Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
** Censorship At Rc.com!! **
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 5:50 PM
Post #1 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

** Censorship At Rc.com!! **
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

All right, 'fess up?

Who is the coward?

Within the last five or ten minutes, a post was completely deleted - not moved, deleted! - from the Aid Climbing Forum.

The post was written by Rich Copeland [justsendingits] and was entitled,

"Should Gawd be nailed to a pole in camp 5?" [or words to this effect]

In this post, Rich described how when he returned to bear boxes in Curry Village [previously known to climbers as "Camp 5"] he found his gear had been confiscated by the rangers.

The reason his gear was confiscated is believed to be a direct result of RC.com user "gawd" ratting out the climbers.

Although I didn't have any gear stored there, I know several people who were extremely angered to find their gear confiscated, especially since this had worked fine for over three years!

There is a tremendous degree of anger in Yosemite over this.



Please click here to read where gawd ratted out the Yosemite climbers.

So Richard made his new post in the Aid Climbing forum, and within moments, furious climbers [including] responded in anger at gawd's act.

Gawd read the post and responded - he was extremely unrepentent.

Further angst followed, the gist of which was that [to put it kindly] gawd was rather unsportsmanlike in his actions. Several people offered him suggestions, and looked forward to meeting him.

The reason it was in the Aid Forum is that this is the "meeting place" for Yosemite climbers worldwide. Gawd's ratting us out is an extremely serious action that affects all Yosemite climbers evidently in perpetuity.

Translation - we're pissed! Big time!


But my anger is NOTHING compared to what I feel now - that this post has evidently been deleted.

I've searched the place - it's gone. Completely.



** I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION! **

Since when was censorship allowed at RC.com?




I am Dr. Piton,

and I am wicked pissed.

"gawd is a jerk for ratting out the


elrojobdugs


Aug 12, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #2 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i agree... free speech... whats going on with rc and deleting posts... ive seen 2 deleted in the past three days... petes and the one about gays... i love women and i found the post extremely odd, but it just asked if there were gay climbers out there. there was no need to delete that post. there was no shocking statements in there... WTF... and in regard to the gawd post... WTF too... gawd obviously felt he could hold his own since he replied to the posts bashing him (which he deserves)... there wasnt anything wrong with the post about gawd... i had nothign to do with the post or the people that are the subject of it... im pissed... this is just gay (pun not intended)... whats next, are u going to kick users of rc.com???


flyinghatchet


Aug 12, 2003, 6:05 PM
Post #3 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 742

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What gawd did is so not cool. If he were in front of me I'd tie him up with cordelette, stuff him into an oversized pig and send him to Camp 5 with a note on his forehead. And elrojobdugs, users have already been kicked off this site before.


elrojobdugs


Aug 12, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #4 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

well as u prolly noticed i didnt knwo that... complete bs


daisuke


Aug 12, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #5 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 904

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pete, I was looking at that thread when it got erased, but rest assured I'm one for doing something about this whole situation!

D


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #6 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

PUBLIC PM I SENT TO TREVOR, and am CC'ING TO EVERYONE ELSE:


Trevor,

What's going on? A post has been completely deleted from RC.com!

The post had to do with a confession made by gawd that he ratted out all the Yosemite climbers by emailing the rangers to tell them we were bending the rules by storing climbing gear in bear boxes, which we've done for years unmolested.

Shortly after gawd's claim to inform the tools, all the bear boxes were locked and the gear confiscated!

I can't begin to tell you how pissed off the entire Yosemite community was.

Rich Copeland [justsendingits] made a post in Aid this aft talking about how he had HIS gear confiscated, and made various comments concerning gawd. I called gawd a fool and a coward. Ed [up2top] told me he expressed concern that the post was becoming a flame, and thought maybe it should be moved to Community.

I told Ed that the content of the now deleted post was mild compared to the stuff people have written about me, and which remained, in the aid forum.

There were 15 replies to the post, when suddenly it was completely deleted by persons unknown. It's gone.

I'm EXTREMELY ANGERED.

It is my intent NOT to let this die. Sorry. I intend to get to the bottom of this.

I hope you are as concerned as I about unwanted posts being deleted by censors unknown.

Why wasn't it moved to Community at least?

Or to Archives?

Who did it? Can you find out?


Let's get to the bottom of this asap to make sure that stuff like this doesn't become commonplace around here.

Freedom of speech is FUNDAMENTAL to our survival at RC.com. Without it, and with people deleting stuff they don't like, the website is DOOMED.

[/rant]

Pete



http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37376


CC'S TO THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD.





I'm not about to let this die.

What gawd did was despicable - but deleting a post is even more so.


atg200


Aug 12, 2003, 6:25 PM
Post #7 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

wah wah wah. is there so little in your life that you declare jihad over a missing post? too bad i resigned as a moderator or i would go delete your index post to really fire you up.


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 6:35 PM
Post #8 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You know, Andrew, if every moderator felt the way you do, we would have no website.

A website is a public exchange of information. It can't be censored. Freedom of speech is fundamental. Ask any Merrican.

Freedom of speech means sharing it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly. This one was bad, but hadn't yet got ugly?

Are you a Nazi, Andrew? Do you believe that if a moderator or admin doesn't like a post, it can just be deleted? Do you think that this is not important?

For you to brush off a complete deletion of a post as trivial is insensitive at best, and most likely much worse.

RC.com will be a much better place without YOU as moderator, Andrew Gran.

Good frickin' riddance of YOU.


[My index is of course backed up. Duh.]


climbinganne


Aug 12, 2003, 6:37 PM
Post #9 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 15, 2002
Posts: 11679

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
pete, I was looking at that thread when it got erased, but rest assured I'm one for doing something about this whole situation!

D

Hello climbinganne!

This is an automatically generated message.

daisuke changed the amount of time required between your postings in the forums, to 3600 seconds (60 minutes ) with the following comment:

purposely got past the language filter AGAIN


THIS IS WHAT HE WAS DOING...




In reply to:
Good frickin' riddance of YOU.



PETE WERE YOU TARPITTED FOR THIS STATEMENT???


IF NOT DAISUKE...YOU SOME SOME SPLAININ' TO DO




WHAT ABOUT THIS THREAD...

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37366

WAS RYAN TARPITTED TOO???




OR THIS ONE, WITH A MOD POSTING TO IT...WAS JON TARPITTED???

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37382




DAMIEN NAZI4LYFE!!!!!


elrojobdugs


Aug 12, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #10 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i take back my refute against rc.com... its really not that big of a deal... youre just repeating what u did to make your post removed... flaming and overly flaming at that... its rediculous how your overreacting... step back, take a look, and chill brotha


flyinghatchet


Aug 12, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #11 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 742

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Pete, I don't agree with Andrew on this one, but I have to say this site will not be better off without him.


bshaftoe


Aug 12, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #12 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 121

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sounds like gawd was trolling and caught some whoppers.

What makes you think that the climbing rangers don't read posts here, especially since they contribute on usenet and supertopos.com?


flyinghatchet


Aug 12, 2003, 6:43 PM
Post #13 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 742

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

He said he did, and we'll go with that until something shows otherwise.


Partner missedyno


Aug 12, 2003, 6:45 PM
Post #14 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i'm not sure where the thread went. up2top is the mod for that forum and he wasn't online at the time from what i understand. must have been an admin then.


Partner xcel360


Aug 12, 2003, 6:47 PM
Post #15 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 481

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
pete, I was looking at that thread when it got erased, but rest assured I'm one for doing something about this whole situation!

D

Hello climbinganne!

This is an automatically generated message.

daisuke changed the amount of time required between your postings in the forums, to 3600 seconds (60 minutes ) with the following comment:

purposely got past the language filter AGAIN


THIS IS WHAT HE WAS DOING...

Man, that's messed up. And so is the whole other post getting deleted. Since when can we not speak freely? Did anyone truly feel offended by any of this? Maybe they should learn to except it, and deal with it.

In the words of Voltaire (I think): "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it"

<=glen=>


epic_ed


Aug 12, 2003, 7:08 PM
Post #16 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4723

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No word yet on who or why it was deleted, but please, fortheluvaGawd! Everyone take a deep breath and try to relax.

Andrew, I'll take this opportunity to publically thank you for the time, effort, and patience you have devoted to moderating the aid forum. You may be getting a PM or two from me looking for some guidance.

Ed


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 7:10 PM
Post #17 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ed [up2top] told me via PM that he did not delete the post, and I verily believe him.

What I have to wonder is, who would have a motive to delete the post?

Obviously gawd would. But he couldn't, could he? Or is gawd really one of our moderators' secret usernames? It's possible, isn't it?

Did somebody delete the post because it makes RC.com "look bad"? Well, it's true that it's an unpleasant topic, but if you think things are unpleasant here, you ought to have been in Yosemite in Camp 5 last June when incensed climbers found their stuff confiscated.

Gawd admitted to doing this in the post I've linked above. Read it for yourself. You'll find it at the beginning of the post.



Despicable though gawd's act is - and the ripple effect it has had in changing the way Yosemite climbers live - is not the issue here in the General Forum. We will deal with gawd in the Aid Forum, the area where Yosemite climbers [who this issue affects] hang out.

[Whoever deleted the post is a fool to believe it would disappear. It's coming back, with a vengeance. Richard is rewriting his post at the moment. Watch the Aid Forum for a *real* doozy ... if you think the one that was deleted was something, wait'll you see this one...]




The issue here is censorship - the deletion of unwanted posts by coward unknown.

The entire survival of the website is on the line. Without the ability to express ourselves freely, the place is doomed. It smacks of Stalinism.

I write this as one who has been flamed a lot. Some of it was justified, some of it was self-inflicted, but most of it was untrue, stupid, and just plain malicious. [This is OK - I like the attention]

However my point is this - the flames against me were much nastier than this one which was just deleted - yet those flames against me weren't deleted.

Are you aware that the #1 Most Read Topic of All Time as RC.com was a flame about me? It generated over 33,000 hits. You'll find it in the Trip Reports forum. Or check the Top 10, which is linked at left.



Perhaps I over-reacted to Andrew. Certainly some of my anger stems from a personal dispute I have with him, and I allowed it to colour my post.

But mostly, my anger at Andrew is his cavalier attitude - how he simply dismisses something as important as censorship with a flick of the wrist!

How would you feel if you were reading the New York Times, or the Toronto Star, and right in front of your eyes, somebody walked up and took their scissors the very article you were reading, and suddenly it was gone?

What would happen if Sixty Minutes or W-5 or a similar show were publishing something nasty about a politician or whatever, and suddenly the plug was pulled on the cable?

How would you like it if the books were pulled out your library and burned? Maybe not so obviously, but what if a certain volume or two that the librarian didn't like were "removed" or "accidentally" lost.



This is about accountability, people.

And dammit, SOMEONE is going to be held accountable over this.


epic_ed


Aug 12, 2003, 7:17 PM
Post #18 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4723

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If Rich's thread comes back, I hope it's done in such a way as to fit within the parameters of the ToS so it can STAY unedited and un-moderated.

I think the key here is to get a firm explanation as to why it was so offensive as to be deleted. I'll get back with ya as soon as I hear something.

Ed


dirtineye


Aug 12, 2003, 7:18 PM
Post #19 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This ain't really my fight, but, a few observations about this site, that pretty much apply to other sites too:

1. You step on some admin's pal, you get a warning or a ban or something. people are just that way.

2. Some moderators and or admins are overzealous. Some are too easily offended. Some are having a bad day. Some have big egos or power trips. All will use bad judgement once in a while. BUT, does it really matter in the long run, when by and large things run pretty well around here? Do you need to have a temper tantrum over one stupid post?

3. Free speech in a non-publicly funded forum? HAHAHAHAHAHA forget it! Unless RC.com is publicly funded, by the government, or part of the gov, it's private. And that means, RC.com can do what they want about censorship. You can hold your breath til yo uturn blue and it won't matter. That might not seem fair, but then, you can start your own web page adn say whatever you want-- THAT is free speech. You do not have the right to say whatever you want on someone elses's site, they can choose to let what you say live or die.

4. Some things probably need censoring. Who decides this? Hopefully someone wise and responsible. I'm glad it's not me LOL. Personally, I'd like to see a LOT MORE post moving and deleting, cause there is 99% crap on this site, and even good threads get hijacked and stepped on by dumb-butts, and if it were up to me, and I had the time and the money, Id spend all day cleaning up this dung heap, so be GLAD you avhe the mods and admins you've got! 8)

5. How could anyone tar pitt climbinganne? This makes no sense.

6. PTPP has an ego the size of Seward's Folly, it's true, but think of the entertainment value! Why anyone would want to do something as twisted and sick as aid climbing when there is all that freeclimbing out there is beyond me, but after all, he IS from Canada, and probably was dropped on his head one time to many as a small child. Don't cut him any slack, but don't flame the poor thing either, he really doea a lot for all the misguided aiders. :P

Time to quit before I piss everyone off hahahahahaha.

If this post makes you mad, remember, it's words on a screen on a computer. You coudl be doing something worthwhile instead! IF it made you laugh, I like your sense of humor.


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 7:23 PM
Post #20 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What can I say? Some people "get it," and some people don't.

Curt emphatically gets it.

Ed - the post was a bit offensive, but it was not all that bad fer cryin' out loud! You know full well there are dozens of posts on this website far more offensive than that one was.

Just find out who it was, I'll rant like hell at 'em, let's make sure it doesn't happen again, and life goes on.

In the meantime, please come back to the aid forum for a pasting of gawd.


epic_ed


Aug 12, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #21 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4723

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yeah, that's the thing -- I'm not even sure what I missed in that last hour. Did it go south in a hurry with threats of bodily harm?


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 8:01 PM
Post #22 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Perhaps that was a problem. If gawd did indeed do this [send the link to the rangers] as he said he did, then the threat of a public lynching is a distinct possibility!

He'd best have eyes in the back of his head, and steer clear of Camp 5. There are a lot of angry climbers there.

Of course, if it really was a troll, then he could say this too.

But again, the issue here isn't gawd - we'll be dealing with him in Aid shortly.

The issue is censorship - who, and why?


justsendingits


Aug 12, 2003, 8:04 PM
Post #23 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I can handle having my thread deleted,(although none to happy about it)It's just the way it was done,no PM from whoever did it,explaining why..

Content I guess,but it pales in comparison to MANY other threads I can still look at on this site.I have said way worse before here.Although the title of the thread could have been more tactful."Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5"

But I did phrase it in the form of a question like Alex Trebeck tought me...



Andrew,I think you did a fine job as Mod. of the aid forum.And thank you for all your work.

R


atg200


Aug 12, 2003, 8:04 PM
Post #24 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pete - if this smacks of stalinism in your world, i would encourage you to go somewhere where you can see firsthand what stalin created. i just came back from such a place, and you clearly have no idea what reality can be like. in a stalinist society, for even writing something like this you would have disappeared forever. get some perspective.

mistakes happen - moderators and admins are human. i have accidentally deleted a few posts during my time as a mod and admin - i meant to move them or edit them, and i hit the wrong button. shit happens. there certainly is not or couldn't be any sort of administration sanctioned protection of gawd - remember that he was banned in the past for being incendiary, and he is certainly capable of standing up for his own actions right or wrong. my guess is this whole thing is an honest mistake, but i no longer have any way of knowing(nor do i care).

when you go off on a rampage like this pete, you look like a fool. your grandstanding does no good whatsoever, and antagonizes anyone who would have any sympathy for your stance. if it does turn out to be a mistake, i hope you eat your crow and apologize, but i am sure you will not. of all the people who should forgive a mistake, it should be you - i can't count the number of times i got pm's from you to fix up some post of yours that you screwed up in the aid forum, and i've spent more time trying to defend your personal gaffes to other mods/admins even as recently as yesterday. i don't like you much, but i also don't think you should be treated unfairly based on someone's personal dislike.

i never, ever did any unethical moderating in any of my forums while a mod or admin, and i challenge you to prove otherwise. part of the reason why i gladly walked away when ed stepped up was to be rid of dealing with you and the legions of people complaining about you. i did a good job of not acting on impulses when pissed off by people - perhaps you should try to do that as well.


dave1970


Aug 12, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #25 of 266 (18765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Pete,

Such a post obviously undermines the commercial aspirations of the stakeholders of this site.


organic


Aug 12, 2003, 8:22 PM
Post #26 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The only reason this site exists is because of people like us. If there were not people like us existing to give this site the posts, pictures, money, code, this site wouldn' exist. To have anyone delete a post especially with a word filter in place makes no sense at all. This is a site of free speech and what we see and read should be decided by us. moderators should not have the ability to deleted posts, maybe close them for conversation or move them ot another forum. But deleted them??? It is like biting the hand that feeds you And I'm sure there are logs of the deletion is whomever wants to come forward with who did it?


elrojobdugs


Aug 12, 2003, 8:28 PM
Post #27 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

exactly right dirtineye...


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:38 PM
Post #28 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm surprised Andy gave in to the urge to reply to you. Yeah, the mod panel needs auditing. I'm finishing that right now, in fact, and un-audited moves/deletes won't happen anymore.

But this whole *** Censorship *** angle is weak.

It is explicitly noted in the 'terms of service' which users agree to when posting, that a moderator may at their sole discretion remove

In reply to:

any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, illegal, or overtly destructive.

Next time, read before you rant. There are occasional passers-by who might find a thread dedicated to a kangaroo trial on rc.com a wee bit threatening. Probably pisses you off that 'tito' isn't real impressed with your schtick, as well. Good for him!



In reply to:
You know, Andrew, if every moderator felt the way you do, we would have no website.

If every user was as much of a prick as you sometimes are, there would be no website on this URL, because no one would be motivated to keep it up. How well do your aid posts go over at boldering.com or on rec.climbing? Yeah, keep that in mind next time you rip on the mods.

This isn't protected speech, under American or Canadian law. This is bits and bytes on a hard drive. Trevor (or yours truly, since Trevor isn't likely to read your PM any time soon, being on vacation for a time) could wipe them and take the server down and there's nothing you could do about it. The reason no one does this is that, most of the time, it's satisfying to have a community resource and see people enjoying it. There is some give-and-take to the relationship -- all of the stakeholders recognize the site would suck without longtime members, and there is a lot of thought put into accomodating as diverse a community as practicable. But in the end the burdens of the site are not borne by the majority of users, rather, by the owners and the volunteer moderators.

Tearing into Andy was particularly pathetic, since he resigned a while ago as a moderator. If you read more than a word or two into his post you'd know this. Andrew did a good job; sometimes his judgement differs from yours. At least he's not just some Internet Superhero acting out a role.


climber49er


Aug 12, 2003, 8:41 PM
Post #29 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 1400

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Good Grief Petey!

You've been around long enough to know that RC.com reserves the right to delete whatever the heck they want to! (private enterprise, sponsors, blah blah blah)

I don't understand the issue at hand (the yosemite gear thing) and quite frankly it doesn't matter if I do or don't. The owners of RC.com do not have to let you or anyone else post anything here if they choose not to.

I had an auction disapear on Ebay not long ago. Why? Because they didn't want it there. No explaination needed. It's their system, they make the rules, case closed. Same applies here.

Goodnight... Zzzzzzz


moabbeth


Aug 12, 2003, 8:41 PM
Post #30 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I commented on the thread that got deleted, and saw all the other posts ahead of mine. I totally fail to see WHY the thread was deleted. I've seen things on this site 100% more offensive, accusatory and vile that not only stay up but are allowed to fester to 10 pages worth of hostile flaming. Totally makes no sense to me. :roll:

Pete's right, this is a serious issue that involves Yosemite climbers. And for all of us who have been wrongfully messed with by the Tool (myself included), we know what Gawd did was unspeakably wrong. He deserves a lifetime of bad climbing juju. And what he did deserves to be discussed on this forum. Please bring that thread back so everyone can see what we were talking about.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #31 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I commented on the thread that got deleted, and saw all the other posts ahead of mine. I totally fail to see WHY the thread was deleted. I've seen things on this site 100% more offensive, accusatory and vile that not only stay up but are allowed to fester to 10 pages worth of hostile flaming. Totally makes no sense to me. :roll:

Pete's right, this is a serious issue that involves Yosemite climbers. And for all of us who have been wrongfully messed with by the Tool (myself included), we know what Gawd did was unspeakably wrong. He deserves a lifetime of bad climbing juju. And what he did deserves to be discussed on this forum. Please bring that thread back so everyone can see what we were talking about.

See, here's the problem. When I see your response, I want to dig into the database and see if I can paw the wreckage out of it, since (pre-auditing) I have no idea of who'd have done it. (Personally I like Eric, but he's his own man, it's not my business what he does or the consequences he faces)

When I saw Pete's response I wanted to bite his head off.

The thing is, Pete strikes this Rebel Without a Pause affectation, and your response actually explains why the thread's deletion was a mistake. (Concisely.) Pete, you should take a look at Beth's style, maybe you could pick something up.

I dunno, the content seems similar, the presentation is radically different. For my part I'm simply going to finish adding post-on-move and PM-on-delete to the forums so this doesn't happen again. I hope the mod will discuss the topic offline with the original poster and see what can be done.


justsendingits


Aug 12, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #32 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So I got this recipe the other day.

3 eggs
brownie mix
wallnuts(no,not aid climbers)
two tbls. of water
one third cup of oil
prescribed medication for Glue-coma(half ounce)

Bake for 35-40 min.


dave1970


Aug 12, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #33 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

[quote="climber49er"]Good Grief Petey!

You've been around long enough to know that RC.com reserves the right to delete whatever the heck they want to! (private enterprise, sponsors, blah blah blah)

Anyone who solicitis "contributions" as if to imply some sort sort of non profit (501 (c)) 3) status has absolutely no right to delete whatever they want to.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:53 PM
Post #34 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gawd/tito is not a mod. I could flip his IP on and off to verify this further, but I don't much need to.

In reply to:
The entire survival of the website is on the line. Without the ability to express ourselves freely, the place is doomed.

I should write a blather filter or just put a hard limit on the # of words average per post by a user. I'll bet the site improves.


gravitysucks


Aug 12, 2003, 8:53 PM
Post #35 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 147

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

let me first say, that I am not an aid climber. I was simply browsing through the topics of the day a few hours back. but I do climb and I do write and they are both things I am passionate about. and I believe freedom of expression and individuality are extremely important in both endeavors. that being said, I have no quarrel with any of the individuals who started and have contributed to this thread or the previous thread ("Should Gawd Be Nailed To A Pole At Camp 5?") that spawned this one.

I'll make this as simple as possible. I was reading [justsendingits] thread before I left work for lunch. left the window up. got back from lunch. refreshed rockclimbing.com in another browser window to find this thread claiming that [justsendingits] thread was missing. true, it may have been missing from the database, but it was still on my screen.

1. I think [justsendingits] thread was probably deleted for a reason. because I do not know what that reason is, I will not repost it here verbatim out of respect for that decision.

I agree with [dirtineye]...this ain't really my fight.

2. BUT because as a writer, I do absloutely believe and find my livelihood in freedom of speech and press, if you wish to read the previous thread, I do have a copy if it is important to you. I hope I am not out of line by making this offer. however, what you choose to do with it is up to you. I chose to keep it. because if they were my words and feelings, I would hope that somebody would pay me the same respect.


:roll: :? :shock: :wink:


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #36 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Anyone who solicitis "contributions" as if to imply some sort sort of non profit (501 (c)) 3) status has absolutely no right to delete whatever they want to.

Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer?

I don't want to imply that wanton disregard for the users is OK; it destroys the community that is our (rc.com's) primary attraction. What I do want to emphasize is that the owners and their chosen agents (currently, a bunch of volunteer moderators) have significant and unimpeachable latitude in terms of what they can exclude. Until some of the automatic 'trust-measuring' code I have been working on has had time to prove itself, it's the best you're likely to find in this market.

No man has a monopoly on truth. Don't forget that when you go into battle for one of Pete's post-count wars.


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #37 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That's interesting, Tim.

If RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting the majority of posts on the website.

And if RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting RC.com's All-Time #1 Post with over 34,000 hits, which just so happens to be mostly a flame against me, written about me while I was climbing El Cap!

So riddle me this - why is it that the flames against me or others are not deleted, yet the flame against gawd is?

Is their preferential flaming at work here?

Perhaps there are politics involved?

Are certain users treated better than others? Is this the Animal Farm of the www?

Maybe if you are one of the annointed few, your posts won't get deleted or moved.

Now, just because RC.com has the right to do the above does not make it right.

Paul said we should live under grace, not the law.

Shaw said, "the law is an ass."

I don't see much grace around here, and the law sure as hell ain't the only ass round this place.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #38 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
If RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting the majority of posts on the website.

As usual, you failed to actually read the text. Any of the above are 'at the discretion of the moderators'. So when someone tears into you for pedophilia, you'll find that it cuts both ways.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 8:58 PM
Post #39 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
2. BUT because as a writer, I do absloutely believe and find my livelihood in freedom of speech and press, if you wish to read the previous thread, I do have a copy if it is important to you. I hope I am not out of line by making this offer. however, what you choose to do with it is up to you. I chose to keep it. because if they were my words and feelings, I would hope that somebody would pay me the same respect.

:roll: :? :shock: :wink:

This is really cool. The thread's not in the database, but this is probably the most constructive response so far.

Pete has taken up this fight because he's nothing better to do -- of that I am certain. Your offer was extremely cool and bridges the time gap between now and whenever the person who whacked the thread, offers up their explanation.

For whatever it's worth, I didn't whack the post; I can look through the logs to find out who did, but it's really up to them to offer their prerogative. I just think it's cool that you are helping resolve the matter.


dave1970


Aug 12, 2003, 9:01 PM
Post #40 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer?

Sit down, chump.

Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation


organic


Aug 12, 2003, 9:02 PM
Post #41 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

BWAHAHAHA I can't believe he is so proud of this
In reply to:
RC.com's All-Time #1 Post with over 34,000 hits, which just so happens to be mostly a flame against me
!!

NICE!!!!


passthepitonspete


Aug 12, 2003, 9:03 PM
Post #42 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just because you have the right to censor doesn't make it right. Sure, sometimes there are obvious reasons to delete, but this post sure as hell wasn't one of them.

Good on you to change the code so it can't happen accidentally again, if indeed it was an accident, which I rather doubt. [If it were, the person who did it would have said so, and we would have said, Ok, dummy, don't do it again, eh?]

Gravity - I would love to see the whole thread! Please email it to me at peterzabrok@cogeco.ca

I would suggest you PM or email each person's response back to them, or email them the whole darn thing too.

FYI, it's been replaced on the Aid Climbing forum.

You can click here if you want to know why everyone is angry at gawd.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 9:08 PM
Post #43 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer? Sit down, chump.


Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation
Where is rc.com listed as nonprofit? Or a charity?

Contributions can be solicited by private LLC's as goodwill, last time I checked. The site provides a service and some users make a 'suggested donation'. This is not mutually exclusive with restraint or discretion, especially when conflicting interests are at play.

If Eric gets his ass beat into a bloody pulp as a result of a character assassination on here, it would be a rather poor precedent. It's called mob rule and it sucks. This website runs on privately owned hardware and its bills are paid by individuals. I'm working on changing the business model from a 'tip jar' to an explicitly service-oriented business, in concert with the owner (Trevor) and the other leads (Adam and Russ), but every second I spend on one of these threads is time I don't have to work on bug fixes or testing out the services. So hopefully between this answer and the edit I made to my reply to you, you'll have all you need to 'discuss', because I am going to cut my losses and excuse myself from this discussion for a while, which I ought to have done half an hour ago.


justsendingits


Aug 12, 2003, 9:46 PM
Post #44 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Someone deleeted my lame ass thread,which is even more lame.


dave1970


Aug 12, 2003, 9:57 PM
Post #45 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer? Sit down, chump.


Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation

Where is rc.com listed as nonprofit? Or a charity?

Contributions can be solicited by private LLC's as goodwill, last time I checked. The site provides a service and some users make a 'suggested donation'. This is not mutually exclusive with restraint or discretion, especially when conflicting interests are at play.

Tim,

since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state.

I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading.

If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".

I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe.

I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for
encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended.

So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally.

Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here.

After all I am just a chump.


climber49er


Aug 12, 2003, 10:13 PM
Post #46 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 1400

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Tim,

since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state.

I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading.

If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".

I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe.

I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for
encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended.

So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally.

Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here.

After all I am just a chump.


It is not difficult at all to figure out that RC.com is not a nonprofit organization. I knew it the first time I visited this site. I also saw the list of contributors.

It doesn't take long for a thinking person to understand that this is a privately owned site that is gracious enough to not charge a subscription or entry fee of any kind. That is nice.

I benefit from someone else's hard work and resources, I like that, so I donate if I choose to. Thats the way it works. Easy enough. I didn't feel duped for even a moment.


Partner sauron


Aug 12, 2003, 11:14 PM
Post #47 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading.

If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".

As someone who has ran community sites since before rc.com wore diapers, I am pretty sure that this site has _never_ had a profit.

And Pete, stop gabbing - I had to turn down the thermostat on my A/C, you were spewing so much hot air...

- d.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 11:42 PM
Post #48 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
pete, I was looking at that thread when it got erased, but rest assured I'm one for doing something about this whole situation!

D

Hello climbinganne!

This is an automatically generated message.

daisuke changed the amount of time required between your postings in the forums, to 3600 seconds (60 minutes ) with the following comment:

purposely got past the language filter AGAIN


THIS IS WHAT HE WAS DOING...

Man, that's messed up. And so is the whole other post getting deleted. Since when can we not speak freely? Did anyone truly feel offended by any of this? Maybe they should learn to except it, and deal with it.

In the words of Voltaire (I think): "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it"

<=glen=>

You realize you're being an imbecile, right? Either that or you're trolling.

If I toss my dog's shit into the middle of your shindig, do you 'just deal'?

Thought not.

What about if I choose to express my satisfaction with your mother`s sexual favors by spraypainting a big thank-you on your car? Is that, too, something with which you should 'just deal'? I mean, I'd surely be expressing myself freely. And without my efforts, that piece of 'art' would not exist! So you'd just 'deal' with your displeasure, right?

Unlikely.

Every time you post, right at the bottom of your window, you're agreeing to this site's fine little Terms of Service. In consideration of the Service (5 million visits a month and counting), you agree to the Terms (no cussin', no fightin', no smokin' at the dinner table), and everybody is usually happy. You really ought to read the agreement that you're agreeing to.


Partner tim


Aug 12, 2003, 11:47 PM
Post #49 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Tim,

since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state.

I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading.

If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".

I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe.

I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for
encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended.

So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally.

Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here.

After all I am just a chump.

FWIW, this is a point I have brought up time and again with Trevor. I don't believe that anything short of a co-op with ownership shares is appropriate for that sort of donation; however I am not acting alone nor do I control the direction of the site by myself, so until such time as I can convince Trevor to go along with the gag, it may stay that way. A better legal wording of what is being solicited, on the other hand, could go up in 30 seconds flat. As for the LLC number, I'll have to get that from Trev, who incorporated the whole thing.

Calling you a 'chump' was out of line. (which is why I edited it out) But the point remains that the assets of the site are not held by a 501(c)3 nor in trust by the state; as far as I am aware, you`d have trouble even bending the ear of a small-claims judge for the amounts we`re talking about here.

Rc.com makes enough to pay for operating expenses and that`s about it.


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 12:36 AM
Post #50 of 266 (16061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ok so someone deleted my post,intentional or by accident.
whatever.....

I love this site,and if a mod. or an addm. make a mistake or a bad call once in awhile,big deal.As long as it does not happen on a regular basis.

Sometimes I get a little bi-polar and look at a post I submitted and wonder what was I thinking,that is what the edit box is for.(please note the edit box is not for storing climbing gear and will be padlocked if abused)

The ppl. at this site who do a lot of hard work should be thanked more often.

There seems to be a lot more to disagreements between some ppl. here than is on the surface.Seems like they just use these debates to flame one another than wanting to exchange opinions and have a productive debate(me included sometimes).
I guess some of the negative relationships here at RC. go back along way.

But the bottom line is a lot of you guys add more to this site than take away.
Like PTPP,so he is overly dependent on external admiration,so what.
I know this might seem like a melodramatic statement to non aid climbers.
But Pete has quite possibly saved lives with his advice,or at the least made life better for aid climbers.His posts helped me when I first started climbing and still do.
A lot of ppl. that rail on him do very little to help out new climbers.I have talked with valley locals who agree with me.They praise him for his help and his climbing.And I am talking about VERY experienced valley climbers.

Same goes for the Mods. and addm.Sure with all the things they post and all the work they do,I could try hard to find a mistake they made or a bad call and make a big deal out of it.But at the end of the day,what they do here is very positive.Me thanks you all.

Some you guys need to keep your personal displeasure with on another out of these debates.

Kind of reminds me of a few bad arguments between boyfriend/girlfriend teams that I have seen on the rock.
It starts out over how to do a move,but then they bring other disagreements into the argument that have nothing to do with climbing but they vent it out over how to do the move.
Can we be productive and move on now??


With that said,time for me to go make some brownies....


Drive fast take chances...

R


fanederhand


Aug 13, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #51 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 243

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This is a rock climbing site. Hopefully used by responsible environmentally minded climbers. If people want to be perverts and be pornographic they should go some where else. If climbers are involved in illegal activities and discuss them in this forum they make us all look bad and should be reported to the proper authorities.


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 5:33 AM
Post #52 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yes I know,I should be banned from the park for at least a year for using broken bear boxes no one els has used for the last 2 years.Or better yet,a year for each broken bear box,and 100 hrs. of hard labor breaking rocks behind curry so the NPS can develop more housing for low wage employes.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 7:12 AM
Post #53 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow... This really has exploded, eh ???

I am looking into who deleted this post, and why. As I stated when I replied to that thread, that "it needed to remain civil, as it echoed the Front Page." And I agree that the topic was legite, but unfortunately the delivery and tone brought down the thread. I did not see how the thread progressed after your first reply Pete, so I don't know how far it decragded. I can say that even your post was boarder line on violating the TOS, but we try to be tolerant, and only Moderate "blatant" and/or "excessive" stuff.


As for Andrew "joking" about deleting your Index... You have said yourself that "The Aid Forum is not full of all the fluff and of-topic stuff in the other Forums, and is strioctly related to Aid technique", but you seem to inject most of the "fleff and off-topic"... Just look at the first page of your Index... How much does it have to do with Aid ??? :roll:


Once again you have turned on the very person who has been on your side, and deffended you countless times... Andrew. Just as you turned on me, when it was me who fought to get you your own Forum, and even thought of the name Dr Piton (remember, you wanted to use Professor Piton), only to have you abuse it to promote yourself, and prey upon naive female users. You like to label people Pete, but you have no integrity, as you stand for whatever promotes you, and even this changes.


One last thing... Funny how many know that I am the Lead in regards to the Staff, and the TOS directs users to "PM any Admin if you feel that you have been Moderated unfairly", yet I have recieved no PMs from any users, just from a few Mods asking about this. It seems that many would rather use this as a platform to publically inject more drama, than to really resolve it.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 7:23 AM
Post #54 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
If climbers are involved in illegal activities and discuss them in this forum they make us all look bad and should be reported to the proper authorities.

Whoa. Was that a joke or what?


Partner xcel360


Aug 13, 2003, 7:31 AM
Post #55 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 481

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
You realize you're being an imbecile, right? Either that or you're trolling.

If I toss my dog's poo into the middle of your shindig, do you 'just deal'?

Thought not.

What about if I choose to express my satisfaction with your mother`s sexual favors by spraypainting a big thank-you on your car? Is that, too, something with which you should 'just deal'? I mean, I'd surely be expressing myself freely. And without my efforts, that piece of 'art' would not exist! So you'd just 'deal' with your displeasure, right?

Unlikely.

Every time you post, right at the bottom of your window, you're agreeing to this site's fine little Terms of Service. In consideration of the Service (5 million visits a month and counting), you agree to the Terms (no cussin', no fightin', no smokin' at the dinner table), and everybody is usually happy. You really ought to read the agreement that you're agreeing to.

WTF did that come from? Someone blabbing about something is different than you vandalizing my vehicle. You can say whatever you want about my mother, but the second you take it out on a persons property it's a whole other story. Really bad example Tim. And yes I've read the terms of service, and I know what it says. I was just expressing *my* opinon of the situation. Your response is exactly what I'm talking about it. So I guess you felt the need to flame me for it for whatever reason. That's fine, I'll *deal* with it. I have no need to get involved in a flame war with you, all I did was express my opinion. I don't know which part it was but something I said obviously sent you over the top.


timstich


Aug 13, 2003, 7:40 AM
Post #56 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 6263

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Gawd/tito is not a mod. I could flip his IP on and off to verify this further, but I don't much need to.

In reply to:
The entire survival of the website is on the line. Without the ability to express ourselves freely, the place is doomed.

I should write a blather filter or just put a hard limit on the # of words average per post by a user. I'll bet the site improves.

Please. Continue running the forums into the ground. These kinds of comments from you don't serve any other purpose.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 7:47 AM
Post #57 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Gawd/tito is not a mod. I could flip his IP on and off to verify this further, but I don't much need to.

In reply to:
The entire survival of the website is on the line. Without the ability to express ourselves freely, the place is doomed.

I should write a blather filter or just put a hard limit on the # of words average per post by a user. I'll bet the site improves.

Please. Continue running the forums into the ground. These kinds of comments from you don't serve any other purpose.

Right on. The arrogance of these people is just amazing.


killclimbz


Aug 13, 2003, 7:49 AM
Post #58 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What gawd did was crap. Plain and simple. Guys like him don't belong in this sport. What he did just brought another issue to plate in the ongoing climbers vs. rangers scene in Yosemite. I haven't climbed in Yosemite actively for a few years now, so I am not sure of the legitimacy of "Camp 5". Sounds like from the other posts on this subject the rangers are aware of it and they do seem to be tolerant of it at the minimum.

Now then, dirtbagging and over staying your limit at the Valley has always been part of the scene. How many climbing trips would be cut short if everyone followed these lame rules? How many people have slept at the base of a climb to get a good early morning start at a route there? Whether if you believe this is acceptable or not it still happens.

All gawd has done is add another incident to the argument against climbing in Yosemite. Attracting attention where it didn't need to be. Way to go. You can be certain when restrictions are being considered by the powers that be, this will be used as one of many examples.

Way to go gawd.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 7:52 AM
Post #59 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
What gawd did was crap. Plain and simple. Guys like him don't belong in this sport. What he did just brought another issue to plate in the ongoing climbers vs. rangers scene in Yosemite. I haven't climbed in Yosemite actively for a few years now, so I am not sure of the legitimacy of "Camp 5". Sounds like from the other post on this subject the rangers are aware of it and they don't seem to be tolerant of it at the minimum.

Now then, dirtbagging and over staying your limit at the Valley has always been part of the scene. How many climbing trips would be cut short if everyone followed these lame rules? How many people have slept at the base of a climb to get a good early morning start at a route there? Whether if you believe this is acceptable or not it still happens.

All gawd has done is add another incident to the argument against climbing in Yosemite. Attracting attention where it didn't need to be. Way to go. You can be certain when restrictions are being considered by the powers that be, this will be used as one of many examples.

Way to go gawd.

Ah, well said.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 8:05 AM
Post #60 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Alright, everybody quit hijacking PTPP's thread here. He raised the issue of freedom of speech in the forums.

I took a look at the TOS because I was curious to see how this policy is stated. I expected to see at least some prominent lip service to this uniquely American value. Instead all I saw was this:

In reply to:
Therefore, if an individual is acting in a manner that reduces the value of this investment, we (the owners and administrators of the site) reserve the right to refuse service to that individual, indefinitely and absolutely.

Surprising to say the least. As if any small committee of people could read a thread and somehow expect to gauge its effect on the "value of this investment" (not to mention its value to the community).

I seached the page for a mention, any mention, of the word "freedom". I got one hit:

In reply to:
This is a business decision, not a freedom-of-speech decision, and we view it as a necessary evil.

They just don't get it.


bluto


Aug 13, 2003, 8:15 AM
Post #61 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 1525

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

:cry: Pete :cry:

Am I really supposed to take a diatribe about censorship and right and wrong seriously when it's coming from a guy (Canadian) who refuses to pay entrance or camping fees in American National Parks.

In addition to dubious behavior noted above you have committed some reprehensible acts regarding women on this site, the details of which many are aware.

Persons with little or no ethics or integrity have no right to question others.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 8:17 AM
Post #62 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In addition to dubious behavior noted above you have committed some reprehensible acts regarding women on this site, the details of which many are aware.

Persons with little or no ethics or integrity have no right to question others.

Jesus Christ. That is totally inappropriate. Somebody should tarpit this idiot.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 8:26 AM
Post #63 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My 2nd post to this...

Again, I am looking into the details of this, and there is a thread in the M+E where the concenceous is that it should not have been deleted. However, since the details are not known, the labeling of Censorship seems a bit premature, as Andy said, I have accidentally deleted items I meant to move. This may or may not be the case... If it ism then also as Andy stated, I doubt that any of theose crying foul will apologize, as it seems that many would rather use this as a platform to inject more drama, intead of actually resolve anything. This is apparent by nobody following the "suggested course of action" and PMing Admins if they feel they have been Moderated unfairly, instead we have this very dramatic thread... I at least, have recieved none from any users.


So in a nutshell, we have three possibilities:

1. Mistake... Happens to everyone, I would ask that they be more carefull, privately or more than likeliy in the M+E Forum, so we all can learn from it.

2. Poor Judgement... Again happens to everyone, as we are human. If so, this will be handled privately, as many need to be "calibrated" when they first start.

3. Moderator abuse... I doubt it, but I do take this seriously, and if so, will be dealt with privately, as I will not offer anyone up to be roasted in public.



I am a big fan of "praise publically, and critique privately", and will offer nobody up in public. This also extends to users who we have had to take action against for consistantly violating the TOS. I will not offer them up in public either, by posting a user's entire history to justify our actions... This would be unfair to the user.



Now, I will ask... Does anything I have just posted sound unfair ???

The TOS is editable, and we encourage anyone to provide reasonable feedback or suggestions.


daisuke


Aug 13, 2003, 8:42 AM
Post #64 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 904

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

anne, I tarpitted you for getting around the language filter in the very post that got deleted, and don't go telling me I don't have proof, you've been warned enough times.

and no I didn't tarpit pete and he knows it, I also didn't see that post anyway, oh and "frickin" isn't a swear word, pete knows how to tone down his vocabulary. you're just trying to start more flames as usual, get a life.


dingus


Aug 13, 2003, 8:54 AM
Post #65 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17393

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
My 2nd post to this...

My first (just to keep the record straight...)

In reply to:
Now, I will ask... Does anything I have just posted sound unfair ???

I'll have to consult the TOS to see if I'm allowed to use fairness on this site. Do you have a fairness filter too? Oh wait, that's just around the corner. I almost forgot.

rc.com = Matrix? You decide? Nope. Decisions are not covered by your TOS. Your decisions are made for you here.

DMT


Partner calamity_chk


Aug 13, 2003, 9:07 AM
Post #66 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

okay, i havent read this entire thread, nor do i really intend to as my opinions regarding censorship would not be changed.

you people are taking this site entirely too seriously. pete -- few people are here like you, perhaps this is why you're always so paranoid about admins being out to get you? even as a total gumbie, i can see the unnecessary complication in your systems -- especially for beginners.

as for the whole censorship bs, this is a privately run site. if you really want to change the world, then donate or volunteer for ACLU or EFF. that would make more sense than this crap. besides, if the site were run by nazi's, this thread would have disappeared long ago.

and if you need more bullshit in your life, then consider the idea of being in love with climbing and the mountains and then having some selfish asshole put a residency restriction on you so that you have to live near him so that he can see the kid that he abandoned for seven years -- that's f*cking unfair.


maculated


Aug 13, 2003, 9:11 AM
Post #67 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2001
Posts: 6177

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I agree that you people take it all too seriously. Mostly you CAN say what you want, but if it isn't constructive, what the heck is the point? That's all I got to say.


stick233


Aug 13, 2003, 9:35 AM
Post #68 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 339

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

All you first amendment people are funny. This is a private web site. if the owners and their chosen moderators want to delete something, it's their choice. Go create your own site if it's that big a deal that they have the power over choice here.

THEY have the right to refuse service to ANYONE... just like mcdonald's. (i sure could go for a big mac about now)


wpy71


Aug 13, 2003, 9:43 AM
Post #69 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Jesus Christ. That is totally inappropriate. Somebody should tarpit this idiot
.

Kind of ironic to suggest tarpitting someone in a thread against censorship.


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 9:54 AM
Post #70 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
This is a rock climbing site. Hopefully used by responsible environmentally minded climbers .... If climbers are involved in illegal activities and discuss them in this forum they make us all look bad and should be reported to the proper authorities.

"Bending the rules" to live cheaply in an expensive National Park is a time-honoured tradition among Yosemite reprobates, slackers, and the world's greatest climbers. If you would like to discuss the bending of rules, I would ask that you respond in the post that has re-appeared in the Aid Climbing Forum. This post is more about the alleged censorship, which perhaps was an error? I'm typing as I read the post, so I don't know if a solution has been looked into.

In reply to:
"Just as you turned on me, when it was me who fought to get you your own Forum, and even thought of the name Dr Piton (remember, you wanted to use Professor Piton), only to have you abuse it to promote yourself, and prey upon naive female users. You like to label people Pete, but you have no integrity, as you stand for whatever promotes you, and even this changes.

Rrretard, you HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SH|T!

YOU - Adam Bingel - are the person who illegally hacked into someone's email by using your admin powers. You were virtually fired as a result. What you did was borderline criminal.

If the rest of you are not aware of this, please click here to read where rrretard demonstrated his 'integrity' by illegally hacking someone's password.

If would would like to learn more about rrretard's "integrity", you can click here to read about how rrretard was fired from RC.com.

I do not want to hijack my own post and turn it into a flame war, but when rrretard says that I have no integrity, I understandably bristle. I suggest he take a look in the mirror.

If I were half the villain that rrretard and bluto have suggested, would I not have been banned long ago? In fact, I'm rather visible here. When rrretard's behaviour came to light, Trevor telephoned me to make sure that I [and my supporters] were in favour of Trevor's decision to fire rrretard! I assured him we were.

However, I am far from being without blame. If you would like to read some of the ranting I have done that's got me into trouble, you can click here.

May I suggest the killclimbz and skibabeage take their excellent responses to the Aid Climbing forum, where we continue to discuss gawd ratting out we climbers.

Home is where I hang my heart, and my heart hangs in Yosemite.


theooze


Aug 13, 2003, 10:03 AM
Post #71 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Jesus Christ. That is totally inappropriate. Somebody should tarpit this idiot
.

Kind of ironic to suggest tarpitting someone in a thread against censorship.

You don't make off-topic personal attacks on people like that. How would you like it? We won't listen to you because we all know you like little boys, something like that? Whether or not it's true? If I were Pete I'd be mightily pissed.

Is anybody moderating this? What actions, if any, do Bluto's comments require?


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 10:03 AM
Post #72 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Rrretard, you HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF poo!

YOU - Adam Bingel - are the person who illegally hacked into someone's email by using your admin powers. You were virtually fired as a result. What you did was borderline criminal.


Correct... I did abuse my privledges, and acknowledged that I was wrong puplically (I can provide the link, if you like), with no strings attached. This is integrity Pete. I never claimed to be infalible, and acknowledge my faults publically, and learn from them. I also tell on myself, even when nobody would know... This is evidenced in the thread about the RC.com sticker placed in a bathroom out at Tuolumne that I put there. It was noticed, and someone made a post about it here, and I owned up to it. Again Pete... This is an example of integrity, as I am willing to take the beatings I deserve.


On the otherhand... You "emphatically and catagorically deny" that which cannot be proven, and you have even recomended the same to many... Me being one of them, when we were friends, remember ??? This is not integrity Pete.



In reply to:
If I were half the villain that rrretard and bluto have suggested, would I not have been banned long ago? In fact, I'm rather visible here. When rrretard's behaviour came to light, Trevor telephoned me to make sure that I [and my supporters] were in favour of Trevor's decision to fire rrretard! I assured him we were.


Not true... Trevor made a Poll on the Front Page asking user's input on your fate, remember ??? I believe that it was:

1. 45% Ban him
2. 20% Remove his Forum
3. 30% Do nothing
4. 5% What's this about


One reason for the poll was this thread from that era:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4561

When many of the site's users took acception to you abusing your Moderator privledges, abusing users, and your treatment of the female users of the site. Note - How many of the few users who defended you in that thread, quickly denounced you after finally meeting you ??? :roll:


Trevor alone made the choice to keep you. If the site made had the choice, you'd have been long gone. You want democracey when it suits you, this also is not integrity... But like I said, "even what you stand up for changes to suit you."


thomasribiere


Aug 13, 2003, 11:28 AM
Post #73 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Until Gawd is proven to have told "that" to the Rangers, he's innocent. It's not because he claimed it that he did it. We are not under Staline, when people were judged guilty when they were forced to say they commited something "wrong". Even if Gawd was not forced, we cannot say he's guilty or not for it.
And I don't say this to back him, because I don't like his posts and his personality!

PTPP, pay your fees, honesty is a good thing even if you will never be rewarded for it, probably. And calm down, you will be rewarded for that!

About staying more than 2 weeks, there's something incompatible with solo aid climbing El Cap, so...?

About censorship, well... :lol:


cthcrockclimber


Aug 13, 2003, 11:31 AM
Post #74 of 266 (16295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gawd admitted to doing it in the deleted post.


thomasribiere


Aug 13, 2003, 11:45 AM
Post #75 of 266 (16286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

to admit is not a proof...


epic_ed


Aug 13, 2003, 11:53 AM
Post #76 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4723

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
to admit is not a proof...

That's asinine. It's at least sufficient. And he posted a copy of his email on another thread:

In reply to:
Yosemite NPS LE RANGERS

To whom it may concern.

My name is Jabo Tunar and I am a climber, a few minutes ago I read on WWW.Rockclimbing.com on this thread

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31023&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0

that a Canadian and some of his other drug using friends are staying in the park past the alotted 2 week a year policy. I understand why this policy is set in place so that we all may share the beauty of the Yosemite. I have also read that he stashes his gear in some bear boxes in the Orchard Parking Lot. He claims to have left gear more then a year. He also bad mouths the hard working Park employees. Please use this info and stop the people that are hurting climbing, feeding the perception that all climbers are lazy worthless louts who purposly steal from and abust this great country and our amazing national parks.

Sincerly,
Jabo Tunar

Is he trolling? Maybe. Probably. But it doesn't matter. His self-centered actions are the same.


stick233


Aug 13, 2003, 12:18 PM
Post #77 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 339

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

still need more proof, thomas? :roll: :roll: :roll: sounds pretty cut and dry to me...

nice work, ed...


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 12:22 PM
Post #78 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why is this in the prematurely named "Censorship" thread, when it should go in the "Camp 5 not cool..." thread, that was put up after the original vanished ??? Now there are two threads talking about the same thing, when it should consolidated, don't you think ???

