|
ridgerunner
Jan 16, 2003, 10:04 PM
Post #101 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
If you believe that you have rights to those public lands, then you need to read this:
http://www.coolclimbing.com/yonahaccess1.htm
Even if you buy land and donate it you can still be denied access.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #102 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
realitycheck--"The simple fact that we want to climb is enough to cause access problems. We do not have to do anything else. Climbers don’t have bolt, chip, chop, glue, park in the wrong place, build fires, litter, or deface Native American petroglyph for the typical land manager to want to ban you from climbing on “his land.”
hmmm..so its quite obvious to me that the most intelligent thing we can do as climbers is to deface the rock, grid-bolt faces, chip out holds, glue new ones on and basically disrespect the place in every essence of the word. well said realitycheck. so youre plan is to basically spit in the eye of every person that has any say over the issue, because as far as youre concerned, it wont make a difference??
DO YOU NOT SEE HOW STUPID THIS IS!?!?!?!? "Oh, ive i behave appropriately, theyre still gonna loiok for a reason to ban my access, so ill just act like a %@#$ing retard and hope no one notices..." BRILLIANT!!! im SO glad you dont live and/or cliomb ANYWHERE near me...
realitycheck--"You are right, if climbers misbehave, access issues can certainly only get worse. But it is also important to realize that good behavior will not necessarily make access issues better… " so instead you suggest that we GIVE them something to point to so they can say "Look what these climbers are doing to our rock.. We need to stop this sort of stuff..."??? JESUS CHRIST!!!! quit while youre ahead...youre simply being stupid at this point. youre arguing simply to get the last word in...regardless that what youre saying makes NO SENSE!!!
again--"Once climbers start thinking that other climbers and their misdeeds are the sole cause of access problems, it will be easier for even more areas to be closed." HOW EXACTLY does acting appropriately and respectably create MORE problems?!?!?!?!?!? dont you think it wiser to GO OUT OF OUR WAY to NOT further aggravate landmanagers???
uhh, you guessed it--"In both of these examples, I don’t think “bad ethics” was the only (or even the major reason) for the closures." it doesnt matter what YOU THINK!!! whatever the reason for limiting access to climbing in ANY given are, owned by ANY land managers, public or private, being an asshole isnt going to make them go away. WHATEVER the reasons they may have for limiting or banning access to climbers, it is our JOB to NOT give them yet another reason...
dingus--"With Bush trying to reopen the drilling legislation for ANWR, and many of his other initiatives with respect to public land, I'd say 'use' of public land is a broadening concept. What is a glued flake when compared to a thousand oil derricks? Bush may ultimately prove to be a friend of climber access in a sick sort of way. Wouldn't that be ironic?" i agree. hes so environmentally retarded, hes gonna end up benefitting us in the long run. people would rather see us climbing than him drilling...
realitycheck(uhhh, yea...)--"You can be as stealthy (which is a really good thing) as you want at your local crag, but once the number of climber reaches a certain point; access to your crag is going to be threatened. I have seen this too many times for anyone to convince me it isn’t true." if all 50,000 visitors to the happy boulders make a conscious and concerted effort to keep the place as clean as it was before bouldering got so huge, who would know other than climbers?
realitycheck---"On public land where other recreation is allowed, I think climbers do have a right to be there. If hunters are allowed to hunt, climbers should be allowed to climb, if hikers can build trails, climbers should be able to create routes…. We may still have to “fight, kick, scratch, cajole, plead and otherwise ingratiate ourselves,” but I don’t think we should have to be beggars asking for scraps. Do land managers have a right to regulate climbing? Sure, but no more stringently than they do any other user group." ABSOLUTLEY FALSE!!! think about it. hunters, campers, hikers and fisherman all PAY for permits to participate in those activities. quite simply we do not. the sad fact is, money dictates everything in this government. those who generate revenue for the public offices and officials, as well as local economies, will be given more freedom and clearance. hunters buy permits, need to take courses sponsored and sanctioned by the state, and have to pay to register their weapons. same with fisherman. wilderness hikers need to buy permits. campers pay camping fees. on top of the MILLIONS of dollars generated annually from these activities, in the public eye, they are invisible. our problem?? we leave chalk, are highly visible, and DONT PAY A DIME to do what we do...so what now?? make it worse???
