Re: [RC] de-elevators, elevators - Barbara McCrary
I don't agree with this.
Elevating is a positive step forward. De-elevating is a negative
viewpoint...."I just can't go on, so I'm going to quit, but I will get credit
anyway for what I have already done." If others perceive no difference in
viewpoint, then I am not in favor of either type of ride. You either ride
a 100 miles or you don't. I prefer Bruce's approach, "There is no pressing effort that I know of to remove the top
10,000 feet of Mt Everest so that more climbers can reach the
summit."
How can it be more simple and to the
point than that? Actually, I'm not particularly a supporter of elevator
rides anyway. It certainly makes a lot more work for the RMs and
bookkeeping. Keep it simple.....and honest.
All of the philosophical comments on 100's
- enduring, all or nothing, etc are probably the same objections that were
expressed when the idea of 'elevator' rides was proposed. Maybe that's why
elevator rides are so rare. The concept of a 'de-elevator' is no different
from 'elevator' - you do your 100 mile ride 50 miles at a time, either way.
Either way, at 50 you can say enough. Either way, if you finish the 100 the
achievement is no less for having had the option to stop at 50. It's still 100
miles, still an amazing feat, still riding with your friends in the dark, etc,
etc. The only difference between the two is in the Points
awarded.
If you sign up for an 'elevator
100' and complete the 100 you only get full points for the 50 mile portion,
the 100 is miles/completion only.
If you sign up for
a 'de-elevator 100' and complete the 100 you only get full points for the
100 mile completion if you stop at 50 its miles/completion only. (as I
understand the proposal)
Otherwise they are basically the same
animal, the proposal is really just adjusting the way the 'elevator' ride is
implemented.
Maybe rather than trying to grasp what
some see as a new and 'dumbing' concept, we should simply look at the proposal
as a change in the way elevator completions are viewed.