Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Signal to Noise
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


blondgecko
Moderator

Aug 19, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #176 of 217 (3541 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you. The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement.


curt


Aug 19, 2010, 9:19 PM
Post #177 of 217 (3536 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [macherry] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Cool

Curt

AARP card perhaps?

Sure, if you also want the discounts at IHOP.

Curt


guangzhou


Aug 19, 2010, 9:29 PM
Post #178 of 217 (3529 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
After the recent drama between adatesman, management, and others (who shall not be named), something was brought up that I was curious about.

I can't remember who said it, but a point was made about long time, knowledgable climbers don't bother to post on here any more. With the exception of rgold, I am not sure that is incorrect. There are a whole lot of n00bs, trolls and gumbies, but I have to believe that there is also a large collection of climbers who contribute to quality content here on rc.

I have intentionally mentioned rgold and left out other long time climbers who are just as well known, because unlike them, each of rgold's post are with the intention of being helpful.

What I would like to know is twofold. How long have you been climbing?(if you have been climbing x amount of years but you only go once in a while, let that be known) and what percentage of your posts you believe to be helpful, of good quality and relevant to actual climbing threads?

I have no interest in your number of weird campground posts, inflammatory soapbox posts or other such drivel you create to up your post count.

I will start: Climbing 8 1/2 years. Although I like the witty and sarcastic remarks as much as the next guy, I prefer to be involved in informative, well thought out, climbing threads. I am going to be conservative and say that about 60% of my posts are quality (at least I hope so).

I started climbing in 1985. I enjoy sport, trad, aid, and big Walls. I average between 140 to 180 days of climbing outside a year.

I have bouldering wall in the garage, but I don't use it as much as I should. Maybe once or twice a week for up to one hour.

I don't bother reading 99% of what gets posted on this site. Of what I read, 90% of it is crap, the other 10% is useful. A few people here like to talk like their way is the only way, when in reality, .......


Partner macherry


Aug 19, 2010, 9:39 PM
Post #179 of 217 (3520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
macherry wrote:
curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Cool

Curt

AARP card perhaps?

Sure, if you also want the discounts at IHOP.

Curt

pancakes!!!


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 10:58 PM
Post #180 of 217 (3494 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blondgecko] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you.

When I was a Senior Moderator, I initiated some pretty strict policies in an attempt to improve the SNR: locking threads with non-descriptive subject lines (if I'd have had my way, I'd have deleted them); adding "moderator notes"—clearly labeled as such—to posts; and locking threads asking repeat questions. In spite of the fact that these very practices are what I have observed ensure like 9.5:1 SNR in some forums much larger than this one, users rejected them. Like I said, most users here actually want a low SNR.

In reply to:
The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement.

It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing.

Jay


qwert


Aug 20, 2010, 2:50 AM
Post #181 of 217 (3468 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you.

When I was a Senior Moderator, I initiated some pretty strict policies in an attempt to improve the SNR: locking threads with non-descriptive subject lines (if I'd have had my way, I'd have deleted them); adding "moderator notes"—clearly labeled as such—to posts; and locking threads asking repeat questions. In spite of the fact that these very practices are what I have observed ensure like 9.5:1 SNR in some forums much larger than this one, users rejected them. Like I said, most users here actually want a low SNR.
While such measurements would be disastrous in many subsections (mainly campground), for some of the more specialized subforums they could be beneficial.
But then you need
-more mods
-strict policys about what they can do/ have to do
-and users that accept that rules.
A systems like this was already in place (in the lab), but due to unclear rules and butthurt users and mods this lead to threads like this ...


In reply to:
In reply to:
The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement.

It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing.

Its always nice to have a few idiots around you, if only to make yourself feel smarter or to laugh at their stupidity. But yes, at the moment it seems like the bums are winning ...

qwert


jaablink


Aug 20, 2010, 3:54 AM
Post #182 of 217 (3458 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. You do understand that you do not need to give a poor answer or make some ass comment. Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick …. There is no reason for you to be rippen on anyone. That is unless you think you are better than everyone else. I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there are children who behave better and climb harder than you. You are not the shit, so get over your self. As an old guy, you should be contributing in an encouraging and positive way, to mentor or guide the next generation who will no doubt be smarter and stronger than the last if you influence the correctly . Doubt you ever taught anyone, but if you did you would notice that every client asks similar if not the same questions. We all did the same in the beginning too. If a good leader should lead by example? you are off to a very poor start.

John the Greek


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 5:44 AM
Post #183 of 217 (3434 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
When I was a Senior Moderator,

people disliked you even more then they do now. I edited this post.

DMT


(This post was edited by dingus on Aug 20, 2010, 5:45 AM)


subantz


Aug 20, 2010, 6:37 AM
Post #184 of 217 (3405 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing.

Jay
I will agree with that


NoSoup4U


Aug 20, 2010, 10:15 AM
Post #185 of 217 (3359 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 7

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

LOL ! Dude, that just makes you a freaking Tartuffe. Pseudo-science, pseudo-engineering... I got such a kick out of your *calculator*!
If I add your strong convictions... self-entitled air of authority on all matters... arguing to no-end in pointless threads... post count suggesting that there is more posting than climbing in your life... you seem a field case for the DSM.
Wondering how your dinner conversations unfold...


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 10:19 AM
Post #186 of 217 (3356 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [jaablink] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

jaablink wrote:
If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick.

Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio.

Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio.

Jay


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 10:32 AM
Post #187 of 217 (3337 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
jaablink wrote:
If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick.

Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio.

Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio.

Jay

We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over.

DMT


billl7


Aug 20, 2010, 11:13 AM
Post #188 of 217 (3302 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890

Re: [dingus] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jaablink wrote:
If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick.

Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio.

Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio.

Jay

We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over.

