.

Marc, "out of context"? What?! These are YOUR words from your paragraphs stating your ignorance (mighty high of you btw).

Lassoin' a lizard is your retort? That's your response? trying to pick some bit to find issue with that is of NO concern to this topic? BTW, the lizards aren't in any way, shape or form harmed, nor is this unlawful.

Grow up dude, and don't follow Ken's approach (you appear to be his clone, whish isn't at all pretty).

cameron wrote: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.

Cameron,

Saying that you have spent many years as a government employee could mean that you are a postal clerk. That is not a listing of credentials. It is just spray, like everything else that you have offered so far. Political, negotiation-savvy people don't enter threads, in which others are trying to promote a positive environment, and call them tools. You are quite the arbitrator, "Dude".

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.

I changed my mind. It may not be reasonable to expect people to go find all of these comments. I will respond. I'm also going to do my best to cease and desist with the personal attacks because I don't know you.

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.

How, please? And please keep it clear and on track.

cameron wrote: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!

Immediately after this comment I said that I was going to write a letter to the NPS. I wrote the letter. I even quote parted of the letter in a subsequent post. Why not reference the letter, Cameron? Or even mention it?

Taking my statements out of context just makes you look foolish when I call you out on them. Don't do it again.

cameron wrote: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. . . .

"Hadn't a clue," would have been correct. You mixed up your tenses there, Cameron. My comment tells the reader that I was 'completely ignorant of the incidents .. in the past.' That makes your comment completely baseless. Serious consideration: Learn the importance of grammar before you try to use it to make arguments.

cameron wrote: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. . . .

In all reality, this one's not worth my time. You made no argument or point anyhow. People who can admit when they made a mistake have significantly more credibility, IMO, than those that don't.

cameron wrote:Furthermore, it is the citizens responsibility to know how the "law of the land" works, and not just the posted regulations.

"How the 'law of the land' works" is up to the judicial system. That's where the buck stops.

cameron wrote:Instead of attacking and provoking people like Brad,

I argued with Brad, there is a big difference. I neither attacked nor provoked Brad.

cameron wrote:who work hard for us all, you should pick his brain and learn.

LOL!! I'm not entitled to my own opinion?!?! Cameron, the point of these forums is to debate topics. That is not what I see you doing here. IMO, you are the one doing the 'attacking and provoking.'

cameron wrote: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.

This comment does not, alone, negate any other comment that I made. Furthermore, I stand by it.

In regards to your 'nutshell' comment: I understand your concerns surrounding NPS climbing policies. I am very concerned about it as well. Just because my opinions are not in line with yours does not mean that they are not as legitimate as yours.

If you'd like to make a viable argument, I'd be happy to listen and respond. If you want to 'attack and provoke' further, then may I please direct you to rockclimbing.com

--Marc

cameron wrote:That's it, I'm going climbing.

Thank you.

cameron wrote:Lassoin' a lizard is your retort? That's your response? trying to pick some bit to find issue with that is of NO concern to this topic?

This is fucking priceless!!! How can you possibly say that is off-topic?!?!

That's where this topic originated!!!

I can't argue with you anymore if you can't see that. Good luck, bro...

Henceforth you are no longer allowed to call anyone clueless .. ever LOL

cameron wrote:BTW, the lizards aren't in any way, shape or form harmed, nor is this unlawful.

Dude, could you be more ironic?

--Marc

cameron wrote:Marc, "out of context"? What?! These are YOUR words from your paragraphs stating your ignorance (mighty high of you btw).

You just told everyone that you don't understand the term "out of context." Nice One. The context, in this case, are the words surrounding the ones that you pulled out of my posts. Got it? If not, there's always dictionary.com.

cameron wrote:I've spent many years as a Gov employee, and have been apart of many land-use decisions

Don't they always seem to go hand-in-hand? I'm sorry, man, but your posts on this thread have not demonstrated to me that you have enough of a grasp of acceptable ethics, the education, nor the ability to see other peoples' perspectives to be involved in decision-making regarding any public land. Maybe that's why the public lands use regulations aren't as good as they could be.

cameron wrote:BTW, ever wonder why some don't use their actual, full names?

Because they realize that, sometimes, they don't say the smartest things and they don't want to be held accountable to stupid statements? That's my guess.

--Marc

Sorry Ken, not climbing afterall.

Truly Marc, I may have come on a bit strong with you. However, your continuing gibberish seems to solidify my original slam; I sure in the hell am not going to continue with your juvenille points - and no, a lizard pic from Onion creek has Nothing to do with climbing bans in Arches.

You and Ken have been speaking down to those on the
"Climbable Arches" forum,
and stating your antagonistic, one-sided opinions for far too many pages.
Come to find a few pages into it that you are as green on this issue as a blade of grass.
Ken, for all of his weak fire, seems to be just as green - I guess that's way you two support ea. other thru these forums.

Attacking the NPS, and calling them stupid or crazy or dumb or whatever is so beyond helpful that it becomes, quite clearly, detrimental.
It's apparent that you two don't care much about the reality of it all - I just wanted to clearly point that out.

I do apologize for calling you out the way that I did. . . my point could have been clearly made without the use of the word "tool", et al (regardless of accuracy).
I have not been a part of this policy/proceedure discussion (Arches), but I know Gov quite well, and I know how, and by what, policy is driven.

Remember, your actions out there effect us all (be it poaching or over-bolting or trespassing or disrupting another recreationalist).

cameron wrote:Sorry Ken, not climbing afterall. Truly Marc, I may have come on a bit strong with you. However, your continuing gibberish seems to solidify my original slam.

That's funny, Cameron. There is more substance in any one of Marc's sentences than in the entire body of your psychobabble.

And thanks for getting my hopes up, for nothing.

Ken, you say this because you are two in the same.

Show me a sentence of "psychobabble" in my correspondence.
My guess is that you haven't a clue as to the meaning of "psychobabble" (actually it is obvious that you don't) - the same ad hominem attack you used with Ian, who had actual substance to his statements. . . tells a lot about you.

I entered this forum to show any NPS delegate/employee who may be shuffling thru this that your opinions and beliefs are certainly NOT the same as the majority of climbers; in fact that some vehemently oppose your destructive thoughts/words/beliefs. Your typical "STFU. . . and go away" attitude and response is exactly why some climbing issues exist.

Marc nor you don't seem to have a grasp on much that is reality-based in the world of outdoor recreation and politics. And in this case, certainly not constructive for the community at Arches and elsewhere.

Okay, attack on. . . I'm honestly (and happily) done this time.
Think I'll go dry-tool the sport park. . . or find some bolts to chop near a crack. . . or go reflect on the sound fundamentals of your policy. . . or have a beer with some friends and discuss why I am prone to wasting my time with/on people like you (always a fun discussion).

cameron wrote:Ken, you say this because you are two in the same.

What are you suggesting, Cameron?

cameron wrote: Ken, for all of his weak fire, seems to be just as green - I guess that's way you two support ea. other thru these forums.

I don't know Ken. Therefore I cannot support someone I don't know. The only thing I know about Ken is the opinions stated in his posts. My values and ideals seem to be very much in line with his. I imagine you have people out there that are in line with your ideas.

Other than that, I saw nothng in your post worth responding to. As much as I enjoy shredding your ridiculous shit, I really should be doing something better. Peace!

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: I don't know Ken. Therefore I cannot support someone I don't know. The only thing I know about Ken is the opinions stated in his posts. My values and ideals seem to be very much in line with his. I imagine you have people out there would are in line with your ideas. Other than that, I saw nothng in your post worth responding to. --Marc

Actually, Marc, I think what he might be suggesting is that Ken and Marc are one in the same.

It's just trolling 101. It happens every fall in college towns. He'll tire himself out in awhile. I actually don't mind trolls, every now and then, although I prefer when they are intelligent enough to bring some wit to the arena.

Ken Cangi wrote:Actually, Marc, I think what he might be suggesting is that Ken and Marc are one in the same. It's just trolling 101.

That's kind of funny to me. There are really people out there who would create two different profiles and post the same opinions under different names, on the same topic, huh?

Actually, I don't know if that's funny or sad. I guess it can be both.

Cameron, I can assure you that I do not go by the name 'Ken' in any arena.

Ken, thanks for helping me understand how immature people can be. I never even considered this as a possibility. Now I'm glad that I put some identifying information on my profile so that people can see that I am a real and unique person.

--Marc

OK, I'm back.

Seems to me there are two universal rules in climbing. One is Though Shalt Not Chip, Glue, or Retrobolt" but I'm sure you could even find dissent there if you look hard enough.

But the other one, the big one, is Thou Shalt Not Screw It Up For Everyone. That's the big rule for most outdoor pursuits. Access is *the* biggest issue for caving, mountain biking, and trail running (with which I'm familiar) and probably other sports like hunting and paddling as well. Legal or not, Dean Potter's arch ascent has endangered NP climbing access for all of us. The fact that it was so quickly panned by the Access Fund should tell you something. Dean has been climbing long enough that he should certainly know this. His appologists and the rest of the "I'll climb what and where I want" crowd is juvenile, short-sighted, or lazy.

Charles Danforth wrote:His appologists and the rest of the "I'll climb what and where I want" crowd is juvenile, short-sighted, or lazy.

No. What's juvenile is to spend almost a year publicly castigating someone for climbing up a rock, and then refusing to acknowledge that NPS, by their own admission, said that their decision to close bolting on towers was long coming and had nothing to do with Dean. What's short-sighted is to actually think that this public castigation of Dean will have any positive effect on the outcome of land management policies in the Canyonlands. And what is lazy is to blame it all on Dean. His action, whether you agree or disagree with it, did not create the new NPS policy. They already stated that it was on the table. Neither Dean, nor probably any of you, knew that, and the reality is that any climber action could have prompted it at any given time.

Dean climbed the arch. It's ancient history, and he has moved on. Your resentment will not spoil his future. It will only make you look small. Get over it.

If you actually give a damn about access to our state and national lands, do something constructive about it. Volunteer your time on a few climbing weekends, to build trails and clean up trash. Vote for politicians who actually give a shit about preserving access to our recreational areas, Be an action advocate instead of an Internet tribunal. Don't spend endless amounts of time disparaging your fellow climbers. Everyone makes mistakes.

Charles Danforth wrote:His appologists and the rest of the "I'll climb what and where I want" crowd is juvenile, short-sighted, or lazy.

It appears as though you jumped into the thread without totally understanding peoples' positions. I have yet to see anyone make this statement or make an argument similar to this. It helps when you keep your comments and opinions on track.

--Marc

Ken--

We both picked out the same statement to pull apart, at virtually the same time! It does appear as though we're the same person. LOL.

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote:Ken-- We both picked out the same statement to pull apart, at virtually the same time! It does appear as though we're the same person. LOL. --Marc

Maybe you're not the same person, but you're obviously both drinking the same Kool-Aid.

Brad Brandewie wrote: you're obviously both drinking the same Kool-Aid.

Maybe you should try some. It might cut the bitter taste of your D-Bomb Cocktail.