6 ms·

just to save everyone the suspense: he "survived" so long by stealing resources earned by other people who worked for them. Apparently the so-called "hermit" di

just to save everyone the suspense: he "survived" so long by stealing resources earned by other people who worked for them. Apparently the so-called "hermit" didn't mind people that much.

blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Well, he robbed vacation homes, so I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that. What strikes me as funny is that he went to such lengths to rob them, it seems like gardening, hunting and fishing would have been easier. But I suppose it's possible it was the thrill of getting away with it that motivated him.
- jboggan 10y ago
  He burgled vacation homes, huge difference. Hunting and fishing are not as calorically rewarding as what he could get concentrated in peanut butter and sweets. Read the GQ article, it's fascinating how he would intentionally get fat for the winter.
  - svachalek 10y ago
    I've never heard "burgle" used as a verb in the U.S. although it seems to still be common elsewhere.
    - hossbeast 10y ago
      You need to read J.R.R. Tolkien
    - DonaldFisk 10y ago
      "Burgle" is a back-formation from "burglar". "Burglarize" is the earlier form of the verb, first used in 1829 by the English author William Hazlitt.
    - azinman2 10y ago
      Common for U.K.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  Robbery is robbery; the immorality of which has no dependency on how "put out" his victims were... as though it were for you or me to even make such a determination. He was a thief that stole stuff from people: nuff said. I hope at some point his victims got justice.
  - totalZero 10y ago
    Robbery is not robbery. Burglary is not armed robbery. They are different in the eyes of the law, and justly so. Theft of a candy bar carries a different penalty from theft of an automobile, and justly so. A thief is a thief, and a criminal is a criminal, but not all crimes are identical. There is a difference between the rigidity of ethics, and the flexible punishment-must-fit-the-crime nature of justice.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      Over a decade ago, a thief broke into my car and stole some items. The feeling of violation still burns within me now. It's terrible to think that someone was in my car, my space, and took my things, and used them for some unsavoury end. In the grand scheme of the universe, those things are pretty minor. But they still hurt. I don't know that I'd want to hurt the person or people who stole from me; I think that I'd like to get to know why he or they did it, that I'd like to see why that seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But it does hurt, even now.
    - sbuttgereit 10y ago
      Of course, you are correct in your statements, but contextual application in this discussion would appear to be in error on at least one point. You are correct in that I used an term incorrectly: I shouldn't have said robbery, I should have simply said "theft". Robbery indicates force: there was no indication of direct force/intimidation that I saw. Point conceded. Where I think your criticism is incorrect. Your examples differentiate based on the what the criminal was trying to get away with. Trying to steal a candy bar is different that trying to steal an automobile: the resources involved in obtaining a candy bar legitimately are much smaller than the resources dedicated to obtaining a car. You rightfully call out that distinction, they are different (as individual acts) and I would not disagree that they should be different in what answer justice should demand of the criminal. Where you go astray is that the context of my criticism of was that the original commentator was differentiating the severity of the crime not on the value of the property stolen, but on some perception of the of the victim's "need". So, it's not the difference of the value of the good taken, but a judgment on how important that should have been to the victim. This is a very important distinction and changes the validity of the ethical judgement. I assert that, whereas the value of the stolen item is correctly a part of the determining the severity of the transgression, the "need" of the victim is not a proper factor in determining the severity of the crime. (And yes, this is a generalization. If I steal a hospital respirator from a medical supply company showroom floor, it is different than if I steal it while it's in use by a patient... though even then the theft aspect should likely be seen as the same and there are just other, different ethical/legal crimes in addition to theft.)
- digler999 10y ago
  > I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that They were "put out" for the exact value of the items he stole. Whether the theft results in a direct detriment to the victim is irrelevant.
et-al 10y ago
He admits to this: "I stole. I was a thief. I repeatedly stole over many years. I knew it was wrong. Knew it was wrong, felt guilty about it every time, yet continued to do it." If folks haven't already, the GQ article by Michael Finkel (linked in the older post oska pointed out) is worth the read: The Strange & Curious Tale of the Last True Hermit - http://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?printable=true http://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?printable=true
- digler999 10y ago
  I dont even think it's worth reading about him. He's a criminal who got away with it for a long time because of geography and the supply and demand relationship between cold weather and unoccupied cabins.
  - et-al 10y ago
    If you think of him in that terms, sure. I think much of the disappointment people have here is that they were expecting a man vs nature story and instead read about a thief who lived off the fat of the modern world. The responses in this thread differ from those from the earlier discussion [0] oska linked. I suspect it's due to the different titles and resulting expectations. Personally, I didn't know about original thread when it was posted, and your original comment actually prompted me to find the GQ story and read it under the expectation that I was going to learn about a societal mooch. What ended up making an impression was Christopher Knight's unique writing style, his observations on everyday interactions we take for granted ("I’m not used to seeing people’s faces," he said. "There’s too much information there. Aren’t you aware of it? Too much, too fast."), and how he survived those winters. And yes, I get it, he stole. He used stolen propane tanks to fire up the stolen Coleman to melt snow in a stolen pot to drink water. But still, he fattened himself up for winter and camped in the winter months of Maine while not leaving behind footprints for 25 years. I was impressed. Yes it's not Primitive Technology [0] ingenuity, but Mr Knight is still an outlier and shared an experience I don't encounter every day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205993 [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA
pizzetta 10y ago
One interesting aspect is that he did not contract any major (contagious) disease while not having access to a doctor or any medicine (beyond what he may have found/stolen from cabins, etc. He attributed his good health to being away from people (and thus disease). Also he was able to take good care of his Rx glasses for all those year. No loss or breakage.
- digler999 10y ago
  I was wondering about his dental hygiene. I've never had a major toothache before, but I've heard they are off-the-charts painful. Maybe he went to the dentist, too, off his stolen goods ?
hogrammer 10y ago
Just like the Democrats!
djrobstep 10y ago
How do you know the other owners worked for them? They may have inherited them or paid for them from capital (ie non-labor) income. Stealing from the rich increases equality, and is thus a morally good thing, not a bad thing.

just to save everyone the suspense: he "survived" so long by stealing resources earned by other people who worked for them. Apparently the so-called "hermit" didn't mind people that much.

blacksmith_tb 10y ago

Well, he robbed vacation homes, so I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that. What strikes me as funny is that he went to such lengths to rob them, it seems like gardening, hunting and fishing would have been easier. But I suppose it's possible it was the thrill of getting away with it that motivated him.

jboggan 10y ago
He burgled vacation homes, huge difference. Hunting and fishing are not as calorically rewarding as what he could get concentrated in peanut butter and sweets. Read the GQ article, it's fascinating how he would intentionally get fat for the winter.
- svachalek 10y ago
  I've never heard "burgle" used as a verb in the U.S. although it seems to still be common elsewhere.
  - hossbeast 10y ago
    You need to read J.R.R. Tolkien
  - DonaldFisk 10y ago
    "Burgle" is a back-formation from "burglar". "Burglarize" is the earlier form of the verb, first used in 1829 by the English author William Hazlitt.
  - azinman2 10y ago
    Common for U.K.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
Robbery is robbery; the immorality of which has no dependency on how "put out" his victims were... as though it were for you or me to even make such a determination. He was a thief that stole stuff from people: nuff said. I hope at some point his victims got justice.
- totalZero 10y ago
  Robbery is not robbery. Burglary is not armed robbery. They are different in the eyes of the law, and justly so. Theft of a candy bar carries a different penalty from theft of an automobile, and justly so. A thief is a thief, and a criminal is a criminal, but not all crimes are identical. There is a difference between the rigidity of ethics, and the flexible punishment-must-fit-the-crime nature of justice.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    Over a decade ago, a thief broke into my car and stole some items. The feeling of violation still burns within me now. It's terrible to think that someone was in my car, my space, and took my things, and used them for some unsavoury end. In the grand scheme of the universe, those things are pretty minor. But they still hurt. I don't know that I'd want to hurt the person or people who stole from me; I think that I'd like to get to know why he or they did it, that I'd like to see why that seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But it does hurt, even now.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    Of course, you are correct in your statements, but contextual application in this discussion would appear to be in error on at least one point. You are correct in that I used an term incorrectly: I shouldn't have said robbery, I should have simply said "theft". Robbery indicates force: there was no indication of direct force/intimidation that I saw. Point conceded. Where I think your criticism is incorrect. Your examples differentiate based on the what the criminal was trying to get away with. Trying to steal a candy bar is different that trying to steal an automobile: the resources involved in obtaining a candy bar legitimately are much smaller than the resources dedicated to obtaining a car. You rightfully call out that distinction, they are different (as individual acts) and I would not disagree that they should be different in what answer justice should demand of the criminal. Where you go astray is that the context of my criticism of was that the original commentator was differentiating the severity of the crime not on the value of the property stolen, but on some perception of the of the victim's "need". So, it's not the difference of the value of the good taken, but a judgment on how important that should have been to the victim. This is a very important distinction and changes the validity of the ethical judgement. I assert that, whereas the value of the stolen item is correctly a part of the determining the severity of the transgression, the "need" of the victim is not a proper factor in determining the severity of the crime. (And yes, this is a generalization. If I steal a hospital respirator from a medical supply company showroom floor, it is different than if I steal it while it's in use by a patient... though even then the theft aspect should likely be seen as the same and there are just other, different ethical/legal crimes in addition to theft.)
digler999 10y ago
> I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that They were "put out" for the exact value of the items he stole. Whether the theft results in a direct detriment to the victim is irrelevant.

et-al 10y ago

He admits to this: "I stole. I was a thief. I repeatedly stole over many years. I knew it was wrong. Knew it was wrong, felt guilty about it every time, yet continued to do it." If folks haven't already, the GQ article by Michael Finkel (linked in the older post oska pointed out) is worth the read: The Strange & Curious Tale of the Last True Hermit - http://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?printable=true http://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?printable=true

digler999 10y ago
I dont even think it's worth reading about him. He's a criminal who got away with it for a long time because of geography and the supply and demand relationship between cold weather and unoccupied cabins.
- et-al 10y ago
  If you think of him in that terms, sure. I think much of the disappointment people have here is that they were expecting a man vs nature story and instead read about a thief who lived off the fat of the modern world. The responses in this thread differ from those from the earlier discussion [0] oska linked. I suspect it's due to the different titles and resulting expectations. Personally, I didn't know about original thread when it was posted, and your original comment actually prompted me to find the GQ story and read it under the expectation that I was going to learn about a societal mooch. What ended up making an impression was Christopher Knight's unique writing style, his observations on everyday interactions we take for granted ("I’m not used to seeing people’s faces," he said. "There’s too much information there. Aren’t you aware of it? Too much, too fast."), and how he survived those winters. And yes, I get it, he stole. He used stolen propane tanks to fire up the stolen Coleman to melt snow in a stolen pot to drink water. But still, he fattened himself up for winter and camped in the winter months of Maine while not leaving behind footprints for 25 years. I was impressed. Yes it's not Primitive Technology [0] ingenuity, but Mr Knight is still an outlier and shared an experience I don't encounter every day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205993 [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA

pizzetta 10y ago

One interesting aspect is that he did not contract any major (contagious) disease while not having access to a doctor or any medicine (beyond what he may have found/stolen from cabins, etc. He attributed his good health to being away from people (and thus disease). Also he was able to take good care of his Rx glasses for all those year. No loss or breakage.

digler999 10y ago
I was wondering about his dental hygiene. I've never had a major toothache before, but I've heard they are off-the-charts painful. Maybe he went to the dentist, too, off his stolen goods ?

hogrammer 10y ago

Just like the Democrats!

djrobstep 10y ago

How do you know the other owners worked for them? They may have inherited them or paid for them from capital (ie non-labor) income. Stealing from the rich increases equality, and is thus a morally good thing, not a bad thing.