[pct-l] The subjectiveness of a thru-hike

[CMountainDave@aol.com (CMountainDave@aol.com)]

On the other side of the coin, why would anyone care if a true purist puts
you down for not doing it HIS way.( I just chuckle at them and think to each
their own.) Shouldn't the "who cares about what someone thinks about how I
hike" apply to the way you view a purist? If the purist gets your goat, one
has to ask why. If someone questions the validity (or reasons for, for that
matter) of one's thru hike, again, why should it bother you as long as you
are secure in your reasoning.
   At the other end of the spectrum, I don't think less of those who skip
sections and still claim a thru hike. ( It really doesn't affect me; it's not
like they cut in line). I think more of my focus and commitment to stay my
course. My "rules,"(in reality, decisions) that ONLY applied to MY thru hike
were no hitch hiking except to/from town from/to the trail, and start back up
where I left off.  I decided early on that 'alternative' trails were okay,
especially if more scenic, e.g. Crater Lake and Eagle Creek
  As a mountaineer, I would never say that not making the summit means the
effort is a failure. It's easy and proper to rationalize around it (well,
maybe not easy.) But I'll be sent to hell if me and the mountain won't have
another go at it another time so I can fix what went wrong with the plan.
After all , perceiving and implementing a plan is part of the joy of
mountaineering. I like to learn the hard way when it comes to limiting
expectations and being resigned to perceived limitations. That's what I got
out of 77 year old Bronka's climb of Rainier
  To those who tried and "failed" to complete a thru hike: As the poem I read
at a campsite in Castella State Park said, "your not a failure unless you
fail to try"