Retro-naming vs. Given Names

You should always chisel the route name, date of FA, and the first ascentionist's full name at the base of the problem. Duh.

does a machine gun count, or is that aid?

Brian Scoggins wrote:Also, just to be clear, I'm not advocating that people lose primacy of place if the information is not disseminated well. Just that they lose the right to get indignant when the historical information is incorrect. Correct it. Don't be a dick about it, just correct it. Note also that if the community already has a name for it, you can't fight that. Maybe a couple pedants will call it by its "true" name, but the name is already there.

I am just wondering why you seem so pissed off?
Respect those who came before you and respect will follow you.

thomas ellis wrote: I am just wondering why you seem so pissed off? Respect those who came before you and respect will follow you.

First, it has been my experience that those who expect respect for "their" routes really don't deserve my respect in any other way.

Second, names, to me, are just a convenient way of identifying a route, better than "third from the end" or some such similar. I don't think that there is anything intrinsic about one name vs. another and it REALLY bothers me that anybody would have a big enough ego about this stuff to get in a huff over whether or not "their" route is referred to by the name they gave it. In the guidebook, its worthwhile to list all of them. But in general parlance, when we talk to each other, you can't control that. So why try?

Brian Scoggins wrote: First, it has been my experience that those who expect respect for "their" routes really don't deserve my respect in any other way. Second, names, to me, are just a convenient way of identifying a route, better than "third from the end" or some such similar. I don't think that there is anything intrinsic about one name vs. another and it REALLY bothers me that anybody would have a big enough ego about this stuff to get in a huff over whether or not "their" route is referred to by the name they gave it. In the guidebook, its worthwhile to list all of them. But in general parlance, when we talk to each other, you can't control that. So why try?

Your philosophy sounds like jumbled garbage. And you still sound pissed off. This is not a troll. I have done countless FAs and have had many problems renamed without my consent and it never bothered me. I wanted to point this out to stop you from hyper over generalizing.
I still say respect the one who came first.

People may invest a lot of time unlocking a sequence, and perhaps it is respectful to allow them a small honor for that. And while names may be tertiary to having fun, seeking adventure, and working out, they are useful in reference. This being said, reference may be contextual, as well as part of the culture and sub-culture.
I have heard routes retro-named after an event during a trip, where that route was in the spotlight, and in that sub-culture, the new name is fun to use. Is there harm in that?

I CLIMBED THIS LITTLE ROCK BEFORE YOU DID

NO YOU DIDN'T

YES I DID

NO YOU DIDN'T

"People may invest a lot of time unlocking a sequence, and perhaps it is respectful to allow them a small honor for that"

Yeah, and then some clueless out-of-towner comes in and floats right through the sequence like it was 5.7, using moves and techniques that the "projector" would never even consider or use.

I'm reminded of lyrics in an old Savoy Brown song - I'm Tired

"You know that some people are different,
Now aint that a cryin shame?,
Now wouldn't it be a real drag,
If we were all the same?"