sexual_chocolate

yay! O.K. Here's "why" Dwayner was banned, as he understands it: A certain moderator whose identity has already been alluded to (perhaps in company with others), first called him, and threatened to ban him, claiming that his posts on ethical matters were "disruptive" and "manipulative". Dwayner was told to "tone it down" or be banned. It was not that his posts were vulgar, cruel or threatening (which seems to be regularly tolerated here), it was a matter of style and intensity. Said moderator also insisted that Dwayner was insincere (a.k.a: a liar) when D. claimed that D. didn't really care if people responded to his posts, nor was anyone required to create a spray-fest as a result. [To accurately second-guess Dwayner's intentions would require great feats of mind-reading powers, which said moderator certainly does not possess.] If a moderator believed that Dwayner's posts were manipulative, than said moderator must also believe the patronizing notion that the readership of cc.com is naive and gullible and needs to be protected from unpopular ethical or other notions presented in some sort of clever and deceptive way that will somehow lead them astray. Apparently, readers are unable to read and/or ignore and/or scroll by Dwayner's posts if they disagree, and must fight an uncontrollable urge to respond and thereby disrupt the proceedings! Therefore, when Dwayner did not conform, a banning was necessary: TO PROTECT YOU from Dwayner and his obnoxious ideas!!! Contrary to one rumor (or misunderstanding on the part of above said moderator), D. never agreed to drop his stance or style.) Dwayner espouses a clean-climbing ethic. Bolts play a controversial role in that ethic. Permanent alteration of the environment by bolt-dependent sport-climbing is the anti-thesis of this viewpoint, a viewpoint that is held by more than a few, yet is rarely presented to new climbers today because the implications are inconvenient both to those who want an easy-to-achieve thrill, and the gear suppliers who feed on it. Anyway, after a few "avatar" changes, which when discovered were likewise banned, "Dwayner" was permanently tossed aside over a year ago. The final straw might have been when he objected to the bolting that took place in a cave in Oregon which climbers (along with local rednecks tossing tires, bottles and garbage), essentially trashed with bolts and chalk. A climber complaining about other climbers behavior? Shocking!!!! Or was it his disgust with the line of bolts (someone's idea of a "project"), complete with abandoned quick-draws and biner's, on a short section of rock near the Tooth? (Rap wall?)after which three "moderators" aggressively attacked him for that opinion. Or maybe that he thinks "Infinite Bliss" is an atrocity and should be erased? Dwayner apparently also pissed off Jon, the site-owner, with a topic called something like "cc.com jumps the shark" which was intended to be a fun discussion about the crappiest TOPIC presented on the site, NOT THE SITE ITSELF. This is a misunderstanding which I know he regrets; because despite the large volume of ridiculous this and that on cc.com, there is a core of very useful information shared here. There's the Dwayner story, as he understands it. Is it fair? Come to your own conclusion. Jon is right, this site, although it is publically accessible, is ultimately private, and he and his team of "moderators", can control participation as they please. As "Dwayner" is no longer allowed to post nor defend himself "first-hand", you get it here, "second-hand". - Textileman P.S. "Catbird" writes: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pope, I challenge you to be other than the one-dimensional bore that you have been. If you could expound on other facets of climbing than this one issue, people might take you more seriously... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Catbird", I challenge you to take a good look in the mirror, mister, and then read all the superficial nonsense you've posted for years....then come back and see if you could again, in good conscience, write what you did above. He's a very good climber with many years of experience. Sit down and listen, big-shot. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact is that you take the most extreme view possible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are not the most extreme views. There are viewpoints out there that would have the whole world of climbing shut down. You might not like (or even understand) the nature of pope's views, or his style, but they are indeed his views. Perhaps you would like to see him banned as well because you don't find him sufficiently amusing? Or you require a comfortable homogeneity in "climber-thought"? Whatever.

hey i'm sorry man, it's just that you said you were vegetarian and then it turns out you eat fish. it just threw me a bit, that's all. thanks for showing me the card and all. i do have a question though: when you kidnap the business guys and scientists and stuff, do you like torture them into telling you there secrets? do you believe in torture, or do you hypnotize them instead? thanks, sexy brown stuff.

