Mary Kay?

Again to change things up- Robgendreau started this thread and he's been MIA since his first post. He started the debate, encited us all and fled the scene. If anyone spots him, tackle him and force him to engage in the fight!

I did spot a post or two from Rob.

some here feel an impressive resume is needed to voice an opinion, as stated by some buffoon earlier in this thread, so I'll enhance my resume and make that climb.

What I said that you’re climbing goals were extremely unimpressive for someone who was acting “all bad” by calling people a-holes and idiots (and now buffoon) at the same time that you were bragging about your goals. It had nothing to do with being able to voice an opinion. It had to do with name calling and bragging (ego); not about being restricted from voicing opinions. Of course, feel free to misquote me all you want.

Scott wrote:

some here feel an impressive resume is needed to voice an opinion, as stated by some buffoon earlier in this thread, so I'll enhance my resume and make that climb.

What I said that you’re climbing goals were extremely unimpressive for someone who was acting “all bad” by calling people a-holes and idiots (and now buffoon) at the same time that you were bragging about your goals. It had nothing to do with being able to voice an opinion. It had to do with name calling and bragging (ego); not about being restricted from voicing opinions. Of course, feel free to misquote me all you want.

Scott go back and read what you wrote, I'm a "noob" so not quite figuring this out. So not too sure how I can go back and take all your quotes and post them in one response. But here you go:

The A-hole word I used towards you was due to you questioning my resume.

You called me arrogant considering "my climbing resume"

You questioned my goals of my 100 peaks of all "walk-up". Scott- you don't know the
peaks I've chosen and being that 5 are 14ers they all can't be walk up. Many have class 3 routes, as do many of the 13ers.

You also challenged me to compare what you kids hiked over the next several months as opposed to what I will do- That's very mature- and what difference does it make what they do and I do? You took something off my profile and added to a thread in which I made no mention of it.

So in the end, based on your RANTS of my climbibg resume and my goals, it very much comes across as though I need a better resume to voice my opnion. You may not agree with my point of view and I don't care. You may not like some of the words "idiots" or "buffoons" but I don't care. For the past several days this thread has had many, many posts and all have been polite, so welcome back. You have tried to take this to the toilet but I won't go there with you.

And I wasn't acting bad as you put it- because I haven't hiked anything yet and I don't have that personality in the second place. And for the "buffoon comment", I didn't single you out, I referred to someone who questioned my resume as a requirement to voicing an opnion. Don't like it, I don't care

Cheers and again welcome back! Let's keep it civil, shall we.

The A-hole word I used towards you was due to you questioning my resume

Wasn't me. I think you are confusing my quotes with some else’s. I only butted into the thread after the name calling started (idoits, a-holes). That was the only reason I butted in at all. In fact, I even edited the post (which really wasn't that bad in the first place) the same day and only made one other post in this entire thread.

You called me arrogant considering "my climbing resume"

Yes, because you were name calling and then (what seemed to be) bragging on the same post. I also deleted the post shortly after and posted this response:

It gets tiring because it happens so often. Maybe I just get tired of hearing such stuff messing up an interesting thread/debate. I've done the same thing too, so I guess I shouldn't be pointing any fingers. No harm done; I just didn't like the way the opinion was protrayed.

If you want to see extreme cases of what I'm refering to, look at the comments of any newspaper article that is printed after a climber is injured or dies.

You also challenged me to compare what you kids hiked over the next several months as opposed to what I will do

It was meant to be sarcastic and to point out the un-virtues of bragging/name calling rather than a serious challenge. At least a few others thought that it was funny.

You questioned my goals of my 100 peaks of all "walk-up". Scott- you don't know the peaks I've chosen and being that 5 are 14ers they all can't be walk up. Many have class 3 routes, as do many of the 13ers.

If that is your goal, then go for it. I wouldn't expect others to be impressed with it, but it's better to climb for your own goals anyway. It's good to share goals and experiences, but not for the sole purpose of bragging rights. People like sharing goals, information, trip reports and the like. Unless your name is Steve House of something, there's always someone out there better. Of course, no matter yours or anyone else's climbing level, it sure beats being couch potato, so in that respect, the newest beginner in climbing or even hiking is far better than the expert with the TV remote.

