Re: [at-l] Is at-l a thru-hiking list?

[rdudley@po.father.com]

> From:          "Peter Nyberg" <pnyberg@pipeline.com>
> To:            "AT-L" <at-l@saffron.hack.net>
> Subject:       [at-l] Is at-l a thru-hiking list?
> Date:          Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:57:41 -0400

> > From: Owen <jrowen@ibm.net>
> > To: at-l <at-l@saffron.hack.net>
> > Subject: [at-l] Thruhiking - Learning about it
> > Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 11:02 PM
> > 
> > They have
> > so little importance, they're so foreign to the reality of the Trail,
> > they're so utterly unimportant - that a list that wastes a lot of
> > bandwidth on them automatically labels itself as a "non-thruhiking
> > list".  It may be a "hiking" list - but it has little to do with the
> > reality of thruhiking.  
> > 
> > Walk softly,
> > Jim
> 
> It was never my perception that at-l is intended to be a "thruhiking list".
>  How widespread is the feeling that the discussion of issues which have
> "little to do with the reality of thruhiking" are a waste of bandwidth?
> 
> This is not intended to start some kind of thru hiker vs. section hiker
> ideological war.  I'm just curious about other people's perception of the
> purpose of the list.
> 
> Peter 
I have never thought of the AT-list as a thru hikers list.  Just as 
there are many ways to hike, there are many ways to hike the AT.  I 
personally believe it is much more difficult to section hike the AT 
then thru hike it.  I may explain it one day.  Those who have done 
both know what I mean

happy Hiking 
Grey Owl


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================