[at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes (LONG)

[spiriteagle99@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

max patch wrote:
>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
>definition a blue blaze SHOULD NOT be given equal status because IT AIN'T
>THE TRAIL.  One either hikes the ENTIRE trail or they didn't.  Its like
>being pregnant.  Its a black and white issue with NO grey involved.  Hike
>ALL the trail and earn the patch.  Bypass part of the OFFICIAL trail and
>don't earn the patch.  Its as simple as that.

Not quite - it's as simple as that TO YOU.  And therefore, you should hike
and live by that criteria.  Anything else would be a violation of your own
beliefs.

For others it's not nearly that simple - and if you don't respect their
beliefs, then don't expect them to respect yours.  Have you ever watched a
2,000 mile "war" between two groups of thruhikers?  I have.  It's not a
pretty sight - and it was caused by a simple lack of respect on the part of
someone who thought it was "that simple".

Refer to my last post re: Trail system.  Some people have always thought of
it that way - and always will.


>We do need to write letters, though.  For example, Gulf Hagas SHOULD be
>part of the Appalachian Trail.  It should NOT be a blue blazed side trail.
>Does anyone know why in the world this decision was made?

I think Weary may have the best answer for this - my answer might be years
out of date.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail