Lame...Cave is now down and out...forever

[pope]

Figger_Eight said:

but it is his method of delivery that I find totally inane

 

Is he held to a higher standard than anyone else on this board? Or is it the content of the discussion that governs how people should behave? It seems to me that all topics here are fair game for any sort of "debating style", EXCEPT for bolting. On any other topic it's okay to fling the shit without restraint, but is this topic CC.Com's golden cow? As soon as the "bolting" topic comes up, staunch ethicists have to play nicey-nice while everyone else gets to tell them to pretty much "shut the fuck up" and "stick it up their ass"?

 

Can he be abrasive? Absolutely, but no more so (and much less than) many of the other regulars. I have not once heard him make reference to anyone's mother, wife or girlfriend, tell anyone to "fuck off and die", nor has he physically threatened anyone.

 

If you apply the same standards to the rest of these characters as you do to Dwayner, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people left here - and it would be a much more boring place.

 

My dos centavos.

 

Excellent observations, my friend. There is no basis for banning Dwayner, just a group of bolt clippers who feel guilty when Dwayner ridicules their behavior.

[Sphinx]

Fuck you, dipshit, don't speak for me. I don't feel 'guilty' when Dwayner posts a photo essay implying that sport climbers are gay. His 'questioning' is so ridiculous that the only emotion I feel is disdain for such a terminal loser. Speak for yourself, not for others. Now fuck off.

[mattp]

I agree with Pope that "excommunication" would be a harsh remedy for someone who is merely abrasive. However, Dwayner is not only "merely abrasive" but, whether he admits it or not, he knows by this point that his repeated interruption of every discussion that has any tangential relationship to his issue is purely that: interruption. Folks have been banned from this site for less.

 

I don't think there is a single poster on this site who has been as disruptive of other's attempts to carry on a thoughtful discussion as has Dwayner. If somebody interrupts a bolting discussion to say that they went to bed with your mother last night, it is probably going to be deleted or somebody will fire back a one-line retort or even a half a page, and the discussion can then continue. Dwayner's intentional interruption is just about always expanded into several pages of pointless diatribe in a debate about who is the greater jerk. There are probably not more than a couple of times in the entire history of this board where he has sprayed his garbage into a bolting discussion and the discussion was thereafter brought back on track so that a variety of other people could state their views on the original topic.

 

In this arena (discussions of climbing ethics) I do in some measure hold Dwayner to a higher standard than those who so often resort to threats of violence or stupid potty jokes. This is largely because I think Dwayner has more to say than that.

 

Figger Eight entirely mischaracterizes my position when suggesting that I would require staunch ethicists to "play nicey nicey" in bolting discussions. They don't. But look back at the history of this board. These "stanch ethicists" that he may rightfully revere have greatly discouraged, and in large measure they have prevented serious and thoughtfull discussion -- for THREE YEARS!! IT IS NOT JUST DWAYNER, though, but in this arena (bolting ethics) the personal attacks and hostile rhetoric almost always start with some deliberate provocation from one of these heroes of the staunchly ethical climber's union. I'm not sure, but it may even be true to say that every single time the bolting debate has ever gone south, and it just about always DOES go south, the descent into hell started with some purposefully insulting bit of anti-bolt rhetoric.

 

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.

 

If you believe that we have a right to discuss bolting ethics without having the discussion flushed down the toilet every time it is brought up, what would you have Jon and Timmy do here? Another alternative that has been suggested is that somebody just start editting the hell out of Dwayner's posts. I think the "free speech" advocates on the site would probably find that a lot MORE offensive.

[Sphinx]

Hell, look at this thread, it proves Matt's point. What started out as a discussion of caves has now become another Dwayner-bolt thread. Pathetic. Dwayner, you suck.

[pope]

Sphinx said:

Fuck you, dipshit, don't speak for me. I don't feel 'guilty' when Dwayner posts a photo essay implying that sport climbers are gay. His 'questioning' is so ridiculous that the only emotion I feel is disdain for such a terminal loser. Speak for yourself, not for others. Now fuck off.

 

And then we have, "Pathetic. Dwayner, you suck. "

 

This, I assume, is the style of discussion to which Dwayner should have been aspiring for three years, in order to be considered a serious contributor to bolt discussions, in order that his comments might be viewed as something other than interruptions? Joke.

[mattp]

Pope-

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort.

 

Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

[pope]

mattp said:

Pope-

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort.

 

Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

 

Yes, Dwayner is guilty....and I AM GUILTY of stirring a bucket of shit. It is not, however, my fault, nor is it Dwayner's fault, that the bucket of shit exists in the first place!

[Sphinx]

pope said:

mattp said:

Pope-

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort.

 

Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

 

Yes, Dwayner is guilty....and I AM GUILTY of stirring a bucket of shit. It is not, however, my fault, nor is it Dwayner's fault, that the bucket of shit exists in the first place!

And you are forced by a vaguely humanoid power up in the sky (ie God) to stir that shit?

[pope]

Sphinx said:

pope said:

mattp said:

Pope-

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort.

