TIGHE Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 bunglehead said: One thing Timmy didn't mention was that we picked up an empty whiskey bottle (Jacc Daniels) and a veeery stinky empty can of some malt liqour type shit. There was also a huge pile of burnt shit right in front of Boyd Cave. Forest Service has time to bother climbers, but they're too strapped to ticket vandals and dickhead who litter. Personally I think their name should reflect what they actually do: The Forest Resource Extraction Service I said it before and I'll say it again. Fuck the Forest Service. And I really wanted to work for them when I was a kid. I thought that was a noble pursuit. I was way off. FS= Quote
gapertimmy Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 I think GK has some excellent points here. I also think we have seen this happen in many other scenarios, and have realized that due to the lack of organization/unity among our user group, we are an easy target and most often get the shaft. This is not about bolting, this is about access. It looks like there was an effort here in Central Oregon to form a coalition of sorts, but the lobbying power of Mr. King won in the end I suppose. I think there is plenty of energy around here from the collective group (just look through spray) perhaps if we channeled it the proper way we could do some good. Quote
mattp Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 gapertimmy said: I think there is plenty of energy around here from the collective group (just look through spray) perhaps if we channeled it the proper way we could do some good. I agree in part with Glasskisser's frustration that the Access Fund has not been able to do more, but I think they probably need more of our support, rather than less. And if somebody wants to take up a collection and fire up a legal effot or start their own lobbying group, or work on local issues at an even more local level, go for it. But I sure hope we can keep our own internal issues (e.g. bolting, or style ethics, or personality conflicts or....) to ourselves. Quote
Dwayner Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 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. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 what part of "this is not an issue of bolting, it's an issue of access" did you not understand? Quote
mattp Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Dwayner, I'm sorry to say this, but I think perhaps you should be banned from this site temporarily. You need to figure out that even your fans are by now probably tired of you pathetic grandstanding, and you constant attempt to antagonize is not unlike some of the juvenile antics that have gotten others shut down. Quote
erik Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 RuMR said: Mattp...he SHOULD NOT be banned!! I disagree w/ him based on his extreme polar view of the situation, but only cuz of his extreme position... In general, he has valid points about gridbolting etc. and should be entitled to voice them...he maybe needs to learn some moderation, but he probably doesn't think so. As long as no threats or full blown insults are being launched, let him continue to speak...banning him is akin to his extreme position in and of itself... Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 I agree with mattp on this one. He tries to turn everything into a bolting debate, and at times it's inappropriate. Quote
Sphinx Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 I dunno, but either way, Dwayner is getting trite and boring. Juvenile is a good word to describe his posts. We need a poll. I'll set one up in Spray. Quote
Dwayner Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) mattp said: Dwayner, I'm sorry to say this, but I think perhaps you should be banned from this site temporarily. You need to figure out that even your fans are by now probably tired of you pathetic grandstanding, and you constant attempt to antagonize is not unlike some of the juvenile antics that have gotten others shut down. 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! Edited September 12, 2003 by Dwayner Quote
Sphinx Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Dwhiner, it's not that you state your opinion it's how you state it. Spraying anti-bolt slogans of your own devising in every thread you come across, in every post that you make, is lame. Period. You're as pathetic as the Jesus freaks that stand on corners with signs telling people they're going to Hell. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 gapertimmy said: I think GK has some excellent points here. I also think we have seen this happen in many other scenarios, and have realized that due to the lack of organization/unity among our user group, we are an easy target and most often get the shaft. This is not about bolting, this is about access. It looks like there was an effort here in Central Oregon to form a coalition of sorts, but the lobbying power of Mr. King won in the end I suppose. I think there is plenty of energy around here from the collective group (just look through spray) perhaps if we channeled it the proper way we could do some good. Tim, I spent some hours back then dealing with that issue, knowing perfectly well, that the outcome of the debate will have effect reaching way farther then Central Oregon Caves. This is very disheartning process seeing what happen at the end. Even though the secenerails might have a different look from outside they they are identical. This is my personal observation on this whole subject matter. the scenario is to suspend access to the area, get people out and with the passage of time make ruling according to your liking. No protests then since no people are around. The policies of FS or Park Service are not determined during so called "public hearing" phase. They are determined during lobbying before the hearings. These hearings are just the motions they have to go through to pretent they make a legit ruling. By the time public hearings happen the policies are determined and their minds are made up. Hence the approach of Access Fund will never work. You can try to reason and