Fwd: Re[2]: [at-l] Seriously Speaking....

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings wrote:
>"...In fact, the rules were drafted at the time (1999) that WF was claiming 
>that Earl Shaffer wasn't a thruhiker cause he hadn't met Windfart's 
>standard  for thruhikers.," thinks Jim O.
>
>If Wingfoot took that view, he certainly kept it very quiet. In 1998 at the 
>Trail Festival in Hot Springs, I heard Earl Shaffer praise Wingfoot as 
>having been "the person who always has been my greatest supporter."

ROTFLMAO!!!!    The implication, of course, is that I "think" that, but 
don't "know" it - right?  Sorry, Bob, but that's BS.  How did yo miss 
thefact that WF discussed this "publicly" on atml (not that atml could 
really be termed "public").  In '98, Earl and WF were buddies - maybe you'd 
like to talk to Earl about that next time you see him?  And about when it 
changed?  If you want to defend WF, you might want to do it about something 
that's actually defensible.


>And when I and others argued that even Earl couldn't meet the standards
>Wingfoot was promoting, Wingfoot replied that he had spent hours talking 
>with Earl and that we were wrong.

Maybe you convinced him?    :-)))

I've always wondered about a couple things - first, why WF thought that 
"revisionist" standards should have been applied to Earls hike (or any other 
previous hike) and secondly, why he thought he had any right or authority to 
promote his "standards" as the only "acceptable" definition. I wonder how he 
missed the idea that as a private individual, "I" have just as much 
right(and authority) to promote "my" standards.


Now - yesterday, under the title:
"Against [at-l] TROLLS, WF, BRYSON, PURISM, CELLPHONES, ETC ETC ETC"

Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> wrote:
>I agree that the list has more messages than most of us can comfortably 
>handle, even with a well-trained delete finger. But I think the best way to 
>limit the number is for each of us to reply only when we think we have 
>something useful, interesting or friendly to say.

I thought that was a really good idea.  But it puzzles me as to why you 
insist on keeping this thread going if you believe what you wrote there. Why 
does it take 20+ posts for you to expound your view of purism?  Especially 
when you don't seem to know much of the actual history behind the subject?

In fact, by actual count, you post about 5% of the total volume on at-l  --- 
how does that fit with the above statement considering that there are over 
200 people who post here every month?  There are other things I'm also 
curious about, but I think we'll refrain from stating  the obvious and let 
those go for now.

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com