1000pks deleted his pages - including these from California

by **Matt Worster** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:33 pm

Keeping on topic for the mountain pages . . .

It may take me some time to assemble them, but I'll take shots at:
Fiske (Bay area peak, not the Sierra peak)
Tells (CA Sierra)

Fiske I've done numerous times, Tells I've done only once as part of the Crystal Range traverse. If anyone else is interested and can take them quickly, let me know. It may take me a number of months as I have many other projects taking up formerly-known-as free time.

by **Bob Burd** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:15 pm

I don't see a need for urgency in putting up replacement pages. Most of them will get put back up over time by new and old members alike. SP has healing mechanisms for such self-inflicted wounds.

by **Bubba Suess** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:26 pm

This is probably not the thread for it and I am not trying to slam Pete or dredge up old bs, but if anyone can give me a short, succinct answer to what his beef was with the SC MLC, I would be grateful. I don't want piling on the guy, just a quick summary of whatever it was that spilled out all over Summitpost.

by **Day Hiker** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:29 pm

Bubba Suess wrote:This is probably not the thread for it and I am not trying to slam Pete or dredge up old bs, but if anyone can give me a short, succinct answer to what his beef was with the SC MLC, I would be grateful. I don't want piling on the guy, just a quick summary of whatever it was that spilled out all over Summitpost.

Hate, Crime, and Terror

by **Bubba Suess** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:31 pm

Day Hiker wrote:
Bubba Suess wrote:This is probably not the thread for it and I am not trying to slam Pete or dredge up old bs, but if anyone can give me a short, succinct answer to what his beef was with the SC MLC, I would be grateful. I don't want piling on the guy, just a quick summary of whatever it was that spilled out all over Summitpost.

Hate, Crime, and Terror

Humor me with specifics, otherwise I am calling the Justice Department and Homeland Security!

by **fatdad** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:38 pm

fedak wrote:> Pretty much 90% of what Pete posted was either slanderous, off-topic, attention whoring, or just plain negative.

Definitely alot true in this statement, but why ban the guy? It seems odd to have a public website, invite comments and then ban people because you don't like their comments. Despite his well advertised gripe with the SC, he clearly had a depth of knowledge relevant to this site. Even if that came thru only part of the time, is that any more of a detriment than those individuals who constantly ask very broad questions (e.g., "I want to climb Rainier. What do I need to know?") without doing any homework or self evaluation beforehand?

The following user would like to thank fatdad for this post
KathyW, lcarreau, Tom Kenney, WML

by **Marmaduke** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:00 pm

I went up Hood Mountain today but borrowed a camera (mines missing?) and just looked and found most of the shots didn't turn out. I'll go up again Thursday morning, hopefully by Friday night I'll have the page up. Will be my first page though so might take me awhile to figure out how do get it all complete.

by **KathyW** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:01 pm

I don't think Pete is banned - I think he left on his own after he was punished because his behavior was deemed unacceptable by someone. I'll bet Pete will be willing to share his knowledge with anyone that politely contacts him.

by **MoapaPk** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:09 pm

Bubba, most of us don't actually know. The SC kicked him out of one section, or so he told me. Some laid-back DPS folks got along with him OK. I've heard a few specific stories of times when he flew off the handle on outings, but they are within the range I've seen in other groups. Some of his beefs probably had some basis in reality; e.g. he was trying to put together a peak guide, and it was nixed by some SC folks, possibly for liability reasons (he gave me the explanation, but I didn't quite understand it). I've seen parts of the guide, and it looked pretty good.

Some SC chapters are wracked with political in-fighting; those are probably not good places for thin-skinned people. But you can always just go on the hikes.

One of the last threads he posted, asking for partners, got the attention of a few new SP members, who were inclined to take it seriously. But he had a reputation for getting nasty when he met people, or for adding requirements that were impossible to meet. Then he might post that you were a phony because you didn't go on the trip. The new members didn't know this history. I can see those tendencies would be troubling to the moderators.

I used his web pages for beta long before I found SP. I hope he finds some peace.

The following user would like to thank MoapaPk for this post
workmanflock

by **Bubba Suess** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:18 pm

MoapaPk wrote:most of us don't actually know.

Thanks Moapa. The explanation is appreciated. I hate to see people leaving SP and wish the guy the best.

by **Tom Kenney** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:28 pm

fatdad wrote:
fedak wrote:> Pretty much 90% of what Pete posted was either slanderous, off-topic, attention whoring, or just plain negative.

Definitely alot true in this statement, but why ban the guy? It seems odd to have a public website, invite comments and then ban people because you don't like their comments. Despite his well advertised gripe with the SC, he clearly had a depth of knowledge relevant to this site. Even if that came thru only part of the time, is that any more of a detriment than those individuals who constantly ask very broad questions (e.g., "I want to climb Rainier. What do I need to know?") without doing any homework or self evaluation beforehand?

Hey, fatdad... Ya know, I thought of the funniest thing after reading your comment: Even Dr. Smith was of some use to the Robinsons! :lol:

The following user would like to thank Tom Kenney for this post
lcarreau

by **SoCalHiker** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:44 pm

Guyzo wrote:Good job, Bob. - if it wasn't you than good job, Mr. Moderator.

Keep up the good work.

Soon SP will be abandoned.

Just the way you like it.

Guy Keesee

Wrong. People, who care about SP and want to keep/make it better contribute to the site (and I am not talking about posting in the forums) and know how to act in a civilized and respectful manner.

The following user would like to thank SoCalHiker for this post
JasonH, rebelgrizz

by **SoCalHiker** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:45 pm

Bob Burd wrote:I don't see a need for urgency in putting up replacement pages. Most of them will get put back up over time by new and old members alike. SP has healing mechanisms for such self-inflicted wounds.

just a minor scratch

by **fedak** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:53 pm

I don't think I've every heard Pete articulate the full story of what transpired between him and the SC.
(Despite the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references he's made to it in his postings here and on other sites)

I first corresponded with him in '03 and in that conversation he mentioned that the SC "got rid of him" in '87.
In any case- the altercation is over 2 decades old and long predates both SummitPost and even the WWW.

by **lcarreau** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:02 am

Tom Kenney wrote:

Hey, fatdad... Ya know, I thought of the funniest thing after reading your comment: Even Dr. Smith was of some use to the Robinsons!

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
rebelgrizz

1000pks deleted his pages - including these from California

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Re: 1000pks deleted his pages - including these from Califor

Who is online