.

.

Great post, Killis, and a great sentiment.

A raise my glass of Guiness to you, Dean. Thank you for all you've done for the climbing community.

--Marc

I don't know Dean, have never met him, cannot comment on him as a person. But the pure ascent you refer to, and that he reported as an onsite free solo I believe, was rehearsed on top rope. That I have a problem with, am I the only one?
Flame on
Thad

Bob D'Antonio wrote:Folks...climbing for the most part is self indulgent.

I'm going to start calling you Aristotle, but you will have to grow back your mullet first.

tharlow wrote:But the pure ascent you refer to, and that he reported as an onsite free solo I believe, was rehearsed on top rope. That I have a problem with, am I the only one? Flame on Thad

I don't think 'pure' fits either, but didn't want to mar such a nice comment.. but now I do I guess.. :)

--Marc

Bob D'Antonio wrote:At this point and age...a wig will have to do.

Grandpa.

As Bob said, "self indulgent". . . that is the key here. How one expresses themselves in such a self-indulgent activity is what makes ones light shine or dim. The stunt that Potter pulled is a dimmer, not a shiner.
No disrespect intended Killis, but I'd guess he's done a lot for you. . . not for me. What Potter has done is create another negative spectacle to view climbers thru - and in an incredible (and touchy) place like Arches, that is completely unacceptable for me.
". . . Stand Together As Free Men", may work for you, but not for me man - i.e., Potter doesn't represent me at all. . . a completely separate beast.

Potter is an amazing climber and has, no doubt, inspired many of us. However, his Delicate Arch ascent was selfish and tacky through and through; a tarnish on his otherwise exemplary career. Yes, we've all done things we're not proud of, but if you're a trendsetter in your particular field, you have a responsibility to set a good example. Dean didn't and is paying the price for his irresponsibility. I, for one, am no longer a fan.

cameron wrote:As Bob said, "self indulgent". . . that is the key here. How one expresses themselves in such a self-indulgent activity is what makes ones light shine or dim. The stunt that Potter pulled is a dimmer, not a shiner. No disrespect intended Killis, but I'd guess he's done a lot for you. . . not for me. What Potter has done is create another negative spectacle to view climbers thru - and in an incredible (and touchy) place like Arches, that is completely unacceptable for me. ". . . Stand Together As Free Men", may work for you, but not for me man - i.e., Potter doesn't represent me at all. . . a completely separate beast.

Charles Danforth wrote:Potter is an amazing climber and has, no doubt, inspired many of us. However, his Delicate Arch ascent was selfish and tacky through and through; a tarnish on his otherwise exemplary career. Yes, we've all done things we're not proud of, but if you're a trendsetter in your particular field, you have a responsibility to set a good example. Dean didn't and is paying the price for his irresponsibility. I, for one, am no longer a fan.

Did you guys miss the part about an NPS official telling him that climbing on the Arches was not banned? I don't think that he intentionally set in motion what he did. I think that's important.

--Marc

Bob D'Antonio wrote:Folks...climbing for the most part is self indulgent.

I appears as I'm one of the only ones who doesn't understand why this posting is in this thread; it doesn't seem to fit. Can someone explain to me why this post is relevant to the original positing. Preferably Bob.

To stave off the less-than-desirable posts, let it be know that I:

~~understand the statement
~~agree with the statement

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: Did you guys miss the part about an NPS official telling him that climbing on the Arches was not banned? I don't think that he intentionally set in motion what he did. I think that's important.

Bullshit. The fastest way to make it banned is to do a high-profile, filmed ascent of the most famous arch in the state. Potter has been climbing long enough to realize this. It's still a tacky and self-indulgent ego stunt. Would you go climb Lincoln's Nose on Mt. Rushmore just because it wasn't expressly forbidden?

Marc, I hate to begin our flowery relationship this way, but it seems to me that you are the epitome of why there are so many climber/ing conflcits:
You're a tool - and not a nice, quality tool either.
Did you know about the little fact that Potter and company knew that they shouldn't be climbing DA? That they are professional's who well understand the touchy relationships between minority user groups and Park officials? Have you any clue about the management/politics of federal land use, conservation, preservation and tourism?
Look Marc, I've read all of your mindless chatter on the previous "Climbable Arches" topic. . .to which I've responded.
Life rule #1: Don't attempt to argue a point you're unfamiliar with.

Sun is at just the right height. . . time to climb.

Charles Danforth wrote: Bullshit.

This doesn't answer my question..

Charles Danforth wrote:The fastest way to make it banned is to do a high-profile, filmed ascent of the most famous arch in the state. Potter has been climbing long enough to realize this. It's still a tacky and self-indulgent ego stunt.

..uh.. neither does this.

Charles Danforth wrote:Would you go climb Lincoln's Nose on Mt. Rushmore just because it wasn't expressly forbidden?

This pretty much answers my question, but I honestly don't think that was your intention. You just demonstrated you don't fully know what is going on here. Thanks for playing!

--Marc

cameron wrote:Marc, I hate to begin our flowery relationship this way, but it seems to me that you are the epitome of why there are so many climber/ing conflcits: You're a tool - and not a nice, quality tool either. Did you know about the little fact that Potter and company knew that they shouldn't be climbing DA? That they are professional's who well understand the touchy relationships between minority user groups and Park officials? Have you any clue about the management/politics of federal land use, conservation, preservation and tourism? Look Marc, I've read all of your mindless chatter on the previous "Climbable Arches" topic. . .to which I've responded. Life rule #1: Don't attempt to argue a point you're unfamiliar with. Sun is at just the right height. . . time to climb.

Cameron, STFU and go away. You are just a punk with a big mouth and nothing to back it up.

cameron wrote:Marc, I hate to begin our flowery relationship this way, but it seems to me that you are the epitome of why there are so many climber/ing conflcits: You're a tool - and not a nice, quality tool either.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me personally. Primarily because you don't know me and are therefore unable to judge me. Nice try though. And an excellent argument I might add.

cameron wrote:Did you know about the little fact that Potter and company knew that they shouldn't be climbing DA? That they are professional's who well understand the touchy relationships between minority user groups and Park officials? Have you any clue about the management/politics of federal land use, conservation, preservation and tourism? Look Marc, I've read all of your mindless chatter on the previous "Climbable Arches" topic. . .to which I've responded. Life rule #1: Don't attempt to argue a point you're unfamiliar with. Sun is at just the right height. . . time to climb.

I don't even know where to begin to tear this little segment apart. You believe that my 'mindless chatter' shows that I'm 'unfamiliar' with the topic (probably the most inaccurate statement on this thread to-date, congratulations!) You apparently believe you have all of the 'facts' straight in your head, and I believe you are wrong. Have a nice life.

Peace --Marc

PS I like your pic of the lassoed lizard. It really demonstrates how well climbers respect their surroundings. Dumbass.

Marc Horan wrote: uh.. neither is this. This pretty much answers my question, but I honestly don't think that was your intention. You just demonstrated you don't fully know what is going on here. Thanks for playing! --Marc

OK, what is it I don't understand? Explain it to me in little words please, as I'm clearly an idiot newbie.

Charles Danforth wrote: OK, what is it I don't understand? Explain it to me in little words please, as I'm clearly an idiot newbie.

I did not call you an 'idiot newbie,' nor do I think that.

The reason I took a jab at you is because I asked a question and you quoted me, but did not answer the question. You simply spewed out another one of your opinions. It really had nothing to do with my question or comment.

In regards to the previous comment/question: IMO, It is fair to give Dean the benefit of the doubt in regards to his understanding of the arch-climbing policy in Arches. He most likely did not realize the potential fall-out from climbing DA. The publication of said event was most likely perpetrated by Patagonia.

--Marc

My bad Marc, I must have taken all of your dumbass gibberish the wrong way.

Marc: "I don't really think that the composition of the park visitors is relevant. That is, just because climbers make up only a small percentage of the park visitors doesn't mean that we should have to deal with overly ambitious regulations."
This, in a nutshell, shows your ignorance.

Marc: "I, for one, have done nothing up until this point but spew my opinions all over the pages of Mountain Project."
You said it. . . am I wrong to believe what you said? You haven't an f'in clue!

Marc: "I do admit that I was completely ignorant of the incidents in Arches NP in the past (ie 'DA debacle' and ban on all arch climbing)."
Haven't a clue. . . .

Marc: "I freely admit that I was ignorant of all such closures. Furthermore, I admit I was wrong in not knowing; I fully believe it is the citizens responsibility to know the law of the land."
Haven't a clue. . . . Furthermore, it is the citizens responsibility to know how the "law of the land" works, and not just the posted regulations.
Instead of attcking and provoking people like Brad, who work hard for us all, you should pick his brain and learn.

Marc: "I realize that my efforts would be better directed at helping the NPS understand that there are responsible climbers out there that can follow reasonable guidelines."
Now you're being sensible.

Paul: "What concerns Brad and others, including myself, is how NPS does act toward climbers."
This, in a nutshell, is the reality.

cameron wrote:My bad Marc, I must have taken all of your dumbass gibberish the wrong way. Marc: "I don't really think that the composition of the park visitors is relevant. That is, just because climbers make up only a small percentage of the park visitors doesn't mean that we should have to deal with overly ambitious regulations." This, in a nutshell, shows your ignorance. Marc: "I, for one, have done nothing up until this point but spew my opinions all over the pages of Mountain Project." You said it. . . am I wrong to believe what you said? You haven't an f'in clue! Marc: "I do admit that I was completely ignorant of the incidents in Arches NP in the past (ie 'DA debacle' and ban on all arch climbing)." Haven't a clue. . . . Marc: "I freely admit that I was ignorant of all such closures. Furthermore, I admit I was wrong in not knowing; I fully believe it is the citizens responsibility to know the law of the land." Haven't a clue. . . . Furthermore, it is the citizens responsibility to know how the "law of the land" works, and not just the posted regulations. Instead of attcking and provoking people like Brad, who work hard for us all, you should pick his brain and learn. Marc: "I realize that my efforts would be better directed at helping the NPS understand that there are responsible climbers out there that can follow reasonable guidelines." Now you're being sensible. Paul: "What concerns Brad and others, including myself, is how NPS does act toward climbers." This, in a nutshell, is the reality.

These are all my comments. Most of this is obviously taken out of context. I invite those new to this thread to please check out my comments in their entirety at the 'climable arches'.

I refuse to further respond to assholes. Again, have a nice life.

Peace
--Marc

Ken, I won't begin by listing my credentials (I've spent many years as a Gov employee, and have been apart of many land-use decisions) nor by educating you (I'm quite educated). I know how you can be (blindly argumentative) at times. You apparently don't get it, and my responses won't change that. . . . Here's a thought: think outside of your ego in this case, and take into consideration NPS management and other park users (you know, the majority).

You've proven once again, that you can be a blowhard, single-minded ass. Try to step outside of that box, and deliver something of use to/for this community.