She was so exhausted she slumped to the ground after finishing the race which is inspired by a famous prison escape.
The course, at Frozen Head State Park, changes every year but covers 100 miles involving 60,000ft of climb and descent - about twice the height of the Mount Everest.
Only 20 people have ever made it to the end of the race within the allotted 60 hours since it was extended to 100 miles in 1989.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Prospective runners must write a “Why I should be allowed to run in the Barkley” essay along with a $1.60 (£1.27) entrance fee and if successful get a letter of condolence.
Competitors must find between nine and 14 books along the course (the exact number varies each year) before removing the page corresponding to their race number from each book as proof of completion.
Okay, I didn’t read it and should have. Usually I would, but I was commenting on a conversation. It’s been dealt with now so we can drop it, right?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info? Because the moment I had it I clarified the issue very easily. I wonder what they were doing saying shit like:
Because that’s so wrong that if they did know the actual story then it amounts to a lie of omission. It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate. Any thoughts on that or is this like a team sport sort of situation?
No, because it’s in the article being discussed at hand. It’s already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it’s just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn’t comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
He said “it’s literally to mock the dude”, but to pretend like that is devoid of politics is to ignore what politics is. That’s the problem here.
Great. Now that you have a more well thought argument, take it up with them, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they just ignore you.
You’re one of the people pretending this isn’t political.
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
You can say you were just paraphrasing, but “simply claiming” implies you saw nothing wrong with what they were saying.
EDIT: And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it. But apparently you’re happy to just repeat it as if it’s a fine thing to say.
Oh, well when I said , “simply claiming”, I was implying that most folks don’t have an issue understanding what they meant, because it’s simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
It’s pretty clear that you were asserting it’s one of my beliefs here:
Sorry, you’re right about the edit, I lost track of that when I was reading back.