SOUTHERN ARIZONA CLIMBING ETIQUETTE - XXX - January-------Subtracting bolts (Chop Chop)

There's so much angst on this thread I'm not even sure who that message is directed towards. Personally, I seriously just wanted to see where the line went... how badly did it interfere with Lumpy Unmentionables... how long were the stretches of chipping... I think this would just satisfy curiosity and help clarify things for everyone involved.

Cuddlebunny, I'll let Geir, Aleix or David draw the route in. They would be more accurate than I. (I don't remember it doing all those zigs and zags like Bob drew in though?)

One more note. On the second pitch it is possible to actually stem over into the Knead me chimney. Which of course means if you were climbing knead me there is now a point where you could reach over and clip a few bolts on Scott's route.

So I just read EFR's quote from several days ago: "Hearsay is not first hand information. If I said someone heard Scott said... that would be hearsay. I actually heard him say things. That is first hand not hearsay."

I've been following this thread for a while because it is more wholesome entertainment than cage fighting, and to some degree educational too. But I missed a week's worth of posts because I'm in the middle of a month-long murder trial. So arguing about hearsay, now I just gotta dork out and wade in. Reminds me of something I hear all the time: "Its not hearsay. Its what he said." Guess what? That is hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court (out of forum?) statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is hearsay, even if you heard it said. Hence the name?

But hey, EFR, there are lots of hearsay exceptions, so dont give up hope, I suggest statement by party-opponent or statement against interest in this instance.... Again, sorry to dork out on such a non-climbing topic, but it is snowing here in Flag and i'm too sick to hit the gym.

And by the way, land managers as boogeymen, as the boulder guy said, is pure genius....

Dan Cohen said "Just so you understand what hearsay is, Eric, I'll explain how it works. If someone told you something someone else said, that would be hearsay. If you heard it yourself, it wouldn't be hearsay to you. However, if you tell us something that someone said, it is hearsay. Hearsay is dependent on the degree of closeness of the speaker of uncorroborated accusations to the listener. Again, let me clarify: if the original speaker said it to you, it's not hearsay; if you passed on the words to me, it is hearsay. Hopefully you can understand the distinction."

This is even more wrong. Sorry to belabor the point, but I want to be fair.... see previous.

Jimbo,

Your denial of any wrongdoing in handling of the situation shows your apparent lack of understanding of what a just solution is. Becoming part of the solution means accepting culpability, which will go a long way in reducing the acrimony over this entire situation. Being that you continue to deny any culpability and refuse to address the vast majority of the points I have presented, it is obvious that you have no interest in a solution. Your desire to wash your hands of the situation indicates that your concept of a solution is what you have already done. Until you begin to recognize the magnitude of the errors you made in the handling of this, any attempt to arrive at a solution is premature.

Jimbo wrote:Do you think we need to go back up and re-bolt the climb? Is this "the solution"? Is giving Scotty his hangers back "the solution?"

Jimbo, let me make this clear: the chopped bolts and pilfered hangers are not the crux of the issue. They are minuscule in comparison to the overarching personal issues. As Bob said, this is not about the route. So, I say this as emphatically as possible; no, re-bolting the climb and/or giving Scott the hangers back are not the solution.

Jimbo wrote:You can whine all you want about how we handled the situation, but it's done.

Clearly, this is not done. How you handle the situation from here forward determines that. Discussions will happen whether you want them to or not. Your participation in working towards accepting culpability will aid exponentially toward defusing the acrimony.

Your continued aggression and insults do nothing to support your case. The only serve to undermine your credibility. If there were any substance to your logic, you would embrace constructive behavior and your logic would be self-evident.

You took David Merin's hearsay that Scott would not go fill in the chiseled holds.It's obvious that the message Scott gave David was lost or confused somewhere on its way to you.. Had you received an answer from David that you found suitable, it would have changed your behavior. Instead of confirming David's hearsay, you guys failed to go to the next level of basic diplomacy. How does that look in, in terms of, as Geir said, "exhausting all diplomatic options?" All you had to do to confirm this was make a simple phone call, but you failed to do that. You avoided direct and personal communication with Scott using David as a proxy. You had no interest in a solution based on compromise then, just like you have no interest in it now.

Jimbo wrote:Most posters think we fixed a mess more that we created one.

You are deluded into thinking that a handful of people backing you up on the internet constitutes the vast majority of people thinking you did a good job. It would serve you well to wake up from your delusion that the community, whether it be online or that of southern Arizona, approves of the misguided and intensely personal way you handled the situation.

