By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: PS: Marc, what happened with your ER bill? C'mon, update here or the health thread. Purty please...
I've settled with the MDs billing company and the company that did the actual testing. Still battling the hospital itself. I'll let you know the final total when I get one.
--Marc
P.S. Sorry for posting in this thread; I'm too lazy to go find the other one right now. When I get a final total, I will find it and post. | 
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Jul 24, 2008
| Dudes, NSFOD knows what Marc's argument is, and Marc knows what NSFOD's is. Why this pretend obtuseness? It raises tensions.
NSFOD asserts that the principle of obedience to law answers both situations.
Marc asserts a different principle: that society may have an interest in limiting his actions in order to protect other people or other interests, like endangered species (news flash--falcons aren't endangered; they came off the list years ago) but society has no legitimate interest in limiting the risks he chooses to take.
NSFOD's argument is stronger about the world that IS; Marc's may be stronger about the world that SHOULD BE...but that's open to argument:)
PS: Thanks for the update, Marc. |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Why this pretend obtuseness? It raises tensions.
[LOL] I wasn't pretending. I really wanted him to make a connection for me. Thanks for calling me obtuse (I'm not really offended; I find it more funny than offensive).
Shawn Mitchell wrote: Marc asserts a different principle: that society may have an interest in limiting his actions in order to protect other people or other interests, like endangered species (news flash--falcons aren't endangered; they came off the list years ago) but society has no legitimate interest in limiting the risks he chooses to take.
That's an interesting argument. I wish I had thought of it.
Shawn Mitchell wrote: NSFOD's argument is stronger about the world that IS; Marc's may be stronger about the world that SHOULD BE...
I like how you not only made our arguments for us, but then dissected each as well. Good work! :)
--Marc
Edit: I'm still not sure I see a connection between jumping and falcon bans. I also think that if the NPS has its druthers, climbing would be banned entirely. They seem to like only tourists that come to the parks; stay in hotels; spend money at the endless souvenir shops; and walk the paved trails. |
FLAG |
By Hank Caylor
Administrator
From Left Hand Canyon, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Just outa curiosity, Hank: Have any BASE jumpers started that way, or does everyone learn on an airplane? I assume anything else is madness...?
This was a very well known jumper with THOUSANDS of jumps, and yeah most folks have at least a 100-200 skydives before they are even considered for BASE jumping. An equipment manufacturer won't even sell you the gear without proof and references. And other BASE jumpers will not teach you without at least these prerequisites. Kind of a tight knit sorta sport/community. |
FLAG |
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: I also think that if the NPS has its druthers, climbing would be banned entirely. They seem to like only tourists that come to the parks; stay in hotels; spend money at the endless souvenir shops; and walk the paved trails.
OK, I'll bite.
How, exactly, did you reach this rather sweeping conclusion? The NPS is far from perfect, but they do a pretty damn good job considering their limited budget and the many competing interests for park use. |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Jul 24, 2008
| :) In that case, Marc, I join hands with NSFOD to beat the crap outa ya.
If you weren't making the libertarian I-only-have-to-obey-legitimate-laws argument, then how could you avoid the obvious: Public land managers ban climbing near birdy nests and they ban parachuting off certain places. The connection is this: Authorized public officials operate by due process of law and promulgate rules and regs that say "Thou shalt not do it."
I now withdraw to await your answer to NSFOD's question. |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Richard Radcliffe wrote: OK, I'll bite. How, exactly, did you reach this rather sweeping conclusion?
I'll agree that it's a rather sweeping conclusion. I reached it through personal experience in the nation's parks.
--Marc |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: If you weren't making the libertarian I-only-have-to-obey-legitimate-laws argument, then how could you avoid the obvious...
I prefer the first argument that you handed me. They seem to be going downhill from there. I didn't realize that I only had a choice between two arguments: The first one you threw out there and the "libertarian I-only-have-to-obey-legitimate-laws argument."
Shawn Mitchell wrote: I now withdraw to await your answer to NSFOD's question.
NSFOD's question?
--Marc |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Jul 24, 2008
| Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: But BASE jumpers should respect all jumping bans, right? I mean, if we respect falcon closures, we should respect NPS bans on jumping, right? Right?
Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: You don't see any connection between obeying the law in one instance and obeying the law in another instance?
Like I said, I'm outa here. But if you need a lawyer to make libertarian arguments for your otherwise inexplicable positions :) give a call! |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| I disagreed with the first statement/question you quoted.
Regarding the second statement/question you quoted, I stated that I don't see a connection between the two bans. I asked him to make a connection for me.
--Marc |
FLAG |
By Not So Famous Old Dude
From Denver, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Like I said, I'm outa here. But if you need a lawyer to make libertarian argument for your otherwise inexplicable positions :) give a call!
This is a perfect example of why the neocons believe that "diplomacy doesn't work."
Sometimes, you just have to fire the nukes and start over. |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: Sometimes, you just have to fire the nukes and start over.
Now it's getting silly. I'm outta here. I'll check back in later to see if it's going anywhere.
Peace
Marc |
FLAG |
By Not So Famous Old Dude
From Denver, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: Now it's getting silly. I'm outta here. I'll check back in later to see if it's going anywhere. Peace Marc
See ya. |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: See ya.
I checked back in earlier than I expected. I'll take this comment as you saying, "I don't really have any connections between falcon bans jumping bans." Let me know if that changes.
--Marc |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Jul 24, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: I'll take this comment as you saying, "I don't really have any connections between falcon bans jumping bans." Let me know if that changes. --Marc
|
FLAG |
By Not So Famous Old Dude
From Denver, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: I checked back in earlier than I expected. I'll take this comment as you saying, "I don't really have any connections between falcon bans jumping bans." Let me know if that changes. --Marc
Not quite. I think I was really trying to say, "see ya." |
FLAG |
By Zed
From Gotham City
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: NSFOD's argument is stronger about the world that IS; Marc's may be stronger about the world that SHOULD BE...but that's open to argument:) PS: Thanks for the update, Marc.
The question is: What are the real consequences in the world that IS? Alain Robert continually scales private skyscrapers and is consistently arrested for it, yet he's still out there. That tells me that the penalties aren't that compelling.
I read somewhere that Hank has a case pending in Denver. Maybe he can shed some light on the issue.
Hank,
I realize that you might be limited on what you can say at this point, so no pressure. |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Jul 24, 2008
| Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: Not quite. I think I was really trying to say, "see ya."
Sheesh NSFOD, you incite me to post nuclear (with apologies and royalties owed to Jon Ruland) and then you deploy pussy-foot diplomacy. Make up your mind! :) |
FLAG |
By Buff Johnson
From Coniferous, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| I take it the winged-suit is still yet to be tested, eh??
I could even drop nukes on the peak baggers as I fly by.. |
FLAG |
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Ken Cangi wrote: That tells me that the penalties aren't that compelling.
Then why aren't there more people BASE jumping off of Long's? |
FLAG |
By Not So Famous Old Dude
From Denver, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Sheesh NSFOD, you incite me to post nuclear (with apologies and royalties owed to Jon Ruland) and then you deploy pussy-foot diplomacy. Make up your mind! :)
I thought I was just staying the course. |
FLAG |
By Zed
From Gotham City
Jul 24, 2008
| Richard Radcliffe wrote: Then why aren't there more people BASE jumping off of Long's?
Maybe there just aren't that many in the area.
I would also speculate that there is some status associated with having had Robert scale the side of your building or one in your precinct, which would inspire a certain level of leniency. Just a wild guess. |
FLAG |
By Mike Pharris
From Longmont, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: Example of how BASE jumpers affect policies regarding climbers? --Marc
I'll admit I don't know of an example to quote - and it might not be connected at all. But I can certainly envison that a government agency could connect one illegal activity (BASE jumping) to a legal one (climbing) and use that (imagined or not) connecton to ban the legal use. How does the BASE jumper reach the top of the cliff? Granted you could take the long way around, but would you? Woudld the government agency make the assumption that you would? |
FLAG |
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| MikeP wrote: But I can certainly envison that a government agency could connect one illegal activity (BASE jumping) to a legal one (climbing) and use that (imagined or not) connecton to ban the legal use.
Really? Wow. You've got a pretty vivid imagination. Hasn't happened yet despite continued jumping in Yosemite and elsewhere. It's been illegal in the NPS for what, some 20 or more years? |
FLAG |
By Hank Caylor
Administrator
From Left Hand Canyon, CO
Jul 24, 2008
| Ken Cangi wrote: I read somewhere that Hank has a case pending in Denver. Maybe he can shed some light on the issue. Hank, I realize that you might be limited on what you can say at this point, so no pressure.
No NO, my criminal case was dismissed after 27 minutes of deliberation(and a 4 day jury trial), then I paid $5,000 for the window for the civil charges and that was it.
Different NPS areas have a different way of prosecuting BASE jumpers(if you go to a raptor closure and climb, you will get a ticket), If you BASE jump in Yosemite and get caught, you will not see daylight for weeks/months/thousands of dollars/lawyers.
Because RMNP is at 14,000', it is not a popular place to jump. The air is THIN and your chute reacts weird so nobody goes there almost at all. The Rangers do not have a BASE problem in RMNP. This was a once in a lifetime thing and it's over. Rangers are not stupid and know generally what is happening in their park. ZION, YOSEMITE, THE BLACK AND RMNP all have jumpable cliffs. But the Rangers know this, and are aware, and activity is actually kept to a minimum.
Occasionally though, one freak makes it through the gates of submission and is gonna get a cool room in Hell(just for being SUPERnaughty?). Congrats bro, see ya' at the bar tonight. |
FLAG |
|
[ Forums > Colorado & Rocky Mountain Region ]
RSS Feed