argue your point to the audiens, who is WILLING to listen. In the case of FS and PS they don't listen. There are only 2 things any land management agency employee cares about. Number one is job security. Number two is that the job is not a pain in the ass. Climbing is a major pain in the ass- period. This is how our legal system is structured. Strangely the land owner/ manager is always legally responsible for any accidents on thir property. So a lot of lobbying powers use this to their advantage. Climbing is still viewed as a fringe activity done by a couple of psychos. That's why i said we should seek support from such users like snowmobillers and such. They have a very simmilar access problem as we do. I personally don't like dirt bikers, snowmobillers zooming right past me. But I view it that they have as much right to do what they do as much as we have a right to climb. I know for a lot of you climbers it will seem on a radical side, but stop for a second and think. The land managers rules have the same affect on them as on us. I now, i know. a lot of people would rather see noone else in the area they go to. The fact of the matter is you have as much right to be there as they do. Maybe we should remove all the roads, just walk everywhere, live on farms and on and on and on...... accept it we all have impact on the ouside world. we take a shit, we drive a car and we drink beer (yes beer making creates pollution too). Quote
Figger_Eight Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 erik said: RuMR said: Mattp...he SHOULD NOT be banned!! I disagree w/ him based on his extreme polar view of the situation, but only cuz of his extreme position... In general, he has valid points about gridbolting etc. and should be entitled to voice them...he maybe needs to learn some moderation, but he probably doesn't think so. As long as no threats or full blown insults are being launched, let him continue to speak...banning him is akin to his extreme position in and of itself... Quote
mattp Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 RuMR- I agree - sort of. I have appreciated Dwayner's willingness to hang in there with his position, and I have at times also enjoyed his condescending insults about the pad people and the sport climbing cowards. But I believe that, as exemplified in this threat, he often attempts to provoke people for absolutely no reason and he really has no point at all but, as Peter Puget has point out, to draw attention to himself. He is really trying to ruin an otherwise good discussion. I agree that Dwayner is an asset on this site and that is why I said that I would like to ban him only temporarily so that he might be able to reflec on the matter and come back able to show some discretion as to where and when he should piss on an ongoing discussion. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Dwayner Quote: 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. Again Dwayner is either grossly misunderstanding what people say or doesn’t care what they say. Since he has often told us how educated he is on many issues I feel safe in concluding that he is in fact doesn't give a damn about anyone else. I never claimed to understand his views. His argumentation is often confused and often carried on under various avatars. What I do claim to understand are some of the effects of his behavior. As far as debating although he has personalized it to me I think what he says is consistent with my assertion that he is not here to participate in any discussion. He is simply in these threads to scream and yell – to be a spoiler. Also I find it hard to believe that he considers routes such as Bachar-Yerian to be “illegitimate.” Whatever the heck he means by that! Quote
gapertimmy Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 before this thread/topic drifts into spray oblivion and/or is hijacked by the bolt debate i hope peeps see what is going on here Quote
mattp Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Dwayner - When you bring up the exact same tirade in every conceiveable thread, just because the word "Bolt" was mentioned somewhere, and not whether it has anything at all to do with the topic, you are not expressing any "legitimate climber-related viewpoint." You are spraying. Take it to spray, or I will continue to wonder if banning you might be appropriate. LIke I said - I think you make some valid points. Just don't be a - what was that word ChucK said I should call somebody - f***nut? Quote
Sphinx Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Peter_Puget said: Dwayner Quote: 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. Also I find it hard to believe that he considers routes such as Bachar-Yerian to be “illegitimate.” Whatever the heck he means by that! He means those type of routes provide no challenge, no danger, and as such, as Chouinard would say, 'not climbing'. Dwhiner: Quote
TIGHE Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 gapertimmy said: before this thread/topic drifts into spray oblivion and/or is hijacked by the bolt debate i hope peeps see what is going on here GO TIMMAY!!! Quote
Dwayner Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 mattp said: RuMR- I agree - sort of. I have appreciated Dwayner's willingness to hang in there with his position, and I have at times also enjoyed his condescending insults about the pad people and the sport climbing cowards. But I believe that, as exemplified in this threat, he often attempts to provoke people for absolutely no reason and he really has no point at all but, as Peter Puget has point out, to draw attention to himself. He is really trying to ruin an otherwise good discussion. I agree that Dwayner is an asset on this site and that is why I said that I would like to ban him only temporarily so that he might be able to reflec on the matter and come back able to show some discretion as to where and when he should piss on an ongoing discussion. 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. Quote
Sphinx Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 No, but he's getting damn close to it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.