Considering the visibility of this thread, which at this point there are nearly 14,000 views of this thread, including around 1,000 in the past day, and the comparatively tiny number of people are backing you and defending the way you handled the situation, it is clear that virtually no mountainproject user outside of your group of friends supports your actions. There are lurkers from all across the country observing your continued defiance in the face of a thorough and measured counter-argument to the way this way handled. For them, your unwillingness or inability to engage in rational debate is raw entertainment at the expense of the southern Arizona climbing community.

Jimbo wrote:What is your "solution"? what exactly do you think we do next?

To answer your question of what my solution is, I think you first need to look at the deconstruction of the evidence. After full and careful reexamination of the way you and Geir have handled this, and the logical fallacies of those you have supported your methods, you can then begin to grasp the scale of your error. Finally, you can begin to formulate the thought processes necessary to take part in a solution based in compromise instead of vendetta and grudges.

So, In order to facilitate your understanding of the mistakes you made, I will continue to publicly examine your actions.

Thank the gods!

This is my last post on this subject. Sorry readers but my part in this show is at an end. I will be making guest appearances on other treads in the future.

Dan,

Knock youreslf out, and get a life.

JMo wrote:Dan Cohen said "Just so you understand what hearsay is, Eric, I'll explain how it works. If someone told you something someone else said, that would be hearsay. If you heard it yourself, it wouldn't be hearsay to you. However, if you tell us something that someone said, it is hearsay. Hearsay is dependent on the degree of closeness of the speaker of uncorroborated accusations to the listener. Again, let me clarify: if the original speaker said it to you, it's not hearsay; if you passed on the words to me, it is hearsay. Hopefully you can understand the distinction." This is even more wrong. Sorry to belabor the point, but I want to be fair.... see previous.

I apologize for my amateurish description of hearsay. Below, is the wikipedia description:

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.

Dan Cohen wrote: it is clear that virtually no mountainproject user outside of your group of friends supports your actions.

You should do a poll if you're so certain of this...
As one of the "lurkers" you talk about i can say i wholeheartedly support Jimbo's and Geirs actions on this. I find your insistance for some kind of kumbayah moment to be stranger than the fact that a chipped route got chopped

Quit citing Wikipedia! It is not a credible source. Sheez

Editted to add: Dan you have provided no cronstuctive infomation to this topic. Seems all you care about stirring the pot. No one really cares what hearsay is or how a legal system works. It seems all your questions and response are on a personal level and having nothing to do with the community or local ethics. I bet if YOU let this finish running it's course, we might get somewhere instead of trying to debate petty topics. Just sayin.

"I bet if YOU let this finish running it's course, we might get somewhere instead of trying to debate petty topics. Just sayin."

That isn't saying much really. The deeds are done.

Just a bunch of sideline, after the fact bitching going on.

Derek Lawrence wrote: You should do a poll if you're so certain of this... As one of the "lurkers" you talk about i can say i wholeheartedly support Jimbo's and Geirs actions on this. I find your insistance for some kind of kumbayah moment to be stranger than the fact that a chipped route got chopped

Derek,

My thoughts on a poll are as follows: I think the only people that come out of the woodwork to voice their opinion on this subject are those who feel strongly one way or the other. Considering that no one supports chipping (myself included), the only side of that argument that would vote are those who, like yourself, feel very strongly about the issues. So, I think voter bias would be very prevalent in a poll. If we can think of a way to poll a random sample of mountainproject users, that might reduce bias.

I'm not insisting on any sort of 'kumbayah moment.' I'm simply pointing out logical fallacies and asking questions. I hope for the most positive outcome possible; I think most of us do, right? However, I am realistic. The minimum acceptable outcome of this is that there are no more vigilante choppings in southern Arizona. Certainly, I'd like for this to extend all over, but this certain posse is concerned specifically with Scotts's routes in Cochise Stronghold.

As one of the "lurkers" you talk about i can say i wholeheartedly support Jimbo's and Geirs actions on this.

The term wholeheartedly means, to me, that you feel strongly about the issues. Am I correct in assuming that? There are two issues here that need to be looked at separately. The first issue is the chipping. You and I are in complete agreement on that issue. I am unequivocally and fully opposed to chipping and chiseling. You would agree with that, right?

The second issue is the chopping. My problem is with is the deplorable and rushed way in which this was handled.

