Name Changes Due

[RuMR]

yes...i know that...my point is he holds that up as a model of what to be!

 

of course, my era had the uber-fag lycra shit going on...

[kevbone]

 

if i owned this website, you and dwayner would have had your very own forum a hell of a long time ago. you could have named it anything you want-get creative here-and there you would have gone on and on about your pet peeves about sportos and blah blah blah.

i would never have put up with your insistent whining on every thread for as long as the owners of this site have. if you didn't stay in your forum, then it's B-BYE!

 

as things are, you should be hella greatful that you both haven't been 86'd for your insistence on being such incessant pests. which is what you are. pests.

 

wah wah wah cuz your posts got moved? what a sense of entitlement!

 

 

Thank God you don’t own the site. Silencing people simply because you don’t agree with them is lame as lame gets. I don’t agree with a word that either of them write. I do however think they should have to right to say it. Heaven forbid they discuss rock climbing in a rock climbing forum.

 

And to all the pope and raindawg bashers (me included)…..try not reading their posts, or replying. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

K

 

[Pete_H]

I wish they'd silence your whiny ass.

[RuMR]

echo that!

[lancegranite]

Also, I am hopelessly furious about the Bolt decision.

[pink]

yes...i know that...my point is he holds that up as a model of what to be!

 

of course, my era had the uber-fag lycra shit going on...

 

 

HAD???? what r u talkin about?

[RuMR]

pinxie, one of these days i'm gonna stomp your ass...

Edited December 8, 2009 by RuMR

[RuMR]

and you're gonna piss and moan...

[el jefe]

 

if i owned this website, you and dwayner would have had your very own forum a hell of a long time ago. you could have named it anything you want-get creative here-and there you would have gone on and on about your pet peeves about sportos and blah blah blah.

i would never have put up with your insistent whining on every thread for as long as the owners of this site have. if you didn't stay in your forum, then it's B-BYE!

 

as things are, you should be hella greatful that you both haven't been 86'd for your insistence on being such incessant pests. which is what you are. pests.

 

wah wah wah cuz your posts got moved? what a sense of entitlement!

 

 

Thank God you don’t own the site. Silencing people simply because you don’t agree with them is lame as lame gets. I don’t agree with a word that either of them write. I do however think they should have to right to say it. Heaven forbid they discuss rock climbing in a rock climbing forum.

 

And to all the pope and raindawg bashers (me included)…..try not reading their posts, or replying. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

K

 

kev, let me help you connect the dots. a discussion is this:

 

discuss

verb [ trans. ]

• talk or write about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different ideas and opinions

 

a rant is this:

 

rant |rant|

verb [ intrans. ]

speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way : she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

noun

a spell of ranting; a tirade : his rants against organized religion.

PHRASES

rant and rave: shout and complain angrily and at length.

 

raindawg and pope don't discuss climbing ethics, they rant about sport climbing. a discussion would belong in the "rock climbing" forum, but a rant belongs in "spray".

 

i hope this helps.

 

jefe

[Hugh Conway]

and you're gonna piss and moan...

 

pinks going to move to Seattle? Woah - I'm sorry pink. Seattle's the hot chic who spread her legs once a month all the while sneering at you.

 

but the sex is still great

[Kimmo]

kev, let me help you connect the dots. a discussion is this:

 

discuss

verb [ trans. ]

• talk or write about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different ideas and opinions

 

a rant is this:

 

rant |rant|

verb [ intrans. ]

speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way : she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

noun

a spell of ranting; a tirade : his rants against organized religion.

PHRASES

rant and rave: shout and complain angrily and at length.

 

raindawg and pope don't discuss climbing ethics, they rant about sport climbing. a discussion would belong in the "rock climbing" forum, but a rant belongs in "spray".

 

i hope this helps.

 

jefe

 

well put. succinct and to the point. their posts belong in spray, or in their own rant column.

[Pete_H]

 

 

Damn Pink, your girlfriend sure has some saggy titties.

[chirp]

 

 

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) better known as the "Boldt Decision", was a controversial 1974 court case which affirmed the right of most of the tribes in the U.S. state of Washington to continue to harvest salmon. Many opponents of this case couch it as a "grant" of rights to the tribes. More accurately, the decision was simply affirming that when the Tribes released their interest in the millions of acres of land in Washington State through a series of treaties signed in 1854 and 1855, they reserved the right to continue fishing. For example, the Treaty of Medicine Creek (1854) includes the following language: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory." Most of the treaties negotiated by Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens included this, or very similar, language.

 

To interpret this article of these treaties, United States District Court Judge Boldt looked at the minutes of the treaty negotiations to determine the meaning of "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes, and determined that the United States intended for there to be an equal sharing of the fish resource between the Tribes and the settlers.

 

Of this, Judge Boldt wrote: "By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."

 

The decision was the culmination of years of State of Washington limitation of treaty fishing by the Tribes, resulting in the United States suing the State of Washington to force the state to comply with the treaties. It was immediately met with shock and outrage by non-Native fishermen, but the ruling has held for more than 30 years.

 

The Boldt decision also upheld that U.S. federal treaties signed with the Native Americans continue to be in effect as are all International Treaties agreed to with the U.S. government.

 

 

[pink]

pinxie, one of these days i'm gonna stomp your ass...

 

 

can u reach it, might have a better shot at my toe.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

pinxie, one of these days i'm gonna stomp your ass...

 

 

can u reach it, might have a better shot at my camel toes.

 

fixed that for ya...

 

btw, do they really sag that much?

[olyclimber]

Reflecting on the recent Alan Watts post, and having reviewed OW's intervention, one can only infer that Peter Puget's Rock Climbing Forum requires a new title: the Sport Climbing Forum. Otherwise, why shouldn't a FULL discussion of the impact of Alan's influence on rock climbing be allowed in a "rock climbing" forum? While Raindawg and I directed our comments squarely on topic, the original thread (even OW's edited version) includes personal attacks and speculation about the motivations of anybody who would suggest sport climbing hasn't been a positive development. Seriously, if discussion of the evils of sport climbing is going to be taboo (even in a thread where sport climbing's Godfather is profiled), how can we continue to call PP's forum "the rock climbing forum?"

 

While we're at it, perhaps OW would consider changing his name to Cave Man, a title which would accuratley reflect how he caved in to the demands of those who demanded our silencing.

 

 

How about we call it "Grampa's Climbing Forum"? Then people can come learn how it was like to climb back in the good ole days? Back to one or two men's description of what climbing is? I've have said for a very long time that I think you guys represent a view point that others might share. But you don't seem acknowledge that just because you believe in something, that there is anyway anyone else might not share the same viewpoints? or the same spite?

 

Do I need to warn you to the evils of megalomania? Have you taken the torch of climbing from someone more informed? Or are you placing the wrong emphasis what is really important?

 

 

 

[pope]

Reflecting on the recent Alan Watts post, and having reviewed OW's intervention, one can only infer that Peter Puget's Rock Climbing Forum requires a new title: the Sport Climbing Forum. Otherwise, why shouldn't a FULL discussion of the impact of Alan's influence on rock climbing be allowed in a "rock climbing" forum? While Raindawg and I directed our comments squarely on topic, the original thread (even OW's edited version) includes personal attacks and speculation about the motivations of anybody who would suggest sport climbing hasn't been a positive development. Seriously, if discussion of the evils of sport climbing is going to be taboo (even in a thread where sport climbing's Godfather is profiled), how can we continue to call PP's forum "the rock climbing forum?"

 

While we're at it, perhaps OW would consider changing his name to Cave Man, a title which would accuratley reflect how he caved in to the demands of those who demanded our silencing.

 

 

How about we call it "Grampa's Climbing Forum"? Then people can come learn how it was like to climb back in the good ole days? Back to one or two men's description of what climbing is? I've have said for a very long time that I think you guys represent a view point that others might share. But you don't seem acknowledge that just because you believe in something, that there is anyway anyone else might not share the same viewpoints? or the same spite?

 

Do I need to warn you to the evils of megalomania? Have you taken the torch of climbing from someone more informed? Or are you placing the wrong emphasis what is really important?

 

 

 

Offering an opinion on the history of and current state of bolting applications.... in a "rock climbing forum", in a thread linking an interview with a man who helped to promote this revolution.... is not spray. Virtually every response in opposition to my opinion consisted of insults, questioning of my climbing ability, speculation about my motives, charges of being afraid of new technology, character attacks, etc. Virtually the only attempt to discuss the appropriateness of rap bolting came in the form of an excuse that its impacts are less than some irrelevant road, ski resort, global warming report or whatever. That is spray. I think it is high time for some of you to admit that it isn't the message that you find annoying, nor its delivery. It is your own lack of ability to counter the message.

[pope]

Pope, you haven't been "silenced." At least four posts of yours remain in the thread, including "Thanks for nothing Mr. Watts." Your and Raindawg's position is more than ably expressed there, all out of proportion to the actual percentage of climbers your extreme position represents.

 

Not only that, everything you wrote that was cut can be found in the ongoing "Sport vs Trad" thread right here in Spray. You've been redirected, not "silenced." I'm a traffic cop, not the CIA.

 

Full discussion? We can't attempt any such thing without you and Raindawg, insistent quasi-anonymous internet cranks that you are, showing up to rant from your soapbox. Its gotten to the point that everyone knows what's going to happen anytime the subject of sport climbing comes up, much to the detriment of adult conversation and the reputation of this website. You are granted far more consideration than your behavior merits.

 

You're a pragmatic liberal, a fan of free and open discussion provided it doesn't make anybody think, provided it promotes the illusion that the current casual attitude toward bolting every sqaure inch of easily accessed top-ropable bluff is enthusiastically accepted by everybody who enjoys the freedom of the hills. All other discourse will be promptly demoted to "spray" where you're free to discuss pirates, bacon, MJ's murder and smoking pot in the Muir hut.

 

"Look out! Here they come again! It's that bunch of guys who live in the old joke: it's YOU and two billion of your closest friends standing in shit up to your chins, chanting, 'DON'T MAKE A WAVE!'"

 

Frank Zappa (naturally)

[kevbone]

Offering an opinion on the history of and current state of bolting applications.... in a "rock climbing forum", in a thread linking an interview with a man who helped to promote this revolution.... is not spray.

 

 

Very true.

[Off_White]

Pope, your opinion is still represented in that thread. Its time for you to stop acting like a child.

[Off_White]

You should also consider the possibility that other poster's reaction is not about your opinion, its about you personally, your tone of voice, your presentation of yourself.

[pope]

Virtually every response in opposition to my opinion consisted of insults, questioning of my climbing ability, speculation about my motives, charges of being afraid of new technology, character attacks, etc.

 

Its time for you to stop acting like a child.

 

 

Now we're in an appropriate forum!

 

[olyclimber]

Reflecting on the recent Alan Watts post, and having reviewed OW's intervention, one can only infer that Peter Puget's Rock Climbing Forum requires a new title: the Sport Climbing Forum. Otherwise, why shouldn't a FULL discussion of the impact of Alan's influence on rock climbing be allowed in a "rock climbing" forum? While Raindawg and I directed our comments squarely on topic, the original thread (even OW's edited version) includes personal attacks and speculation about the motivations of anybody who would suggest sport climbing hasn't been a positive development. Seriously, if discussion of the evils of sport climbing is going to be taboo (even in a thread where sport climbing's Godfather is profiled), how can we continue to call PP's forum "the rock climbing forum?"

 

While we're at it, perhaps OW would consider changing his name to Cave Man, a title which would accuratley reflect how he caved in to the demands of those who demanded our silencing.

 

 

How about we call it "Grampa's Climbing Forum"? Then people can come learn how it was like to climb back in the good ole days? Back to one or two men's description of what climbing is? I've have said for a very long time that I think you guys represent a view point that others might share. But you don't seem acknowledge that just because you believe in something, that there is anyway anyone else might not share the same viewpoints? or the same spite?

 

Do I need to warn you to the evils of megalomania? Have you taken the torch of climbing from someone more informed? Or are you placing the wrong emphasis what is really important?

 

 

 

Offering an opinion on the history of and current state of bolting applications.... in a "rock climbing forum", in a thread linking an interview with a man who helped to promote this revolution.... is not spray. Virtually every response in opposition to my opinion consisted of insults, questioning of my climbing ability, speculation about my motives, charges of being afraid of new technology, character attacks, etc. Virtually the only attempt to discuss the appropriateness of rap bolting came in the form of an excuse that its impacts are less than some irrelevant road, ski resort, global warming report or whatever. That is spray. I think it is high time for some of you to admit that it isn't the message that you find annoying, nor its delivery. It is your own lack of ability to counter the message.

 

OK. I considered your notion...but no, I still think it is the delivery.

[richard_noggin]

 

 

 

Now we're in an appropriate forum!

 

Dang he will just not stop! That is why you sir are in spray. Your like a little kid, you throw sand in our face and wonder why we won’t let you play in the sand box with the rest of us. No sir you are free to spray sand all you want in the spray box where you belong, blah! ba! blah! ba! blah! it must suck to be soooo annoying.

[billcoe]

Pope, just go back and review the entire thread called "Sport vs Trad which I linked. http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/896687/Sport_vs_Trad#Post896687 There are 1300 mostly worthless posts on this very subject. You and Raindawg in particular sprayed hard on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and were unable to convert anyone. Everyone who posted to that thread showed up with a existing opinion and they all got expressed multiple times. Overwhelmingly almost everyone is saying you guys are full of beans and there is a multitude of reasons why.

 

So for you to show up and start pissing on Alan's informational thread and start kicking him in the balls over your personal failed agenda moments after he shows up to say hi and give us some info shows an huge lack of class. Had you done that in person around a campfire, you would have been bitch slapped and had your ass kicked. Not by Alan cause he's too damn nice. By all of Alan's many, many friends. For that kind of crap you pulled won't just chase off Alan, but most sane and rational climbers, some that are more old school and pure than you, who are thinking of posting. In the end, those kinds of actions are not just immature, but very destructive to the normal folks who like to come here. You and Don need to review what it already says on the thread in the header right under where it says

ROCK CLIMBING FORUM: "Come Join Peter Puget for inspiring discussions on the joys of cragging in a spray free zone. "

 

In case you aren't aware, no one - I mean no on, finds your incessant droning on this subject inspiring, and everyone can agree, as this thread of hundreds of angry contentious posts on this very subject attests to the sprayness of the subject.

 

Now you want to whine about it and restart it, and are upset that you can't have another 1300 post angry divisive identical topic right where the rest of us want to see inspiring discussions on the joys of cragging in a spray free zone. "[/i]. Take it to spray, and refire up the existing thread on this very subject.

 

Thanks OW for moving it!

 

..and thanks for that pic pink, it's why I show up here. Love the Willans harness there OW, were you getting off the stone, heading up or just camping next to the road?

 

pic of my son.

photo: Jeff Thomas