Yes, of course it was.
Sigh.... However, the modern hardtail, aluminum frame with fork, is about 6 to 8 lbs lighter than our old steel frame rigid bikes were. And it has a better drivetrain, better brakes, better geometry, greater ability to customize fit (changeable stems, etc.), than the old bikes had. So there were other very good reasons for upgrading, beyond just the presence of a front fork.
I wish you had been here two days ago for our ride through our forest, or last Tuesday evening to watch the weekly race there. You would have seen quite a number of 26er and 29er hardtails, and an equal number of rigid 29ers with just a carbon fork. My point is that the trails here are not rough or gnarly or overly technical. So we, and many local riders, including racers, elect not to carry the extra 3 to 5 pounds that rear suspension adds, just to smooth out a few roots and small rocks. And many, like the fully-rigid 29er riders, elect to forgo the front fork altogether, in favour of lightness and agility. But for those who also ride other trails farther away, where more technical and rough terrain does exist, they choose full-suspension, and that is the best choice for them.
Believe me, Jim, looking at some of Josh's pics of the terrain in Vermont, or having ridden the trails on the west coast with my father-in-law, for example -- if those were our local trails, my wife most certainly would be on a full-suss bike. No question.
BTW, my wife did test ride quite a number of full-suspension bikes a few years ago, before choosing her hardtail, and decided that she just did not care for the feel and handling. To her, they felt sluggish, slow accelerating, poor climbers, lazy handling, and not much lighter than her old steel bike. Designs have improved, and those bikes are much better now, esp with the evolution of carbon frames and lighter components and better rear shocks. But at the time, she chose the best bike for where we ride, and has never regretted it.
To each his (or her) own....