 

Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

 

Yes, Dwayner is guilty....and I AM GUILTY of stirring a bucket of shit. It is not, however, my fault, nor is it Dwayner's fault, that the bucket of shit exists in the first place!

And you are forced by a vaguely humanoid power up in the sky (ie God) to stir that shit?

 

In order that, by the grace of God, we may find our esteemed moderator's suppository.

[EWolfe]

I remember a few years back when I was living in Bend, some climbers moved the rocks underneath one of the caves (the bouldering one) to make the landing better, and it raised quite a fuss. The rocks were put back to maintain authenticity of the cave environment.

[pope]

MisterE said:

I remember a few years back when I was living in Bend, some climbers moved the rocks underneath one of the caves (the bouldering one) to make the landing better, and it raised quite a fuss. The rocks were put back to maintain authenticity of the cave environment.

 

Who made a fuss? Climbers? I'm aware that my recreation is visual polution to other nonclimbers. I just feel guilty about leaving traces of my passage for others to experience, especially when climbing in an area frequented by hikers. I've felt this way since, as an adolescent, I was kicked out of my favorite bouldering area by the property owner, a man who had tolerated my visits for more than a year until one day he found us placing bolts for a top-rope anchor and said, "Enough."

 

I have plenty of adventure while attempting to pursue my "leave-only-footprints" attitude.

[AlpineK]

Dwayner and Pope both believe in a mythical past that doesn't exist. I betcha if you went back to the 70's things wouldn't be nearly as pure as D and P would have you believe.

 

Once apon a time there were lots of places to climb that were relatively easy to develop. Dwayner for example is a Californian; the great state of CA has oodles of places where routes are relitivly easy to put up.

 

Lets fast forward to today. The majority of easy lines to climb in WA were done from the 50s through the 70s. After that period new routes(cragging) had to go in areas where lots of prep work needed to be done, and when I say prep work I don't mean just bolting.

 

New routes today require extensive cleaning and depending on the route some bolting. The first ascent team ends up rapping their route to clean out cracks, scrub lichen off faces, etc. Because of this the ground up ethic is impossible to obtain(unless you can con someone into scrubbing but not climbing FAs ).

 

In my view once you've lost the ground up ethic and you've altered the cliff by removing vegetation you might as well place solid bolts in good spots.

 

A route with well placed, solid bolts will be popular and used. A route with crappy bolts poorly placed will not get much traffic and thus be an eyesore.

 

What does this all have to do with the cave I really don't know because I've never climbed there, but neither has Dwayner and he posted first.

 

 

[Sphinx]

I'm sure that if we were back in the good ol' days Dwhiner and Pop would be bitching about something else. Perhaps the loss fo nailing. Or the lack of respect that the good climbers gave them.

[Dwayner]

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.

 

[Dru]

AlpineK said:

 

 

What does this all have to do with the cave I really don't know because I've never climbed there,

 

 

its all the fault of that damn sherriff

[lummox]

this kina shit happens from time to time ad nauseum. story summary: some fs mother fucker gets a hard on over some minor issue and starts acting like a petty tyrant. all kina hell is raised and fs money is wasted (like the triplicate mailing for cave rock cuz the fucker kept fuckin up the paper work). in time the issue is neglected and people start doing what they done in the past all over again.

its always disapointing but an inevitable part of the human condition. i just try to appreciate the absurdism.

[mattp]

Dwayner said:

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?

 

In a word, Yes. You are clever, relentless and, more than anything else, manipulative. You have found a way to constantly push buttons and you damn near refuse to let an opportunity to ruin a thread pass you by.

 

P.S.

I believe I DO understand something about the connection between bolts and area closures and I do not think that the connection is anywhere near as simple as you state it to be.

 

Some conservationists who are not outdoor recreational users advocate closing some public lands to climbing, but they also include hiking and fishing and hunting in their list of detrimental activities. It is not bolts that they object to.

 

Most land managers don't even know what a bolt is, until some bolt-hating climber or an erupting bolt war brings the issue to their attention. Certainly, some sport areas have generated traffic, parking, erosion, or other impact issues, and these have lead to some area closures. However, I don't think that bolting practices have been, in themselves, directly responsible for very many area closures (maybe none).

[RuMR]

mattp said:

Dwayner said:

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?

 

In a word, Yes. You are clever, relentless and, more than anything else, manipulative. You have found a way to constantly push buttons and you damn near refuse to let an opportunity to ruin a thread pass you by.

 

P.S.

I believe I DO understand something about the connection between bolts and area closures and I do not think that the connection is anywhere near as simple as you state it to be.

 

Some conservationists who are not outdoor recreational users advocate closing some public lands to climbing, but they also include hiking and fishing and hunting in their list of detrimental activities. It is not bolts that they object to.

 

Most land managers don't even know what a bolt is, until some bolt-hating climber or an erupting bolt war brings the issue to their attention. Certainly, some sport areas have generated traffic, parking, erosion, or other impact issues, and these have lead to some area closures. However, I don't think that bolting practices have been, in themselves, directly responsible for very many area closures (maybe none).

 

Well put Matt...