My question to you is a hypothetical one: If there is a known drug dealer, is it justified, in your opinion, for the police to plant drugs on the dealer in order to bust him?

I'm sure people havent replied because they dont want to get drug into an extended discourse on the subject... a yes/no annonymous vote would be different i'm sure
Since our divergent issue is with the chopping...
IMO - As long as a bolt was not placed on private property with the implicit permision of the land owner, there is as much right for someone to chop that bolt as there was for it to be placed. (And i say that having placed numerous bolts myself). Bolted routes that stick within local ethics (whatever they may be) tend to stick around. Bolted routes that sway from the local ethics sometimes have problems... That is the way its been for as long as i've been climbing (which is almost as old as you) The only difference i see here is that the choppers actually discussed it beforehand. Most of the time the route/bolts are just gone...
i do not see how your hypthetical question relates so i'm not going there....

These Cochise threads have a lot of emotion in them and it is known that that can cloud peoples thoughts.

I have read that Scott Ayers might not be putting up new routes.

That might mean that the issue is dead.

I would like to think that climbing has been self-regulated well. This "unknown" route pushed things to the edge.

I would like to see climbing and climbing commentary get back to normal ASAP.

It is comments/posts like these that are really lame and unneeded.

thomas ellis wrote:Dan Cohen, you seriously need to take a break. Are you retarded or something? When you were a kid did you try to win arguments by repeating yourself until someone either slapped you or left the room? Please shut up This is just my personal opinion and I have not taken a poll but I would be willing to bet that the majority of users would agree (even Mr Ayers [unless you are MR Ayers]) SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

No post like these are really lame and unneeded. At least most of it. There are some issues on here that are valid but deal with them in private. That what everyone's issue is.

Dan Cohen wrote: So, you are saying Geir threw votes out? You don't take issue with, according to your words above, Geir ignoring your vote (and perhaps others)? If that does not prove to you that Geir had decided on the the punishment for Scott long before the vote, I'm not sure you can be helped. If a corrupt politician modified voting results, would you have a problem with that, Aleix? Would you have a problem with said politician modifying results even if you agreed with the agenda? If my parallel is not clear enough, that is exactly what you have done. You had no qualms with however illegitimate the process was, as long as your, Geir and Jimbo's agenda was fulfilled. Your lack of integrity and accountability in the entire process is pathetic. Your, Geir and Jimbo's voting process was akin to putting lipstick on a pig. I apologize to any pigs who might be offended by the comparison. Aleix, there are two possibilities that explain your accusations of me lying. You either 1, don't understand the meaning of "personally," or are lying that you don't understand the definition. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not a liar, as you readily accused me of. In that spirit, let's clarify the definition of "personally" (note that I have put words in bold to show the relevant parts): Here are the results for a simple google search for "personally:" per·son·al·ly/ˈpərsənəlç/Adverb 1. With the personal presence or action of the individual specified; in person. 2. Used to indicate that a specified person and no other is involved in something. By definition 1, Scott was not contacted in person. By definition 2, Scott was not contacted in a way that no other is involved. If you still have issue with the definition of "personally," I suggest you take it up with the folks at dictionary.com. Perhaps they would consider, as you have, changing the definition of "personally" to suit Geir and Jimbo's agenda. Aleix, I understand you personally (refer to above section for clarification of that word) spoke with Scott last night on the telephone. Do you stand by your accusation that Scott lied, or I lied? I have repeatedly said that anything Scott has told me is hearsay. This seems to be another concept you are unable to grasp. Going back to our old friend, the dictionary, we define hearsay as: 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay. 2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay. Please bear with me, Aleix. Assuming you now have some understanding of this concept, it seems rather impossible for me to have lied, considering that by hearsay, I meant that my statement about the existence of a bolt ladder is unverified and not part of my direct knowledge. According to you, they did not execute your vote. They threw out your vote. Simply because they executed the agenda you voted for does not mean they executed your vote. There is a clear distinction that I don't know if you are able to grasp. If you need further clarification on this, I would do that for you. If you'll notice, for the last few days, except for his recent post above, Geir has mostly disappeared from the thread. His most recent post above does nothing to address the questions I posed to him. Geir claimed he would take his lumps for his actions, but as soon as the heat was turned up on him, he turned tail and has retreated into hiding. Instead of defending his actions, he relies on you and others, to fight his doomed battles. Furthermore, Geir refuses to respond to any of my attempts to personally (hopefully you understand the definition by now) contact him. The same can not be said for Scott. Considering Scott made multiple efforts to contact you, as well as countless others, you are absolutely wrong that he has not been up-front. Please refute me. If you don't, I will be forced to assume that you retract your accusations that I lied.

