[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes (LONG)
- Subject: [at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes (LONG)
- From: max_patch@xxxxxxxxx (max patch)
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:46:44 -0500
Rick B writes: "Here is what I might suggest be substituted for their curre=
nt requirements that state a blue blaze is not considered a viable alternat=
ive for the official white-blazed footpath:"
Putting arguments of what is a thru-hike aside and commenting only upon the=
2,000 miler patch which is awarded when the ENTIRE trail is hiked, by defi=
nition a blue blaze SHOULD NOT be given equal status because IT AIN'T THE T=
RAIL. One either hikes the ENTIRE trail or they didn't. Its like being pr=
egnant. Its a black and white issue with NO grey involved. Hike ALL the t=
rail and earn the patch. Bypass part of the OFFICIAL trail and don't earn =
the patch. Its as simple as that.
We do need to write letters, though. For example, Gulf Hagas SHOULD be par=
t of the Appalachian Trail. It should NOT be a blue blazed side trail. Do=
es anyone know why in the world this decision was made?
Max
_____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=3Dplus&ref=3Dlmtplus