Dwayner's back!

[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.

[snugtop]

[catbirdseat]

Who's speaking here, Sexual_Chocolate, Dwayner, or Pope? Can't tell who is being quoted or what.

 

And of course, I wouldn't want Pope banned. I was sorry to see Dwayner banned and would still like to see him return.

 

Also, there is a difference between "extreme" and "lunatic". I never accused either of you of being the latter, which would be someone who wanted to shut down all climbing.

Edited December 17, 2005 by catbirdseat

[foraker]

1) See me not caring.

2) If people want to be stupid on the Internet, I don't see why they should be banned for it. However, I like to see it happen. There are some people who do not play well with others. If you want to have a more interesting life, I suggest you go out climbing or skiing or whatever more instead of spending too much time here.

3) If I ran a site and I felt someone was being sufficiently stupid and annoying, I'd ban them without losing any sleep over it or justifying it to anyone. One's site is not something publically owned in which you might have a right to speech. You are here at the pleasure of the site owners. It has always been understood to be thus. Read it. Know it. Live it.

[Dave_Schuldt]

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?

[pope]

Who's speaking here, Sexual_Chocolate, Dwayner, or Pope? Can't tell who is being quoted or what.

 

And of course, I wouldn't want Pope banned. I was sorry to see Dwayner banned and would still like to see him return.

 

Also, there is a difference between "extreme" and "lunatic". I never accused either of you of being the latter, which would be someone who wanted to shut down all climbing.

 

SIT DOWN!

[whoohoonickieclimbs]

OK..........I need to know WHO IS DWAYNER?.....

FACTS! I need some facts!

[EWolfe]

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?

 

Dave, really. He's back:

 

Your Buddy!

[Dru]

Possibly NSFW of Dwayner's back

[whoohoonickieclimbs]

Ewww......wished I had not clicked there!!!!!!! The hair just got worse farther south you looked!

[textileman]

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.

[textileman]

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?

 

Dave, really. He's back:

 

Your Buddy!

 

No, YOUR buddy:

 

[archenemy]

Welcome back.

[crazyjizzy]

I'm glad Dwayner is back. He should never have been banned, it was the most petty and specious banning here. Let him talk long and hard about sport climbing, if it bores you, use the ignore feature moron.

[Distel32]

there are currently 8 threads on dwayner's return....a new low for cc.com

[EWolfe]

You're just jealous cause there's only one on your return!

[snugtop]

But does Dwayner have his own graemlin? Nope!

[Dave_Schuldt]

there are currently 8 threads on dwayner's return....a new low for cc.com