I think many here have assumed a certain amount of like-mindedness, to the point of group cohesion, we're definitely not an UL conglomerate here. What good would it do any of us if we as BPL members were always being echoed back the same recreated ideas, techniques, methodology, gear lists, etc. with every article or report? Absolutely nothing. What would be the point? Reading Rogers thorough SOTMR only further confirms that: hiking, (S)UL hiking, backpacking, lightweight backpacking, bushwalking (insert label here if you care) is truly an individualist activity with no right or wrong way to do so, it's about the journey first and foremost, the means and tools in which we do so are only a footnote with a broad margin for interpretation and execution.

I too, like some have expressed, found some of the personal biases and musings expressed by Roger concerning hydration and pack design to be slightly off-putting, specifically his 'fashion' comments but then realized my own insecurities were to blame, not Rogers personal reflections. Why do I care that Roger doesn't like outside pockets for hydration? At the end of the day, I don't really and shouldn't, his opinions don't effect my decisions, it's his journey, not mine. I'm definitely enjoying the data and feedback shared in this report Roger, even though I haven't the slightest inkling of interest in acquiring a lightweight internal framed pack! Thanks for the investment you made in this series. Cheers, as you say.

Maybe we are being too picky or too serious?

For example, I really like Mike C. Hopefully someday I will run into him in the mountains. And my fantasy would be to TP his tarp in the middle of the night:)

@ Nick-- HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!

Nick: LOL : )

and really ought to happen at some point.....

@Nick - truly hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!

"Why do I care that Roger doesn't like outside pockets for hydration? At the end of the day, I don't really and shouldn't, his opinions don't effect my decisions, it's his journey, not mine"

Ditto. It's not the experienced UL packers that I'm concerned about, as we all have worked out what works best for us by now. It's new people joining this site that are thinking about buying a light internal framed pack, and read this article thinking this is really SOTMR, when much of it is just a rant. I expected a more balanced and less opinionated approach for a SOTMR, not for my benefit, but for those who really don't yet know what they want in a pack.

I guess I hadn't thought about it from that angle- although from the amount flak dished out- a new person reading this article and the accompanying posts will definitely be getting a wide array of opinions :)

"although from the amount flak dished out- a new person reading this article and the accompanying posts will definitely be getting a wide array of opinions :)"

Yup, good point :)

"Maybe we are being too picky or too serious?

Perhaps you're right Nick. I think many of us on BPL take ourselves far too serious on occasion. It is just walking outside with "stuff" on our backs at the end of the day, hopefully with a smile on our face.

Edited by Eugeneius on 09/16/2010 21:04:42 MDT.

"And my fantasy would be to TP his tarp in the middle of the night:)"

That enters the books of classic BPL comedy...

My feelings built up as I read the article. Then I read the comments. On seeing how much negativity the article had generated, I toned my comment down.

If you look back at early BackpackingLight analyses of the performance of various pieces of gear or of materials, you will see that the authors have made such an effort to be objective that the reading is a little awkward but revelations emerge from the preparedness to deal with physics. That has not happened here.

Didn't Ryan write an article on alternatives to TP?

Who packs-out the TP???

I really enjoyed the exploding gas canister article, not just because it featured research, graphs and a fun experiment but because I learned something from it. More like that please - stuff that I couldn't read in Trail magazine.

Reverse Polarity +1

I always hate how these discussion turn into this. Why must minor and understandable differences in opinion be conflated or disregarded? Yet it seems to be a perpetual issue with this site. I am not trying to be negative.

Reverse Polarity has a real point, and he zeros in on the only thing I am wishing to hold Roger to, his public word.

Reverse Polarity raises the point that insulting the intelligence or choices (intentionally or unintentionally) of your readership isn't a way to build bridges. Thats all I have been trying to get Roger to acknowledge, its not like I hold his choices against him. Contrast this against how he implies in the article that those who happen to use bladder sleeves are making "stupid" decisions.

He shouldn't be surprised to get a little bit of tough love when he prognosticates to an independent bunch to begin with. Its only the Internet folks! Are we all supposed to fall in line? How is any disagreement "negative"? Its just another point of view, and it happens to differ from his.

As other have pointed out we are a diverse community. It shouldn't be surprising when someone liberally throws around the word "stupid" that people might want to at least share a differing opinion as to why that might not be the case.

