of
Trails that MacKaye envisioned - as opposed to the single Trail that Avery
built. That effort is well underway - the Tuscarora/MidState/Finger
Lakes/North Country Trail loop is getting closer to completion. The Iron Mt
loop has existed for a long time - and there are others ---- including a
number of cross-connectors.
Telling me that the AT consists only of a single white-blazed path? I don't
think so. And I'll continue to work to make it NOT so. The AT runs from
Springer to Katahdin – and for me, regardless of what the ATC says, it
follows a network of paths through the mountains, not a single line marked
by white blazes. Yeah – I was right at home on the CDT.
I went out to hike the AT – and I did that. I walked the Trail that I went
out there to walk. Telling me that I didn't walk the AT because I didn't
pass the same white blazes that someone else did or that I didn't pass ALL
the white blazes has nothing to do with what I went out there to do. Go read
the Thruhiker Papers again - you determine your own contract - the ATC
doesn't do that. If I didn't do it to someone else’s standards, if I didn't
follow in their footprints, that's not my problem - they're welcome to use
whatever standards they like – to live by whatever contract they choose.
But they're not welcome to apply their standards to my hike or my life. And
they're not welcome to call me a liar because my standards or actions don't
meet their particular expectations or biases. I don't welcome or accept
others dictating what my life or my hike should be. Nor are they welcome to
apply different standards to my hike than existed when I did that hike. I
get right nasty about revisionism.
Felix said:
>All I've said is to be honest. That's been twisted into people >thinking
>that I think my hike is better than someone else's. It >wasn't.
If nobody else knows that, I do, Felix. You’ve consistently failed to put
others down for what they did or didn’t do in this respect. It’s a good way
to fail. But there’s one point where I don’t agree with you.
Felix said:
>Well, no one controls me (IRS notwithstanding).
At one time I was involved in a VERY lucrative business – it could have made
me VERY rich – and those I was involved with fully expected that to happen.
One night I was talking to one of them about quitting my job and retiring at
the ripe old age of 43. And I choked. And we both realized that I was lying
– that I wasn’t ready for that kind of freedom. I learned about “looking in
the mirror” that night – and about self-honesty. Go look in the mirror –
and tell that man in the mirror that the white blazes don’t control you – or
your hike. You’re my brother, Felix – and I love you as such.
Felix said:
>It was a pretty damned good hike, though.
Yeah, I know – and so was mine. And I don't tolerate those who would call
it a lie.
Walk softly,
Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com