.

Marc Horan wrote: The purpose behind this thread was not lost on me, Killis. Nor do I think that it was lost on the participants in this discussion (for those that took the time to try to understand what is going on anyway).

Where by "took the time to try to understand" you mean "agreed with me". Dissenting opinions are automatically off-topic.

the thread is alive!

a good discussion would be for everyone to post (opinions) once.
everyone knows the other persons thoughts at that point.

next up, others could post their thoughts... (no pingpong)

more folks might join in the discussion, if it is not going back and forth between 2 or 3 people, saying the same things over again.

if someone says something you don't agree with, no big deal...
as long as it is not directed at you. if it is, well...
send emails in private, or call on the phone.

don't destroy the thread.

Although the title of this thread might not seem in keeping with the content, it does accurately describe what I encounter in real life.

I was up at Animal World, today, and I met another MP.Com regular and his friend. As is almost always the case, they were very pleasant, and we all got along just fine.

I think the fundamental shortcoming with Internet dialog is that there is less of an impetus toward accountability. We are not addressing human beings in the flesh, and if we don't personally know them, it is easier to disregard social etiquette, especially when it involves our egos.

There is little likelihood that this will change, as I believe it is just the nature of the cyber beast. Therefore, maybe it is best not to take any of it personally. Know that we will fight like cats and dogs, but also realize that chances are very good that we will get along fine in person. At least it seems to work out that way in my personal experiences.

Until then, flame on, boys and girls.

Charles Danforth wrote: Where by "took the time to try to understand" you mean "agreed with me". Dissenting opinions are automatically off-topic.

I actually had you pegged as one of the people that 'took the time to .. understand' and also has someone who had valuable opinions on the matter. 'Off-track' was meant for other comments (ie getting together to fight). I don't know why you put yourself in that group..

--Marc

So then, what was the topic... right, Dean and DA.
I think what Dean did was stupid, no question about it.
But, as Killis pointed out, we all do stupid stuff. I think Dean had no idea what was going to happen (others probably would have, but that is neither here nor there.)
Anyhow, the issue that seems most relevant is climber access.
I think that climbers have previously relied simply on not getting noticed by the land managers in order to continue climbing.
This is no longer the case, all "outdoor user groups" are competing for access to public and private lands. And I assure you it is only going to get worse for climbers with the increasing interest in our sport.
If climbers continue to keep a low profile with the "man" every time there is a "DA incident" we will simply loose access to knee-jerk reactions.
I think the Access Fund is one of the best things to ever happen to climbers, but it will not be enough.
We must stand together as free men-
If the extremists speak for the average climber, than I assure you that the outcome will not be desirable for the majority of climbers!
This could be on at least three different threads, but I wanted to respond to Corey's challenge of opening a reasonable debate.

cory wrote:a good discussion would be for everyone to post (opinions) once. everyone knows the other persons thoughts at that point. next up, others could post their thoughts... (no pingpong) more folks might join in the discussion, if it is not going back and forth between 2 or 3 people, saying the same things over again.

While this would be a great way for these forums to work, I don't really think that it's reasonable. People will often need to clarify and/or elaborate on their original postings. Not many people can say what's on their mind, perfectly, the first time (I've been guilty of not making my intent clear on several postings).

While there does seem to be a lot of ping-ponging, I would argue, instead that if you really read most of the posts, there are subtle but important differences in them. It appears that very few, if any, say the exact same thing over and over.

If you want clean up the forums, it seems to me, that those that initiate personal attacks and provoke are more in need of being addressed.

--Marc

logan johnson wrote:If climbers continue to keep a low profile with the "man" every time there is a "DA incident" we will simply loose access to knee-jerk reactions.

This is a key point that I have been trying to get across all along. If not Dean, someone else would eventually trip the radar. I agree that Access Fund is a great resource and representative for the climbing community, and we all should become more involved in it. We need to become a well-informed voice for the preservation of our recreation, and organizations like Access Fund can guide us along in the process.

We also need to become much more pro-active in understanding the real motivations of our elected officials. Study their track records, and make sure that we vote for people whose motivations are aligned with ours as patrons of these parks and natural resources.

Marc: Fair enough and thanks, but I wasn't necessarily referring to my own comments here.

Ken: I think we've found something we can agree on there. I've met very few climbers in-the-flesh who were anything but upstanding, decent folks. On-line, however, most of y'all are despicable bastards ;-)

All: A lot of people, myself included, get the occasional kick out of the brawling on the internet. This has been true since the dawn of time and will continue to the heat death of the universe. Where else can you work out your aggressions, stroke your own ego, and get the instant gratification of telling someone off without being slugged in the snout?

Charles Danforth wrote:Ken: I think we've found something we can agree on there.

That's a start. Every little bit counts.

Ken,

I think Logan's comments did a great job of bringing out the key issue. You and I posted some comments in another thread, but after Logan's remarks, I would agree with Charles when he said, "I think we've found something we can agree on there."

Court Bartholomew wrote:Ken, I think Logan's comments did a great job of bringing out the key issue. You and I posted some comments in another thread, but after Logan's remarks, I would agree with Charles when he said, "I think we've found something we can agree on there."

I have been posting that point since the Potter incident first hit the blogs back in May. That aside, I am glad that others, like Logan, understand that reality, because it is key to the issue of access for climbers.

And with regard to in person vs. Internet persona, I am glad that we all concur. I have always enjoyed the company of climbers. My real-life experience has been that they are a friendly and outgoing bunch.