I am really getting to the point that I think we should cut comments off of these articles since the writers always turn non-responsive or defensive when people legitimately question their published work. If the writer can't deal with slightly disagreeing comments, and "radical transparency" demands from the audience then their should be no comments allowed on their articles to begin with.

I think that the problems happen when people clam up and don't want to talk about it. If you wrote it, you take responsibility for what you have said. That seems a simple concept to me.

Roger published this article series in an open forum that facilitates a process of Peer Review. I don't think it is asking much to answer for what you have publicly stated in any forum, let alone in a public and active community of your peers.

I am sorry if this is "negative" but it is my heartfelt concern. We are a diverse community and we should feel comfortable sharing our opinion without having it shunned into negativity when none such was intended.

Peace.

Edited by csforstall on 09/17/2010 10:20:12 MDT.

Another thing that the mass of Americans here should remember before going fully off the handle about his review is that Roger is from a Commonwealth nation. I'm unsure if this is universal but over the years I have noticed that there is a certian style used to express opinions for Commonwealth members that Americans find abrupt, condescending, and arbitrary. Essentially, if the speaker has any degree of experieince or authority at all the standard practice is to present his opinions as obvious and self-evident truths, and that any alternatives are ridiculous. Those who disagree are expected to do the same in good faith and start a jolly argument which, if all goes well, will result in an entertaining pub brawl and fun for all. :)

But this tone will tend to merely annoy the hell out of almost any American, who will get ruffled feathers and start making snitty comments.

There was a famous British kayaker a decade or so ago who made thousands of enemies on this side of the pond by disparaging American kayak designs and saying stuff such as "they might be sufficient for protected American waters", etc. (And now look- even the British boats are sporting keyhole cockpits. Ha! Joke's on him.)

Roger isn't quite so extreme- doubtless from prior encounters with we touchy Americans- but the basic premise does show a bit.

So don't take it so personally. Sheesh.

Of course, I could turn this all around and remind Roger that the Commonwealth style will innately annoy a lot of Americans, and he should remember who comprises most of his audience...

--BREAK--

So, on the subject of the whole bladder-versus-bottle thing...

I have seen videos of automobiles running over full bladders without causing a puncture. Unless you're hauling a sack of cutlery I doubt that any sort of "minor bump" will cause a leak. Leaks do happen, but usually in defective bladders or ones so old that they develop a crack on a repetetively bent crease or something.

That said I generally only use bladders on dayhikes- and that because they are so admittedly convenient. But on longer hikes I use bottles because it is easier to track how much water I have left when I'm using bottles (in those pockets that Roger hate; personally I find the Exos pockets to be superior), so I can plan where to stop to filter more and tank up. OTOH it's easy to find your bladder going empty when you're between water sources because you generally have to take your pack off, open it, etc., to check on how full your bladder is, and it is hard to remain that diligent over a long hike. Eventually you'll screw up and suffer for it.

If I'm really trying to camel up I'll carry both, but be careful to empty the bladder first. Seems a pretty good solution to me.

OK. You can have a dry list of facts, or you can have an opinion. I much prefer an interesting opinion. I can look up specs anywhere.

Disclaimer, i'm one of these bolshie non-US folk. :)

Have a look at recent trip reports. Many are from mountainous and wild areas. Not everyone treks on manicured trails.

P.S.
Us Scots made your country! :)

"There was a famous British kayaker a decade or so ago who made thousands of enemies on this side of the pond by disparaging American kayak designs and saying stuff such as "they might be sufficient for protected American waters", etc."

That reminded me of a former Canadian poster here who droned on and on about the unforgiving Canadian winters and how ONLY Mystery Ranch and McHale packs will do. The same poster also wrote that he would only buy gear made in Canada, other commonwealth countries, and the US. Jolly good of him to make an exception for us! )

Edited by ben2world on 09/17/2010 11:54:20 MDT.

Actually, I would argue that to a large degree Africans made our country.

And, shudder to think of it, without the French we never would have thrown you lot to the curb...

:) Smiley!

Personally, I find the colorful opinionizing rather amusing as well. I'm just trying to impart a little perspective upon My Fellow Americans.

And, I'll give the notable exception- Canadians generally don't do the Commonwealth Style thing. They're universally so polite and considerate that I want to strangle them.

And I have too little experience with Kiwis to make THAT call.

Edited by acrosome on 09/17/2010 12:13:44 MDT.

OK Dean. The US is an African/Franco alliance. :)

An old Scots saying is "We are all Jock Thamsons Bairns"