Assholes in Goatchurch !!!

[paulf]

I think it's pointless to include years of caving before a certain age has been reached. I would venture to suggest 16.

I was a assistant Cave Leader at 14 & made a full Leader at 15.5 because No-one else would take people through Stoke's Sump 
I don't regard the length of time Caving as a gauge for the amount of ability & trust only after I Caved with someone 

 

[Dep]

I find the only real way to gauge is to actually cave with someone.
I know people with relatively short experience who are very good underground, and I also know several people who have been doing it a lot longer than I have who I am less happy about being with and have to watch carefully.

As a direct example of this: Paul's many years of caving count for far less with me than the fact that I have caved with him many times now and know him to be a top-notch and knowledgable caver.

 

[littlebear]

When I discovered how old they were, it seems they were including all their experience from the tender age of 7 (I seem to recall). As the discussion concerned technical aspects of taking risks etc, it was pretty obvious the length of experience quoted was just meant to show me that said person had enough experience for me to show some respect towards them. Said person was clearly a trained cave leader, so I'm not sure what the years of experience figure was really meant to prove. I think it's pointless to include years of caving before a certain age has been reached. I would venture to suggest 16.

Well the 9 years above, of my own continuous but intervalled experience, include at least 2 years between the age of 11 and 16. As a mine enthusiast I would have thought you of all people would realise that much experience can be gained below the age of 16... I am sure there are many OAP coal miners out there even now thinking ..."I remember when"...!

I think perhaps 7 years old is a little over enthusiastic but certainly from the moment your scout-leader/parent/trainer stops checking your knots, harness and rigging ...why not include that period of time. The couple of years between 11 and 16 involved some of the most rigorous caving I've done, I have never done SRT but there were certainly many long ladder climbs in that period... wet and muddy with wellies on... personally I'm more than happy to include my pre-16 experience. By 11 years old I could steer and order others on the sailing of an enterprise (God, I loath sailing), orienteer as well as I can now and arrange my own climbing harness, 'check my knot and check my partner for abseil or top rope' very competently.

I sometimes think people forget that before all this people used to die at 30! Imagine if you didn't include your pre-16 experience back then.

I once had a friend pass on a CV, for some advice, to the head of an industrial chemical firm (because they were good pals). The helpful pencil comments included, "How can you say you are innovative in your working life - it's so blasé for someone so young!". I was 22. So apparently us young folk can't improvise or be imaginative either!

I know a 15yr old that climbs 7b sport! Sorry but whilst there are certain reproductive/personal aspects of life where I would batter someone to death for touching my kid (if I had one)... I would still, despite being an overbearing mother no-doubt, consider their experiences as valid as mine. Kids learn not to touch a hot stove soon enough!

 

[littlebear]

many years of caving count for far less with me than the fact that I have caved with him many times now and know him to be a top-notch and knowledgable caver.

Agree totally.

 

[ian.p]

i hope i can count pre 16 experiance otherwise im still a novice as would be several other cavers i know

 

[bubba]

Why not?
I found her post very easy to read and what she did was (IMHO) clearer than the 'quote' method generally used in most posts.

Putting (almost) the whole post in bold is unecessary. It's fine to use bold to add structure to a post, eg to highlight a heading, etc, etc - but to put your whole post in bold is just the same thing as putting it all in caps imho.

She made some interesting points and used a standard of spelling and grammar that would put many others here to shame.

So what? That doesn't make bold text necessary.

If we allow people to post indecipherable comments in 'txt-spk' then bolding is not something to be complaining about.

I hate posts in txt spk and they are just as undesirable as caps/bold/etc.

If you feel you have something important to say, then just say it. Don't make it caps or bold just because you think it's more important than other posts.

 

[graham]

Bubba, is there a way of setting the board such that it is impossible to post without having first run a spell check?

Just a thought.

 

[littlebear]

If you feel you have something important to say, then just say it. Don't make it caps or bold just because you think it's more important than other posts.

Cough, splutter. Yes I thought that was what you were implying. Being that I have been mildly abscent since finding out about ukcaving I had forgotten that if you reply to a post with 'quote' that it does the box by a html-ish [ quote / quote ]. Since there were quite a few things I wanted to reference I thought bold would be good as I hate italics. Had I realised my wittering-on would be longer than the quotes, I would have emboldened the quotes rather than my comments... had I realised you could box more than one quote I would have done that... Look I'd love to meet/talk to more cavers but I don't want to join a cult or anything... live with the one post in bold, I wasn't declaring a louder syntax, capital letters ARE for that.

P.s. nice profile-icon.

 

[Dep]

Bubba, is there a way of setting the board such that it is impossible to post without having first run a spell check?

