Good idea to add the South Pole, although it isn't a normal peak like the others here. Good information you added. Please add more info on expeditions. So long, The Alpine Dude!
Only today I saw this page and was pleasantly surprised, nice read, interesting info. I don't know why some complain that South Pole isn't a peak and shouldn't be here. There are many pages on the site that aren't mountains and South Pole deserves a page more than most of such places. I wonder how deep is snow on South Pole? I guess declared altitude is for highest point of the land below. So, if snow is 2km deep actual altitude is over 4000m! Wrong or right?
Fabulous and interesting read. This is one of those "other" SP destinations that really make SP interesting. The last time I saw this page, it was bare bones and forgotten. Nice work and well written.
Tend to agree with Corax. Besides this site is still saying "today I've adopted..." over the past 2 months and I do certainly not agree with the people who accuse me of narrow-mindedness. They should consider if my house is also worth a page on SP, just because it has some elevation and is sometimes snow-covered. If they do, I'll certainly post it.. (This comment is in no way meant as a personal offence to anyone, including the current and previous maintainer)
Yes, yes I totally agree with you but I adopted this page and I am waiting on someone to give him/her this page. I hope someone should soon say to me I will make this page as it has to be.
Thank you for considering my advices. What I meant was that this was in fact no mountain or rock. Nevertheless, this new interface of SP gives you an excellent opportunity to remove it to a place where it gets the credits that it deserves (areas & ranges perhaps?).
butterflywings73 - Nov 17, 2002 9:15 pm - Voted 9/10
Untitled CommentDid you hike? Cute though.... where's Santa?
cjwhat - Dec 5, 2002 4:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled Comment(1) What does this page need to raise your vote?
(2) I flew
(3) I presume Santa is still at the NORTH pole.
- CJ
bigwally - Jan 10, 2003 9:49 am - Voted 5/10
Untitled Comment?What?
cjwhat - Jan 16, 2003 11:29 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentYeah I know. Marginal appropriateness. But hey, it is over 9,000-ft high. Plus it's a helluva climb if you do it on foot. - CJ
Dave K - Feb 24, 2003 8:45 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentNot much point to a page about the South Pole on a mountaineering website. Maybe someone should pull the plug on this one.
Martin Cash - Feb 28, 2003 9:24 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice work fixing up this page.
depclimb - Mar 25, 2003 2:33 pm - Voted 5/10
Untitled CommentThe page needs quite a bit of work, but if Messner thinks the place is worthwhile than so do I.
Alpine Dude - Aug 10, 2003 7:48 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGood idea to add the South Pole, although it isn't a normal peak like the others here. Good information you added. Please add more info on expeditions. So long, The Alpine Dude!
Boss - Aug 10, 2003 7:51 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentQuite surprising peak and info here. Not bad at all though. Keep going the good work :-) Boss
Velebit - Apr 19, 2004 2:31 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentOnly today I saw this page and was pleasantly surprised, nice read, interesting info. I don't know why some complain that South Pole isn't a peak and shouldn't be here. There are many pages on the site that aren't mountains and South Pole deserves a page more than most of such places. I wonder how deep is snow on South Pole? I guess declared altitude is for highest point of the land below. So, if snow is 2km deep actual altitude is over 4000m! Wrong or right?
Aaron Johnson - May 9, 2004 9:29 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentFabulous and interesting read. This is one of those "other" SP destinations that really make SP interesting. The last time I saw this page, it was bare bones and forgotten. Nice work and well written.
Corax - Apr 13, 2005 10:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentIsn´t this a mountaineering site?
txmountaineer - Jun 18, 2005 5:17 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentMuch improved!
McCannster - Nov 29, 2005 5:52 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThough there isn't any climbing involved, conditions are similar as what they would be at high altitiude.
Pulsar - Feb 6, 2006 7:11 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentTend to agree with Corax. Besides this site is still saying "today I've adopted..." over the past 2 months and I do certainly not agree with the people who accuse me of narrow-mindedness. They should consider if my house is also worth a page on SP, just because it has some elevation and is sometimes snow-covered. If they do, I'll certainly post it.. (This comment is in no way meant as a personal offence to anyone, including the current and previous maintainer)
Bor - Feb 7, 2006 1:53 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentYes, yes I totally agree with you but I adopted this page and I am waiting on someone to give him/her this page. I hope someone should soon say to me I will make this page as it has to be.
Cheers!
Pulsar - Feb 13, 2006 8:40 pm - Hasn't voted
Hi Bor,Thank you for considering my advices. What I meant was that this was in fact no mountain or rock. Nevertheless, this new interface of SP gives you an excellent opportunity to remove it to a place where it gets the credits that it deserves (areas & ranges perhaps?).
All the best, Pulsar