I think you’re viewing this through your own cultural lens where camping can be totally solo (in the woods?)
In England, we can’t just pitch up a tent in the woods, we need to pay for a campsite where there’s other tents.
I suspect, from their description, this person is from a different country again, where camping may happen in large open steppe with lots of other yurts.
Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I said about camping. Someone else suggested that "campsite" just means the area covered by a tent and its groundcover, which is closer to the "mental image" of the other person who wrongly believes that tents got waterlogged, but is the arch opposite of yours. I've camped in the woods, on open steppes, and in designated camping areas in French and English towns. In each of those cases I brought my own tent, but I've also "glamped" and stayed in existing canvas-sided structures, from Yosemite to Mont St. Michel.
Also, this is about a campsite a few inches of which is in a lake, and people moving their tents. But apparently paying attention to the actual context is optional for some people.
I’m not trying to dispute your version of events. I’m just offering a suggestion of what teekert had in their mind when they thought of a campsite, to better help you see where the misunderstanding comes from. Given they replied with agreement, I hope I captured it accurately.
I also feel it was unnecessary to dismiss their experience as “not camping,” just because it was different to yours. It turns a learning opportunity for us all into a needlessly toxic argument.
None of this is responsive to my comment that you are responding to ... I find that quite toxic. And I will note that you wrote this toxic criticism:
> I think you’re viewing this through your own cultural lens where camping can be totally solo (in the woods?)
Again, your notion of my experience of camping does not come from anything I actually wrote ... that's quite toxic.
And recognizing the mere possibility of camping solo in the woods (which has nothing to do with anything in this thread--the OP was in a group on a lakeshore) has nothing to do with a "cultural lens".
That's the last I will say about this trivial matter.
I’ve been camping, on trips that ranged from “park on the side of the road and set up a tent” to “hike four days carrying everything” and also “drive to campsite, walk into permanent managed tent”. Sounds like you’ve only done a more limited range of camping trips.
No, it doesn't sound like that at all, and you have offered no reason to think so. It's the other person who clearly has an extremely limited notion of camping: "the term campsite conjures up a place with tents already there" -- perhaps you have the two of us mixed up. And the OP said that they moved the tents, so ass-u-me ing that they were fixed structures is not rational.
Why would noticing that someone had "an extremely limited notion of camping" make you suggest that they had no experience at all? And if you are familiar with the form they mentioned, why would you act like you aren't?
I think you’re viewing this through your own cultural lens where camping can be totally solo (in the woods?)
In England, we can’t just pitch up a tent in the woods, we need to pay for a campsite where there’s other tents.
I suspect, from their description, this person is from a different country again, where camping may happen in large open steppe with lots of other yurts.
Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I said about camping. Someone else suggested that "campsite" just means the area covered by a tent and its groundcover, which is closer to the "mental image" of the other person who wrongly believes that tents got waterlogged, but is the arch opposite of yours. I've camped in the woods, on open steppes, and in designated camping areas in French and English towns. In each of those cases I brought my own tent, but I've also "glamped" and stayed in existing canvas-sided structures, from Yosemite to Mont St. Michel.
Also, this is about a campsite a few inches of which is in a lake, and people moving their tents. But apparently paying attention to the actual context is optional for some people.
I’m not trying to dispute your version of events. I’m just offering a suggestion of what teekert had in their mind when they thought of a campsite, to better help you see where the misunderstanding comes from. Given they replied with agreement, I hope I captured it accurately.
I also feel it was unnecessary to dismiss their experience as “not camping,” just because it was different to yours. It turns a learning opportunity for us all into a needlessly toxic argument.
None of this is responsive to my comment that you are responding to ... I find that quite toxic. And I will note that you wrote this toxic criticism:
> I think you’re viewing this through your own cultural lens where camping can be totally solo (in the woods?)
Again, your notion of my experience of camping does not come from anything I actually wrote ... that's quite toxic.
And recognizing the mere possibility of camping solo in the woods (which has nothing to do with anything in this thread--the OP was in a group on a lakeshore) has nothing to do with a "cultural lens".
That's the last I will say about this trivial matter.
> I think you’re viewing this through your own cultural lens where camping can be totally solo (in the woods?)
Allow me to correct myself: I meant to say I believed you were referring wild camping, away from a commercial site (either alone or part of a group).
> None of this is responsive to my comment that you are responding to ... I find that quite toxic.
You find it toxic that I won’t join you in an argument that only you want to have?
> Again, your notion of my experience of camping does not come from anything I actually wrote ... that's quite toxic.
I just woke up an hour ago. Did you find that toxic, too?
Yeah, this.
I’ve been camping, on trips that ranged from “park on the side of the road and set up a tent” to “hike four days carrying everything” and also “drive to campsite, walk into permanent managed tent”. Sounds like you’ve only done a more limited range of camping trips.
No, it doesn't sound like that at all, and you have offered no reason to think so. It's the other person who clearly has an extremely limited notion of camping: "the term campsite conjures up a place with tents already there" -- perhaps you have the two of us mixed up. And the OP said that they moved the tents, so ass-u-me ing that they were fixed structures is not rational.
Why would noticing that someone had "an extremely limited notion of camping" make you suggest that they had no experience at all? And if you are familiar with the form they mentioned, why would you act like you aren't?