Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed?

by **yatsek** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:35 pm

mvs wrote:How about people who write TRs who never climbed it?

They must be the greatest sources of inspiration.

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:45 am

Please stop this. Yesterday, mrchad9 provoked tazz unfairly, and I deleted posts. Today, he has responded civilly and constructively to/about issues on this thread, including, yes, some by tazz. His responses earlier today were quotes and comments on mine, in which I was actually quoting some of tazz's post, not to argue or belittle but to share my perspective. Anyway, it was unfair of him yesterday to jump on tazz about points, and today it was unfair of tazz to accuse him of stalking.

Seriously. I know you two don't like each other, but it is possible to discuss this thread topic civilly. Both of you have made good points, and it's fair that both can respond to them.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
mrchad9, yatsek

by **lcarreau** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:28 am

I'm with the OP, Mister Yatsek. If TRs are dull and boring, than the forum pages most certainly make
up for it.

Does anybody see my point?

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:25 am

tazz wrote:well...even the mod thinks it is fine to post a pm with other members names and info in it....so UNCOOL!

No, I don't think it's cool, but it's not against any rule, either. This latest spat began with your accusation of stalking. Yesterday it was him and today it was you.

Edit: mrchad9, it still would be nice to remove the PM. There are other ways of saying the same thing, or you can at least leave out the part about the other person, though you hardly revealed that person's address and deepest secrets.

by **mrchad9** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:43 am

I have never met Bob, but he seems to get along with a most everyone here on SummitPost. He also knows that I have not agreed with every decision he has made, nor do I think he has done anyone any special favors. But I know he is an asset to the site, and is doing a lot to improve the gaps that presently exist, large or small. No one will agree with another all of the time. He does not need me to defend him though, I think the members here as a whole agree on this and support him.

EDIT: Changed my post for continuity, leaving my comments about what Bob is doing to help this site.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
lcarreau

by **lcarreau** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:56 am

Will this thread be moved to "Off Route?"

Honey, could you please pass another bowl of buttered popcorn, and hand me another "cold one"
out of the fridge.

Thanks..

by **dadndave** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:35 am

Nope.

I just took it to a dark corner to hose it out a bit.

It's now handed back to those who were innocently carrying on on a civilised conversation.
I've tried to leave it as coherent as possible, so if you think there are inconsistencies in what I left in and what I took out, you're probably right but that's the reason.

Normal service is now resumed.

The following user would like to thank dadndave for this post
yatsek

by **lcarreau** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:02 am

dadndave wrote:
I just took it to a dark corner to hose it out a bit.

by **Proterra** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:50 am

dadndave wrote:Nope.

I just took it to a dark corner to hose it out a bit.

It's now handed back to those who were innocently carrying on on a civilised conversation.
I've tried to leave it as coherent as possible, so if you think there are inconsistencies in what I left in and what I took out, you're probably right but that's the reason.

Normal service is now resumed.

Thank you.

by **yatsek** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:24 pm

AFAIR Fred Spicker said he'd rather the "owner" were renamed "maintainer". I think I'd be in favour of RH or RB for Responsibility Holder/Bearer/Bear.

by **Fred Spicker** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:51 pm

yatsek wrote:AFAIR Fred Spicker said he'd rather the "owner" were renamed "maintainer". I think I'd be in favour of RH or RB for Responsibility Holder/Bearer/Bear.

That is not what I said. I pointed out that on SP1 the people with pages were called the "maintainer". I did not advocate for a change. The present system is what it is and changes were discussed and decided at the time of the change to SP2.

by **yatsek** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:08 pm

Fred Spicker wrote:
yatsek wrote:AFAIR Fred Spicker said he'd rather the "owner" were renamed "maintainer". I think I'd be in favour of RH or RB for Responsibility Holder/Bearer/Bear.

That is not what I said. I pointed out that on SP1 the people with pages were called the "maintainer". I did not advocate for a change. The present system is what it is and changes were discussed and decided at the time of the change to SP2.

I see, sorry, I was looking for that post but could only find your smileys

Quite a few people, you too (AFAIR :wink:

) , have argued recently that Routes are important, if not the most important. So could there be a seventh bar for Best Routes in the Best New Stuff corner? Or perhaps a Best Mts, Rocks & Routes instead of Best Mountains & Rocks? Or is this impossible?

by **mrchad9** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:14 pm

What do you mean by seventh bar? Where?

by **yatsek** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:18 pm

mrchad9 wrote:What do you mean by seventh bar? Where?

Front page, bottom left-hand corner.

by **mrchad9** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:23 pm

I see. Yes good suggestion. I rarely use that, but I am sure some do.

I always use the what's new page. I would suggest a new section there, one where the elves pick out the latest quality material regardless of the type of object it is, rather that relying on votes. If they see something new that is good, tag it, show it over there as well, and the latest good new stuff is more visible and for longer. Kindof like what is on the front page, but less visible and greater quantity.

But I don't know if that is too difficult to do.

BTW... If a seventh bar is not possible, as yatsek suggested, we should replace Best New Albums with Best Routes. I mean come on!!!

I'd reorder them too!

Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed?

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Re: Is it OK to create pages about peaks you haven't climbed

Who is online