[at-l] Re[2]: [at-l] WF Math

[Snodrog5@aol.com (Snodrog5@aol.com)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
R&R, why did you find it nescesary to take over a dozen cheap shots
at our list and it's members in this post?


>
>
>

       ~~~     First, I thank Saunterer for at least speaking rationally on
the topic. It is a refreshing change from the usual.


       I'm sure WF will never get a fair hearing in here, but let's continu=
e
the math. Let's allow that perhaps what Saunterer points out is true and at
least some of what he outlines is exaggerated. You know how Wingfoot would
respond to that in his own immodest way. He would ask how many amongst his
critics had done nearly as much as he has for the Trail? Yes, this is where
people get turned of, BUT, if you were honest, you would admit that he HAS
done much more for the Trail than most (if not all) of his critics. This la=
ck
of objective honesty, to me, seems to be the equally-offending counterpart =
to
the inaccuracies you accuse WF of. The answer is simply, yes, WF does have =
a
less than appealing propensity towards self-credit in some regard, BUT that
doesn't change the genuine and helpful effort he gives to the Trail. The fl=
aw
in this reasoning is it assumes that because WF can be caught making
exaggerated claims that therefore it is reasonable to destroy everything he
does. Unfortunately, what this movement includes is wiping out dearly neede=
d
Trail organization in the process. If Trail members are allowed to see
persons who genuinely care about the Trail as "disrupters sent by WF to hur=
t
our site" there can be no AT good from it.

        Where this scrutiny over WF's credentials loses legitimacy is when
the same scope is turned in this direction. You see when people say equally
false and ill-meaning things about Trailplace and go unchallenged, they too
are committing the same offense you take exception to. If you had noticed i=
n
these discussions over Wingfoot, those who promote what he does are capable
of discussing pros and cons in perspective. We are capable of admitting fla=
ws
or failures in our subject. If you look at the other side, you'll notice an
unswervingly intolerance which allows absolutely no positive mention of any
possible good Trailplace has done. I submit that sound math will bear me ou=
t
on this equation. What this says to me is we have a dedicated person with a=
n
authoritarian tendency who exaggerates while making hard efforts for the
Trail. That isn't enough to stop me from helping him...




> Wingfoot is a tireless self promoter.  If the math isn't enough to
> demonstrate that, how about the line "His 1987 thru-hike, the
> much-publicized Golden Anniversary Expedition, served as the centerpiece =
of
>
> the Appalachian Trail=B4s fiftieth anniversary celebration, focusing
> nationwide attention on the Trail=B4s value as a recreational treasure fo=
r
> all Americans." also directly quoted from the "Meet Wingfoot" page.  Was
> *his* 1987 thru really *the centerpiece* of the AT's 50th anniversary?  O=
r
> was that only in his own mind?  What about everyone else who hiked that
> year, the 50th anniversary activities conducted by ATC and trail
> maintaining clubs?  I guess ATC, MATC, PATC, etc. were merely incidental =
to
>
> the trail's 50th anniversary.




       ***   You see Saunterer, I sometimes have a problem with the interne=
t
being the best judge of the Trail. This last passage is a good example. Let=
's
preface this with an admission that, yes, once again WF has probably made
claims to boost his Trail importance with the 1987 hike. I see it as a way =
to
promote his AT ambitions -some of which include creating a center for
promotion of Trail principles. I'm sure TJ wouldn't hesitate to chime with
something precious like "WF lied about his involvement in the 1987
anniversary hike." It's all too easy to do that from this medium. What you
probably don't know is that I attended the 1987 celebration at Bear Mountai=
n,
NY and photographed WF giving a speech. Back then I had no knowledge of WF
other than having met him in Maine on my 1985 southbound flop. I thought to
myself, "gee this guy has some kind of Trail fire in him to be taking it so
far." He was obviously dealing with the Trail in an above average manner.

      Why I'm pained by such descriptions of WF's efforts is because, even =
if
he is guilty of self-promotion, these accounts don't mention that ATC
donations shot up after his little crusade. So did sales and memberships. I
was at the Bear Mountain speech, it was well received by Trail authorities
and WF was sort of an accepted hiker celebrity at that occasion. The things
he said struck that collection of Trail authorities and movers as genuine a=
nd
sincere and an appreciation of the AT. Somehow none of that survives these
negativity campaigns and that strikes me as unfair if not worse. Somewhere =
in
my slide collection I have a great shot of our controversial Trail captain =
at
the podium with the bridge towers rising behind him. If you had attended th=
at
celebration as I had, there was no doubt that our club did have WF as the
"centerpiece" of that day. I have a great laminated pin from the event.
Somehow, Saunterer, if somebody took your description at face value they
would think he was lying about all of it. That is the trouble here. If you
are concerned about accuracy you should be so universally. To me there is o=
ne
thing worse than tireless self-promotion - and that is tireless defamation
and denials...



> When what someone claims they have done so clearly conflicts with objecti=
ve
> reality I have to question them as a source of truth in general.



         ***   That sword cuts both ways. When people make outrageous claim=
s
like "WF lied about his involvement in Putnam Mine" and when those claims a=
re
totally disproven by credible source, and the accusers response to that is =
to
shun the topic and poster, well, that too has obvious unavoidable
connotations...



  >  I'd rather make my own
> judgment on the issues than slavishly follow someone like that. How does
> someone who can't be truthful about his own role re: the AT "represent th=
e
> AT better" than those who are out there on the trail, doing the trailwork=
,
> volunteering their time and  money with real trail organizations (as
> opposed to a business designed to sell trail guides)?  The AT is larger
> than WF or his myopic views.  Seeing him for what he is, is nothing more
> than that... Seeing him for what he is.
>


         ***   I simply can't allow you to sell Trailplace as simply a medi=
um
for Trail guide sales. Again, if you are interested in judging accuracy, yo=
u
have just committed a sad inaccuracy there. I have yet to see Wingfoot take=
 a
public campaign stance I disagreed with. While some were insisting on Breen=
's
rights over on Saddleback, WF was pushing for the Trail. As it turned out,
Breen cost the Trail severely. I don't see my backing WF's stance there as
"slavish". In fact, a majority of the AT public held his position too.

        As for seeing things as they are, let's turn that scope elsewhere.
There are other 'myopic' views being held by AT groups. Some call for
shunning of the topic by persons who never speak of any credible AT
information in their reasoning. Others are consistently negative and one
sided about efforts that did good for the AT and were recognized. If you wa=
nt
to see things as they really are think of TA. There is no WF over there, bu=
t
there is a calling for Trail participation in serious Trail topics and idea=
s.
The response by some is to give as difficult a time as possible to this
effort. To me there is simply no existing interest amongst the general AT
public for advocacy organization. The rest is just excuses that sound good
for justifying generally existing apathy. If this is the case, and these
members are really not interested, they could at least have the restraint t=
o
allow those who do to do so unhindered...

       This matter comes down to a simple mathematical formula. With all sa=
id
and done, who is offering a suggestion to help fight the raceway? Where is
this urged more, better promoted, or even basically made available? The tru=
th
now. It's clear to me that the call to "see WF for what he is" is also a ca=
ll
for not seeing the Trail for what it is...