You took something off my profile and added to a thread in which I made no mention of it.

If it weren’t for the a-hole inserted in there, I wouldn’t have said anything at all (in fact not long after making the post, I thought I shouldn’t have said anything at all which is why it was edited not that long after it was posted). I guess your comment really wasn’t the big deal I made it out to be.

You may not agree with my point of view and I don't care.

Actually, I agreed with your point of view (much of it at least). It was the name calling (in what I saw to be an arrogant manner) I didn't like. Do you realize that because people swear on SP, it is often blocked from access on public computers? I'm serious and not joking.

The only reason that I brought it up at all again was because I was being misquoted (not because I was disagreeing with an opinion). If you referring to someone else then I apologize.

Other than that though, most of this thread is useless drivel. I’m sure you can agree with that.

dynamokiev98 wrote:neopheat: "Bafoons, idiots, assholes"...did they teach you these in your Church during "Easter" break? In my church they don't teach these : (

I would also like to know who is the "bafoon" you are reffering to and why?

Yes it was in church......the church of Corona. And we won't rehash all that. Scott made his points and I made mine and all is good. Are you hiking Shasta soon? Saw it on another thread. Is there a class 3 route up Shasta, I think I saw there was. Maybe in 2011 for me. cheers, Troy

This thread sure has been a weird one. Perhaps an exciting one as well. All is well that ends well I guess.

My final post and wrap up:

Anyway, since I take my own kids up mountains, I can sympathize with the parents of the 13 year old, but Everest is too far over the line for me to consider it safe for a kid.

If the group is experienced (and the parents have climbed within 1000 feet of Nuptse’s summit, so they are probably more experienced than 95% of the climbers on Everest) then perhaps the chances of dying aren’t so great. But…the body can only permanently acclimatize to 18-20K and above that the body actually (literally) eats itself. Studies (and they are very limited) indicate that some permanent brain damage (even if minor) occurs. Since the kid is only 13 and even if he returned from Everest safe, then I’d worry about the effects it may have had on the brain.

My seven year old wants to climb Everest, but there’s no way I would let him (unless he was old enough to make his own decisions). I guess at this time, I won’t even let myself climb Everest. I was invited to join a group climbing Everest for $10K (cheap by Everest standards), but I promptly turned it down because I felt that I didn’t want to risk it since I thought the risk of leaving a young kid fatherless would be too great. After the kids are older and more self sufficient, maybe I would be willing to do such things.

I have no idea when this thread became a pissing match between resumes.
Can you guys who are doing this just quit picking on neophite?

Obviously people have different backgrounds, opinions, emotions, motivations, etc. No use in talking down to other folks because of their resume. We all have some reason we react to things the way we do. If we're just civil to each other and allow some other view points to come out without calling each other names then we can all relax and hangout.

"Can't we all just get along"

cbcbd wrote:I have no idea when this thread became a pissing match between resumes.
Can you guys who are doing this just quit picking on neophite?

Obviously people have different backgrounds, opinions, emotions, motivations, etc. No use in talking down to other folks because of their resume. We all have some reason we react to things the way we do. If we're just civil to each other and allow some other view points to come out without calling each other names then we can all relax and hangout.

"Can't we all just get along"

Thanks cb, it's all good. I went back and read all the posts, some of this I brought on myself and some, well I won't go there. I took a few jabs (swollen lip), I took one to the ribs, (might be broken) and I took one big upper cut to my jaw....................and I'm still standing. My opinion hasn't changed on the subject and all is well. Beers on me!

He's just being properly introduced. Now he'll feel like one of use, bruised and battered.




...and learning the hierarchy of the tribe.

Lolli wrote:He's just being properly introduced. Now he'll feel like one of use, bruised and battered.




...and learning the hierarchy of the tribe.

I learn the hard way, always have. I'll probably get beat up again but I can take it and I'm very stubborn.

You cannot?
Please define yourself. What exactly do you refer or object to?
I can't see anything bad which has happened here the last 6 months, rather the opposite.