Just a thought.

I'd be very interested to know how you would implement that without having to spell check the post simply to be able to compare it.

In which case you should use an auto-spellchecker.

Which brings in a new problem...

Have you ever found a spell-checker whose vocabulary was as extensive as your own?
I am always teaching mine new words and spelling variations.

Would you ever allow a spell checker to change words on its own - I'm guessing you probably don't as you know what is likely to happen.

And whilst most people here seem to be above the general average level of education and hence literacy there are a few people who aren't, but that does not detract from their skill as cavers and the validity of their comments.

All I ask is that people make a reasonable effort to write readable and comprehensible English - I don't give a toss about the occasional typo or abbreviation.

And a bit of presentation does not hurt - why else have bold and italic buttons in the posting form?

[This crossed the last post which I am just about to read....]

 

[bubba]

Since there were quite a few things I wanted to reference I thought bold would be good as I hate italics. Had I realised my wittering-on would be longer than the quotes, I would have emboldened the quotes rather than my comments... had I realised you could box more than one quote I would have done that... Look I'd love to meet/talk to more cavers but I don't want to join a cult or anything... live with the one post in bold

I didn't want to start some huge thing over this - i just asked you not to do it. It was just a quick note. I'm not asking you to join the cult of ukc

Anyway, this is all rather off-topic so let's forget it please.

And a bit of presentation does not hurt - why else have bold and italic buttons in the posting form?

I agree - using bold/italic/etc is fine for the purposes of presentation.

 

[bubba]

Bubba, is there a way of setting the board such that it is impossible to post without having first run a spell check?

Not really, and i think it'd cause more problems than it would solve.

 

[Dep]

...
I'm not asking you to join the cult of ukc
...

You're not going to make us all commit suicide and then torch the place are you?

 

[littlebear]

Don't make it caps or bold just because you think it's more important than other posts.

I wasn't making a big thing of it but the implications of your post are quite small minded... as you saw that I had not put quotes in boxes you should have realised I was too thick to follow the status quo instead of assuming I was arrogant ((I'm not saying I'm not, but in this case you were wrong!)).

But honestly we can forget it... let's get back to considering we're higher lifeforms than those without helmets  

 

[cap n chris]

Any chance of getting back on thread?

 

[mrodoc]

Anybody remember Bob Lewis?  He always caved with a hand torch and managed to achieve some major finds in Swildons.  Mind you he had problems when he acquired dentures and wanted to hold his torch in his mouth for climbs.

I have never taken my kids caving without helmets or headmounted lights simply because it's no fun having to peer at the floor and climb one handed - as well as there being an element of risk. I have seen outdoor groups take kids caving where the kids have no lights at all. it is one very successful way of making sure the kids don't stray!

I would not feel brave or bold enough to say anything to a group caving inappropriately in my opinion. We all have done foolish things in our time and usually realise it afterwards.

 

[darkplaces]

Bubba, is there a way of setting the board such that it is impossible to post without having first run a spell check?
Just a thought.

Oh bloody Graham nitpicking AGAIN. Dyslexic people must really hate you. Please stick to the topic rather then spell checking everyone, its not helpful.

 

[cap n chris]

Cavers never argue!

Right, here's one:

Can anyone highlight any examples of well constructed, albeit poorly spelt, thoughtful, logical and thought-provoking observations written by dyslexics or, call me cynical, is the condition generally just being used as a scapegoat by the academically lacking?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Cavers never argue!

Right, here's one:

Can anyone highlight any examples of well constructed, albeit poorly spelt, thoughtful, logical and thought-provoking observations written by dyslexics or, call me cynical, is the condition generally just being used as a scapegoat by the academically lacking?

Why don't you take something that you would consider the work of a 'dyslexic' person, correct the spelling, read it again, and then decide whether your perception of their intellectual level has changed.

 

[cap n chris]

Fair comment, Peter; unfortunately at the moment I can't be bothered. 

 

[darkplaces]

wow this is off topic but...

I am dyslexic and I am not stupid, I build enterprise voice and data networks and specialize in wireless, security and firewalls. Its simple things like getting b and d mixed up, word blindness is a good description as I can read something, it looks correct, reads correct, seams spelt right yet someone else reads it and points out a load of mistakes I just dont see. My veiw is its lniked wtih the brians ability to raed wrods eevn if the middle lettres are jmubled. You can make a dyslexic read and re-read but they wont get much better, over time coping skills are created. The spell checker in Firefox which puts a red wriggly line under misspelled words is a total godsend! It is brilliant beyond beyond words I find I am correcting more words but sometimes I have a word in my head I just cant get it to figure out what I want to type. Some jump on the band wagon some would like to stop being corrected all the time.