textileman
-
Posts
6 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by textileman
-
-
As said by the birdcat:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending religion. I am just saying that people who are religious don't take the global view that you do. They don't really care about its benefits for society, but rather are driven by a desire for personal salvation. The need for religion is deeply selfish, just like the need to procreate.
Speak for your cynical self, cowboy. You are clearly holding forth on a subject about which you are little informed. Some of the best people who ever lived were self-sacrificing, altruistic and deeply religious. Some of the kindest and most generous and compassionate people I know today are "religious".
Lots of folks love to point fingers at the poor behavior of certain individuals who claim to subscribe to a certain religion, but the fact remains: the dubious antics of Jerry Falwell etc. are not representative of Christians in general nor does Osama Bin Laden represent Islam as a whole. Get some perspective, dude.
By the way, Free Chongo.
-
That Dwayner climbs 5.13... or could if he chose to.
Could you? How do you find yourself in any position to pass judgement on the abilities of people you don't know? Getting a li'l too big for your britches these days, sparky?
"Yowsa...I knows all 'bout dat guy....can't do nuttin!"
-
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?
Dave, really. He's back:
Your Buddy!
No, YOUR buddy:
-
Snugtop says:
And lovely to have met you, too. (And I have met you.)
Yes, that's a baby yawning....nothing more to it than that other than a response to the above.
-
He knows why, ask him.
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:
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.
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.
Chongo
in Climber's Board
Posted
Hey catbird:
Can you back up that tired cliché?
Here's a couple of sources for starters. Get your calculator out.
Deaths by Mass Unpleasantness: 20th Century
Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century
Even one unjust death is unacceptable, but so are knee-jerk clichés.
Chongo just want to be free....free to go climbing without being hassled by The Man.
(And how old are you, little boy?)
One's perspectives are only limited if one has not considered the breadth of alternatives. Having reviewed the alternatives does not thereafter require accepting them all as equally valid.