Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Sport Climbing:
Draw Thief Caught
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Sport Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Next page Last page  View All


jt512


Dec 30, 2010, 10:21 PM
Post #51 of 285 (5613 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails, so why would a QD breaking be any different. Majid your logic is flawed on this in so many ways.

Legal reference please.
You'd have to prove negligence in the first place. I don't think this has ever been brought up in court. Here is one such discussion about the legal ramifications http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25; which you posted in. I dont think the concerns have changed but I don't think there have been any successfull lawsuits either

There is plenty of opinions and concerns in that other thread, but no precedence set as to where the liability will fall.

To my knowledge, there is no precedence on this matter. I would like to read of any if there is though.

I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Jay

P.S., Do I have to do all the work around here? I'm not even a lawyer.


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 30, 2010, 10:33 PM)


notapplicable


Dec 30, 2010, 11:13 PM
Post #52 of 285 (5595 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17768

Re: [crazy_fingers84] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

While that guy is an ass and clearly in the wrong, it would be nice if the locals policed themselves. That route is not steep enough to make cleaning the draws at the end of the day a difficult task, so the only really viable reason for leaving them is out the window.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.


ozoneclimber


Dec 30, 2010, 11:25 PM
Post #53 of 285 (5587 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 250

Re: [notapplicable] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

Well said... Exactly what I've been thinking the entire time.

-B


jt512


Dec 30, 2010, 11:39 PM
Post #54 of 285 (5577 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [notapplicable] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (11 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
While that guy is an ass and clearly in the wrong, it would be nice if the locals policed themselves. That route is not steep enough to make cleaning the draws at the end of the day a difficult task, so the only really viable reason for leaving them is out the window.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

Oh, for heaven's sakes, it's 5.14. You're not even remotely qualified to have an opinion, much less express one. Let's see if you can even put the draws up, and even if you can, how much energy you have left to then productively work the route on the same day.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 30, 2010, 11:43 PM)


bearbreeder


Dec 30, 2010, 11:42 PM
Post #55 of 285 (5574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [majid_sabet] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."


when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry Tongue


moose_droppings


Dec 30, 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #56 of 285 (5571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [jt512] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails, so why would a QD breaking be any different. Majid your logic is flawed on this in so many ways.

Legal reference please.
You'd have to prove negligence in the first place. I don't think this has ever been brought up in court. Here is one such discussion about the legal ramifications http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25; which you posted in. I dont think the concerns have changed but I don't think there have been any successfull lawsuits either

There is plenty of opinions and concerns in that other thread, but no precedence set as to where the liability will fall.

To my knowledge, there is no precedence on this matter. I would like to read of any if there is though.

I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Jay

P.S., Do I have to do all the work around here? I'm not even a lawyer.

Jay, look up circumstances and take that in context with what i bolded in my statement above.

In reply to:
I'm not even a lawyer.

That's obvious.
Many variables in assumption of risk too, it's not an all encompassing exemption.

In reply to:
Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

So........If a guide took out a new client and hung some draws that were wore part way through up a route, then said they're fine go for it. Then the third one up breaks and the clients sustains injuries, the guide cannot be found liable because of assumption of risk.

Things need to be taken in context with all the circumstances.


jt512


Dec 30, 2010, 11:45 PM
Post #57 of 285 (5566 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails, so why would a QD breaking be any different. Majid your logic is flawed on this in so many ways.

Legal reference please.
You'd have to prove negligence in the first place. I don't think this has ever been brought up in court. Here is one such discussion about the legal ramifications http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25; which you posted in. I dont think the concerns have changed but I don't think there have been any successfull lawsuits either

There is plenty of opinions and concerns in that other thread, but no precedence set as to where the liability will fall.

To my knowledge, there is no precedence on this matter. I would like to read of any if there is though.

I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Jay

P.S., Do I have to do all the work around here? I'm not even a lawyer.

Jay, look up circumstances and take that in context with what i bolded in my statement above.

In reply to:
I'm not even a lawyer.

That's obvious.
Many variables in assumption of risk too, it's not an all encompassing exemption.

In reply to:
Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

So........If a guide took out a new client and hung some draws that were wore part way through up a route, then said they're fine go for it. Then the third one up breaks and the clients sustains injuries, the guide cannot be found liable because of assumption of risk.

Things need to be taken in context with all the circumstances.

A guide? A GUIDE? Someone you were paying? For fuck's sake, that obviously changes everything, but has nothing to do with the present question. Please shut the fuck up, you fucking moron.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 30, 2010, 11:47 PM)


moose_droppings


Dec 30, 2010, 11:56 PM
Post #58 of 285 (5560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [jt512] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.

In reply to:
it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account

We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 12:08 AM
Post #59 of 285 (5546 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.

