|
zeke_sf
Mar 3, 2009, 1:27 AM
Post #26 of 67
(5396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
philbox wrote: j_ung wrote: caughtinside wrote: I heard that making out with a Euro dude was the beta for sending .13+ out at rifle. Unfortunately it didn't work for me.  I should add that to J_ung's Climbing Clinic.  What, you gunna demonstrate how to make out with a Euro dude.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 3, 2009, 1:55 PM
Post #27 of 67
(5381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
No Phil... <sigh> an Aussie dude. 
|
|
|
|
|
ammon
Mar 27, 2009, 6:14 PM
Post #28 of 67
(5327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 220
|
From utjohnny's locked thread:
In reply to: Seems like we consumers who are buying the products being marketed under this institution have a right to know if they're still a couple because, if they're not, we're being duped.
So, you make purchases based on a personal relationship that someone else has with another person? WAY shallow! You should be purchasing products based on how they perform. Because an athlete uses the same product acts as a backup or catalyst to what you already believe in.
Their marital and personal status is NONE of our business. PERIOD!
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 27, 2009, 6:24 PM
Post #29 of 67
(5318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
yeah, i find it more than vaguely creepy that the guy was trolling public records to see if they'd divorced.
the bad news, though, is that we're almost to the point of the climbing royalty/papparazzi nightmare that shadows other popular entertainments.
how long before we see a popular climbing blog that does nothing but track star gossip?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 27, 2009, 6:30 PM
Post #30 of 67
(5309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
k.l.k wrote: how long before we see a popular climbing blog that does nothing but track star gossip?
Climbing star gossip has been climbing media fodder for the entire 30+ years I have been engtaged with this sport.
I suppose the marital status of Royal and Liz Robbins is also out of bounds?
Nevertheless, we mustn't piss off the advertisers!!!1111
(yes the Steph Davis wannabe bootlickers are a disturbing lot, I agree)
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 27, 2009, 6:40 PM
Post #31 of 67
(5308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
dingus wrote: k.l.k wrote: how long before we see a popular climbing blog that does nothing but track star gossip? Climbing star gossip has been climbing media fodder for the entire 30+ years I have been engtaged with this sport.
Yes, but not as part and parcel of climbing literature. Unless you want to count the sub-texts of various Sheridan Anderson cartoons or Largo braggadocio. Climbing and Mountain didn't feature breathless columns on Hill and Long breaking up.
There's something to be said for the segregation of various kinds of topics.
Democratization and vulgarization unfortunately go hand in hand here. Not that it matters much. The generational shift evident on Facebook means that huge chunks of the populace under a certain age have radically different feelings about privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Mar 27, 2009, 6:53 PM
Post #32 of 67
(5295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Damn Millennials!
---------------------
Seriously though, as much as I'd love for this site to be more classy, it seems odd to me that this is the issue that will start it. Why this topic? Why now?
I'm only asking because, as this site has traded hands, I've noticed swings in what is allowed. It used to be that people never used profanity in the public forums and that took a drastic change a few years ago. I'd much rather see mod's policing crude language rather than picking such a gray topic. It seems like half of the forums invoke some aspect of an individual's personal life that might not be climbing related.
I liked it better when we could throw poo! (Seriously, it was way better than the stars!)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 27, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #34 of 67
(5268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
wonderwoman wrote: sidepull wrote: I liked it better when we could throw poo! (Seriously, it was way better than the stars!) Me too! Poo is funny!
It's telling that nobody every mentions the trophies we could also award that time.
|
|
|
|
|
Parkerkat
Mar 27, 2009, 7:55 PM
Post #35 of 67
(5261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 263
|
something to point out is that there isa huge difference between site-published editorial and a frickin blog/forum. These discussions were created by the users who generate the Pageviews the site then turns into money by selling ads.
You do not lock threads that contain extremely malicious comments towards users, their personal lives...so why for steph and tommy?
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander but your justification should be stated as it is..
"the mods personally don't like it or have been told to say that so its locked"..but to confuse this with some new mission statement is rather transparent...this is not about class....if it was, you lost that battle a long time ago when allowing pesonal attacks to go on.
playing favorites is what it is!
(This post was edited by Parkerkat on Mar 27, 2009, 7:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Mar 27, 2009, 7:58 PM
Post #36 of 67
(5252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
zeke_sf wrote: wonderwoman wrote: sidepull wrote: I liked it better when we could throw poo! (Seriously, it was way better than the stars!) Me too! Poo is funny! It's telling that nobody every mentions the trophies we could also award that time.
I liked the trophies too. I just have fond memories of "poo-ing" posts by OkieRedneck. But I would gladly trophy every single post Burt Bronson. Man, that guy could climb! Oh the epics!
|
|
|
|
|
Parkerkat
Mar 27, 2009, 8:02 PM
Post #37 of 67
(5249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 263
|
If your referencing an online FORUM, not actual professional content as climbing Lit, you gotta give your head a shake! ..
For cry'n out loud this is not the NY times, nor is it even the front page of the site or listed under articles.. its user generated cotent... which is actually the same as people talking at a coffee shop only we're all in different places...it is the online form of converstation.. so to that point, does a discussion about string theory qualify as a difinitive source of lit on string theory? Nope.. didn't think so, and nor is a forum about climbing a source of lit for climbing..
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 27, 2009, 8:07 PM
Post #38 of 67
(5248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
Parkerkat wrote: something to point out is that there isa huge difference between site-published editorial and a frickin blog/forum.
Most of RC is in that grey area between editorial (i.e. traditional Climbing magazine zone) and unregulated-anything-goes sites that some of us may know. But then, a fair bit of contributions to many of the older climbing 'zines were that way too, just on a much smaller and slower scale.
Parkerkat wrote: You do not lock threads that contain extremely malicious comments towards users, their personal lives...so why for steph and tommy?
I was trying to think of an example that wasn't an exchange between uses posting here, but couldn't think of any. (i.e., something like a dedicated thread, "Parkerkat just got divorced because Mr/Mrs Parkerkat was seen groping Zeke at Rifle.") Do you have an example?
One could make the case (DMT) that Davis and Potter are public figures, so they are fair game. I just don't see the upside.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 27, 2009, 8:09 PM
Post #39 of 67
(5248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
Parkerkat wrote: You do not lock threads that contain extremely malicious comments towards users, their personal lives...so why for steph and tommy?
It's true, I've personally experienced this standard at work. Obective policies aside, we all know that moderating is largely subjective, and the only libel that really seems prohibited is against the mods and, apparently, the rock stars. I can see the rationale of moderating the monkeys when they use their wrenches against the machine. And many of our other squabbles here are largely with faceless, anonymous entities, people whose livelihoods do not depend on their public perception. #4: it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 27, 2009, 8:11 PM
Post #40 of 67
(5244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
sidepull wrote: zeke_sf wrote: wonderwoman wrote: sidepull wrote: I liked it better when we could throw poo! (Seriously, it was way better than the stars!) Me too! Poo is funny! It's telling that nobody every mentions the trophies we could also award that time. I liked the trophies too. I just have fond memories of "poo-ing" posts by OkieRedneck. But I would gladly trophy every single post Burt Bronson. Man, that guy could climb! Oh the epics!
Yeah, but then half the threads would deevolve into "who the fuck pooed my post?!!!". We already have enough ways to deevolve here and the star system seems to convey the same thing without the messy cleanup. Good job on j_ung or whoever implemented that bit.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 27, 2009, 8:15 PM
Post #41 of 67
(5243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
k.l.k wrote: "Parkerkat just got divorced because Mr/Mrs Parkerkat was seen groping Zeke at Rifle."
I wish he'd get over that too. I was speaking with a Euro accent and everything, so she's hardly to be blamed for her uncontrollable lust.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Mar 27, 2009, 9:34 PM
Post #42 of 67
(5226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
zeke_sf wrote: k.l.k wrote: "Parkerkat just got divorced because Mr/Mrs Parkerkat was seen groping Zeke at Rifle." I wish he'd get over that too. I was speaking with a Euro accent and everything, so she's hardly to be blamed for her uncontrollable lust.
Heh. 
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 28, 2009, 4:26 AM
Post #43 of 67
(5193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
k.l.k wrote: how long before we see a popular climbing blog that does nothing but track star gossip?
Yeah, that already exists.
Hear ya go - http://www.mistymurphy.com/home.html
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 28, 2009, 4:36 AM
Post #44 of 67
(5189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
zeke_sf wrote: [ I can see the rationale of moderating the monkeys when they use their wrenches against the machine. And many of our other squabbles here are largely with faceless, anonymous entities, people whose livelihoods do not depend on their public perception. #4: it is what it is.
I wonder if RC.com and Potter/Davis share any sponsors in common?
This reeks of CYA conspiracy and cover up.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 28, 2009, 4:49 AM
Post #45 of 67
(5183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
To the moderators: The Steph Davis divorce threads should not have been locked. Steph Davis is a professional, high-profile climber. She is what is known in legal parlance as a "public person." When you become a public person, you sacrifice some of your right to privacy. If someone (thinks they) saw a married, high-profile climber making out with someone other than her spouse, that's gossip. Right or wrong, it's none of anybody's business. If two high-profile climbers divorce, that's different. It isn't gossip; it's news. In fact, it's publicly available information. Locking a thread for the stated reason of fear of where it might go is excessive moderation—even, dare I say, censorship.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 28, 2009, 1:44 PM
Post #46 of 67
(5170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
ammon wrote: From utjohnny's locked thread: In reply to: Seems like we consumers who are buying the products being marketed under this institution have a right to know if they're still a couple because, if they're not, we're being duped. So, you make purchases based on a personal relationship that someone else has with another person? WAY shallow! You should be purchasing products based on how they perform. Because an athlete uses the same product acts as a backup or catalyst to what you already believe in. Their marital and personal status is NONE of our business. PERIOD!
|
|
|
|
|
tomtom
Mar 28, 2009, 6:43 PM
Post #47 of 67
(5136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 366
|
jt512 wrote: If someone (thinks they) saw a married, high-profile climber making out with someone other than her spouse, that's gossip. Right or wrong, it's none of anybody's business. If two high-profile climbers divorce, that's different. It isn't gossip; it's news. In fact, it's publicly available information. Locking a thread for the stated reason of fear of where it might go is excessive moderation—even, dare I say, censorship.
If they were marriage counselors and this was a relationship website, then it may be on-topic. But the personal lives of professional climbers? I think not. This isn't Jerry Springer. Not everyone watches garbage TV.
And as to your, dare I say, charge of censorship, the threads were locked, not deleted. The facts are still posted on rc.com.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 29, 2009, 3:57 AM
Post #48 of 67
(5110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
tomtom wrote: jt512 wrote: If someone (thinks they) saw a married, high-profile climber making out with someone other than her spouse, that's gossip. Right or wrong, it's none of anybody's business. If two high-profile climbers divorce, that's different. It isn't gossip; it's news. In fact, it's publicly available information. Locking a thread for the stated reason of fear of where it might go is excessive moderation—even, dare I say, censorship. I'll disagree. If they were marriage counselors and this was a relationship website, then it may be on-topic. But the personal lives of professional climbers? I think not.
If the personal lives of professional climbers are out of bounds per se, then the entire In Memory Of forum should be deleted (oh, sorry, I mean, locked), as well as the threads discussing Michael Reardon's drowning, John Bachar's car accident, John Rosholt's disappearance, the birth of Tiffany and Jason's kid, every post about how nice a guy Chris Sharma is, and innumerable others.
News about the lives of major climbers is news about the sport.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
Mar 29, 2009, 3:53 PM
Post #49 of 67
(5095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
If you want to have a discussion about, it move it over here http://www.nationalenquirer.com/. I don’t understand how anyone’s personal life is anyone else’s business. You're talking about completely different things Jt and it looks like quite a reach to me. I love the censorship remark, aaahhh semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
Mar 30, 2009, 1:00 PM
Post #50 of 67
(5065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
jt512 wrote: To the moderators: The Steph Davis divorce threads should not have been locked. Steph Davis is a professional, high-profile climber. She is what is known in legal parlance as a "public person." When you become a public person, you sacrifice some of your right to privacy. If someone (thinks they) saw a married, high-profile climber making out with someone other than her spouse, that's gossip. Right or wrong, it's none of anybody's business. If two high-profile climbers divorce, that's different. It isn't gossip; it's news. In fact, it's publicly available information. Locking a thread for the stated reason of fear of where it might go is excessive moderation—even, dare I say, censorship. Jay
even though i cant stand jay, I think he hit it head on.
and how is this site now above gossip anyway? personal attacks, swearing, flaming, ect are all FINE, but a high-profile couple who was MARKETED and SOLD to climbers is off-limits?
seems like a slippery slope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