oh ok, fully agree. but i still think he didn't get it cuz he's a weak-ass mama's boy.

no way.

now i'm in doubt about even your identity. are you truly Cobra Commander?

hey since when was fish listed in the vegetable group?

the image of muesli dribbling out of your butt-hole is one i wish wouldn't have been introduced in this thread, but i was veggie for a few years, but when i started getting more into climbing, i was starving for MEAT! it seemed like i couldn't climb hard without craving it bad. and i still feel badly about it at times from an ethical viewpoint, but you gotta do what you gotta do, i suppose....

some bosses don't like to be ignored, and if they are the idiot savant top .00000001 math proficiency types, they might just take it out on their school-supplied calculators, which then comes out of the tax-payer's pocket, so i wouldn't do it if i were you please.

the number of climbers getting on any friggin' 15 is small. and from that small sample, there is actually some difference. take realization. sharma: 5'11" or 6'? 160 or 165? patxi usobiaga: 5'9" 130 lbs? millet(?) quite small and light? seems like some variation to me. but your point initially seemed to be that routes at that level are so specific that only a very specific body type will able climb it from a pool of "a lot of body-types climbing different hardest shit", and what i'm saying is that i don't see evidence of that. maybe if you listed the climbers you are thinking of, and the routes they are trying, i might see the point you are tryin gto make. and you better be quick, cuz i'm almost out the door to go replace some suspect bolts with pins out at world wall.

of course it isn't necessary, but it might be helpful in letting people make up their own minds inre banning, since they at least get ONE side of the story (obviously the other side ain't here to present theirs). dwayner was annoying, and that's what he got off on (attention), but was he really that much more annoying than the rest of us frequent poster shits? nah i don't think so. he was just able to get under people's skins; i don't think he should be banned for that.

ahhh an ego game it is, then.

ahh ok you were the big boss man, i get it. and you actually had to deal with the idiocy of a lowly ta. fuck'n a that sucks. maybe your ta thinks you're a dick?

well yngve it simply sounds like you need to get your shit together. is it really all that hard to grade a few student papers? I mean, he did ask and you didn't do your job. get on it. you knew your rig when you signed up for service, so quit whining about it.

thanks for the link. pretty cool shit.

i can't quite say i have a correspondence with the mad chap. so, the reason? an ego game he has with you perhaps?

too many body-types are climbing the hardest shit to allow this assessment to bear weight. not that there aren't exceptions....

Since you're here, why was dwayner banned?

oh look, it's a picture of distel climbing.

Oh look, it's a photo of distel climbing.

skiing at the new? i'm more into snowboarding than skiing.

Your multiple talents cease to amaze me.

I always imagined you with thinner ankles. Huh, funny.

oh my gosh, i have to go now....

So to clarify for those not know the route. After the first 10-15’ Dwarf Tossing (DT) joins All Purpose Duck (APD) and Snow White (SW). After 25’ or so APD veers right, DT/SW continues up (what else) SW. So in a pitch ending at the first ledge of SW we have 15' of new climbing. After that the route is same as the old Snow White. We freed APD thus my comment bolded above. We only claimed a first free ascent not the first ascent. We gave it the name APD because it had no name. I never claimed to have freed all of Snow White. Had I would have claimed the FFA not the FA. I will admit to failing on TR trying to free SW after doing APD and never returning. The title of the thread I linked to is:”Adding a bolt to Midnight Rock.” My question to SC was direct and cordial his response was as follows: At the time I thought it was not a direct and honest answer. As I said later in the thread I can care less about the bolts. I was asking a direct question about bolting existing routes and offered silliness. Readers can figure for themselves who is spinning. so if an existing aid line gets a different start and gets freed, is it a new climb....that's the question, right? to me, it's a new climb, to you it's not. ok, fair enough. I don't see what else there is to argue about.

I would suggest that if someone wants to have a "serious" discussion about some topic, they don't put the thread in "spray". The moderators are expected to do a much tighter control job in non-spray threads. I also think things can go too far, but when someone jumps in emotively in a "spray" topic, then complains about the "bs", that's silly and I can't take it seriously (not you in this case).