Nobody’s said anything here about ratings yet. How can we have routes rated 5.6 or 5.8 or some other low number. I think we need to rate every route 5.16 to make every butthurt, offended, whiny little snowflake feel better about themselves. Plus, it will be much easier to keep track of the ratings that way, kind of like a communist approach to route ratings where everyone climbs the same.
Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote: Nobody’s said anything here about ratings yet. How can we have routes rated 5.6 or 5.8 or some other low number. I think we need to rate every route 5.16 to make every butthurt, offended, whiny little snowflake feel better about themselves. Plus, it will be much easier to keep track of the ratings that way, kind of like a communist approach to route ratings where everyone climbs the same.
Why are you so triggered by something so inconsequential?
Triggered, really. I think the original poster of this stupid thread was the one who was triggered. Now, when are all the routes I’ve done getting rerated to 5.16?
the Vulgarians are rising again: 60 years ago we had to render sub-mucouseous the attempts by the AMC and self appointed IOCA goons, one of whom - Tim Bond - later snuffed himself voodaically by violating exactly that which he tried to impose upon others - climbing "without a Qualified Second " - he fell and dangled/strangled slowly through the night- his unqualified new bride incapable -unqualified. To be rescued by, amongst others, Art Gran - the first guidebook writer - who first rendered onto print the ancient word of mouth legends of the Shawungunks climbing history.
The names of these mordant app and quidebook writers shall henceforth have been changed to suit the whims of those of us who actually know and were there ... their given names having been given decades after the climb names they attempt to change were applied.
Appies then, APPies now - all the same - YO!
BeWare the power of VooDoo ... words and names have meaning ...