Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Awesome, allow me to retort.
My turn! Drop your pants winky! Daddy brought his
belt this time!
1. I never said I know a damn thing about wilderness survival. In fact, if you'd actually bothered to read my post you'd see I clearly stated that I don't go camping. Asking you to read from comprehension instead of reading to see what you can nitpick might have been expecting a bit much, though. What I said was that I live out in the country. I said this because I'd imagine most hikers are people from the city who want to go out to the forest for a weekend and pretend they're Davy Crockett or whatever the fuck they do out there.
The first part of this point is a straw man - you can read the definition
here, but since actually educating yourself on things before discussing them doesn't seem to be your bag, I'll quote it too:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
So, for starters, get off this "you didn't read my post!" shit.
More to the point, your interpretation of what a "hiker" is doesn't mean a fucking thing. The fact that your interpretation is wrong does. Just because you intended word usage in an incorrect context does not in any way ameliorate your ignorance. You said hiking, you never qualified an extent, except apparently in your mind, after the fact, in a vain hope of maintaining some kind of viability in your argument.
2. This point is important so pay attention. What started this all was talk about taking this flashlight hiking. Got it? The operative word here is hiking. That being said, your brief description of what are acceptable load weights for each class was very impressive. I, as well as everyone else here, is impressed with your knowledge and your e-penis is now huge. However... after a quick search of the terms you mentioned it's apparent that terrain above class 3 is basically climbing. Not hiking, climbing. Slight bit of difference, don't you think? So, while that was all truly impressive, it really has no bearing on what's being talked about there.
Wrong again. I'm glad you were able to google up the standard class rating system. It'll save me some explanation time.
A cross country hike, especially in more remote locations, can involve tackling terrain that is unmapped, or has not been so for decades, which allows a lot of changes. I've guided on plenty of trips like this where the guide team suddenly has to route find in an inaccurately or poorly charted location, and sometimes the only feasible way down or up involves roped safety systems and terrain in the upper echelon of the class system.
This is why pre-trip, if there's any chance of this kind of situation occurring, clients are obligated to take a short lesson on descending and ascending fixed ropes. The guide team will do the truly hairy work, because we have that expertise, but we can't just stop for a few hours in the field to train clients how to manage descent over a 200ft. cliff.
The confusion you seem to be having is that a hike is only a short walk in the woods. Ever heard of
hiking the Appalachian Trail, you numbskull?
Next time when you read a post, before you get your panties all in a twist make sure you actually understand what's being talked about.
The best part about this being you actually think YOU know what's being discussed, when you're clearly the one in error.
I said I'd have no problem taking an extra 13 lbs hiking and that anyone who thought it was an excessive amount of weight for hiking is a little weak. Obviously, if you're doing actual climbing then excess weight is a huge factor. You'll get no argument from me there.
Well, then you're showing uncharacteristic reason on the second point and a lack of respect for context and general ignorance of the subject on the first. Hiking to
YOU may mean a stroll through the woods, but that's the typical mindset of suburbanite yuppie wimps...the same faction I believe you were attempting to belittle with your posts earlier. Maybe you should try to be friends with those folks - you certainly seem to think alike.
Cliff Notes (since you don't seem to like to read)
1. You didn't actually comprehend what was being discussed and got your panties in a bunch when there was really no reason.
2. You made a big post that has almost zero relevance to what was being discussed.
3. You're an idiot.
Cliff Notes (Since you apparently don't even know what the words you're using mean):
1) You weren't even discussing what you *thought* you were discussing due to your high level ignorance of the activity and its associated terms.
2) Because of #1, you wouldn't know what is relevant to this discussion or not, and mistakenly assumed I was off topic when in fact I work in the field and know more about hiking/wilderness travel/climbing/whatever you want to talk about than you will ever know about anything.
3) Your attempt to save face didn't work. Please insert another quarter and try again.