Dwayner

MattP says: "you are going to get arrested for disturbing the peace or something like that." Is that "legaleze"?

MattP says: "Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by." What constitution from what country are you reading, pal???? The same one that allows people to go on a PUBLIC forum and spew like this (just a few posts above), courtesy of "Sphinx", which makes pope's smart-alecky and often clever commentary look like a Sunday sermon: "Yeah, fuck you too, douchebag. Oh, wait, you don't count. You spend all your time in German strip clubs and desert sandstorms. You rock. But everybody else blows dogs for quarters because they momma turned them down."

You are absolutely WRONG. There is no plan, nor intention, nor conspiracy to sabotage any discussion. I welcome and encourage all discussions on the subject and insist on my right to contribute my viewpoints, whether YOU and your pals like them or not. Does cc.com do any climbing "community" public relations favors with its constant vulgarity and threatening and inane posts? It's a fact, eh? Read my comments above. If you fancy yourself a mind-reader or a psychoanalyst, keep your day job. - Dwayner

Dana's Arch Numbah 10

I thought you were going to bed? "Good luck"....explanation/meaning: I hope things go well for you in life, whatever you choose to do. "dude"......explanation: derivation: from my California homeland. "guy", "man", "individual" "Good luck, dude".....no need to read anything in to it other than Dwayner's best wishes to you.

"Thanks for the quick and condescending reply, Dwayner." You're welcome! It seems that you were in need of a little history lesson plus some exposure to a perspective with which you might not have been familiar. " I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing here, after all, I'm young, so I must be brainwashed, misinformed, drug-addled, and not worthy of comment." Your words, not mine. That kind of attitude won't take you far but I assume you are just joking. Good luck, dude! - Dwayner

I would like to add some commentary to cracked's response to pope. Cracked: "Look, Smith would never be a trad climbing destination. A few locals would climb there, but on the tuff at least, all the routes would quickly be climbed." Nonsense. I was climbing at Smith 15 years before you were even born and it was a great place with lots of fine and challenging routes visited by plenty of non-Oregonians. I remember when a certain local rock star began rap-bolting the place and it was extremely controversial.....turns out, it was part of the beginning of the sport-climbing phenom. which few would probably predict would take off with such abandon. If presented the choice, I would rather have NO climbers climb at Smith, trad or sport, if I had to choose between allowing the sport-bolting or leaving it relatively pristine. I could care less if any climber knows about Smith. This once somewhat quiet area now resembles a circus sideshow at the Dihedrals area on any decent weekend. Guess what the big attraction is?????? It ain't the cracks! Cracked: "So if a crag of choss doesn't get climbed on by you trad masters, how does it hurt to drill some holes and let other people enjoy the area? Doesn't change a thing as far as you're concerned." Smith Rocks is not "choss". Neither is/was Vantage. These are beautiful areas that have been desecrated by people for their own entertainment with little respect for its natural beauty or the notion that one should leave as little trace of one's visit as possible. Cracked: "So far, you've bitched about the people who bolt climbs. So why are you bitching about the people who climb those routes? What have they done that's so heinous, compared to your noble activities?" Climbing these routes endorses the practice. Cracked"I tell you to gain perspective only because you've lost it. The younger generation isn't 'lost', so quit your whining." You seem to speak about things on which you are not very well informed of the perspectives, but I am sure you are learning.

MattP. say: "The "free speech" argument is just plain silly. Dwayner is the one who is not allowing others to make their points and, on balance, "free speech rights" would be promoted by keeping him out of these discussions unless he can find a different approach to the subject. Look back at my post that started this current debate. I did not advocate that he be permanently banned but I said I MIGHT advocate a temporary suspension. a) How have I prevented ANYONE from posting their viewpoints? Am I some sort of cosmic puppeteer that somehow can prevent people from expressing their viewpoints or who can make others read or more importantly, respond to my posts? Do you not believe in the concept of free choice, that is, your option to ignore anything or everything I might post? A hypothetical scenario: READER is checking out the latest in the NEW ROCK CLIMBING FORUM, hoping to find some sort of sanitized, anethical commentary about what's HOT on the rocks. He sees a post listed under the name Dwayner, someone whose comments he finds routinely obnoxious. "Hmmmm...." he muses. {Moment of choice} I must respond to this as I have no choice. This topic will be hijacked because others with perhaps even less self-control will be unable to refrain (and some might even be exposed to heresy!) Besides, I think Dwayner's full of nonsense and his repetitive, bolt-obsessed commentary gets on my nerves in a way that the incessant vulgarity and threats on this site do not. He might have a message but his style of delivery stinks.....it's not the way I would present it! He has the right to deliver his message but only on MY terms." or, perhaps...."it looks like another boring rant by Dwayner......pass!" [end of hypothetical, imaginary scenario] Do you really think that I am somehow so dang powerful that I can keep others from expressing their views as some would like to suppress mine? Or that I somehow make them respond to my posts? b) there will be no temporary suspension of "Dwayner" from this site. Should the SITE OWNERS be so compelled, I will insist that it be permanent....I don't need your condescending "he needs a time out for reflection" baloney. Alternatively, there is a good chance I will, myself, terminate my own participation on my own and those who can't tolerate unpopular or abrasive viewpoints can enjoy their cc.com experience EVEN MORE!!!! P.S. Do you really not understand the connection between bolts and access issues such as the closing down of climbing areas? Are you appalled that the subject of bolting (an obviously very controversial topic) might find it's way into a ROCK CLIMBING forum? Does it really surprise you that there are people with passionate viewpoints on the subject? And NO, you don't have to respond to any of the above, it's just something for you to think about. And if you do respond, "Dwayner" didn't MAKE you do it.