In reply to:
it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account

We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.

I have no idea what the above babble is supposed to mean. U.S. law is clear: if you participate in a risky sport, negligence is not a cause of action. Therefore, if you climb a route with fixed draws that were put up by another climber, and the draw fails, you have no cause of action for negligence against the climber who put the draw up.

This is why, in the US, you can't, for instance, successfully sue your belayer–partner for negligently dropping you; why you can't successfully sue the equipper of a route for injuries due to a badly placed bolt; etc.

Jay


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 12:30 AM
Post #60 of 285 (5539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [jt512] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.

In reply to:
it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account

We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.

I have no idea what the above babble is supposed to mean. U.S. law is clear: if you participate in a risky sport, negligence is not a cause of action. Therefore, if you climb a route with fixed draws that were put up by another climber, and the draw fails, you have no cause of action for negligence against the climber who put the draw up.

This is why, in the US, you can't, for instance, successfully sue your belayer–partner for negligently dropping you; why you can't successfully sue the equipper of a route for injuries due to a badly placed bolt; etc.

Jay

Context and circumstances Jay. There is no magic exemptions as you are implying.

In reply to:
You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.


I showed you a situation that falls within the parameters you describe above and it was obvious to you that there are exceptions. Your statement of an all encompassing assumption of risk is wrong.

I'd think with your years on this site that you would stray clear of blanket statements.


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 12:41 AM
Post #61 of 285 (5532 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.

In reply to:
it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account

We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.

I have no idea what the above babble is supposed to mean. U.S. law is clear: if you participate in a risky sport, negligence is not a cause of action. Therefore, if you climb a route with fixed draws that were put up by another climber, and the draw fails, you have no cause of action for negligence against the climber who put the draw up.

This is why, in the US, you can't, for instance, successfully sue your belayer–partner for negligently dropping you; why you can't successfully sue the equipper of a route for injuries due to a badly placed bolt; etc.

Jay

Context and circumstances Jay. There is no magic exemptions as you are implying.

In reply to:
You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.


I showed you a situation that falls within the parameters you describe above and it was obvious to you that there are exceptions. Your statement of an all encompassing assumption of risk is wrong.

I'd think with your years on this site that you would stray clear of blanket statements.
I dunno I don't usually agree with jay, but your example has no revelance to this case we are discussing, or anchors put up in general. Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 1:03 AM
Post #62 of 285 (5525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [redlude97] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

This is from you,

redlude97 wrote:
There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails,

You drew the conversation to anchors and the whole thread is about quickdraws left on routes. Were is it exactly that my example has no revelance? We were talking in general about these things, not any one specific case. I asked for any case I could read about and made the statement about each different case having different circumstances. If now you want to go back to a specific case, let me know which one it is.

Jay brought up the silly notion that there is a blanket rule exempting anybody from prosecution if they participate in a risky sport. This is not specific to any case. It was easy to exploit this with a simple example.


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 1:09 AM
Post #63 of 285 (5522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [redlude97] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Another blanket statement.

In reply to:
Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

Maybe, maybe not.


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 1:20 AM
Post #64 of 285 (5518 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
Another blanket statement.

In reply to:
Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

Maybe, maybe not.
Recreational Use statutes in all 50 states are pretty clear in limiting liability


Partner j_ung


Dec 31, 2010, 5:03 AM
Post #65 of 285 (5492 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

Re: [crazy_fingers84] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

If project draws are allowed and accepted, which I assume then they are at Smith, then I only need to know the answer to one question. Did the bearded guy really believe that those draws were abandoned? It's pretty obvious he knew exactly what he was doing.


socalclimber


Dec 31, 2010, 6:24 AM
Post #66 of 285 (5480 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2436

Re: [j_ung] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

He was up there with a stick clip, he knew exactly what he was doing. His claim about cleaning "fixed" draws off the route is standard practice every place he's climbed is bullshit. He's a thief, pure and simple.

It's one thing when there is a single draw, or a cam left behind. But when you are cleaning entire routes, it's theft pure and simple. He's a thief and a lier.

As far as the liability is concerned, it's an assumed risk. Good god, by some of the logic I see here (or lack of it), if I climb a wall with a pitch that has fixed heads on it, one blows, and I ledge, I get to sue the guy who placed it.

Complete stupidity.

Any route I climb that has "fixed" gear on it is suspect till I can determine otherwise. If I don't like it, I don't use it, or clip it. If it makes the route to dangerous for me to do, I find something else to climb.

If you climb the route, your ass is your own. Nobody is responsible but you. Deal with it or take up knitting. That way you can sue the manufacturer of the needles when you stab yourself. Shocked

As far as guiding goes, it's simple. The client signs a release of liability. Ultimately it is the guides job to ensure the clients safety and that the gear being used is in good condition. If it can be proven the guide was negligent, then that's another story for the judge to sort out.


(This post was edited by socalclimber on Dec 31, 2010, 6:53 AM)


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 10:01 AM
Post #67 of 285 (5423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [redlude97] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
Another blanket statement.

In reply to:
Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

Maybe, maybe not.
Recreational Use statutes in all 50 states are pretty clear in limiting liability

Please don't play Jay on me.

Jay quoted me and said I was wrong about different circumstances in each case because his assumption of risk law supersedes all that. Then I give him an example of different circumstances and he said, well yeah, that's different circumstances. I swear it's like arguing with a child.


Now this.
You said prior to this that "Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner".
I say "maybe, maybe not"..
Now you say it's, "clear in limiting liability". These two things are different. I'll just repeat, "It depends".

Your making an assumption much like Jay did in that the law is clear. Lawyers and judges construe the law to fit their interpretations depending on the circumstances, then jurors make their own decision based on what is sometimes nothing more than their gut feelings.

The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.


marc801


Dec 31, 2010, 10:38 AM
Post #68 of 285 (5410 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2770

Re: [redlude97] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner
That's not true, either.


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 11:01 AM
Post #69 of 285 (5402 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3362

Re: [socalclimber] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
socalclimber wrote:
As far as the liability is concerned, it's an assumed risk. Good god, by some of the logic I see here (or lack of it), if I climb a wall with a pitch that has fixed heads on it, one blows, and I ledge, I get to sue the guy who placed it.


In the case your pointing out above it would near impossible (got to leave room for lawyer wiggle and our justice system) to take any action on anyone. But as you've already conceded further down in your post, there are different cases that might have different outcomes.

Just saying assumed risk makes you liable doesn't make it so in every case. There are legal limitations to what risks you assume.

While I 100% agree that we need to be responsible for our actions, there is a whole army of legal eagles out there who will gladly outline where and what a person legal responsibilities are in respect to assumption of liability. Unfortunately their definitions and yours aren't going to match up with yours.

Not everyone and their lawyer will stand up and be responsible for their own actions. It's also not always the person that got injured or killed that will bring action against some one else.




I don't like it anymore than most, but i do acknowledge it is the way it is.


raingod


Dec 31, 2010, 11:19 AM
Post #70 of 285 (5388 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 118

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
......
The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.

Exactly, if the law was clear in all cases we wouldn't need Lawers


majid_sabet


Dec 31, 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #71 of 285 (5385 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8368

Re: [bearbreeder] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."


when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry Tongue

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right


chadnsc


Dec 31, 2010, 11:57 AM
Post #72 of 285 (5372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [majid_sabet] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
bearbreeder wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."


when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry Tongue

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

I don't know of anyone who wants to kick your ass midget. You're like a socially inept first grader, annoying but harmless.


Partner camhead


Dec 31, 2010, 2:01 PM
Post #73 of 285 (5340 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20798

Re: [chadnsc] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
bearbreeder wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."


when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry Tongue

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

I don't know of anyone who wants to kick your ass midget. You're like a socially inept first grader, annoying but harmless.

More important, Majid is not representative of the climbing community, neither on a national nor regional level. The polite folks in the video, however, are.


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 2:09 PM
Post #74 of 285 (5337 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [moose_droppings] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
Another blanket statement.

In reply to:
Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

Maybe, maybe not.
Recreational Use statutes in all 50 states are pretty clear in limiting liability

Please don't play Jay on me.

Jay quoted me and said I was wrong about different circumstances in each case because his assumption of risk law supersedes all that. Then I give him an example of different circumstances and he said, well yeah, that's different circumstances. I swear it's like arguing with a child.


Now this.
You said prior to this that "Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner".
I say "maybe, maybe not"..
Now you say it's, "clear in limiting liability". These two things are different. I'll just repeat, "It depends".

Your making an assumption much like Jay did in that the law is clear. Lawyers and judges construe the law to fit their interpretations depending on the circumstances, then jurors make their own decision based on what is sometimes nothing more than their gut feelings.

The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.
Please show me a legal case where "it depends" applies. Show me where a landowner who charges a fee for use of their land was sued after an accident and was sued. I have never heard of such a case. I do know that the access fund who I'm sure has had lawyers look in the liability laws have told climbers to tell landowners that they won't be held liable for injuries as long as they don't charge a fee to use their land.


bearbreeder


Dec 31, 2010, 2:48 PM
Post #75 of 285 (5323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [majid_sabet] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

taking all the draws as they must all be obviously unsafe .....claiming they are yours ... bashing "pussies" for not being able to clean a 5.14 every time when you cant even do a 5.8

how righteous thoult art oh holy majid Tongue

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Sport Climbing

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook