[pct-l] Trail Food

[spiritbear2k@hotmail.com (Ginny & Jim Owen)]

"bill blovis" wrote:
>Okay, so your beef remains that I expressed doubt as to whether the media 
>coverage of Brian's hike would be universally good for the scenic trails. 
>Let me just say again that I _never_ criticized his hike -- I did criticize 
>the list for not thinking critically about it, though, and I remain 
>critical in this regard. Critically critical.

That's a legitimate topic of conversation - and it wasn't the main  problem. 
  On this particular topic there are probably as many opinions as there are 
hikers - at least hikers who actually think about what they're doing.  But 
just being "critical", as the old saying goes, don't get the coon.  Or to 
put it a different way - as my boss on my first "real" job told me - "Don't 
just come to me with a problem, bring a solution with you".  Same thing 
applies here - if you don't have a solution - then you don't really have 
anything to talk about.  And, like it or not, there are no "right" answers.

You're only about 10 or 20 (40 maybe?) years behind us on this one, Bill.  
We've seen what's happened to the AT - and to some extent to the PCT - and 
to a couple dozen other trails because of media coverage.  And we're 
watching it happen to the CDT - at least in part due to our own efforts.  
It's not always a pretty sight.  If you want to discuss it, go for it - but 
keep in mind that there are other viewpoints - and that I can (and sometimes 
will) argue any of 17 different sides of the subject with equal fervor.  
It's one of those "endless arguments" that has no satisfactory universal 
solution.


>I also criticized Brian for failing to take advantage of a truly unique 
>opportunity to say something of value on behalf of the scenic trails. He 
>didn't.

Now you've gotten to the "problem".  You've made assumptions about Brian, 
about his goals and attitude, and about the conditions (physical, mental and 
emotional) of a thruhike, that are entirely unwarranted.  You sit in your 
comfy air-conditioned apartment and think about how nice it would be to "do 
something good for the trails" - and then you translate that into "Well, 
Brian is out there with all that publicity - why doesn't HE do it?"  And 
when he doesn't do it, you get your knickers in a twist cause he didn't do 
what YOU wanted him to do.  Did I get that scenario anywhere close to right?

My message to you is that until you've done at least one thruhike, you don't 
have a clue about attitude - or what it takes to finish a long trail - or 
how little actual "thinking" time is available during a thruhike - or how 
insignificant your "doing good for the Trails" proposition is to the average 
thruhiker.  And what Brian did simply compounds all of that.  Actually - 
it's more of an exponential function.

What your apparent attitude brings to mind is an image of a Little League 
parent whose athletic ability is minimal, but who PUSHES their kid to be 
"the best".  Or possibly of the proverbial "stage mother".  It's the "I 
can't do it, so you have to do it for me" attitude that's the problem, Bill. 
  At least for me.

<snip>

>Nevertheless, the implication that _I_ should hike a Calendar Triple Crown 
>before I comment in this way is completely absurd.

Not absurd at all - you're telling me it's OK for you to dictate what 
Brian's attitude and actions "should" be - and I don't find that acceptable 
under any circumstances.  While I won't pretend to actually speak for him, I 
don't think he would either.

But I would find it entirely acceptable for you to go do your own Triple 
Crown (whether in one year or 20) and then say what you have to say.  In 
fact, you can say it now - without the Triple Crown - and I'd have no real 
problem with it.  I might not take it as seriously as you'd like - and I 
might tell you what's right or wrong with your ideas, but I'm not gonna tell 
you that you "can't" express your opinion.  But when you get into telling 
others what they "should" be saying, you'll likely find me stomping all over 
your toes.


>What about all those critics at Mother Jones who argue for a smaller 
>defense budget? They've never been generals, politicians, or chiefs of 
>staff, so what do they know about defense budgets?

You asked the question - so what's the answer?  What part of "zero" do you 
have a problem with?  The analogy, by the way, is also invalid.  Do you have 
any idea why?

As my grandfather said - "Any damn fool can criticize - and most of them 
do."

Walk softly,
Jim

************************************************************
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It 
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the 
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp