exactly, and hence "right" under machiavellian standards.

I did not say it was just or fair. But I think it is generally how corporations seem to act in order to further their own interests.

"Right" is only applicable relative to a certain standard. Obviously, your standard is different from most of corporate america's, and the machivellian standard is not, I think, how you or I would choose to act among our peers, but it is how one nation (and other large social conglomerates) acts towards another, in general.

I feel we are now reaching an argument of definition, which I don't have much interest in continuing.

Let my people do the smurfs!

Sorry that was all you got out of my post, ken. bummer. Maybe it was boneheaded of me to toss out some positive spin in the middle of the table tennis. The new forum post is up if anyone reading this agreed with me, incidentally.

One last thing... You are always very adamant that people read your posts carefully, yet here I feel like I have to quote myself back to you.

You say: to say that Patagonia did the right thing by dropping Dean, when they exercised the poor and impetuous judgment of spraying his event to the media, shows that you have little regard for what is just and fair.

When my statement was: From this point of view, Patagonia dropping Dean and making him a scapegoat was the right decision to make to preserve the company's image. While I would argue that this is not an acceptable personal moral, I think it is how firms and nations work.

I thought it was clear that I was representing a point of view, and not how I, myself, would deal with the situation. Please counter the argument instead of making a personal attack. The point of defending possibly distasteful arguments in a debate is to provoke thought. Apparently I have provoked only insults...

Anyway...anyone going to be at the Gunks over Thanksgiving?

I wish I was drinking a beer on a rock ledge tonight.

-- this topic sucks!

bastards!

Mark said: "Bastards!"

LOL..I think I am going to start doing what you are doing...drinking a beer.

Marc,

I think they could have been more worried about losing business from the fleece-wearing RV crowd, but that is pure speculation. To that crowd, releasing someone viewed to be an irresponsible representative would be a positive move. While it might be negative in the climbing community, I think we are a financial minority, even among outdoorsmen. It is next to impossible to get pro-deals from Patagonia as a climber (in my experience), but every ski-patroller in the country gets one. It would be a choice between the lesser of two "evils", evil here meaning negative financial impact to the company.

I should prolly just cut myself off from further responses on this thread, as it got a lot more malicious than I would have liked, partly due to my own fault...

and to lighten the mood...

From one of my earlier posts:
Brad-- I'd be happy to answer your question. What about mine though? You quoted the question but didn't answer it.

Now that I've answered your questions, will you please answer mine: Do you really believe that I needed to read one particular post to understand what is at stake for the climbing community? Do you believe that my ascent broke any rules (I'm really curious about others' interpretation of the rules)? Do you think that the rules that I pulled of off the NPS are more clear than they were pre-'DA debacle?' Do you think that the 'blanket ban' protected the arches from imminent destruction or irreversible damage? Thanks for your time.

Brad--
What gives? Do you often tell people what to do or throw your opinion out there and not defend your position?? I took the time to consider your argument and respond. Why don't I deserve the same respect?

--Marc

Uhg! What a cluster!

Well said Ian, Andrew, Sam and Brad.

You (we) must take into consideration the policy-support and appeal to the majority of NPS users - that'd be basically ALL users outside of climbers.
Dean f'ed up and he knows it and he knew it and we are paying for it - PERIOD!!
Nothing here to argue. If you cannot understand policy and politics then don't waste your time with letters and trashy, ignorant comments.

The NPS is/are the Feds. That said, POLITICS is the game; not trashy, pseudo-rebellion from a small user group (esp. those who haven't a damn clue about the history and policy and how the two co-mingle w/in the NPS).

Ken -

I'm not a political negotiator/legislator, but I'm also no postal employee. I'll just say that I've spent many years with resources, use and jurisdictional policy (within Gov and without). And obviously I'm not attempting arbitration/moderation; just pointing out the painfully obvious flaws in some of this/your banter.
(BTW, ever wonder why some don't use their actual, full names?)

Besides, if someone is speaking out of pure ignorance (as Marc has demonstrated and admitted to), then, in forums like this, I tend to call it out, and usually match their tact.

I also find that it is best to get down (in this case) at the level of the person I am debating (as an opener at least). I am more than capable of rational, dignified debate, and have a solid record (which I won't be sharing).

That's it, I'm going climbing.

Ken: "So now that you've spoken for people about whom you have no clue of what their experience actually is, why don't you post your credentials here for everyone to see. Or are you just another judgmental blowhard?"

Did I read this wrong? Maybe you can help me to understand the clear and common language of/in your quoted post. My post fit for both forums, and I didn't feel it needed adjustment(s).

Ken, you're quickly sinking. . . .