I agree that this is an important issue, but it is being discussed in the wrong thread, but then the original post to this one, kinda opens the door for two topics to be discussed in one thread... Maybe Pete'll get a thread that he authored as the most viewed thread ever. :lol:
(Notice the smiley ??? That was a joke. :wink: )


xanx


Aug 13, 2003, 12:24 PM
Post #79 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 5, 2002
Posts: 1002

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

omfg so much bull* here i don't know where to begin.

i will first say that rrradam and skibabeage deserve some well-thought out flames for their ignorance and hypocrisy. but this is neither the time nor the place for that, so i will have to resist the urge for now.

for all of you literals out there, no, gawd's confession isn't "proof" in the sense that an American court would recognize. it is called "circumstantial evidence." However, let me first ask if every single one of you who doubts gawd's guilt is adamant about free speech here on RC.com?? if not you are being a bit hypocritical, trying to parade around the rights of the accused according to the ideals of the American legal system, but ignoring the freedom of speech issue (which, IMO is far more central to the ideals of American society). Plus, at this point, what motive does gawd have to lie? right now i don't think i am exagerating by saying his safety is in jeopardy. if he meets a sufficiently angry yosemite local he could get seriously messed up (with any luck). unless he is mentally insane, there is no reason for him to pretend he did it. he said he would do it, he then said he contacted the rangers, and then the rangers came and locked the boxes. coincidence?

quick word on censorship: Tim could have been a bit more polite in his presentation and a bit less inflammatory, however, i find it hard to argue with most of his points. The owners of this site (Trevor i guess) can do whatever the hell they want. They can delete whole forums, they can allow anything, they can delete the whole site, and we all basically have no legal recourse whatsoever. Do i like it? no. but are there really any better options available? no. the present system is the lesser of the evils. occasionally there are exceptions and abuses of powers, but for the most part, i feels mods aren't active enough in filtering out "bad" material. (take a look at gawd's post history.... someone please explain how even half of those aren't blatant abuses of the ToS?) The ToS are laid out clearly and vaguely enough to allow anything to be deleted. Generally they are applied loosely, but if a mod wants something gone, they can justify it's deletion in 99% of the posts here. tough luck though. i just have faith that overly abusive mods/admins will be kicked before long. the site runs fairly smoothly and i get what i want out of it: entertainment and some good info. the whole issue of the deletion of that thread about gawd seems to have been dealt with rather thoroughly...

rrradam and skibabeage: good thing i'm not into thread hijacking just to flame people :wink: perhaps another time....


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 1:08 PM
Post #80 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

xanx... With 422818 posts in total at the time of this reply are you suggesting that we go back and "retro moderate" in accordance with the TOS, which is fairly recent ???

We are doing our best to enforce the TOS from it's inception forward. This does not mean that a user's history is not taken into account, as 'gawd' has quite a history. However, we cannot take action if his posts do not violate the TOS. Users with this type of history put themselves under the microscope. It would be unfair to hold him, or any other, to a standard that was not in place until after the fact, don't you agree ??? The fact that I am standing up for him shows that we are fair, as I have personal "issues" with him, but everyone needs to be treated fairly. I have even warned a few of my friends that I climb with regularly, as I said, we need to be fair, and fair means all held to the same standard. This included the Mods and Admins.

FWI... The TOS was not created to give a reason to take action against a user, but as a guidleline so as not to appear subjective on the part of the Mods and/or Admins. We have tried to remove as much ambiguity as we could, but any "hair splitter" will always have issues with it. We have also stated that it is editable, and that we encoiurage users to reasonably discuss it. To date, there has been no threads to reasonable discuss it, just "hair splitting" and drama. When the TOS was first drafted, there was a thread in S+Q for user input, but little constructive input was made.

We will miss probably quite a bit, as the ratio of Mods to users grows each day. Is this selective, no... Like I said, users who choose to make a scene, put themselves under the microscope. Nobody is singled out, instead some single themselves out, Just as everyone doesn't get their lives scrutinized by a probation officer, unless they are on probation... Is that selective ???

However, if you bring to the Forum Mod's attention, what you to believe to be a violation of the TOS, or something that is "not right", it will be looked into. This is best done via PM, as a post "that asshole f*cking deserves to be banned", or calling the Mods and/or Admins "nazis" is not the best avenue. It seems the buzzwords of those who cannot eloquently and reasonably state their case are: Censorship, Conspiracey, Subjective, Abuse of Power, etc... in an effort to discredit.

If one can reasonablly and logically state their case, the words speak for themselves, and cannot be disputed. If you feel this way, then reasonably and logically state your case, without all the venom.


It can be done... Do you detect any venom in my post here ???


dalguard


Aug 13, 2003, 1:30 PM
Post #81 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2003
Posts: 239

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Maybe I suggest that the original poster go post here: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/forum.html

They'll be interested to hear the story over there.


thomasribiere


Aug 13, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #82 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

upper in thid thread, someone talked about Staline. I just wanted to recall that under Staline, to claim was a proof, but it's fortunately not! Do I think Gawd really told the rangers all this crap : yes, like you, probably, but wa cannot assert it... But don't believe I defend him, not at all! What he said here, twice, is not nice from him.


stone_monkey


Aug 13, 2003, 1:57 PM
Post #83 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 54

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Damn right there is censorship at rockclimbing.com
Yes posts get deleted and or moved.
So what........you people are starting to sound like a Monty Python skit........
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...blah blah blah
and when a post is deleted...
Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've been on about ...
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. - Macbeth


pbjosh


Aug 13, 2003, 2:46 PM
Post #84 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

welcome to 8th grade, witness the drama and the zoo.


bandycoot


Aug 13, 2003, 3:03 PM
Post #85 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You all need to go climb... :lol:


slabmaster


Aug 13, 2003, 3:06 PM
Post #86 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 42

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

*yawn*

get a rope and
a) go climbing
b) hang yourself


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 3:57 PM
Post #87 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Good heavens! I'm actually agreeing with rrretard....

Would everyone who made posts concerning how they feel about gawd's behaviour please copy and paste them here in Rich's 'Camp 5 no longer cool' thread?

Thanks. Let's keep this post for the alleged censorship issue.

It is an excellent idea that this issue be brought to the attention of supertopo. If anyone could do me a favour and post the link - send it to the aid forum, not to this link - I would appreciate it. Thanks.

OK, so it's been 24 hours.

Who did it, and why?


alpnclmbr1


Aug 13, 2003, 4:25 PM
Post #88 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Adam / management
What is the deal with Richís original thread being deleted. I read the thread and didnít find anything out of line relative to the normal way threads go on here.

You said you could find out who did it. Which makes me think you would have out of normal curiosity, you also said you didnít think it deserved to be deleted. Also you responded to the original post and implied it was not out of line yet.

Even if you canít publicly identify the person who did it, some insight into their thought process would be helpful.


Partner tim


Aug 13, 2003, 4:33 PM
Post #89 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Adam / management
What is the deal with Richís original thread being deleted. I read the thread and didnít find anything out of line relative to the normal way threads go on here.

You said you could find out who did it. Which makes me think you would have out of normal curiosity, you also said you didnít think it deserved to be deleted. Also you responded to the original post and implied it was not out of line yet.

Even if you canít publicly identify the person who did it, some insight into their thought process would be helpful.

The irritating problem is that, looking over the logs, there are two things that could have happened, and I'm not sure which one actually led to the thread being 'deleted'. (In fact posts themselves don't get deleted anymore; they get marked as 'suppress' in case they need to be resurrected for exactly this type of situation).

There are two people who appear to have been involved. One deleted a post within the thread, another modified the initial post. All of the involved posts are actually still in the database; I am trying to determine unequivocally what happened -- there is an extremely remote chance that someone deleted the record for the topic using the administrative interface to the database, which would not show up when I look at the logs for the regular site. So until I'm sure of who did what, I don't want to comment to anyone about anything, because the last thing we need is another mob scene and lynching.

Moreover, I want to get full auditing set up for the process so that this never happens again.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #90 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

As Tim just stated, we are looking into this... Sorry it is not as quickly as you would like, but then I also have bugged Tim about this all day, and he does have a day job... I to don't like to wait, but I have to wait just like the rest of us.

Whe it is determined exactly what happened, we will reply to this thread, with an explanation of what happened, and exactly what will be done to avoid it in the future.


alpnclmbr1


Aug 13, 2003, 5:01 PM
Post #91 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks Tim and Adam,
I can only imagine what managing this circus must be like.
Dan


xanx


Aug 13, 2003, 5:05 PM
Post #92 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 5, 2002
Posts: 1002

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
xanx... With 422818 posts in total at the time of this reply are you suggesting that we go back and "retro moderate" in accordance with the TOS, which is fairly recent ???

We are doing our best to enforce the TOS from it's inception forward. This does not mean that a user's history is not taken into account, as 'gawd' has quite a history. However, we cannot take action if his posts do not violate the TOS. Users with this type of history put themselves under the microscope. It would be unfair to hold him, or any other, to a standard that was not in place until after the fact, don't you agree ??? The fact that I am standing up for him shows that we are fair, as I have personal "issues" with him, but everyone needs to be treated fairly. I have even warned a few of my friends that I climb with regularly, as I said, we need to be fair, and fair means all held to the same standard. This included the Mods and Admins.

FWI... The TOS was not created to give a reason to take action against a user, but as a guidleline so as not to appear subjective on the part of the Mods and/or Admins. We have tried to remove as much ambiguity as we could, but any "hair splitter" will always have issues with it. We have also stated that it is editable, and that we encoiurage users to reasonably discuss it. To date, there has been no threads to reasonable discuss it, just "hair splitting" and drama. When the TOS was first drafted, there was a thread in S+Q for user input, but little constructive input was made.

We will miss probably quite a bit, as the ratio of Mods to users grows each day. Is this selective, no... Like I said, users who choose to make a scene, put themselves under the microscope. Nobody is singled out, instead some single themselves out, Just as everyone doesn't get their lives scrutinized by a probation officer, unless they are on probation... Is that selective ???

However, if you bring to the Forum Mod's attention, what you to believe to be a violation of the TOS, or something that is "not right", it will be looked into. This is best done via PM, as a post "that asshole f*cking deserves to be banned", or calling the Mods and/or Admins "nazis" is not the best avenue. It seems the buzzwords of those who cannot eloquently and reasonably state their case are: Censorship, Conspiracey, Subjective, Abuse of Power, etc... in an effort to discredit.

If one can reasonablly and logically state their case, the words speak for themselves, and cannot be disputed. If you feel this way, then reasonably and logically state your case, without all the venom.


It can be done... Do you detect any venom in my post here ???

ok rrradam... i never suggested any sort of ex post facto action or anything like that. i also said i don't think there can be anything done to vastly improve the ToS - mods and such need that level of ambiguity to justify action where it should be taken. the downside is that under the ToS a mod or admin can justify taking just about any action in just about any case by "splitting hairs." The ToS is ambiguous. It needs to be. we just have to trust the mods/admins, hope they are fair and notify and explain any action they take, and deal with it. unfortunately i think any radical changes to the ToS would do more harm than good. i would just suggest some more checks on mods and admins, such as automatic notifications of moves/deletions and i think a good idea would be to have it so that you need 2 mods or admins or whatever in order to take more extreme action like deleting threads or banning users or giving a 1 day tarrpitt. other than that it is fine the way it is, or at least as good as it will get. on the censorship issue i agree with u for the most part. on other issues....

(edit) oh yeah and i forgott to ask... do i see that you tried to get around the language filter there rrradam? hehe jk....


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #93 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
(take a look at gawd's post history.... someone please explain how even half of those aren't blatant abuses of the ToS?)

My bad... I took this to mean that you wanted us to take action against him based on his "post history" IAW the TOS.



It also states in the TOS that action is not taken by one person without discussion amongst the other Mods and/or Admins, unless immediate action is required. You can trust that with almost 50 Mods and Admins, that it will be fair. I have staffed the vast majority of the Mods and Admins, and I have made it a point to find a balance of users for this, as many do not always agree with me, and that is what is needed for it to be fair.

What is unfair is inflametory posts like this by some, directed at those who "volunteer" their time for the benifit of the site. We are all servants to the users, and do not deserve being called Nazis. We act fairly to the best of our ability, and if any of us make a mistake, there are some who roast us for it. Does this sound fair ???


I do appreciate you being reasonable in your last reply. We are willing to discuss ANYTHING reasonably with anyone.



We are all climbers here, every one of us. Even the Staff. :wink:


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 5:46 PM
Post #94 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks very much, mods/admins, for looking into this. That is all I wanted in the first place.

In the meantime, if you have nothing better to do, here is the text of the deleted post, which was emailed to me by Chandra [aka gravitysucks].

I marvel at the providential timing of her backup.

Some have suggested that there are posts which merit deletion - posts which "cross the line". I agree with this in certain cases. However, I do not believe this to have been one of those cases.

Please read it, and tell me if you agree.





Posted: 12 Aug 2003 14:24 Post subject: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

So I come down from one of the best climbs I have ever done,solo WF.LT. Looking forward to a shower and some hot food,I get to camp 5 bear boxes,and there are locks on my boxes.WTF? The Rangers(with the a tip from Gawd)had locked my boxes without even a warning.They said that I had a mix of food and climbing gear so the decided to lock them.Talk about a buzz kill... Even though one of the boxes had VERY little climbing gear in it,they still deemed it a violation.Two of the boxes I was using were in need(and still are)of repair.One of them had no clip to secure the box shut,that was the only one I had a lock on,the only way you could shut it is if you had a lock. The other bear box had a door that came completely off the bear box,so it was no good for food as a bear could get in it,so I used that one for gear only,no food. I pointed all this out to the rangers and they said that it did not matter,no one will be able to use these two boxes for any reason.It would be nice if they would fix these two boxes as they have been like that for over a year. So I was wondering what had went down that things had changed so much at camp 5?I have been hanging out there for 2 years off and on,rangers were friendly to us,knew what was going on.They would stop by at night and chat with us about climbing and what ever. Then today I find a post by Gawd claiming that he e mailed the rangers just to mess with Pete(PTPP). Maybe we should get Gawd a bright orange vest,a pen and paper, and a walkie talkie.He could report the plate number of cars that go over the speed limit.He could stand in front of the village store and make sure anyone entering has shoes and a shirt on. He could stand at the back of the shuttle buss to make sure that no tourons enter from the rear of the bus(Exit only). He could stand in front of the recycle bins to make sure that all trash goes into the proper container. What a guy he is,I was touched by his concern for the tourons and their use of bear boxes,his concern of the 2 week limit in the valley. WTF???Gawd,you went out of your way to get PTPP,and ended up messing with me.You sang a song to the rangers. Well,I hope to meet you somedaythen I will sing you my song. I might not be a very good climber,but i am 6.3 and 190 pounds and a hell of a lot meaner than you are Gawd. Maybe I will show you first hand what the inside of a bear box looks like if I ever meet you. Drive fast take chances.... R_________________You can take the climber out of the dirt,but you can't take the dirtbag out of the climber.




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 14:35 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Sounds like a pretty typical action from a guy who is a border line retard. I'm not even sure if gawd understands what he is doing. Beat his azz if you run into him. He deserves it.




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 14:39 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Don't you mean camp 4. That sucks man WTF is that guy thinking.




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 15:32 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Nope he means camp5, I know this poo would happen when he started posting about ratting people out. To bad he had to ruin it .... josh




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 15:51 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Please, try to keep this civil bruthas... This echoes the Front Page, and attacks directed at one user are not cool, even if the person deserves it. If this threads gets too out of hand, then it should be moved to Community or Archives, if not deleted._________________ rrrADAM "A closed mind cannot think freely." ~Bruce Lee




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 15:59 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

so did ya learn to follow the rules smart guy? then i guess it is "all good"




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:09 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

That is pretty $hitty._________________Failure is the corner-stone of success. Is this a troll or a shoe thread?




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:19 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

rrradam wrote:
Please, try to keep this civil bruthas... This echoes the Front Page, and attacks directed at one user are not cool, even if the person deserves it. If this threads gets too out of hand, then it should be moved to Community or Archives, if not deleted.
as long as it is not directed at you it stays on the board, huh... rich...i didnt think you were so gullible and the rest of you morons...believing everything you read on the internet...tisk, tisk, tisk LOL_________________




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:31 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Annie, this isn't a troll. In case you're wondering where this happened, you can click here to read where Gawd ratted out the climbers. Two posts beneath Gawd confirms that he did it. I would ask that you please check out this link. On June 21st, 2003 I wandered over to Camp 5, only to find all of the padlocks cut off - every damn one of them! - and replaced with NPS padlocks and bright orange notices that the rangers had confiscated all the gear. The community is incensed! It amazes and angers me that anyone would turn against his fellow climber in such a way as Gawd has done! This is counter-productive, and only ends up hurting the climbing community as a whole. There is at least one other RC.com member who told me he had his stuff confiscated by the rangers at Camp 5 [I think it was Ammon, but don't hold me to it]. Gawd's attempt to "get me" completely backfired, incidentally - I wasn't even there! [Dr. Piton is nothing if not wily...] Gawd is a fool - one would have to look long and hard to find a better example of "shooting oneself in the foot," though you might find one in Dr. Piton's quotes of the day. [HINT] Gawd's unrepentant response above confirms he is also an As*hole of the First Degree. [AFD] Mostly, however, Gawd is a coward - just another nameless, faceless and dickless detractor without enough balls to publish his true identity. Hey Gawd - why don't you publish your real name and photo [like most of us here do] so we can all "thank you" the next time we see you? Coward. Note to moderators: Please do not move this post out of the Aid Climbing Forum. This is an issue which affects all Yosemite climbers, and the Aid Forum is the central "meeting place". Someone around here needs to show some balls. Thanks._________________"There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." Oscar Wilde




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:41 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

So, is one not allowed to lock food in a bear box? Or, is it just that you are not allowed to store anything but food in the box...according to the tool? I had about 100$ worth of food/beer/smokes stolen out of a Manure pile box in July. Next time I am going straped with a lock. Ratting on your fellow climbers for anything but littering or route degredation is total BS._________________"I like to ease into my epics..." Mike from So Cal.




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:44 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

climbinganne wrote:
and the rest of you morons...believing everything you read on the internet...tisk, tisk, tisk
Point is, Gawd is the one who said he was going to do it and then posted twice to confirm he did, in fact, speak with the rangers about this issue. So we shouldn't believe Gawd? Interesting dilemma. Ed_________________Is this a troll?


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 5:47 PM
Post #95 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Continued:






Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:31 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

Annie, this isn't a troll. In case you're wondering where this happened, you can click here to read where Gawd ratted out the climbers. Two posts beneath Gawd confirms that he did it. I would ask that you please check out this link. On June 21st, 2003 I wandered over to Camp 5, only to find all of the padlocks cut off - every damn one of them! - and replaced with NPS padlocks and bright orange notices that the rangers had confiscated all the gear. The community is incensed! It amazes and angers me that anyone would turn against his fellow climber in such a way as Gawd has done! This is counter-productive, and only ends up hurting the climbing community as a whole. There is at least one other RC.com member who told me he had his stuff confiscated by the rangers at Camp 5 [I think it was Ammon, but don't hold me to it]. Gawd's attempt to "get me" completely backfired, incidentally - I wasn't even there! [Dr. Piton is nothing if not wily...] Gawd is a fool - one would have to look long and hard to find a better example of "shooting oneself in the foot," though you might find one in Dr. Piton's quotes of the day. [HINT] Gawd's unrepentant response above confirms he is also an As*hole of the First Degree. [AFD] Mostly, however, Gawd is a coward - just another nameless, faceless and dickless detractor without enough balls to publish his true identity. Hey Gawd - why don't you publish your real name and photo [like most of us here do] so we can all "thank you" the next time we see you? Coward. Note to moderators: Please do not move this post out of the Aid Climbing Forum. This is an issue which affects all Yosemite climbers, and the Aid Forum is the central "meeting place". Someone around here needs to show some balls. Thanks._________________"There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." Oscar Wilde




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:41 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

So, is one not allowed to lock food in a bear box? Or, is it just that you are not allowed to store anything but food in the box...according to the tool? I had about 100$ worth of food/beer/smokes stolen out of a Manure pile box in July. Next time I am going straped with a lock. Ratting on your fellow climbers for anything but littering or route degredation is total BS._________________"I like to ease into my epics..." Mike from So Cal.




Posted: 12 Aug 2003 16:44 Post subject: Re: Should Gawd be nailed to the pole at camp 5????

climbinganne wrote:
and the rest of you morons...believing everything you read on the internet...tisk, tisk, tisk
Point is, Gawd is the one who said he was going to do it and then posted twice to confirm he did, in fact, speak with the rangers about this issue. So we shouldn't believe Gawd? Interesting dilemma. Ed_________________Is this a troll?










Again, folks, I am not publishing this to ask you to discuss gawd's behaviour. If you would like to do that, the thread is running rather heatedly in the Aid Climbing Forum.

In the meantime, let's wait and see what the powers-that-be have uncovered. It sounds like they're on the scent - one wonders if they'll tell us who and why?

I would prefer the perpetrator 'fess up, rather than be ratted out.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 5:50 PM
Post #96 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Pete... Why did you post this here instead of in the "Camp 5 not cool anymore" thread, as you even agreed posts regarding that should be ???


Please C+P it there, as you asked others to do here.


And we will not offer the person up in public to be roasted, we will deal with it privately, but we will post the details of what happened. Just as we have dealt with you privately for the most part over the last 2 years.


iamthewallress


Aug 13, 2003, 6:03 PM
Post #97 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Posts: 2463

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The original thread was deleted as I was replying to it. My hunch on why it was deleted, not that I'm condoning it, was that there were specific threats of violence towards "gawd". Since "gawd" posts anonymously, I didn't think the treats were such a big deal. The bit that Pete posted for Chandra is only the first part of the thread.

I want to see where Pete takes some responsibility for the rangers cracking down on the boxes. He's the fool that was blabbing about them all over this forum and then holding court there while in the Valley. You know that the rangers were alerted to your presence by another member of this site Pete, and it wasn't about no stinkin' bear boxes. The rangers keep an eye on the high-profile wackos, as it should be. I wish that they would have left everyone's stuff alone in the bear boxes though.


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 6:04 PM
Post #98 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
"Pete... Why did you post this here instead of in the "Camp 5 not cool anymore" thread, as you even agreed posts regarding that should be ???

Why?

Uh, dude......

Hello? Hel- low - hoe?

Did you even READ the crystal-clear instructions I wrote on either side of the post copied above?

Please engage brain before putting mouth in gear.


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #99 of 266 (15993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You're right, Melissa - I am not without culpability in this fiasco, which in hindsight seems like a colossal error. I will quote you and respond in the other forum, where the response belongs. [HINT]


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 13, 2003, 6:16 PM
Post #100 of 266 (15992 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Pete... It's already been agreed upon by Mods, Admins, and Users alike that this probably should not have been deleted.

It is a thinly veiled excuse to repost here, what should be posted in the other thread dude. Take your own "[hint]" above.


I understand though... Your suggestions to others, do not apply to you. Like the ones where you ask "emphatically" that non Aid type stuff not be posted in the Aid Forum, yet your *Index* is full of more fluff than the Community Forum and your profile combined.

Wait... I think I finally "get it"... You're a joke, right ??? :lol:


bigevilgrape


Aug 13, 2003, 6:26 PM
Post #101 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 3, 2001
Posts: 922

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dude pete shut up. just shut up.


ronamick


Aug 13, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #102 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 476

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
wah wah wah. is there so little in your life that you declare jihad over a missing post? too bad i resigned as a moderator or i would go delete your index post to really fire you up.

you are a real a-hole, my friend. Why don't you go torture a bug or something? Inbred little freak.


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 6:46 PM
Post #103 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I acted on Melissa's suggestion above, and you can click here to read where I admit my culpability, and apologize.

You can click here to read where I have amended the information on how to find me in Yosemite.

Cheers,

Pete


flyinghatchet


Aug 13, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #104 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 742

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
wah wah wah. is there so little in your life that you declare jihad over a missing post? too bad i resigned as a moderator or i would go delete your index post to really fire you up.

you are a real a-hole, my friend. Why don't you go torture a bug or something? Inbred little freak.

Andy was a great mod. Go make fun of bvb.


tenn_dawg


Aug 13, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #105 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 13, 2002
Posts: 3045

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Agreed. I've got nothing but respect for him.

Travis


ronamick


Aug 13, 2003, 7:19 PM
Post #106 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 476

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I complained about this reprehensible practice after my post regarding beer and bouldering disappeared after one day. I assume it was due to my glowing praise of beer as an invaluable training aid, performance enhancing tonic, and the key to personal glory and public acclaim.

Anybody smart enough to turn on their computer knows that this site is a forum for OPINIONS, and that every single word is subjective, unsubstantiated and should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

For some weenis editor to remove my post, ostensibly because it seems to promote drinking and climbing, is a clear sign that the cloistered little gym climbers who "moderate" this deal have begun taking themselves far too seriously. If it gets any worse, the real climbers are going to start jumping ship and leave this leaky schooner to the indoorsmen.

Let me bring the management back to Earth a little bit. This site is fantasy.
There is no credibility here. Nobody even uses their real name (what's up with that, anyway?) for chrissake! Accountability, disclosure of sources of information, verifiable authorship and proper attribution of quotes are the cornerstones of journalism, and NONE of that is here. NONE of it. This is not journalism. Quit trying to be responsible journalists, like little kids playing cop with plastic guns.
If people take it seriously, that's their problem. Cartoons are serious journalism. RC.com is not.

Who knows if any of these dorks have ever even climbed before. Could be a bunch of fat, middle aged women somewhere in the midwest writing these posts for all I know. Nobody is climbing. RC.com isn't even a THING.

The idea that any of this make-believe has any consequence is ludicrous. The notion of editing a fairy-tale on grounds that it could endanger or offend persons unknown is .... what's the right term .... delusional? Absurd? Unrealistic to the point of massive, monumental stupidity?

The boneheads who run this thing need to go out side and breathe some fresh air and get some dirt on their hands. They've been at the computer for so long that they're beginning to take this thing seriously!


timstich


Aug 13, 2003, 7:27 PM
Post #107 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 6263

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
There is no credibility here. Nobody even uses their real name (what's up with that, anyway?) for chrissake!

Damn right. You anonymous wusses. :D


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 7:30 PM
Post #108 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Does anybody have a good yummy recepie for cookies???


ronamick


Aug 13, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #109 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 476

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
wah wah wah. is there so little in your life that you declare jihad over a missing post? too bad i resigned as a moderator or i would go delete your index post to really fire you up.

you are a real a-hole, my friend. Why don't you go torture a bug or something? Inbred little freak.

Andy was a great mod. Go make fun of bvb.

I don't know Andy. If you say he is a great guy, he probably is. I can only go by the inflammatory, dismissive tone of his post and admitted willingness to abuse his petty authority out of personal rancor and spite. Great guy maybe, great judgement, NOT. Why throw gasoline on the fire when real grievances are at issue?

I'm not picking on Andy. I'm indicting Andy's statement as inappropriate, callous and unnecessary, and I stand by that.


iamthewallress


Aug 13, 2003, 7:34 PM
Post #110 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Posts: 2463

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't know Andy. If you say he is a great guy, he probably is. I can only go by the inflammatory, dismissive tone of his post and admitted willingness to abuse his petty authority out of personal rancor and spite. Great guy maybe, great judgement, NOT. Why throw gasoline on the fire when real grievances are at issue?

I'm not picking on Andy. I'm indicting Andy's statement as inappropriate, callous and unnecessary, and I stand by that.

The thing is that Andy could have used his mod powers against Pete or many of us in Aid many, many times and he did not. It must have just been a nice catharsis for him now that he no longer is mod to talk about how it *would* be fun to delete Pete's stuff *if* he were mod. In reality he did nothing of the sort.


dave1970


Aug 13, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #111 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Guys,

It sounds like the authorities are looking into this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a little while and see what they come up with.


Partner tim


Aug 13, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #112 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
There is no credibility here. Nobody even uses their real name (what's up with that, anyway?) for chrissake! Accountability, disclosure of sources of information, verifiable authorship and proper attribution of quotes are the cornerstones of journalism, and NONE of that is here. NONE of it. This is not journalism. Quit trying to be responsible journalists, like little kids playing cop with plastic guns.
If people take it seriously, that's their problem. Cartoons are serious journalism. RC.com is not.

Agreed on all points... however, most of the people who run the site

1) don't have time to use it very much anymore
2) climb at any opportunity, and/or
3) are 'retired' so they can raise their kid and finish an MBA

among others. All 4 of the primary stakeholders use either our real names or real-live-nick-names as usernames, and all of us have our personal information free for the taking in our profiles. We're regular people who go climbing on the weekends. It also happens that we see some opportunity for a community-oriented website on this address.

At least a handful (maybe 200-300 that I've come into contact with over time) of the users are also normal people who like to climb. I originally got involved with the site because I was having trouble finding trad partners in DC. That seems like a long, long time ago. I certainly don't have trouble finding people to climb with on the weekends anymore. Hell, I'm going up to the Needles for the 3rd trip this season, and I don't even live in California. It's pretty cool when things work out like that.

The censorship flamewars and in-jokes and other crap just get in the way of what the site can provide if you look for it -- a community of peers where sometimes you'll just 'click' with someone who you wouldn't have met otherwise. That's all that motivates some of us to work on it. Control, freedom, belonging, stature -- all these are illusions. Being able to get out and climb where you want, with who you want, anytime you want -- that's not. That's what I value in the site; everything else is noise.


dave1970


Aug 13, 2003, 8:00 PM
Post #113 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Who are the four primary stakeholders?


Partner russman


Aug 13, 2003, 8:09 PM
Post #114 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

WoW, My first reply to all of this.

Dave--The 4 primary stakeholders are

1. Trevor--same user name--Site Owner
2. Russman--same user name--Marketing/Advertising MGR
3. Adam--rrradam--VP in charge of Day-to-Day site operations
4. Tim--same user name--VP in charge of site Coding/programing

I just happened to read this and see it needed a reply. Off to talk to more Advertisers Now 8)


dave1970


Aug 13, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #115 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thank you Russ


dave1970


Aug 13, 2003, 9:02 PM
Post #116 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Russ,

What is the name of your LLC?


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 9:26 PM
Post #117 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ron's comments are like a breath of fresh air.

Without identity, you have no credibility - the two are inextricably linked. Any coward can make up a fake user name and post anonymous flames.

Have the courage to be real! Have the balls to wear your heart on your sleeve and say,

"This is me. These are my accomplishments in the mountains and on the crags. Here is my opinion. Love me or hate me as you will, but at least you know who I am."

"Plain vanilla" I ain't.


atg200


Aug 13, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #118 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hey ron - call me out all you like. you can even say i have a little dick and i don't really care! i never once moderated out of spite, and i've thoroughly enjoyed some of your posts. now that i am thank god retired as a jackbooted thug, i am enjoying myself by calling bs on self important sexist, bigoted, inaccurate, embarrassing, unbelievably sexist, misogynist, unbelievably self-important, immature bastards like pete. much as i would have loved to do nasty things to him and other idiots that posted to the forums i looked after, i never did. now i can go back to being like you, and talk shit without any responsibility or accountability. its like being on vacation!


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 10:07 PM
Post #119 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
"RC.com will be a much better place without YOU as moderator, Andrew Gran. Good frickin' riddance of YOU.

Andrew's response above supports my feelings. It is precisely this type of unprofessional behaviour in moderators - be they former or active - that RC.com needs to eliminate.


iamthewallress


Aug 13, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #120 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Posts: 2463

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
"RC.com will be a much better place without YOU as moderator, Andrew Gran. Good frickin' riddance of YOU.

Andrew's response above supports my feelings. It is precisely this type of unprofessional behaviour in moderators - be they former or active - that RC.com needs to eliminate.

Are you suggestioning that because andrew WAS a moderatory that he should be CENSORED :shock: ? Let it all out Andrew, you're one of us now. :wink:


alpnclmbr1


Aug 13, 2003, 10:20 PM
Post #121 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
...i am enjoying myself by calling bs on self important sexist, bigoted, inaccurate, embarrassing, unbelievably sexist, misogynist, unbelievably self-important, immature bastards like pete....

chuckle

I would much prefer the mod's to be people first and automatons second.


passthepitonspete


Aug 13, 2003, 11:00 PM
Post #122 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 9, 2001
Posts: 2183

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ditto on the chuckle. It really is funny....

I'm in the midst of extending the olive branch to Andrew, so with any luck we can mend our differences.


metoliusmunchkin


Aug 13, 2003, 11:13 PM
Post #123 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ÔĽŅAt the current point in time, I am hard pressed to determine the meaning of this thread. However, I now understand why the original topic has weaned into the reply of individual posts, having nothing to do with the intended theme of the thread.

Ah, how I love the common flame war...


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 11:24 PM
Post #124 of 266 (16124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Does anybody know where I can get some synthetic blinker fluid for my 1975 Ford Pinto??The guy's from "Car Talk" referred me to this thread.Also a used "Flux Magnifier" might come in handy on the road,just in case.

Drive fast take chances.....

R


sixter


Aug 13, 2003, 11:32 PM
Post #125 of 266 (16132 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 262

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Does anybody know where I can get some synthetic blinker fluid for my 1975 Ford Pinto??Also a used "Flux Magnifier" might come in handy on the road,just in case.

Drive fast take chances.....

R

No no no. You must use natural blinker fluid, the synthetic blinker fluid won't work with the natural rubber seals found in a 1975 Pinto. If you upgrade the seals to neoprene, then the synthetic should work fine. I have several bottles of natural blinker fluid up for sale on eBay.


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 11:41 PM
Post #126 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow,thanks for the tip on neoprene seals(do they have baby seals?),that could be huge ifin my car breaks down on hyw. 50 in Nevada.Tell me,should I upgrade to neoprene baby seals on my spooge collector??


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 5:16 AM
Post #127 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"RC.com will be a much better place without YOU as moderator, Andrew Gran. Good frickin' riddance of YOU.

Andrew's response above supports my feelings. It is precisely this type of unprofessional behaviour in moderators - be they former or active - that RC.com needs to eliminate.

Are you suggestioning that because andrew WAS a moderatory that he should be CENSORED :shock: ? Let it all out Andrew, you're one of us now. :wink:


He is just trying to discredit him since one of Pete's buzzwords is "heresay" in response to all the shared opinions of him, in the Valley, at his home in Ontario, around the campfires, and even from most of his former supporters who have finally met him (just like with Andy). But since Andy knows him personally, and is a very respected member of the site, his words carry much wieght, his words are not "hearesay". So Pete's only alternative is to try and discredit him.

How many of those defending him have actually met him, and had to endure his company ??? I can't wait till you get the chance to finally meet him, then you may just be one of the many who are embarrassed to have ever defended him. :roll:


cthcrockclimber


Aug 14, 2003, 5:27 AM
Post #128 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 5:29 AM
Post #129 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!


I hate that !!! Why is it that we cannot stop screwing with it ??? Must be some masicistic urge.


justsendingits


Aug 14, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #130 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cthcrockclimber wrote:
I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!



Now that was funny..I laughed so hard it hurts..timing is everything....


dingus


Aug 14, 2003, 7:55 AM
Post #131 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17393

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I complained about this reprehensible practice after my post regarding beer and bouldering disappeared after one day.

They removed this classic post??? That was the most useful bit of information I ever gleaned off of this forum (seriously, it was).

I swear to god (is that allowed in my TOS?)... this is Middle School administration all over again.

Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT


dingus


Aug 14, 2003, 7:59 AM
Post #132 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17393

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
because the last thing we need is another mob scene and lynching.

We need more mob scenes and lynchings!!!

The Admin is Dead! Long Live the Admin!

DMT


timstich


Aug 14, 2003, 8:15 AM
Post #133 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 6263

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT

Just tell me this. Where do the ducks go in winter???


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 9:45 AM
Post #134 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
However, with the way in which this was handled, you have reaped what you have sown. Removing a forum after getting in a public pissing match brings the conspiracy theorists out of the wordwork and causes bad feelings all around. Hinting at inappropriate and even illegal behaviour on a poster's part in a public forum without backing it up with facts or proof is totally out of line(even if you say it is to protect other posters anonymity). Posting private messages and drumming up ill will towards the poster is just not kosher when you are an admin.

I don't mean to criticize unfairly(hindsight is 20-20 and it is easier to know what to do when aren't responsible for doing it). For better or worse, when you are a website administrator and wield that power you are held to a different, higher level of conduct. Better to either stay out of the flame war so you can moderate it without the appearance of prejudice, or handle it discreetely with the offending party and let outside people know what is happening without getting into the ugly specifics.

Anyone remember who wrote this?

The problem is that, as long as I've been on this site, there's been this culture of admins and mods getting into personal pissing contests with users, and then using their mod powers in a selective and vindictive manner.

Rrradam, for all his talk, is the king of this type of behavior. He's a hater. He hates PTPP. I privately complained to him about Bluto's innappropriate comment about Pete's "womanizing", and he replied by saying nothing could be done about it because it's "true". Which is beside the point, isn't it? (Did he consult with his fellow whatevers? I don't know, but I doubt it.) Then everybody else piles on with the personal sh*t on Pete and the thread is hijacked.

Tell me how this isn't an example of selective enforcement? How can someone with such an open dislike of a user be left in a position to moderate that person's forum posts?


Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly. Moving it to archives is also an option.


atg200


Aug 14, 2003, 9:49 AM
Post #135 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i remember who wrote that...

and i love not being an admin/mod anymore so i can get into those pissing matches without being a hypocrite.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:04 AM
Post #136 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Funny Stu how you "trust that I will not share your opinion of a 'certain person' ( :wink: )" in public, and I assured you that I would not, yet you use "selective" bits of our PMs to slam me.

Either post it all, both your's and mine, so as not to take things out of context, of post none. And just in case you want to say that you deleted them, so you can't... I can resend all of them to you, as they are still in my "sentbox", and your's to me will be in yours. :roll:


In reply to:
Removing a forum after getting in a public pissing match brings the conspiracy theorists out of the wordwork...


This has always been you brutha.


justsendingits


Aug 14, 2003, 10:15 AM
Post #137 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Meanwhile,back at the ranch---------

















.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:17 AM
Post #138 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Adam - I simply paraphrased your response to my complaint. Was it not accurate? Can you tell us what exactly the admins' position is on Bluto's post?

Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck. I care not in the least about Pete's personal life or anyone else's around here. I am trying to make a point, see above. I deserve a straight answer, which from you, Rrradam, is like getting blood from a turnip. Anybody?


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #139 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly.

I'd like to get some feedback on this too. This is a simple, workable reform that should be put into effect immediately. Does anyone disagree?


jabtocrag


Aug 14, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #140 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck.

Dig your method to bypass the filter!!


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:27 AM
Post #141 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck.

Dig your method to bypass the filter!!

Pretty slick, eh? I didn't come up with it.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:29 AM
Post #142 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We don't have any issue on Bluto's post, as it doesn't need any thought...

You have a problem with somethjng in which he stated in a public thread that has been discussed in many public threads here on this site. So to use your exact words Stu... "he 'is paraphrasing' what he has read here, and believes to be true."


Can you follow that ??? Just because you did not get the response you wanted does not mean that there is a conspiracey... Unfortunately, the many times that Stu has not gotten his way here, he has thropwn a fit, and all the same "buzzwords" I noted on a previous page in this thread. If you disagree, please tell me just one instance where you did not get your way, and were OK with it. Just one brutha... Shouldn't be hard if you were able to dig up a long lost post by Andrew. :roll:


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:32 AM
Post #143 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly.

I'd like to get some feedback on this too. This is a simple, workable reform that should be put into effect immediately. Does anyone disagree?


That's simple Stu... There are many more Mods than Admins, and they are almost always online... If someone comes to the site and as just one example, SPAMs the site with "outwar" links to build their character, like has been done numerous times before, they need to be able to delete them.


I asked for reasonable suggestions Stu.


alpnclmbr1


Aug 14, 2003, 10:43 AM
Post #144 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:

.... (In fact posts themselves don't get deleted anymore; they get marked as 'suppress' in case they need to be resurrected for exactly this type of situation).

(snip) All of the involved posts are actually still in the database; I am trying to determine unequivocally what happened (snip)

Moreover, I want to get full auditing set up for the process so that this never happens again.

As far as pete getting a hard time, what goes around comes around.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:24 AM
Post #145 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
We don't have any issue on Bluto's post, as it doesn't need any thought...

You have a problem with somethjng in which he stated in a public thread that has been discussed in many public threads here on this site. So to use your exact words Stu... "he 'is paraphrasing' what he has read here, and believes to be true."
So your official position is that a personal attack, no motter how off-topic, inflammatory or disruptive, is OK as long as it employs content already available on the site (making it redundant as well as all the above)?

In reply to:
Can you follow that ??? Just because you did not get the response you wanted does not mean that there is a conspiracey... Unfortunately, the many times that Stu has not gotten his way here, he has thropwn a fit, and all the same "buzzwords" I noted on a previous page in this thread. If you disagree, please tell me just one instance where you did not get your way, and were OK with it. Just one brutha... Shouldn't be hard if you were able to dig up a long lost post by Andrew. :roll:

Typical fucking Rrradam rhetoric. Throw up some BS, then ask questions or make personal challenges toward his questioner which have nothing to do with anything. A greedy, brain-damaged little punk who thinks he's Machiavellii or somebody. (See, that's OK to say cuz I'm just paraphrasing stuff I've read in the forums.)

Tim? Somebody? Explain how this statement:

In reply to:
In addition to dubious behavior noted above you have committed some reprehensible acts regarding women on this site, the details of which many are aware.

Persons with little or no ethics or integrity have no right to question others.

passes muster under this standard:

In reply to:
Hate posts and personal attacks will not be tolerated on the Rockclimbing.com Forums. Treat others on these message boards as you would like to be treated. Personal attacks on another user are a great way to earn some time off, as is posting inflammatory material specifically to provoke a negative response from someone (aka trolling). If you are unclear about what a 'troll' is, an excellent description can be found here.

While we realize that this can become somewhat subjective, excessive mudslinging (not debate, but unbridled flaming) drives away many users - we are not trying to stifle debate, but users whose behavior consistently reduces the overall value of the site (to its owners, advertisers, and users) are not welcome.

I've asked this question over and over and it deserves a better response than Rrradsputin's tedious double-talk. Is this just a business decision you guys make? If a vicious personal attack is made, it's OK as long as it doesn't affect the value of your investment (presumably reducing its negative value)?

I don't suspect a conspiracy. I know what I've seen with my own eyes, on this site and in person.


gravitysucks


Aug 14, 2003, 11:24 AM
Post #146 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 147

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT

Just tell me this. Where do the ducks go in winter???


"The Catcher in the Rye is the book preferred 9 times out of ten by whackos, serial killers, and disgruntled teenagers."

dingus, i've got my paperback all marked up and highlighted so they'll know which passages to admit into evidence when I(i) have my sociopathic epiphany.

tim...i've heard rumours :wink: that SOMEONE comes around in a truck and takes them all away.... but the feeshes...oh that IS a much sadder story.

rich...what kind of cookies man?...


p.s. anyone know what the other 1 out of 10 prefers?


:roll: :? :shock: :wink:


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #147 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Again... I'm sorry that you feel that since you didn't get your way, and our response is not as you like. Fact is, a user who regularly casts stones, got one thrown his way in a thread where he himself was casting stones, and you are upset that it was thrown, and since you didn't get your way, it is all a conspiracey to you.

Like I asked Stu, if this is not the case, PLEASE (I'm begging dude, where's the begging smiley?), show me just one example here where you did not get your way, and dit not throw a tantrum... JUST ONE !!! It's a simple chalenge Stu... And is "on topic" to this discussion at hand, as I am showing your MO... You are throwing a tantrum because your unreasonable request was not met.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #148 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
PLEASE (I'm begging dude, where's the begging smiley?), show me just one example here where you did not get your way, and dit not throw a tantrum... JUST ONE !!!

Q.E.D.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:43 AM
Post #149 of 266 (16263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
That's simple Stu... There are many more Mods than Admins, and they are almost always online... If someone comes to the site and as just one example, SPAMs the site with "outwar" links to build their character, like has been done numerous times before, they need to be able to delete them.

Up until this year, it was a widely held belief around here that posts should NEVER be deleted (by mods). Does anyone here disagree with that statement?


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 11:47 AM
Post #150 of 266 (16260 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not totally true... Mods have always been able to delete, but we frown on deleting anything which may have historical value. No matter how trivial... SPAM does not have this value.

You are "splitting hairs" dude, as outright SPAM should be deleted, I think even you would agree to that.


I am done here Stu... You being a lawyer, I am disappointed in you, as your logic is unreasonable, and you simply want to "split hairs". Split them by yourself.


If you have a reasonable concern, I will gladly discuss it with you... But I have more patience with my 3 year old niece asking me "why ???", than I do a man in his 40's doing it just to be a pill.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 12:01 PM
Post #151 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Not totally true... Mods have always been able to delete, but we frown on deleting anything which may have historical value. No matter how trivial... SPAM does not have this value.

You are "splitting hairs" dude, as outright SPAM should be deleted, I think even you would agree to that.


I am done here Stu... You being a lawyer, I am disappointed in you, as your logic is unreasonable, and you simply want to "split hairs". Split them by yourself.


If you have a reasonable concern, I will gladly discuss it with you... But I have more patience with my 3 year old niece asking me "why ???", than I do a man in his 40's doing it just to be a pill.

You like challenges - show me a case prior to December 2002 where a post was deliberately deleted by anyone other than the poster. It never happened, I betcha. Spam or otherwise. And we're not talking about spam anyway, for christ sake.

You are lying. You created the archives specifically to "hide" objectionable material because it could not be deleted:

"RC.com Archives
Since we don't like to delete anything... This is where we take out the trash.
Moderator rrradam"


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 12:08 PM
Post #152 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

From the Lawyer:

In reply to:
show me a case prior to December 2002 where a post was deliberately deleted by anyone other than the poster. It never happened, I betcha.


How would you propose I show you a deleted thread ??? :lol:


Now I am a liar... Whatever Stu. Like I said, you are unreasonable, just like the above request.

Was my request unreasonable ??? Nope. :roll:


Have a nice night Stu... I'm getting off work now. :wink:


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 12:17 PM
Post #153 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
How would you propose I show you a deleted thread ???

Ummm, maybe if it happened it might have been discussed in other posts? Fact is, it would have caused a big reaction. Like it did this time.

Was your request reasonable? To find a time I didn't throw a tantrum? What the fuck does that have to do with the subject matter of this thread? You are ridiculous.

I need to start a clean thread on my suggestion about limiting the power of mods. You guys keep hijacking this thread. You claim to want input on the TOS, but any time someone makes a suggestion you blow it off and start calling names. You are ignorant little boys.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 12:27 PM
Post #154 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

OK Stu... I'll give you what you asked for first:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4189

From November 2001. Another "case" where threads have been deleted prior to Dec 2002 is when redundant posts have been made to many different Forums by the same user.



Now that I have accomplished your challenge, won't you try mine ??? :wink:


Ooops, I'm off the clock now, c ya.


billcoe_


Aug 14, 2003, 12:45 PM
Post #155 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

As the "GAWD" is a MFing Jackass thread got locked, let me add to this thread that judging from his actions alone, Gawd is a lowly piece of shit beyond belief. How the hell he can look at himself in the am is beyond me. I would continue on in this vein but theres been at least 500 other identical posts and I don't want to just be a "me to" kind of guy.

But me too: It is beyond reason what a MFer gawd.

Bill


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 12:54 PM
Post #156 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
OK Stu... I'll give you what you asked for first:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4189

From November 2001. Another "case" where threads have been deleted prior to Dec 2002 is when redundant posts have been made to many different Forums by the same user.

Your link has nothing to do with deleting posts, you idiot.

In reply to:
Now that I have accomplished your challenge, won't you try mine ??? :wink:
Fuck no. It's stupid and OT. You are a dick.


ronamick


Aug 14, 2003, 1:17 PM
Post #157 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 476

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
hey ron - call me out all you like. you can even say i have a little dick and i don't really care! i never once moderated out of spite, and i've thoroughly enjoyed some of your posts. now that i am thank god retired as a jackbooted thug, i am enjoying myself by calling bs on self important sexist, bigoted, inaccurate, embarrassing, unbelievably sexist, misogynist, unbelievably self-important, immature bastards like pete. much as i would have loved to do nasty things to him and other idiots that posted to the forums i looked after, i never did. now i can go back to being like you, and talk poo without any responsibility or accountability. its like being on vacation!

I too know the aggravation of waist-band degradation of the undershorts, when the elastic is too stetched out to keep them in place, and the natural clinching and pulling action of your ass cheeks pulls more and more of the garment into your crack as you go about your business of the day, and you try to ignore the discomfort and gut it out, but by day's end the entire issue is up your crack except for the leg holes, which are twisted around your now painfully inflammed 'nads, causing the label press deeply into your beanbag and move to and fro with the slightest motion, like a crosscut saw bent on bisecting your scrotum. I understand how that kind of irritation can make a fella grouchy, so I don't begrudge you answering my wise and benevolent observations with what amounts to a stream of ranting, foaming bile, vitriol and hate. I have sent you the number of a top clothier who specializes in helping people like you. God speed young man. I'm skeptical as to any inherent message in the arrangement of words you have concocted, but I will nonetheless undertake to provide rejoinder to each issue, just in case.
1- I did'nt "call you out", I called you an a-hole. There's a difference.
2- As to the relative dimension of your penis, I am not inclined to investigate nor speculate, but just the same wouldn't characterize you as "small" for fear of the hurt that may inflict.
3- YOU were the one who introduced the issue (yea, threat- whether in jest or not) of malicious editing, so don't try to to turn it around and act like I made an accusation. I reacted to YOUR post, remember?
4- What are "jackboots"? Sounds kind of weird when you think about it.
And you have to earn the distinction of "thug" based on real thuggery. It's not something you do with a computer, unless you're sticking it up a helpless cripple's ass.
5- Do "nasty things to Pete?" Whoa, I'm not EVEN going there. Your choice of lifestyles is entirely up to you, but don't think you can titillate me into your brand of depravery!
6- You can't be like me. I can't even be like me. It's just a darn good thing that I AM me, because I guarantee you that nobody else would want it. I'm a mess. If you din't believe me, ask someone down the steet.

That is all


dingus


Aug 14, 2003, 1:46 PM
Post #158 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17393

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I too know the aggravation of waist-band degradation of the undershorts, when the elastic is too stetched out to keep them in place, and the natural clinching and pulling action of your ass cheeks pulls more and more of the garment into your crack as you go about your business of the day, and you try to ignore the discomfort and gut it out, but by day's end the entire issue is up your crack except for the leg holes, which are twisted around your now painfully inflammed 'nads, causing the label press deeply into your beanbag and move to and fro with the slightest motion, like a crosscut saw bent on bisecting your scrotum.

(snip)

That is all

That is all? THAT'S ALL??? You don't think you can come in here and hit us with what, 7 commas and a period and just WALK OUT AGAIN, DO YA??? Do YA???

No no no my friend it is not that easy. See, you got me started with the beer bouldering guide (which I must admit to having practiced extensively in the recent past). Now you go and write of one of the modern curses of civilization, the single most important factor for middle aged white male lower back pain, a frightening topic in parlors throughout Marin County, an article of clothing so abused, so maligned, so unspeakable, as to be considered a bathing suit by German tourists in Death Valley, yeh, a garment guarenteed to produce run on sentences the world over of course, I speak of underwear.

Dude, you got the gift of the word. That was a beautiful sentence you wrote up there.

I demand you RIGHT MORE!

DMT


murf


Aug 14, 2003, 2:04 PM
Post #159 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I too know the aggravation of waist-band degradation of the undershorts, when the elastic is too stetched out to keep them in place, and the natural clinching and pulling action of your ass cheeks pulls more and more of the garment into your crack as you go about your business of the day, and you try to ignore the discomfort and gut it out, but by day's end the entire issue is up your crack except for the leg holes, which are twisted around your now painfully inflammed 'nads, causing the label press deeply into your beanbag and move to and fro with the slightest motion, like a crosscut saw bent on bisecting your scrotum

Brilliance!


Partner sauron


Aug 14, 2003, 4:52 PM
Post #160 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
You like challenges - show me a case prior to December 2002 where a post was deliberately deleted by anyone other than the poster. It never happened, I betcha. Spam or otherwise. And we're not talking about spam anyway, for christ sake.

I did, on numerous occations delete posts prior to December 2002 - however, they were all either duplicate, or empty posts...

In reply to:
"RC.com Archives
Since we don't like to delete anything... This is where we take out the trash.

Trevor is the one who said he did not want to delete threads/posts - it had absolutely nothing to do with not being able to do so...

- d.


justsendingits


Aug 14, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #161 of 266 (16148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)