Neat. I am not nearly old enough to know the name... but my father is 76 and he made me listen to many old radio programs and eight tracks. Nice looking mountains and a well written page.
Now your faible for statistics made you learn tables! A faible for tables, hehe.
But somehow I'm puzzled by the approximate 103rd and 118th highest summits. Why approximate? Does that imply that the statistics might be wrong? Someone forgot to count a summit? Or two?
It depends on the rules used for counting and the rules used for various reported heights for it and other peaks. Since you can't please all the peakbaggers all the time, you have to please them some of the time...by making approximating statements.
There's a Laurel Mountain in Oregon (2kP, GPP, and Cohp of Polk County). Seems like there's got to be a peaklet nearby that would be Hardy. Although, it would have to be pudgy peaklet, wouldn't it?
Moni - Jan 3, 2006 10:01 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentLooking good!
JonBradford - Jan 3, 2006 10:25 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNeat. I am not nearly old enough to know the name... but my father is 76 and he made me listen to many old radio programs and eight tracks. Nice looking mountains and a well written page.
Jon
hgrapid - Jan 3, 2006 11:21 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentHmm,
Interesting opening, but beyond that a really strong page. Good work!
Klenke - Jan 4, 2006 11:44 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentI aim to displease.
Thanks for stopping by...and wasting your time on the rest of my aimless Amos page.
desainme - Jan 4, 2006 12:05 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentPolitically correct?
Klenke - Jan 4, 2006 11:45 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentNo. Apolitically incorrect.
gjagiels - Jan 4, 2006 1:18 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice!
Gangolf Haub - Jan 4, 2006 3:07 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNow your faible for statistics made you learn tables! A faible for tables, hehe.
But somehow I'm puzzled by the approximate 103rd and 118th highest summits. Why approximate? Does that imply that the statistics might be wrong? Someone forgot to count a summit? Or two?
Damn!
Klenke - Jan 4, 2006 11:43 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentIt depends on the rules used for counting and the rules used for various reported heights for it and other peaks. Since you can't please all the peakbaggers all the time, you have to please them some of the time...by making approximating statements.
Dean - Jan 4, 2006 9:15 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNow I'm waiting for you to put up Laurel and Hardy Peaks.
Klenke - Jan 4, 2006 11:41 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThere's a Laurel Mountain in Oregon (2kP, GPP, and Cohp of Polk County). Seems like there's got to be a peaklet nearby that would be Hardy. Although, it would have to be pudgy peaklet, wouldn't it?
Super Dave - Jan 4, 2006 3:26 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice page, enjoyed the witticism (or something like that).
Lee Stamm - Jan 4, 2006 3:36 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice job, as always, Paul.