The idea that this is a private matter died on 11/6 when Geir failed to do what he claimed is the right thing to do. See previous pages where he quotes the bible saying that one should solve their problems between one another and then involve friends and if this does not work as a last resort involve others. Geir failed to contact Scott privately. Instead Geir dragged the community into it by posting here first.

Finally, someone has seen what I was tying to point out. The Atheist and the Christian posted a "funny" picture of themselves dressed as jihadists that we were all supposed to laugh at. I am not laughing. It seems that by dressing up these cowards were going to make a joke out of the whole thing. Cowards that only revealed themselves after people thought it was funny and they knew they would get away with it. Why did they post that picture on MP? They did not post it with their names. Executing what they believe to be right and wrong.

Dan has clearly pointed out that even though the route was not perfect in its inception the way these two guys went about chopping the route was flawed as well.

I don't want jihadists controlling any climbing area.

These two got a few regular users on this website to vote when they needed to and now state that they don't want to hear from the rest of us because we missed the cut off. It is too bad that the majority of the people on this website are really just interested in the hotheaded stuff but when someone writes something that challenges them they loose interest.

thomas ellis wrote:Dan Cohen, you seriously need to take a break. Are you retarded or something? When you were a kid did you try to win arguments by repeating yourself until someone either slapped you or left the room? Please shut up This is just my personal opinion and I have not taken a poll but I would be willing to bet that the majority of users would agree (even Mr Ayers [unless you are MR Ayers]) SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

Clearly, you are a very intelligent individual who has an astounding ability to understand logic and analogy. I appreciate your effort to carefully construct well thought out points. It does not go unnoticed. So, you should understand that my continued examination of the players in the chopping and this thread is not for the likes of your unquestionably high intelligence. Rather, it is intended to expose the crude nature of the actions of the participants in the chopping and this thread.

ryan dillon wrote:Editted to add: Dan you have provided no cronstuctive infomation to this topic. Seems all you care about stirring the pot. No one really cares what hearsay is or how a legal system works. It seems all your questions and response are on a personal level and having nothing to do with the community or local ethics. I bet if YOU let this finish running it's course, we might get somewhere instead of trying to debate petty topics. Just sayin.

Please, find one of the many points I have made and show me, using sound logic, how it does not make sense or is on a personal level. I invite you, or anyone to do so. Unless you can do that, you might want to stop making these accusations.

ryan dillon wrote:No post like these are really lame and unneeded. At least most of it. There are some issues on here that are valid but deal with them in private. That what everyone's issue is.

Maybe you missed it before, but I'll repeat myself. I privately contacted Geir with an email addressing several points. He refused to discuss anything. Several days ago, I sent Geir a second email, offering that we move to discussion to a private venue, under the condition that he would recognize me as a legitimate person. Again, he refused. So, my only other recourse is to publicly examine his actions and all of those involved.

OK Dan. You have admitted that after trying to contact Geir several times to no avail you still want to push your agenda. But the problem I see is this: your issues are with persons who are tired of responding to you. Many folks have tried to explain to you their side of the argument as well as point out that what is done is done. Start a new thread with a very specific agenda or please (sorry for the inflammatory remarks before) move on. This thread as it seems has gone on too long and what good could have come from it has long since died. I for one am getting ready to go climbing for the afternoon and hopefully you get to do the same.
PS: We get it! You think the decision to chop the route the way they did was not democratic enough. Please at least stop repeating this. 9 PAGES!!!!!!!!!

Dan,

Majority of your post are written in a way that you seem to be talking down to people. You feel justified by all your post, which you should, but nobody honestly cares what hearsay is or how the legal system works. We all can agree that the chiselling was wrong and everyone, including yourself, seems content with it being patched and returned to some what of an orignal state. The chopping of the routes is a different story. In time if this is such an issue it will fix it's self.

Perhaps I was wrong about saying you are making it personal and what not. I'll agree that you do try to keep it unpersonal but the fact is with a matter like this, where everyone feels strongly in one way or another, it's gonna get a little personal. Anyways I will keep quiet and observe from the sidelines and wish you all the luck with your arguements.