[at-l] Earl Shaffer's hike questioned
jim.bullard at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 11:30:09 CDT 2011
That's a prosecutor mentality. Assume guilt, require proof of innocence.
Very few hikes (if any) could be proved. It isn't about that anyway. It's
about the experience of being 'out there' day by day, dealing with what it
throws at you and becoming part of it all. I'm inclined to think that those
who view a thru as something to do by strict rules and documented in such a
way as to be provable in court are people who just don't get it. For my
part, like Shane, my hiking evolved to the point that being out there even
took precedence over getting from A to B.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:19 PM, snodrog5 at gmail.com <snodrog5 at gmail.com>wrote:
> The research paper was posted on Whiteblaze.net. The author's tone, simply
> put, is that if he can't prove a detail that happened six decades ago Earl
> must've lied. Screw him, and the "research" he rode in on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the at-l