Re[4]: [at-l] Speed Hiking

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

Weary wrote:
> >"... Nobody has said MacKaye didn't say that," persists Jim, in reference
>to
> >MacKaye's comment, "I hope the AT will never become a race track. But if
>so, I
> >for one would vote to give the prize to the slowest traveler."
>
>Well, almost. So far nobody but Jim on these lists, but now, of course,
>even Jim has changed his mind.

Hmmm - only in your eyes and only because you make a habit of
misunderstanding what I say.  I asked you to tell me when/where I denied
that he said that.  You've failed to do so. Until you do so, you're
"inventing stories".


>DEspite Jim's comment, I'm not arguing against anything that Earl Shaffer
>said to me or that I've read in his writings. I have no idea why Jim heard
>something different from Earl. It's my guess that Jim may have
>misinterpreted Earl's words.

But you ARE arguing against what he said to me.  It's far more likely that
you never talked to him about this and are applying your biases here.


>Earl's brother John, at least, reports that "Earl's meeting with >Benton
>was very enjoyable for both. They remained close friends."

Yup - but you ignored John's other comments.  Try paying attention.


>That doesn't suggest to me that Mackaye was, "dissing ALL of those who had
>thru-hiked - regardless of their "time on Trail" and "considered Earl's
>thru-hike to be a 'race through the Trail'".

So you think Earl lied to me maybe?


>At least we know that Earl went on to thru-hike twice more and remained
>MacKaye's "close friend."
>
>After their visit Shaffer quoted  MacKaye as saying, that he once had
>believed
>"a trail like a chain was no better than its weakest link," but that
>MacKaye
>"had changed his mind" and now believed "The best way was to strengthen the
>weak
>links as much as possible."

Feeling wordy, are we?  Thaose two paragraphs may be interesting, but
they're just verbose filler with no meaning in the context of the present
discussion.  Stick to the subject at hand.


>I don't really understand what Jim means when he objects to what he >claims
>is the selective misuse of MacKaye's words to back up something that "he
>could not have even known about."

Let's see here - "you" started this mess under the title "Speed Hiking",
implying that MacKaye's statement applied to speed hiking.  And yet, the
first speed hike was more than a dozen years after the statement was made.
And then you ascribe "prescience" to MacKaye in order to justify the time
discrepancy.

Let's not get ridiculous.


>I haven't looked up the precise numbers, but probably 100 people had
>thru-hiked
>by the time MacKaye made his "race track" comments to Robert Wirth in a
>letter.
>The total grew to at least 300, probably more, by the time of MacKaye's
>death at
>age 96 in 1975.
>
>Presumably those many hikes involved many varieties of hiking styles and
>MacKaye
>remained curious to his final days. In May of the year of his death, A
>Backpacker magazine journalist "was awed by MacKaye's detailed knowledge of
>the
>national geography and his intense curiosity about current environmental
>and
>trail issues," Larry Anderson, MacKaye's biographer, reports.

Again - verbosity without meaning in the present context.

Get real - let's hear your explanation of the meaning and application of
MacKaye's statement and drop the personal attacks.  You have so far  failed
to offer anything positive to the discussion.

Same thing I told Dave Fales - answer the questions.  Otherwise you're
blowing smoke.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail