|
superdiamonddave
Feb 13, 2004, 4:16 PM
Post #51 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 443
|
I'm for Separation of Church and Crag.
Episcopalian at heart and Whiskypalian by nature.
Dave. :D
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Feb 13, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #52 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I used to be a Crystal Methodist till I got clean and sober.
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Feb 13, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #53 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
How about we take up a collection, pass the plate brother ! And pay RC.com NOT to accept advertising from CCC ?
I will kick in some bucks gladly :) Though I rarely see their banner it is kinda silly you must admit. Next thing you know there will be a Aid climbers for Christ (can I get a piton bruther) or god forbid (xcuse the pun) a Boulders for Budda :)
Rick
“I would rather laugh with the sinners than pray with the saints, the sinners are much more fun……” B. Joel
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Feb 13, 2004, 4:35 PM
Post #54 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
flagstaff's getting the picture.
kodos - if a thread isnt climbing related then it's generally moved to community. personally, i havent read the climbing religion thread and have no idea of its contents; however, if you see a thread that's not climbing-related, then i invite you to pm myself or another mod/admin about the thread.
In reply to: I invite you to prove me wrong by: * tanking all religious discussions into community * revealing the true nature of why there are language filters. * dumping this radical and fringe group that freely admits to trying to convert people.
regarding your three-step process for rc.com justifying itself to dr. kodos:
- if a thread isnt climbing related, then it should be moved to community; however, a thread will not be moved simply because it involves religion, just the same as the threads about piercings and climbing while stoned have stayed in general as long as they stayed on topic - or have you overlooked these threads because they jeopardize your hypothesis that rc.com is ran by a group of over zealous right-wingers?
- tim already did this. most of us surf from work or school, and getting listed on a net filtering utlity would severely reduce our reach, thereby shrinking the broad array of opinions/personalities that makes rc.com unique.
- if you want them dumped, pm russman to negotiate buying out their ad space.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Feb 13, 2004, 4:37 PM
Post #55 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Holy crap, dingus, multiple personalities much? You start off by saying that you won't allow anyone to share their views with you unless they share a spliff with you (and yeah, I understand the analogy). The very next thread you question someone's insecurity with beliefs because they won't listen to someone else's POV. So, what will it be?
As to the French, you might want to read beyond the first few paragraphs following the headlines: they're not forbidding all public displays of religion, simply the ostentatious displays, and that's in schools, which are, by definition, laical. It's a fine point, to be true, but an important one.
On a final note: I've been reading your stuff for years (rec.c & stuff), and I'm sure I'll come out the loser in any debate; i'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in your current argument.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 13, 2004, 4:54 PM
Post #56 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I'm sure I'll come out the loser in any debate; i'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in your current argument.
It ain't no thing Bro. My point with the spliff comment is that proseltyzing goes both ways. I won't dismiss someone for trying to engage me in religious talk at the crags as long as they understand that.
The French attempt at secularism is going to backfire in a major way. They opened Pandora's Box with their immigration policy and now they are trying to put it all away.
TOO LATE! The Roman's tried it too.
For what its worth, no one has ever tried to convert me at the crags. But I wouldn't be offended if they did. I'm secure enough in my beliefs at this point that I am not threatened in the least by strong beliefs in others.
This 'don't ask, don't tell' policy some apply to religion and politics... I totally understand it. I think that with friends and climbing partners it is just good policy. Making a fine debate point on a forum is one thing, losing a beloved friend or partner over zealotry is a sad waste.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Feb 13, 2004, 4:58 PM
Post #57 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Thanks for being gentle. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 13, 2004, 5:18 PM
Post #58 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Not sure what the whole French diatribe was about or how it could even be relevant to this, so I'll just ignore it.
Diatribe? Are you serious?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 13, 2004, 6:00 PM
Post #59 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: Sorry, that wasn`t meant to be a flame
In reply to: What in most likelyhood will happen if these people start to peddle their wares at the crags in the manner advocated is that the climbers who are being preached at will start to defend the quiet solitude they seek with a set of hexes or mebbe even good old dependable Mr. Rack-of-Cams.
I totally agree about what most likely will happen, and I totally agree with everyone else's point about what to do when an individual starts to witness to me. I have no problem with that. That is not the issue I'm asking RC.com to review. I am asking you to consider that the site is promoting a group that will cause an increase in preaching at crags. I can handle any individual that approaches me. What I don't want is an organized, coordinated, planned effort to convert me while I'm at a crag, and that is what the CFC is all about. It is promoting an activity that I and other climbers find detrimental to our climbing experience. I don't want that increased annoyance.
In reply to: What I do need to do is try to understand why you are getting all hot and bothered. Mate if we here at rc.com had enough advertising revenue and other income streams then we would not need to depend on these sort of ads.
In reply to: So tell me huge, have you actually had an aproach by these people at the crag or do you know anyone that has. What was your experience or do you just like to have a moan because someone is advertising something that you don`t agree with and your intolerance is such that you need to lobby to remove it from your sight instead of quietly ignoring it.
I don't believe my wishing that others not target me with their evangelism equates to intolerance on my part. I would like considerate behavior at the crag that respects all religious beliefs.
Having said all that, my personal religious feelings are not pertinent to the question I've asked.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 13, 2004, 6:11 PM
Post #60 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: Rc.com, this is not an issue of religion, it is an issue of undesirable activity at crags. I think the powers that be here should reconsider this ad in that light, and I would like to hear the opinion of the site owners on that aspect of this issue. I have not sifted word for word thru this thread...but I can't believe this has not been pointed out to you before HP...as your quote you keep throwing aroudn says " In reply to: ...is an issue of undesirable activity at crags So by that rational, we need to also outlaw smoking (butts lying all around...I HATE THAT)...outlaw drinking (Broken bottles everywhere...I HATE THAT)...outlaw Uncontained campfires or multiple fires all next to each other (scars the land and disrupts the enviornment (I HATE THAT) and plenty of other things.
Russman,
Are there any groups advocating drinking and smoking and lighting uncontained campfires at the crag advertising on RC.com? If there were, my rationale about RC.com promoting undesirable activities would certainly apply, would it not?
I'm not talking about outlawing anything.
In reply to: It is YOUR right to sak them to stop talkign to you IF you ever come accross them, just as it si thier right to talk to others whereever they want about whatever they want, just as it is OUR right to have whoever we want to support the community here.
I understand the rights of all parties you've mentioned. That is not relevant to the question I've asked.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Feb 13, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #61 of 93
(5769 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
you know, having these religious nuts at the crags isn't so bad...
While in camp 4, i was walking around the merced when i was stopped by a middle aged women who stopped me.
"are you hungry" she asked.
Why yes, I thought..."sure" I said.
She sat me down and made me an awesome meal. AFter eating wall food all month, it was so good to eat bbq ribs, chken, beans, salad, fresh fruit and cheesecake. I ate almost all her food because she kept offering it to me.
While I was eating, she starts praying, and thanking the lord, and telling me that I shoud thank the lord. So of course, I did. I wasn't going to bite the hand that was feeding me.
She sent me on my way with a bag of food to give to my friends back at camp 4. She didn't know what climbing was or that climbing was something people did in yosemite. I think she thought I was some lost soul in search of something greater in life...some passing wanderer.
It was really great to take advantage of her ignorance. I ate some really great food. A lot of it...all because her Christian morals taught her to be kind to strangers. And not that one shouldn't...but helping poor little me out seemed to fulfill her life. I felt sorry for her.
So, it's not bad to have these religious nuts at the crags...you'll have to hear some b.s., maybe even hold their hands and pray to the lord savior jewish jesus, but you might get some free food out of it.
Christians love giving away food to make people think that they're good people. Just don't confuse this kindness with something authentic.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 13, 2004, 6:23 PM
Post #62 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: You have to admit that it was a bit tangential though.
Actually I think it strikes to the heart of the matter. It is the epitome of the don't ask don't tell policy and where it will take us.
NOT permitting religious expression in public is exactly the same as enforced religious expression in public. In other words the secularism of the French government is the flip side of the Taliban coin. It really, really is.
Applied to our own discussion, I am suggesting to those who tend to take extreme offense at any religious discussion at all are as militant as the very people they tend to abhor.
Apply that principle to the CCC advertising as you see fit.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Feb 13, 2004, 6:28 PM
Post #63 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
HP... You have three different answers from 3 different RC.com Admin. I am sorry that you do not like the answer.
Basically, we do not think it is as a big a deal as you do.
So can we agree to disagree ???
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 13, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #64 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: HP... You have three different answers from 3 different RC.com Admin. I am sorry that you do not like the answer. Basically, we do not think it is as a big a deal as you do. So can we agree to disagree ???
I was not aware we had reached the point of disagreement. I thought we were discussing the issue. Y'all commented, and asked some questions, I answered your questions. But, okay.
So, if I understand this correctly:
In reply to: Basically, we do not think it is as big a deal as you do
You are saying that the issue comes down to a matter of the amount of impact to you, which you think will not be too much?
I would rather see no increased impact at all, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I've had my say. Thanks for considering it.
(And now you all know what happens when HugePedro sustains a back injury and cannot climb. You all better pray for my health! :lol: )
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 13, 2004, 6:50 PM
Post #66 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: peter - i see your point, but these people arent doing anything that's overtly detrimental - at worst, they are annoying. however, you've said that this isnt about religion so let's focus on some of the other banners that are running on the site . . . .
Amber,
Your post was excellent and well thought out, and I was going to reply to it, but my question has been answered and I see no reason to continue.
Thank you for your insights anyway.
Cheers!
:)
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Feb 13, 2004, 6:56 PM
Post #67 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry, that wasn`t meant to be a flame Apology accepted. I would like to keep this discussion civil. In reply to: What in most likelyhood will defend the quiet solitude they seek with a set of hexes or mebbe even good old dependable Mr. Rack-of-Cams.I totally agree about what most likely will happen, and I totally agree with everyone else's point about what to do when an individual starts to witness to me. I have no problem with that. That is not the issue I'm asking RC.com to review. I am asking you to consider that the site is promoting a group that will cause an increase in preaching at crags. I can handle any individual that approaches me. What I don't want is an organized, coordinated, planned effort to convert me while I'm at a crag, and that is what the CFC is all about. It is promoting an activity that I and other climbers find detrimental to our climbing experience. I don't want that increased annoyance.
Just a quick dip in this chilly pool....
I represent a neo-Nazi climbers group. We recruit at the crags ( but only *certain* types shall we say ). Can we advertise here?
Murf
P.S. netiquette says....
|
|
|
|
|
nafod
Feb 13, 2004, 7:04 PM
Post #68 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 110
|
In reply to: My referral to the "1 strike rule" implies that I accept being approached initially by anyone for anything, & do not simply act without provocation. Instead I allow them a chance to speak. However, once I state my desire to be left alone I expect them to honor it, regardless of their intent.
Oh man, you don't want to do that. You take that tactic, and you'll have highballing Jehovah's Witnesses, hot shot LDS boys, gym-trained Southern Baptists, and Unitarian Pad People just lining up to take a crack at you. It'll be like the indians going after Jeremiah Johnson. You'd be their version of the mythical V18 boulder problem. Winter ascent of K2.
Better approach is to say you'll listen if they portage your pack, belay, coil the rope, or in Dingus' case roll his spliff, if not smoke it.
By the way, I think Jesus would have been a boulderer. He's got the look.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 13, 2004, 7:05 PM
Post #69 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: Cool brutha... You sound like a stand up guy, sorry if I came across as a bit harsh. I hope to tie in with you sometime... I am fond of E-Rock, and have climbed there a couple times. :wink: In reply to: ...no increased impact... Note... I doubt whether or not us running their ads will have any bearing on the amount they may witness, as I am sure they will do the same amount with or without ads on this site.... 'Tis the nature of some Christians brutha. :wink:
No problemo. I understand you guys getting frustrated over this thing. You are probably right about the increased impact, they will be out there anyway.
E-Rock is cool, but usually too crowded for me (if you haven't figure out, I prefer serenity when climbing). I prefer the Wichitas or Quartz in Oklahoma. A busy day at Quartz is when there's only 1 other car in the parking lot. Plus, Quartz has plenty of old-school-death-run-out, classic lines put up by Duane Raleigh and his crew when they were young punks. Let me know when you're in the area and I'll give you a tour.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Feb 13, 2004, 7:15 PM
Post #70 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
In reply to: NOT permitting religious expression in public is exactly the same as enforced religious expression in public.
Yes! Exactly.
I don't have the slightest interest in the religious group in question. However, these people have as much right to advertise on this site as anyone else. I would rather RC.com avoid become politically involved by refraining from evaluating which groups are fit to advertise and which are not.
If the money there paying for advertising is green just like everyone else's I'd run the ad.
|
|
|
|
|
delarig
Feb 13, 2004, 7:53 PM
Post #71 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 167
|
Religion is a lot like Multi-Level Marketing. Spreading the "WORD" ultimately results in people coming to church and paying $$-MONEY-$$. The weekly service is to keep people interested, kinda like the pep rallys the MLM organizations put together. After going to church for a while you try to get other people to come to church by going to the mountains and preaching to people who have already found peace of mind. After a while maybe just one of them will start going to your church and $$KA-CHING$$. Your church gets some money and you get a one way ticket to HEAVEN. So what I'm saying is KEEP PREACHING OR ELSE YOU WILL GO TO HELL : )
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Feb 13, 2004, 8:10 PM
Post #72 of 93
(5773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: those who tend to take extreme offense at any religious discussion at all are as militant as the very people they tend to abhor. DMT
I agree 100 %.
I am highly militant about it.
One big difference though, Dingus:
Unlike the opposition in my battles, I have never killed or sanctioned the killing of those that disagree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
nafod
Feb 13, 2004, 8:17 PM
Post #73 of 93
(5779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 110
|
In reply to: In reply to: those who tend to take extreme offense at any religious discussion at all are as militant as the very people they tend to abhor. DMT I agree 100 %. I am highly militant about it. One big difference though, Dingus: Unlike the opposition in my battles, I have never killed or sanctioned the killing of those that disagree with me.
Wow, so you're saying that the Christian Climbing Coalition (or whatever they are called) is killing off folks that won't listen to their spiel?
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Feb 13, 2004, 9:19 PM
Post #74 of 93
(5779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
In response to the original post, it actually says nothing about preaching at the crags, even in the parts you highlighted. As a Christian myself, I know that your testimony is in the way you live, not in going up to people and asking them to join your religion.
I live a Christian life, and believe me, people notice. That's how it's done, and I believe that's what these people mean in their statements.
And yeah, people who try to force religion on you are definately annoying. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Feb 13, 2004, 10:20 PM
Post #75 of 93
(5779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: I represent a neo-Nazi climbers group. We recruit at the crags ( but only *certain* types shall we say ). Can we advertise here? Murf P.S. netiquette says....
Dude, you just proved Godwin's Law.
HAND.
|
|
|
|
|
|