Glassgow: "Since you never answered my question about YOUR climbing ability, I think you're just blowing smoke on this issue. remember words- action= zilch " I'm sure I don't climb as well as you, cowboy. I guess you win!

Go ahead...censor him you wild and wacky, free-thinkin' members of the climbing "community"!

MattP....absurd! I don't need your enforced time-out...it will change nothing. You want me banned because you find me "juvenile" (look at 80% of this site), etc.? Take it up with jon and timmy. What don't you understand about the relationship between climbing area being closed with 400 bolts being removed....and the practice that contributes to the problem. Is it really a big mystery? If it's access you're concerned about....you guys need to do the self-reflection to see how your behavior might contribute to "the Man's" suspicions. If you can convince the powers that those sport-climbs are legitimate....than do it. Although they might get a different side of the story from other of folks.

I am COMPLETELY surprised to read such a comment from you. I am not grandstanding a) I don't need nor require the personal approval of or attention from anyone on this site. I have viewpoints that I feel are worthy of expressing to the so-called climbing "community" whether or not you find them repetitive or unattractive. b) my viewpoints might be considered radical by some...so what.....should they be censored? You know the drill.....see the name "Dwayner".....read the post or skip it. Are you one to censor viewpoints that are otherwise unpopular with you or some of the loud-mouths on this site? Read through this whole topic and look at some of the other stuff!!! I heard that people get banned from this site for making threats of violence and such.....never heard of one being kicked off for legitimate climbing-related viewpoints!

This issue Is NOT about bolting?????? Burning tires in caves is inappropriate....dumping your garbage in caves in inappropriate....leaving grafitti is inappropriate and so are FOUR HUNDRED BOLTS. Many of you like to blame "THE MAN", but look how you behave. Some of you feel that it is O.K. to leave a string of permanent anchors anyplace you feel it might be entertaining. And look at how some of you people communicate with each other. (This topic is a fine example.) You want to be little "ain't we wacky", foul-mouthed social anarchists but few are going to pay attention because the people who make the decisions generally don't listen to this kind of spew. You bad-mouthed Beck because he's the one talking to "the MAN" and you don't feel that he might adequately represent your views (and which view??) What are you doing? Climbers are the root cause of a lot of this closure business. Consider that possibility instead of attributing it all to beer-bottle breaking teenagers, etc. Where are the restraints? Not many and people are noticing. And by the way.....I am by no means alone in my views. There are lots of us. Lucky I have other priorities or I might pursue my cause more vigorously. And Petey....you claim that you understand my views, but you don't. I am not against all bolts, but I believe they should have VERY LIMITED application. In my view, any climb that is completely bolt-dependent is illegitimate. And I'm not interested in "debating" with you. I find you at least as boring as you find me. Erik: The clean-climbing revolution of your buddy Y. Chouinard and friends was just that...a revolution...and tragically a somewhat failed one. It WILL come back because its message (whether it originated from the '70's, 3,000 B.C. or yesterday) was sound.....the state of rock climbing today, in my opinion, has not evolved...but DEVOLVED.

This guy is a "moderator"???? P.S. You don't know me, so don't act like you can speak for my actions ("oh wait do you do so [climb] now?") and motivations ("jealous tirades"). And by the way, I'm not making excuses for the pitons. They were a problem too....most of that went away with the clean-climbing revolution until it was seemingly forgotten. So pal....you get a clue.

"Ahhh...the forest service pulled over 400 bolts from cave and permanently shut it to climbing...i think you probably can't even walk up there now??? 'twas a great climbing area...oh well... " A taste of the future for those whose climbing habits are utterly bolt-dependent.