In reply to G7ADF:
The post was about whether an “non-prolific” activator/chaser’s opinions
were any less valid than a prolific one.
It’s an interesting point Ian. I strongly believe everybody’s view should be respected even if you don’t agree with it. But validity brings a whole new set of issues. I’ve been up twice as many summits (give or take) than you for SOTA. I don’t think that makes my opinion twice as valid as yours. There again, I don’t how much mountaineering/hillwalking you’ve done outside of SOTA. It would be churlish to base any validity criterion on such a limited data set.
Where the profilic activator’s view becomes more valid is where you have someone with limited experience on the hills who is suggesting something which is at best foolhardy and worse, down right dangerous. At that point experience really does need to be respected. But there again perhaps you only appreciate the danger due to experience.
It’s a subject fraught with problems and contradictions. All you can do, as I said, is treat all opinions with respect and if you disagree, politely say why and ask for the other person to persuade you why they are right. That also requires that in a forum environment like this that you’re good with written words and can express your argument lucidly which is not easy at all. I’ve looked back on things I’ve written and sometimes I think it would make more sense if I’d just hit random keys. Some of the statements made on the reflector in the past can be read as being rude, insulting and abusive when that wasn’t the intent. Sadly, there are also some people who are simply rude, insulting and abusive. But that doesn’t include thee and me!