Or, do you object to the fact that Scott called out Neophiteat48 on using improper language in this thread, and that I joke about him therefore being properly introduced by that?

Oh, have I?
Thanks for telling me.

Chewbacca wrote:

Lolli wrote::roll:
You cannot?
Please define yourself. What exactly do you refer or object to?
I can't see anything bad which has happened here the last 6 months, rather the opposite.

I guess I’m talking to the wall right now, but being one of the presumably many who didn’t take sides, tried to hold the middle ground when either side had it out on each other, never sent PMs to the elves asking people to be banned or un-banned, I was rather hoping that whatever was being fought over would in time just blow away. I agree with the elves that PnP needed to be nuked, but from what I remember I never took sides in whatever caused it to be nuked.

Problem now is that you are again and intentionally using the code words from old discussions – which in some cases ended with other people getting banned. It’s polarizing and opens old debates best left dead. It’s a constant reminder by you that people who disagreed with you are banned or have left.

We all seem to agree that you won whatever was going on, but the never ending use of “tribe” (i.e. your tribe) and now “hierarchy of the tribe” (which presumably is supposed to mean you’re in charge here) is rather alienating. At least to me it is.

Why not instead just let all the old debates go and have a fresh start on SP?

For what it's worth- I did not read the rules of leaving posts and what is ok or not ok. I didn't because I never get into name calling and profanity when engageing in debate. I used the "A" word one time only and I wouldn't think that using "idiots" or "baffoons" would be considered profanity. I truly hope that using the "A" word one time would not get me tossed, this is a great site and in my brief time here thoroughly enjoy it.

Name calling or profanity will not be part of my posts from here on out. If there is "name calling" you can count on it to be obvious humor and in no way meant to be personnel.

I'm assuming that most or all of this is directed at me.

Troy

Chewbacca wrote:

Lolli wrote::roll:
You cannot?
Please define yourself. What exactly do you refer or object to?
I can't see anything bad which has happened here the last 6 months, rather the opposite.

I guess I’m talking to the wall right now, but being one of the presumably many who didn’t take sides, tried to hold the middle ground when either side had it out on each other, never sent PMs to the elves asking people to be banned or un-banned, I was rather hoping that whatever was being fought over would in time just blow away. I agree with the elves that PnP needed to be nuked, but from what I remember I never took sides in whatever caused it to be nuked.

Problem now is that you are again and intentionally using the code words from old discussions – which in some cases ended with other people getting banned. It’s polarizing and opens old debates best left dead. It’s a constant reminder by you that people who disagreed with you are banned or have left.

We all seem to agree that you won whatever was going on, but the never ending use of “tribe” (i.e. your tribe) and now “hierarchy of the tribe” (which presumably is supposed to mean you’re in charge here) is rather alienating. At least to me it is.

Why not instead just let all the old debates go and have a fresh start on SP?

Oh, jeesus christ spare me. Another PNP debate.
I'm gonna say this once, and not more.

I have been around long enough on SP, and I have memory like an elephant. You chose sides, you and several others who claim not to. You did not participate in whatever got PnP nuked, I agree, but in ways like now. On other forums.

I was as surprised as everybody else when PnP disappeared. I didn't like it very much, but the notion that I "lobbied for" the disappearance of PnP is a fantasy figment, strongly advocated by a certain group of members. A lie repeated often enough finally becomes the truth.

I haven't won anything else but the same as all members, I have won a more decent level of debate, less personal attacks, a higher standard for SP. More peaceful. Social, but with main focus on the reason why SP exists.

The other notion, also strongly advocated, is that I would be in charge of something. I'm not, and anyone who claims such a thing, does that with a hidden agenda.

Finally, you don't like that I use the word "tribe". Tough. Learn to live with it. Tribe is a neutral word, definition by Webster: "a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest".
You're first saying that you haven't chosen sides, then conveniently trying to twist history, to make it appear as something else than it is. Conveniently forgetting how that debate occurred - and the agenda behind it.

Also, spare me what you presume about how I think or why I do something. So far you've never got anything right about it.