|
boymeetsrock
May 9, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #51 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Way to set an example Dean.
What a D i c k. :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 9, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #52 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
there is already a thread about this..... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 9, 2006, 5:05 PM
Post #53 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: This isn't the 1970's fantasy land you're living in. We have potential consequences for our actions. Remember Hueco? Used to be a great place in the good 'ol days.
I deserved that, but I live in no fantasy land. I live in 2006 when a so-called conservative president wants to sell off millions of acres of public land to pay his war debts.
In that climate, I just do not care if Potter climbs Washington's Nose on Rushmore either.
DMT
ps. If Sherman hadn't advertised Hueco and brought in the masses, quien sabe?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 9, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #54 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
there is already a thread about this..... :roll: :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
imove2fast
May 9, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #55 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 15
|
Does anyone have access to the video footage or the photos? I hope it never sees a repeat, but I also would have liked to have been there to see him do it.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 9, 2006, 5:26 PM
Post #56 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: ps. If Sherman hadn't advertised Hueco and brought in the masses, quien sabe?
isn't this exactly what potter did - advertise?
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
May 9, 2006, 5:28 PM
Post #57 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: 3) There are hints in other posts that Patagonia some how sponsored this climb? Is there any evidence of this? At the very least I think this stunt should cause Patagonia to question their sponsorship of Potter - I don't think he's a good advocate for their values. If Patagonia is at all complicit in the climb (i.e. involved in filming, using photographs in upcoming catalogues, etc.) then they too have lost some of my respect as a company.
From the article in today's tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3800468):
In reply to: Patagonia's publicity department initially alerted the media to Potter's ascent, but indicated it may back off on further promotions after learning that Potter may have broken park service regulations. |
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 9, 2006, 5:31 PM
Post #58 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
thanks tarzan!
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
May 9, 2006, 5:32 PM
Post #59 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
IT WAS RAD!!! Get over the politics what a awesome first!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 9, 2006, 5:37 PM
Post #60 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: ps. If Sherman hadn't advertised Hueco and brought in the masses, quien sabe? isn't this exactly what potter did - advertise?
Perhaps, yes. My point was, most of US would never have heard of Hueco if Sherman hadn't brought it to our attention. Citing 'remember The Hueco' seems a tad self serving as a result.
Let me pose a question... if Potter had climbed that thing and only told a bud or two, and nothing else... how would that affect your opinion of the whole thing? So instead of reading about it here, you hear it from your Bro one night at the Climber's Bar...'say, didjya hear Potter bagged Delicate Arch?"
All quiet, hush hush, strictly on the Q T. Still warrant comdemnation?
Just curious...
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
May 9, 2006, 5:37 PM
Post #61 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
In reply to: I live in 2006 when a so-called conservative president wants to sell off millions of acres of public land to pay his war debts.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. Because our president is abusing public land we should too? Apathy is a very poor why of fighting a tryanny.
----
And hah! To the jackass that complained about the media and then asked to see the pictures... you weren't even kidding were you? Amazing... you bitch about sensitive access and how wrong it was for it to be filmed and photographed but everyone wants to see the picture all the same. Good luck convincing yourself that isn't hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 9, 2006, 5:40 PM
Post #62 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Just out of curiosity - can anyone translate this sentence into plain english?
In reply to: "If the compendium is found not to be sufficient, we will work with our solicitor posthaste to put a closure on Delicate Arch immediately."
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
ullr
May 9, 2006, 5:41 PM
Post #63 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: In reply to: This isn't the 1970's fantasy land you're living in. We have potential consequences for our actions. Remember Hueco? Used to be a great place in the good 'ol days. I deserved that, but I live in no fantasy land. I live in 2006 when a so-called conservative president wants to sell off millions of acres of public land to pay his war debts. In that climate, I just do not care if Potter climbs Washington's Nose on Rushmore either. DMT ps. If Sherman hadn't advertised Hueco and brought in the masses, quien sabe?
Look, I could really give a shit that he climbed the thing. I'm sure it was fun.
But this isn't a political thread about Bush and his antics. It's about climbing responsibly so others can continue the current privelege of being able to climb in Arches.
The Bush conservative thread is another ball of nasty wax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
May 9, 2006, 5:49 PM
Post #65 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: To the jackass that complained about the media and then asked to see the pictures... you weren't even kidding were you? Amazing... you b---- about sensitive access and how wrong it was for it to be filmed and photographed but everyone wants to see the picture all the same. Good luck convincing yourself that isn't hypocritical.
In reply to: Let me pose a question... if Potter had climbed that thing and only told a bud or two, and nothing else... how would that affect your opinion of the whole thing? So instead of reading about it here, you hear it from your Bro one night at the Climber's Bar...'say, didjya hear Potter bagged Delicate Arch?" All quiet, hush hush, strictly on the Q T. Still warrant comdemnation?
On one hand, I'm sympathetic with Potter on the "Nature's Law" vs. "Man's Law" issue - if he/patagonia hadn't publicised it, it would be a non-issue.
On the other hand, by obeying some of the laws set for us by those in power, we preserve our ability to pursue our activities elsewhere relatively unhindered.
|
|
|
|
|
ullr
May 9, 2006, 5:51 PM
Post #66 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 338
|
Perhaps read the thread, then smoke crack.
glyrocks did, look above a few posts.
