[pct-l] E-mail/Elevation changes

[HShires@aol.com]

Ezra,

If you really do plan to keep in touch with "heaps of people" The ONLY 
feasible (i.e., light, easy, cheap, practical, virtually foolproof) way 
to do e-mail at virtually every town stop is to carry a device that uses 
the pocketmail service <www.pocketmail.com>.  First you need a pocketmail 
device -- you can get a really good one by Sharp called a tm-20 ($120) or 
a pocketmail cradle for a palm pilot ($??) -- and then you sign up for 
the service at $9.95/month.  It's an unlimited 800# number service and 
the only thing you need is a pay phone (or analog cel phone with a 
working connection).  You don't have to physically plug the thing in; You 
just hold it up to the phone.  The alternatives (satellite phone, palm 
computer with landline modem, cel phone with text e-mail, library ISP)  
are either heavy, expensive, non-existent, or wont work in the terrain 
you'll be hiking and the towns you'll be visting.  The great thing about 
the Sharp tm-20 is that it has a great little keyboard for fast entry, 
holds 500K of text, and, with lithium batteries, weighs a bit under 8 
ounces.  The lithium batteries also last forever: My second set was still 
going strong when I walked into Manning.  There are simply not enough 
libraries or other ISP sites to do serious e-mail any other way.

Henry


>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ben Harth <benharth@yahoo.com>
>Subject: [pct-l] Internet Access
>
>Hey ya'll...
>
>So, probably like many of you, I will be keeping in touch with heaps of
>people during this year's thru-hike via the internet.  I plan on
>sending out mass-mail updates as well as keeping in touch with people
>individually, but I don't know where I will find computers to do so.  I
>am looking to pick the brains of previous years' hikers-- where were
>you able to find internet access in towns near the trail?  This is a
>question that may have been asked before-- if anyone has this info on a
>web site (or knows where one may be), where could I find it?  Thanks
>for the help..
>
>Ezra Freeman
>(not Ben Harth)
>ezrafreeman@hotmail.com
>(please respond to this address as well as to the list)


To all you AT/PCT veterans:

Is this true that the AT has more elevation gain and loss than the PCT?  
I understand the AT's grades are steeper but the AT is ~500 miles shorter 
and the PCT has massive elevation changes, albeit at gentler grades.  The 
PCT has over 300,000 vertical feet of gain (and over 300,000 vertical 
feet of loss).  Does anyone have a guess as to the elevation gain/loss on 
the AT?

>Dave -
>
>Regarding your comment about putting the AT in the middle - I read that 
>although the PCT is higher elevation which is difficult, the AT is actually 
>more elevation gain and loss, because the PCT is a CREST trail.  Of course 
>there are other areas of difficulty that do not compare, such as resupply - 
>just interesting I thought.
>
>Mary B
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

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