finally realitycheck---we have no constitutional rights granted to us as climbers. it is a privilege to climb on public land, much as it is a privilege to ride an ATV on public land. we are solely at the mercy of the land managers, and making a nuisance of ourselves by damaging and defacing PUBLIC LAND (otherwise known as vandalism, if youd care to avoid the climbing specific words of ethics and chipping) is the MOST NOTICABLE of public land ABUSES. these things WILL cause more problems than we already have...by youre own admission, access is threatened by the very fact of what we are doing. dont you think we should try REAAAALLLYY hard not make more issues than are necessary?
ps--for a realitycheck, you have a strange sense of reality. what %@#$ing reality do YOU exist in? i live in the real world. im being realistic...
|
|
|
|
|
greengecko
Jan 17, 2003, 3:44 AM
Post #103 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 43
|
I hate it when people take a topic and change the subject to be about politics go to cnn bastard. though i dont believe in the drilling and what not. also you could look up the word nature in the dictionary it helps stupid people(natural nature natural hmm youd think glue fits in there some where along with bolts but it jsut doesnt seem to)
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 10:55 AM
Post #104 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
though it may not be so severe as you describe, mhr2000, it is the same ideal that will eventually lead to waht you do describe.
try not to laugh too hard. the US laughed at Hitler when he first gained power...
wait,wait...ill say it for you..."Naziism and gluing a hold on are nothing alike!! Youre an idiot Bmadman. why do you even bother posting here?"
now you dont have to waste your time
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 17, 2003, 4:39 PM
Post #105 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Boulder dude—
I can’t but help wonder if the “mad” in your name refers to “mad ill” or “mad” as in angry or “mad” like “crazy as a loon…”
I’m not so sure that I’ve made my position understandable to you. And I’m not sure that you really care to understand, but on the slim hope that you may…
I think if you re-read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I’ve never said the things you’ve think I have. I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but try re-reading my posts, without inferring anything beyond what I’d written. Do not presume to “fill in the blanks…”
Let me try to reduce this to it’s simplest form: if we accept as a basic premise that if we are bad, bad things will happen… it does NOT follow (either in study of Logic, or real life) that if you are good, good things will happen.
I tried to give a number of real world access problems where climbers being good, had bad things happen…
This doesn’t imply that you should be bad… (And, I haven’t said that, no matter how strongly you think I have… or how many times you repeat it.)
What it does imply is that many access problems have nothing to do with climber behavior. To be certain, there are some examples, and Curt thoughtfully pointed those out. I’m still not convinced; with the personal knowledge I have of both situations he’s mentioned that “bad” climbers were entirely to blame.
Why is important to make this distinction? Access is threatened at areas all across the country, and too many climbers accept the simplistic solution that “other” climbers are the total cause of it. That will not help us fight the real access issues. And believe me, the problems are real.
It is simply not good enough to simply “good…” We all need to be proactive. At least…join the AF.
-r
ps. Dingus- Like you, I am somewhat cynical about the Federal control issue, but mine has been tempered by success in getting the Federal agency that manages my “home crag” to deal directly with climbers when making decisions concerning climbing. It’s a long story, but basically the ”We, the people,” stood up to the Feds and got them to agree to sign the first “Memorandum of Understanding” between a Fed agency and a local climbers activist group. It’s been used as a model for the other “MoU’s” that have followed. It makes the local climbers group and the Feds partners in managing the climbing resource. We didn’t totally win the war, but we did win a couple of major battles...
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 17, 2003, 5:03 PM
Post #106 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
How original- someone starts trying to rationalize chipping/manufacturing by begging the question of how "right" this action is, when their entire post tacitly applauds the "fix" of this loose flake.
What an innovative new approach.
And then, wonder of wonders, the focus of said discussion takes a hard left after about three pages and- BINGO!- suddenly we have the inevitable flamewar comparisons to Hitler, secular humanism, and them damned commie liberals, with enough quotes for a Harvard seminar on plagerism, and more non-sequitors than a season of Seinfeld.
And the true joy, to all the gentle readers following along at home, is that all this goes on in exchanges between illiterate (and self-proclaimed) hardbodies (who have apparently climbed everyfreakingthing vertical in the world... but can't seem to find the spellcheck in their Hotmail accounts) and sincere (read: overly-emotional and incomprehensibly oblique) newcomers, with only a dash of actual reasoning thrown in by those few voices on these boards who just might be able to lay claim to the title "climber".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
BTW: Affixing a piece of rock to the face to prevent/delay its yearning to be scree- whether rationalized for the cause of safety or the neccessity of the hold to the integrity of the route- is manufacturing, be it high on a wall on Yosemite, along the road in Rifle, or on some nameless boulder in Ray Jardine's back yard. Pose me all the twisted situations you want... whether or not I can formulate an answer to your satisfaction, the fact of what has been done remains the same.
You cannot prevent entropy.
Period.
[ This Message was edited by: roninthorne on 2003-01-17 09:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #107 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
realitycheck--every single quote that ive made in this entire topic has been directly copied and pasted from the original post...im reading into anything...
what im doing is making logical cocclusions based on the words YOU choose to use to describe your position.
i will say it again, and i will boldface it, so you dont miss anything...
regardless of the reasons given by the land managers, bad behavior does not help the situation, and it is NOT in our best interest to DONATE one more reason to their cause. can you possibly understand that??
youre statements over and over again are attmpting to point out that our behavior "has no impact" on the situation, and you are flat out wrong. our actions DO have an impact on these decisions. our actions can and WILL cause MORE problems than the ones we have no control over. condoning activities such as those listed in this topic will cause MORE problems.
i have never stated in any of my posts that being good will make everything ok. i agree, there are MANY reasons why areas are closed. as many reasons as there are areas. the simple FACT is, that at EVETY SINGLE ONE of these areas, climber behavior was AT LEAST ONE factor in the decision to close the area.
you keep insisting that regardless of our behavior, those areas would have been closed. maybe, maybe not. well never know. but CERTAINLY bad climber behavior was PART of the reason.
ive also NEVER stated that it wasa OTHER climbers.
"It is simply not good enough to simply “good…” We all need to be proactive. At least…join the AF.
100% correct. but how about this: "...at the very least...act resonibly and responsibly when on public land".
proactive goes beyond paying dues in a club to help OTHER PEOPLE be proactive for you. take some %@#$ing responsibility for youre own actions. dont be an asshole at the crag, and we have ONE LESS problem to deal with.
the REALTIY is, we can control our own behavior. we have no control over whatever other reasons these land managers state. dont you think it would be wise to affect change over the one reason we DO have control over.
i understand everything youre saying. i am not reading more deeply into your posts than EXACTLY what you are typing. im just making the next logical conclusion, something you seem to be having a problem doing.
look. its a simple fact that bad behavior on the part of climbers will not make access issues EASIER to sort out. acknowledging that there are OTHER problems may or may not help. but being well behaved and environmentally responsible WILL HELP. at the VERY least, it WONT HURT.
that is reality...
"Why is important to make this distinction? Access is threatened at areas all across the country, and too many climbers accept the simplistic solution that “other” climbers are the total cause of it. That will not help us fight the real access issues"
its not as important to "make this distinction" as it is to be on our best behavior everytime we enter public lands with the intention of climbing.
roninthorne--what exactly is your point??
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-17 12:50 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #108 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
oh yea, one more thing...when i was climbing daily at the gunks, it was a pretty understated fact that the main reason the owners didnt want climbers at skytop was because they were sick of the vulgarians topping out in front of the dining room windows naked. they also didnt like climbers topping out all sweaty and grimy and screaming at the top of their lungs because they were stoked on the climb they just completed. get real, you cant charge someone $100 a plate for dinner and expect them to appreciate that kind of $#!&. if the climbers were a little bit more cautios and curteous(ie wear some frigging clothes and save the celebration for a more appropriate place), maybe the owners of the skytop area wouldnt be so adamant against climbing there.
unfortunately, the reasons arent as cryptic and secretive and political as youd like to make them out to be...
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 17, 2003, 9:09 PM
Post #109 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
bmadman- my point? You're an idiot. I'm an idiot for wasting another post on you. People who cut-and-paste a series of long, rambling, semi-coherent rebuttals need to get laid and/or get a life, not necessarily in that order.
Simple enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 9:12 PM
Post #110 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
yup---its simpler to just say youre an idiot. some of us actually enjoy reasonable debate, even if we dont agree with the other party...
so you know waht? go %@#$ yourself in the ass with a broken beer bottle...maybe then you wont feel so much animosity for poeple who enjoy debating...
beside that, if you dont like a topic, dont read it...you dull mother%@#$er...
|
|
|
|
|
scottharms
Jan 17, 2003, 11:54 PM
Post #111 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 84
|
I watched the video before i read your posting, not sure what to make of it. Rock is bound to be rock, it cracks and breaks and is brittle at the best of times. I think for the safety issue it either had to be fixed, left alone, or simply, just don't climb it if you don't feal safe about climbin it. It is part of the risks we take to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 18, 2003, 12:45 AM
Post #112 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
OMFG.