No, it's not a travesty, I never said it was.
Again, read first, then smoke crack.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 9, 2006, 5:51 PM
Post #67 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I'm not sure I understand your logic. Because our president is abusing public land we should too? Apathy is a very poor why of fighting a tryanny.
If Potter somehow damaged Delicate Arch by climbing it then it seems to me that ALL climbing on public land is damaging. We are appealed to as a group... and are asked to think of how land managers view us because of one climber.
So I posited another view... a view of ALL OF THEM through the prism of one president. If its good for Potter its good for Bush.
I think many fine comments and points have been made concerning the publicity angle of this thing. Cool.
But I'm not really speaking to that. I'm speaking to a sentiment that seems to suggest that any breaking of the rules by any climber is a moral deficiency. I've climbed in restricted areas and I won't apologize for it.
I don't care if 'us' is outraged by my transgressions. I wouldn't have called 'us' for bail money iof it came to that either.
I wonder how much Bush would take for Delicate Arch?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
May 9, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #68 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
potter is a f'ing lame ass. his "spiritual" shit is so arrogant. between this stunt, base jumping a route in patagonia and leaving his wife to rappel it by herself, filming himself free-soloing, etc, he comes across as the typical "i'm a bad ass, hear me roar" douchebag. what a f'ing loser.
and how about patagonia. "yay for dean, he is sooo cool, oh wait, nevermind". thank god i don't buy any of that pata-gucci garbage. f'ing pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 9, 2006, 5:57 PM
Post #69 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: ps. If Sherman hadn't advertised Hueco and brought in the masses, quien sabe? isn't this exactly what potter did - advertise? So instead of reading about it here, you hear it from your Bro one night at the Climber's Bar...'say, didjya hear Potter bagged Delicate Arch?" All quiet, hush hush, strictly on the Q T. Still warrant comdemnation? Just curious... DMT
Good question. For me it's a matter of scale. For instance, if someone builders a building at night that they would get busted for during the day and I hear about it through social circles I would be both impressed by the feat but still annoyed that the individual needs to add illegality to what they're doing in order to find a thrill. If they do the same stunt during the day knowing they'll get busted then I'm more angry because the detriment is no longer just to the climber seeking the thrill but it negatively impacts climbers as a group.
So, I think Potter is wrong in climbing delicate arch and the publicity amplifies the negative consequences. For me it isn't man's law versus nature's law as mentioned above. It's more of an issue of the categorical imperative - should we all climb delicate arch? The answer is obviously no - the rock is soft and it would be ruined by chalk and black rubber in a decade. So he was wrong to do it. Publicizing it makes it worse because it a) sends a public message that this is okay b) makes climbers look like they don't care about conservation c) amplifies the egotistical nature of the stunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 9, 2006, 6:01 PM
Post #71 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Let me pose a question... if Potter had climbed that thing and only told a bud or two, and nothing else... how would that affect your opinion of the whole thing?
Are you really so naive to believe that it hadn't been done years ago? Puh-leez. That summit was tread upon ages ago by climbers smart enough not to spew. Oh that's right, Potter and Thesenga are both your heros. Asswipes.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 9, 2006, 6:04 PM
Post #72 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Let me pose a question... if Potter had climbed that thing and only told a bud or two, and nothing else... how would that affect your opinion of the whole thing?
Are you really so naive to believe that it hadn't been done years ago? Puh-leez. That summit was tread upon ages ago by climbers smart enough not to spew. Oh that's right, Potter and Thesenga are both your heros. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 9, 2006, 6:16 PM
Post #73 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Oh that's right, Potter and Thesenga are both your heros. Asswipes.
Oh yes, they're my here O's!
Hey Leroy, you should go get Potter's job the way you guys got Thesenga's. That'll teach em to fear the internet lynch mob!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
May 9, 2006, 6:20 PM
Post #74 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
In reply to: In reply to: I'm not sure I understand your logic. Because our president is abusing public land we should too? Apathy is a very poor why of fighting a tryanny. If Potter somehow damaged Delicate Arch by climbing it then it seems to me that ALL climbing on public land is damaging. We are appealed to as a group... and are asked to think of how land managers view us because of one climber. So I posited another view... a view of ALL OF THEM through the prism of one president. If its good for Potter its good for Bush. I think many fine comments and points have been made concerning the publicity angle of this thing. Cool. But I'm not really speaking to that. I'm speaking to a sentiment that seems to suggest that any breaking of the rules by any climber is a moral deficiency. I've climbed in restricted areas and I won't apologize for it. I don't care if 'us' is outraged by my transgressions. I wouldn't have called 'us' for bail money iof it came to that either. I wonder how much Bush would take for Delicate Arch? DMT
Dingus-
Gotcha. Thanks.
Everyone else that had no idea where my comment on the president came from-
Refrain from smoking crack and maybe you'll catch on quicker next time.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 9, 2006, 6:21 PM
Post #75 of 322
(42924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
krusher wrote:
In reply to: IT WAS RAD!!! Get over the politics what a awesome first!
weren't you the one freaking out about people dry tooling routes?
In reply to: THAT IS SUCH BULL SH*T!!! Tools simply destroy the rock!!! Who ever is doing that crap STOP!
yea i thought so..
and i agree with whoever said the "spiritual crap" if you're gunna go on a soul searching solo you don't bring a HD camera crew and do laps on the thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
