In reply to Mick Ward:
> A lot of shit's been slung at me today
I'm sorry you feel that way, but, frankly, I cannot see anything I'd classify as 'sh*t'. I've seen people disagreeing with your point of view, and trying to argue against it, but I've really not seen anything personal. My comment about your being irrational was merely an observation on the irrationality, but I'm sorry if you took it as a personal attack. If I say that I think you are being over-sensitive, it's not meant as a personal attack, more a suggestion that you might reconsider the intent of many of the posts, none of which I think are meant personally; we're just discussing the topic.
Whilst I've said that I hold rationality in high regard, judging by your list of names and topics that have bothered you, it seems that you hold 'good climbing' in high regard. I, on the other hand, really don't give it much attention, because I don't climb much, or very well, so high-level climbing is simply beyond my experience, and of no relevance to me. So I don't post on threads on climbing grades, ethics or new routes, as I simply don’t give a sh*t about those topics, and generally find them tedious. But I understand that they're very important to other people. I did once bother about top-roping, but that's old hat and a rather overdone topic.
I don't recognise any of the names you mention (barring Tom Ripley); I assume they're good climbers. I guess this lack of interest in 'good climbers' is illustrated by my once meeting Ben Bransby whilst taking part in Alpkit's Colab09 competition. We chatted away after the show quite happily, and I asked him what he'd been doing. He said he'd been helping at the climbing wall. I had no idea who he was, or even that someone called 'Ben Bransby' was a good climber, and have never followed up what he's doing, but Wingnut was bouncing about with amusement. He seemed a genuinely nice bloke, and made no "don't you know who I am" fuss at all; it didn't seem to bother him at all (and why would it?).
Whilst I've been posting on UKC and other forums as cp for more than 12 years, and you've been posting here for what seems to be 8 or 9 years, I really can't recall ever encountering your posts before, which suggests we have completely orthogonal interests. Since I have no experience of your posts, they carry no weight for
me. I'm sure others hold your views in high regard. I have no idea if you have any idea of who I am (and, frankly, it really doesn't bother me). I've met at least five people on this thread, over the years, and plenty of others (most of whom will refer to me as 'captain', even though they probably know my name). And I'm sure that I have some recognition (good or bad) here, even among those I've never met or recognise online, for being a clothing obsessive, bargain obsessive, DIY stove obsessive, and possibly for some posts on the mechanics of climbing protection. Over all these years, I've kept the same e-identity, so that people can connect my (~20k) posts across 5 or 6 forums,
and there's an integrity associated with that posting history. My e-persona is my persona; I'm just me, online or in real life. I don't play 'alternative personality games'. Other 'captain paranoias' are available, but they're not me. Just as other 'John Smiths' are available.
And there are plenty of posters like me, who have consistent e-identities, and maintain them within and across forums, and who behave no differently from 'real name' posters.
Whilst I said that I don't generally remember people, I've decided that's not true, and I do take account of posting history. So there are people whose opinion I will listen to, because their posting history has suggested to me that they talk sense (on one or more topics). That's because their posts have tallied with what I've thought, or they have presented a good argument for something I'm not familiar with, or have provided useful information, either directly, or indirectly via web sources; if I have respect for them, it's because they've gained my respect by what they've said, not because of their name. If I say something that one of these people disagrees with, then I'll take notice, and maybe rethink my viewpoint (as I have regard for their opinion). I won't get upset by it. If someone I don't know gives me abuse, I'll usually ignore it, as their viewpoint is of little or no concern to me.
Then there are others I remember in a negative way, and disregard their posts as they have demonstrated that they're ignorant, bonkers, a troll or otherwise to be avoided.
For someone I don't recognise in this way, I will judge their posts by what they say in each post, until they develop a reputation in my opinion, be it good or bad (so your posts that I consider irrational have reduced my view of you as someone to be taken account of; don't feel upset, as that's just
my opinion at the moment, and it really should be of little concern to you). And, even then, I will continue to adjust my opinion based on their individual responses. I'm sure I'll be sliding down your scale of 'someone to be taken account of', but it really doesn't bother me.
I can see that for high-end climbers, for whom their reputation is important (or, in the case of those rare individuals who are sponsored athletes, their livelihood), being slated by a load of randoms might be of concern. But the world is full of randoms posting rubbish; look at the comments sections of online newspapers... Most people are able to see these random postings for what they are; to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Whether these randoms post with a 'real name' or a pseudonym doesn't matter; what matters is the reputation resulting from their posting history, which can be good or bad.