Madman has made some hellagood points and you guys are just tearing into HIM like HE'S an butthole.
Jeeze. This is why I bowed out earlier... a couple of peeps cannot own up to the ridiculous words they spew.
Other than that, Scottharms has stated half of it pretty good. The half he didn't say was that, in this instance, in this community... the decision was made that the preservation of the PROBLEM was more important to the community than the eventuality of nature.
From a bolderer's standpoint, it's hard to determine which is better, the current movement sequence or the movement sequence which would emerge if the sloughage of the flake produced an actual problem...
What is known, however... is that this act of man has improved a certain number of peeps enjoyment factor when climbing at a certain area.
And isn't that kinda the point of climbing in the first place ?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 18, 2003, 3:12 AM
Post #113 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Sorry - off topic. Boulderingmadman - it's true, you really are being a little bit of a dick. Reading conclusions into someone else's writing that do not tie into what they actually stated is not a good way to debate - you'll never convince them of anything, because you're not actually arguing with their points, you're arguing with your own internal stimuli.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 18, 2003, 4:34 PM
Post #114 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
bouldermadman-
"yup---its simpler to just say youre an idiot. some of us actually enjoy reasonable debate, even if we dont agree with the other party..."
You wouldn't know "reasonable" if it bit you on the ass... although it might make you remove your head, and the fresh air would do you good...
"...so you know waht? go %@#$ yourself in the ass with a broken beer bottle...maybe then you wont feel so much animosity for poeple who enjoy debating..."
Certainly a reasonable rebuttal there, laddie. Your love of reasonable debate shines right through on that one. Pray, relate some more of your great store of insight and experienced wisdom...
"beside that, if you dont like a topic, dont read it...you dull mother%@#$er... "
Oh, I like the topic... it's the foul-mouthed wankers who feel the need to respond to every one-line counterpoint with a three-paragraph diatribe of loose-knit non-sequitors that chap my buns... the same guys who usually break down into rhetoric and obscene spew when they are caught out by their own lack of coherent logic. This is especially annoying when they do it again, and again, and again, devolving further and further into flame and getting farther and farther from any sort of actual discussion.
And after a bit of surfing on these forums, bm, I see that's pretty much your resume in a nutshell, isn't it?
Thank you for so conclusively demonstrating both my assessment of your character and the relative worth of your (il)logic. As for your kind suggestions re: anal insertion and such... thanks, but no, I'll leave those activities to you and your spewbuddies, most of whom are jerking each others ropes (literally or figuratively) anyway.
Ronin
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 19, 2003, 4:25 AM
Post #115 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
yawn...
oh yea...i posted this back on page four..."otherwise, its been a good conversation. im a bit bored with it now, but ill keep reading..."
pretty much since then, there hasnt been a reasonable nor kind word from anyone...yet somehow, i suppose im the asshole...thats cool, i like being the asshole...it makes me laugh at you guys for being angry after you leave your keyboards...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-18 20:29 ]
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 20, 2003, 5:04 AM
Post #116 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
While I would like to be able to convince myself, as many of you have, that it is a rare occurrence for climbers to alter the rock for their own enjoyment, it happens more often than you think.
Even at some totally tradical area, chances are good that deathblocks and looseflakes have been pried off, to prevent injury to those below these hazards.
If you sport climb, chances are also pretty good that you have pulled on a glued hold, and it is also quite possible that you have climbed on chipped/drilled holds as well.
And if you climb at all, you have altered the face of the rock in some way. By breaking loose holds, rubbing off of lichen, killing of plants growing on edges and in cracks,rubbing 1/100zillionth of an inch of rock off of the edge, etc.
Furthermore, while many climbers, myself included, don't LIKE the idea of holds being chipped, (and still others dislike the idea of even deadly hazards being dealt with, which frankly I find appalling, but to each his own), others have no problem with this, and even enjoy the aspect of creating a route.
In this situation, regarding the gluing of the flake, THERE IS NO OBVIOUS CORRECT STANCE TO HAVE. Sorry. No amount of debating will change some peoples' minds about it.
The bottom line in this specific instance is this: The flake would have come off sooner or later, and probably due to forces exerted onto it by a climber. Chances are also pretty good that the unlucky fellow would have been injured, getting anything from a bruised knee to a shattered pelvis, depending on how large of a chunk came off. The breaking of this flake would have also changed the sequence of this problem, either for better or worse. This all has now been averted, and anyone who hadn't seen the video probably wouldn't notice the bolt there.
Has the excitement aspect been taken away from this problem? Yes. While you may or may not approve of this, it really isn't the ethical end of the climbing world.
Honestly, bouldering is about having fun and, in most cases, being semi-risk free, while moving over stone. Approve or disapprove of the bolting, but no one got hurt, and often times injury is a big factor on the closure of a climbing area. Keep that in mind the next time you tackle some gnarly highball or huge runout.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 20, 2003, 6:18 PM
Post #117 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
boulderingmadman,
I too believe that your method of "debate" leaves something to be desired. Here is the problem I have with your arguement. realitycheck stated that:
"The simple fact that we want to climb is enough to cause access problems. We do not have to do anything else. Climbers don’t have bolt, chip, chop, glue, park in the wrong place, build fires, litter, or deface Native American petroglyph for the typical land manager to want to ban you from climbing on “his land.”
And your respones to this statement was:
"hmmm..so its quite obvious to me that the most intelligent thing we can do as climbers is to deface the rock, grid-bolt faces, chip out holds, glue new ones on and basically disrespect the place in every essence of the word. well said realitycheck. so youre plan is to basically spit in the eye of every person that has any say over the issue, because as far as youre concerned, it wont make a difference??"
In no way does your response follow logically. Realitycheck is merely stating that sometimes the presence of climbers in a given area is enough (in and of itself) to cause those entrusted with land stewardship to crackdown on access. In no way does he claim that bad ethical behavior on the part of climbers would not exacerbate the problem, leading to accelerated closures.
I do not agree with all that realitycheck has posted, but our disagreements flow from the application of his premise to specific area closures. In general I agree with him.
Curt
[ This Message was edited by: curt on 2003-01-20 10:19 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 6:49 PM
Post #118 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
curt--your falling into a hole. you are transposing your intelligence and conclusions onto others.
what realitycheck states can very easily be translated into what i have posted. if people do not acknowledge their bad behavior as an underlying cause to access issues, it will cause more problems. that is the sum and substance of every reply ive made to realitycheck. i never stated that he said "pepoples behaviors have no impact". i merely stated that his discounting of climbers behaviors can lead to more problems. there is no one reason...all of his reasons are true...but so are mine.
you have problems with my debate techniques...i have problems with others. when their is a logical statement made, i acknowledge it, regardless of whom it comes from. no one acknowledges that my "extreme" case scenarios are valid. instead they attack my character by saying " its my resume" to fall into flaming.
let people dismiss everything you say, regardless of its apllicability, simply because of who you are, and see how quickly you divulge into flamewars...
the entire first four pages of this topic were reasonable and well debated all around. that includes me.
yet somewhere after page four, poeople started disregardinbg my logic, and provoking me...
dont provoke a pitbull, for you will get a response. and it will be a response you dont like. why would you expect any less of me??
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 20, 2003, 7:46 PM
Post #119 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
boulderingmadman,
You can respond to me any way you like. Those reading and participating in this thread will draw their own conclusions as to whose arguments have the most merit.
However, I will reiterate the comment from my post above, that there is no way the following comment is implied in any way from realitycheck's posts:
"hmmm..so its quite obvious to me that the most intelligent thing we can do as climbers is to deface the rock, grid-bolt faces, chip out holds, glue new ones on and basically disrespect the place in every essence of the word. well said realitycheck. so youre plan is to basically spit in the eye of every person that has any say over the issue, because as far as youre concerned, it wont make a difference??"
This concept is simply not in realitycheck's post, nor is it implied, nor does it follow logically. As far as I can ascertain, these are words you have put in someone else's mouth--and that is unfair.
In fact, I am willing to bet that realitycheck agrees with you that unethical behavior creates additional access problems at some crags. His seminal point is merely that, sometimes, the presence of climbers congregating at an area to climb is enough by itself to cause land owners to rethink their position regarding climber access.
