Corbett or not?

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernie Hughes <[email hidden]> contains
these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Munros choice was hardly random. Peaks over 3000 feet subdivided into
those that were and weren't considered distinct mountains.

Quoted message said:

Exactly. Some peaks over 3000, not all. No attempt to define what a
"peak of 3000 feet" actually means. "Considered distinct mountains" i.e.
according to one man's subjective & inconsistent judgment. Or 'at
random', to put it less politely.

I can just see Sir Hugh carefully tossing a coin to determine which
summits are distinct and which are to be mere tops. Subjective he may
have been and even biased but definitely not random. Like Wainwright he
seems to have been more concerned with how the hill was viewed from
below than with the niceties of whether there was sufficient reascent
when traversed from a higher hill. And unlike the present generation of
gerrymanders he had the grace to admit that the judgement of what was or
was not a separate hill was subjective.

The introduction to the 1969 edition of the tables purportedly by Munro
himself actually devoted half the first paragraph to the problem and
this was even carried into the 1974 edition but by 1980 the
gerrymanderers were in charge and it was they who dropped Munros
introduction and introduced the slur that that his selection was
"seemingly random or irrational" as well as starting the rot by
pretending to retain the "essential nature of the list" while making far
more than essential changes including wholesale changes in the areas
covered by each section.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernie Hughes <[email hidden]> contains
these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Munros choice was hardly random. Peaks over 3000 feet subdivided into
those that were and weren't considered distinct mountains.

Quoted message said:

Exactly. Some peaks over 3000, not all. No attempt to define what a
"peak of 3000 feet" actually means. "Considered distinct mountains" i.e.
according to one man's subjective & inconsistent judgment. Or 'at
random', to put it less politely.

I can just see Sir Hugh carefully tossing a coin to determine which
summits are distinct and which are to be mere tops.

:-)

Subjective he may

Quoted message said:

have been and even biased but definitely not random. Like Wainwright he
seems to have been more concerned with how the hill was viewed from
below than with the niceties of whether there was sufficient reascent
when traversed from a higher hill. And unlike the present generation of
gerrymanders he had the grace to admit that the judgement of what was or
was not a separate hill was subjective.

The introduction to the 1969 edition of the tables purportedly by Munro
himself actually devoted half the first paragraph to the problem and
this was even carried into the 1974 edition but by 1980 the
gerrymanderers were in charge and it was they who dropped Munros
introduction and introduced the slur that that his selection was
"seemingly random or irrational" as well as starting the rot by
pretending to retain the "essential nature of the list" while making far
more than essential changes including wholesale changes in the areas
covered by each section.

I guess the advantage of spending money on antique sets of tables is
that you have the documentary evidence to hand! I was unaware that the
SMC had been damned by their own hand in this way.

I didn't mean to suggest, by the way, that I found anything
objectionable in drawing up or working to a subjective hill list- on the
contrary, if we all did that there'd be less problems with erosion & no
crowding.

Bernie

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernie Hughes <[email hidden]> contains
these words:

Quoted message said:

I guess the advantage of spending money on antique sets of tables is
that you have the documentary evidence to hand! I was unaware that the
SMC had been damned by their own hand in this way.

Antique!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are not that old. I bought them just about as soon as they became
available. The 1969 Tables has the flysheet price cut off and a pencil
notation of £1.60 so I must have been a) a bit late with that one and b)
gazumphed by some toerag who thought decimalisation (Feb 1970?) was a
shortcut to untold riches.

Another way to refute the random claim is to consider the vast majority
of Munros that haven't attracted claims of bias.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times

Roger wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

Antique!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are not that old. I bought them just about as soon as they became
available. The 1969 Tables has the flysheet price cut off and a pencil
notation of £1.60 so I must have been a) a bit late with that one and b)
gazumphed by some toerag who thought decimalisation (Feb 1970?) was a
shortcut to untold riches.

LOL. I meant 'antique' in the sense that the old edition of the tables
that started this discussion was for sale in an Antique dealer's shop,
not as a comment on the venerability of the generation to whom the said
edition was originally sold.

Quoted message said:

Another way to refute the random claim is to consider the vast majority
of Munros that haven't attracted claims of bias.

Maybe it just reflects the fact that they tend to be impressive hills,
irrespective of the unsystematic method of classification.

Bernie