Sad representation of Boulder climbers
|
Check it out for yourself. coloradodaily.com/outdoor-r…. |
|
This is pretty funny. |
|
upper limits is a cool gym. its not flashy by boulder standards but the staff is always cool with me, the setting is good, the grades are stiff and i always have a good time on vacation. |
|
If the over/under is two. And the bet is number of years actually a boulder resident. I'll put a crisp franklin on the under. |
|
I can't believe that was some sort of professional article. Seems more suited as one of those pointless rc.com forum rants. |
|
Mark: The Daily mainly serves CU students. Most of the articles they publish are worthless. |
|
Every community has their morons. The best communities keep the morons from going public. |
|
Anthony O. wrote:Mark: The Daily mainly serves CU students. Most of the articles they publish are worthless.Actually, the Daily Camera is THE paper for Boulder County. It's not a student paper. And Buff has clearly been drinking today. |
|
I think that article says more about the Daily Camera than Boulder climbers... what the hell was the point of some annoying climber ranting about nothing? Why publish that? |
|
I started this feed mainly because I was disgusted that the author of the article was pretty much taking pride in representing herself as a "Boulder climbing snob". I also understand that unfortunately there are many more like her ( the author ) out there in the community...I guess the point Im trying to make is that this was the worst representation of Boulder climbers I've read recently, and the last bad article I read on being a Boulder climber she was also the author. |
|
Julius Beres wrote:I think that article says more about the Daily Camera than Boulder climbers..No! This article is from the worst/most amateur newspaper in America: the COLORADO DAILY. The BOULDER DAILY CAMERA is a different publication and would never publish this useless drivel. Just a friendly public service announcement. |
|
Chris Plesko wrote:upper limits is a cool gym. its not flashy by boulder standards but the staff is always cool with me, the setting is good, the grades are stiff and i always have a good time on vacation. the article was sort of silly.+1 The line about topping out the boulder problem was pretty funny...it is painfully obvious in that gym that boulder problems are not topped out. |
|
Wow, some pretty heated comments. |
|
Kevin Craig wrote:Surely NONE of you have EVER gotten frustrated or exasperated with an irrational situation, and God/Allah/Yaweh/Buddha/Brahma/Zarathustra/Earth Mother/Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid, NEVER EVER expressed that frustration out loud!Charging $3 for a lead rope is not an irrational situation. Pay the $3, bring your own rope (what most people do), or go somewhere else. It isn't that hard. Topping out boulder problems there make no sense. There is only one small wall that even could be topped out (doesn't extend into a lead climbing wall), and the thought process would be something like: "Golly, now that I am holding the marked finish jug, lets grab a rail of the three rail fence to pull up into the kids second floor birthday area. I am such a stud." The belay device thing is interesting. Perhaps shows how much faith that gym has in people who only use a grigri? |
|
I can't tell if she's being self depricating, sarcastic, and funny or taking herself way too seriously. |
|
Andy Novak wrote: No! This article is from the worst/most amateur newspaper in America: the COLORADO DAILY. The BOULDER DAILY CAMERA is a different publication and would never publish this useless drivel. Just a friendly public service announcement.Wrong - It was in the Daily Camera today, both the paper version and online: dailycamera.com/ci_16947874 |
|
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 1:2 |
|
Richard Radcliffe wrote: Actually, the Daily Camera is THE paper for Boulder County. It's not a student paper. And Buff has clearly been drinking today.The website J1 links the article to is from the COLORADO DAILY, not the DAILY CAMERA, so therefore that is the Daily I was referring to. I know she writes for the Colorado Daily, but did not know she also is featured in the Camera. Edit to add: at the bottom of the Daily Camera article it says "Jenn Fields' Field Notes runs every Monday in the Colorado Daily". Which brings me back to mine and Andy's comments on that paper being worthless. |
|
Richard Radcliffe wrote: Actually, the Daily Camera is THE paper for Boulder County.That's a sorry state of affairs.... Some of the confusion might come from the Colorado Daily being owned by the Daily Camera- a fair amount of features get shared between the two. For what it's worth, I took the article as a humor piece- the kind most papers run pretty regularly about most recreation topics... |
|
The fact that this was published at all says a lot about who was expected to be reading it- evidently people who think it is interesting that a decidedly callow young woman exposed her petty elitism about an obscure and semi-rediculous pastime (indoor climbing). |
|
EdAsh wrote:Piss off MattBravo, Ed! I have no doubt that Jenn is a very nice person. She did, however, write an article that was published on two different Boulder news publication websites about being a Boulder climbing snob. I found her article proved out her assertion. I think consumption of articles concerning snobbery about ineffectual and superfluous pastimes is indicative of a climate of decadence and entitlement (not to mention ego run amok), a climate which is found in spades in Boulder, CO. I am sorry if my post spurred a negative emotional reaction which resulted in your unfortunate retort. If you would care to address any of the points in either of my posts and explain to me how I am mistaken, I would enjoy the debate. As it stands you illustrated magnificently the more egregious tendencies of the audience I was describing. |