I really don't see any way that you can not agree.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 20, 2003, 7:53 PM
Post #120 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Dude, Curt.
He very clearly explained not only how he agrees with realitycheck's point, but also WHY he feels that realitycheck's point did not go far enough. Then, he pointed out (his conjecture of) what would happen were realitycheck's point be allowed to stand AS IS, i.e. how it was made.
This is all very clear in the previous 3 posts.
The fact is that if YOU, Curt, stop beginning your post with "you can respond to me however you like" and simultaneously dismissing his post as irrelevant, you will continue to be bewildered by the discourse.
Of course... that stands to reason. The other side of the bell curve needs some peeps or else it wouldn't be a bell curve.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 20, 2003, 8:07 PM
Post #121 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Lox,
Maybe I am bewildered, it wouldn't be the first time. However, I have read all the posts here and in the very last post by boulderingmadman he states:
"what realitycheck states can very easily be translated into what i have posted."
I still hold this statement to be totally false.
So, I guess you--in your infinite wisdom--will have to explain to me just how boulderingmadman has eloquently explained that he agrees with realitycheck in light of his this more recent statement above.
Oh, we do agree on one thing. I am quite happy to be on the opposite side of the Bell curve from you.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 20, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #122 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Explanation:
While realitycheck makes a good point, he really doesn't go far enough. By saying climber's presence is enough to threaten access, he fails to acknowledge that simply because that statement is true, we also must be concientous of our actions.
Personally, I chose to not belabor the point, as it is valid.
Madman acknowledges the point, but thinks that many people MIGHT read into that a "carte blanche" to behave poorly at any given area, since our user group will be ALREADY viewed as "less than ideal."
While I don't think it's important enough to split hairs about... I think that the overarching point Madman is making here is:
The current access paradigm (as outlined well by realitycheck) is not only a result of landowner's values, but of the past behavior (ethics driven, of course) by climbers.
Despite my thinking that this was not a point to be belabored, I can see how Madman would choose to address it, and I can see why he would make an ADDITIONAL assertion on top of realitycheck's... he simply thinks it doesn't go far enough to adequatly address the core issue of the topic.
He stated that well enough for me to understand... of course, I've known him for a while.
And as far as the bell curve thing goes, I get to be Bing and you get to be Bong. You get to be Ding, and I get to be DONG.
Considering what's in my pants, I think this makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 20, 2003, 11:09 PM
Post #123 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
well stated lox. though i doubt even a new set of words will lead anyone to understand the actual situation.
thx for the clarification...something i obviously failed miserably at...
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 21, 2003, 4:05 PM
Post #124 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Good lord almighty… I hate to say it, but perhaps some remedial reading and writing lessons may be a good idea, followed with a quick review of logic.
I tried to be very careful about the words I used and the ideas I was presenting in all of my posts. What I WROTE is what I EXACTLY what I MEANT…
I took much care so there would be no other “translation” of my words.
To endlessly argue against them, based on one’s incorrect “translation” is intellectually dishonest and poor technique…
Believe me, Curt in not the one in this discussion who is “falling into a hole.” He’s not the one who is “transposing (his) intelligence and conclusions onto others.”
Let me repeat (again and again) my argument: While gluing, chipping and excessive bolting is bad behavior and may cause access problems; they are not the most serious problems that threaten climbing access.
I’ve tried to list specific examples to support my argument.
Gluing, chipping and excessive bolting may be the issues that climbers have the most direct control over, but they are not principal reasons used by land manager to ban climbing.
If they were of major importance one would expect the majority of closures to be caused by them…. This is simply not the case. One would expect places like Mt Potosi (chipping), Rifle (glue) and Sport Park (excessive bolting) to be the first ones closed. The last time I checked…all are open and thriving.
Why haven’t I spent my time railing against bad behavior like gluing and chipping? Simply, I don’t think there is a climber alive today who hasn’t heard that message, repeatedly. I think others have addressed those issues at great length and better than I could. I think most reasonable, rational climbers have already made their choice not to behave that way. The few climbers who have already decided to chip will need more influence than mere words by me posted on RC.com.
Wouldn't our time and energy best be spent on addressing the issues that are the real causes of access problems?
-r
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Jan 21, 2003, 4:15 PM
Post #125 of 127
(7423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
i'm in agreement with gdeveny. safety should always come first, and if a 300lb flake is in danger of falling on and crushing you, then bolt the mutha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