DMT

Aye.


yanqui


Aug 20, 2010, 11:53 AM
Post #189 of 217 (3285 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Started climbing (I think) in 1979 and it's been one of the main things in my life ever since. My wife and daughter both climb and basically all my friends are (or have been) climbers.

I generally tend to avoid the serious, technique related climbing threads like the plague, although once I got involved in a bowline thread that turned out pretty good. I like rgold's posts OK and usually take the time to read them, if I see them. But I think this site would be worse than boring if there was some kind of attempt to get all the "experienced" climbers to emulate the rgold style.

I might have made a couple of helpful posts, who knows? But I really don't think it's such a good idea to come to internet forums (like this one) to try to learn something important about climbing. The best you can hope for is maybe some kind of connection, or maybe something you can recognize as meaningful from your own experience. That's the nature of the forum beast. I don't think agressive moderation can fix that. Plus you gotta love those threads that go like this: "I might be traveling to South America. Is there any place to climb there?"

On the other hand, when people have contacted me (through this site) with a sincere interest to climb in my area, I've had no problem taking them out and showing them around, and even inviting them to sleep in my climbing gym, if they have nowhere else to stay. So I guess I've been helpful in that way.

I come here more for the human drama, the humor, the fights, the gossip. That's what interests me. I like the different personalities and the tensions that can occur. After not looking in for a few days, is it any wonder then, that I lost a whole day of work today, catching up?

Every now and then (not too often) someone (dingus comes to mind) actually does say something about climbing that surprises me and that can I recognize as true from my own experience. Those moments are great, but I don't see any recipe for making this happen more than it does now.


(This post was edited by yanqui on Aug 20, 2010, 12:10 PM)


johnwesely


Aug 20, 2010, 11:56 AM
Post #190 of 217 (3282 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [dingus] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jaablink wrote:
If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick.

Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio.

Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio.

Jay

We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over.

DMT

I for one welcome our new jt512 overlord.


Partner j_ung


Aug 20, 2010, 12:51 PM
Post #191 of 217 (3259 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

When I was blue I considered that very thing. And nixed for that reason among others. There's also virtually no way to enforce it on pre-existing members shy of requiring everybody to re-register. I also felt that, even if it were feasible, to put it into practice midstream would be so traumatic to the userbase that it would negate any usefulness it could provide... and then some.


Partner camhead


Aug 20, 2010, 1:14 PM
Post #192 of 217 (3241 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [j_ung] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?

It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.

Jay

When I was blue I considered that very thing. And nixed for that reason among others. There's also virtually no way to enforce it on pre-existing members shy of requiring everybody to re-register. I also felt that, even if it were feasible, to put it into practice midstream would be so traumatic to the userbase that it would negate any usefulness it could provide... and then some.

I think the "use your real name" rule on P is more of a courtesy, rather than an actual rule. I am not using my real name on there.


olderic


Aug 20, 2010, 1:35 PM
Post #193 of 217 (3216 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539

Re: [yanqui] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

yanqui wrote:
Started climbing (I think) in 1979 and it's been one of the main things in my life ever since. My wife and daughter both climb and basically all my friends are (or have been) climbers.

I generally tend to avoid the serious, technique related climbing threads like the plague, although once I got involved in a bowline thread that turned out pretty good. I like rgold's posts OK and usually take the time to read them, if I see them. But I think this site would be worse than boring if there was some kind of attempt to get all the "experienced" climbers to emulate the rgold style.

I might have made a couple of helpful posts, who knows? But I really don't think it's such a good idea to come to internet forums (like this one) to try to learn something important about climbing. The best you can hope for is maybe some kind of connection, or maybe something you can recognize as meaningful from your own experience. That's the nature of the forum beast. I don't think agressive moderation can fix that. Plus you gotta love those threads that go like this: "I might be traveling to South America. Is there any place to climb there?"

On the other hand, when people have contacted me (through this site) with a sincere interest to climb in my area, I've had no problem taking them out and showing them around, and even inviting them to sleep in my climbing gym, if they have nowhere else to stay. So I guess I've been helpful in that way.

I come here more for the human drama, the humor, the fights, the gossip. That's what interests me. I like the different personalities and the tensions that can occur. After not looking in for a few days, is it any wonder then, that I lost a whole day of work today, catching up?

Every now and then (not too often) someone (dingus comes to mind) actually does say something about climbing that surprises me and that can I recognize as true from my own experience. Those moments are great, but I don't see any recipe for making this happen more than it does now.

+1 - or what ever you are supposed to do when you like and agree with a post


subantz


Aug 20, 2010, 3:12 PM
Post #194 of 217 (3181 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [olderic] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I BRING THE FUCKING NOISE!!!!!!!!!!
RAHR


blondgecko
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #195 of 217 (3172 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [subantz] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Did anyone else just hear a faint buzzing sound?


curt


Aug 20, 2010, 3:48 PM
Post #196 of 217 (3153 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [blondgecko] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I thought it was a fart.

Curt


curt


Aug 20, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #197 of 217 (3151 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

^^^^

Signal or noise? You decide. Cool

Curt


curt


Aug 20, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #198 of 217 (3147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Postcount ++

Curt


blueeyedclimber


Aug 20, 2010, 4:10 PM
Post #199 of 217 (3133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [blondgecko] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
Did anyone else just hear a faint buzzing sound?

Nope. Better get that hearing checked.

Josh


blondgecko
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 4:54 PM
Post #200 of 217 (3104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
LostinMaine wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise.

Jay

While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion.

Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review.

Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise.

No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question.

I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base.

Jay

Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia.

DMT

I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage.

Jay

I'd put it a bit differently. Seems to me you want rc.com to be a climbers' library, while pretty much everyone else wants it to be a climbers' bar.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook