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


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 4:37 PM
Post #76 of 285 (4297 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3345

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:
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'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"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."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

Crazy


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 7:52 PM
Post #77 of 285 (4272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [moose_droppings] 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

moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
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'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"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."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

Crazy

Of course, because every "circumstance" you give is a straw man, your latest straw man being the landowner actually murdering the climber.

You haven't come up with a single "circumstance" within the scope of the issue being discussed to support your assertion that every case of mere negligence causing injury to someone participating in a dangerous recreational activity is a question of circumstances that you seem to think are likely to override assumption of risk.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 31, 2010, 8:02 PM)


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 8:07 PM
Post #78 of 285 (4261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3345

Re: [jt512] 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

I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 8:12 PM
Post #79 of 285 (4259 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

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:
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'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"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."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

Crazy
What? You specifically quoted my comment regarding liability when a fee is charged. Then I asked you to cite an example. For the case where no fee is charged, as long as there is no negligence on the landowner's part that caused the accident. They are not liable, the statutes are pretty clear on this. Both of your examples still have not addressed a case relevant to a normal climbing situation. Non-guided climbing on private land without fees where the owner is not present. Please provide me with a legal example of this case since you are so sure it would apply


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 8:13 PM
Post #80 of 285 (4258 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [moose_droppings] 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

moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all.

No. I was certainly not talking about the acts of commercial operators or murderers.

Jay


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #81 of 285 (4261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [moose_droppings] 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

moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 8:21 PM
Post #82 of 285 (4252 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [redlude97] 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

redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

Let me restate the specific claim I made for the benefit of moose_shit_for_brains. I said, "Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport." I was talking about negligence, not murder. And although I didn't explicitly exclude commercial guide services, I think it was unnecessary to do so in the context of the quote I was replying to. And, besides, I agreed with moose-shit in my next post that if the negligent party was a guide that it would be a different story.

So to reiterate and clarify: moose-shit bears the burden of proof that there are circumstances in which a negligent, non-commercial party would be liable for injuries to a climber he sustained while knowingly participating in a dangerous sport. Moose-shit has not provided a single example of such circumstances.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 31, 2010, 8:25 PM)


notapplicable


Dec 31, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #83 of 285 (4240 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [jt512] Draw Thief Caught [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (12 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #84 of 285 (4234 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [notapplicable] 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

notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?


notapplicable


Dec 31, 2010, 9:08 PM
Post #85 of 285 (4232 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

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:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...


redlude97


Dec 31, 2010, 9:20 PM
Post #86 of 285 (4224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [notapplicable] 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

notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...
I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #87 of 285 (4214 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [redlude97] 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

redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...
I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls.

That has been my experience as well. "Look, Martha, it's climbers. How do they get the rope up there, anyway?"

Jay


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 9:50 PM
Post #88 of 285 (4210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

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:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

I wasn't criticizing the "trashy" comment. I was criticizing your ability to judge how difficult it is to hang draws on a 5.14. Although after reading your post, you didn't comment on the difficulty of hanging the draws, but on cleaning them. But then you missed the point of leaving of the draws up, which is the difficulty of hanging them again, given that by definition of "project," climbing the route is currently too hard for you.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 31, 2010, 9:51 PM)


notapplicable


Dec 31, 2010, 10:07 PM
Post #89 of 285 (4205 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [redlude97] 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

redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...
I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.

And it should be an issues with the climbers. I personally think all the chalked up holds look like shit too but I do use chalk. And so does everyone else, which is what makes it a problem and everyone would have to stop using it to solve that problem. Which would be great but is not realistic.

The draws are an area where a single climber can make a huge difference though and is a much more realistic goal.

But yes, I am a hypocrite and not proud of it.


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 10:13 PM
Post #90 of 285 (4200 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [notapplicable] 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

notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...
I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.

And it should be an issues with the climbers. I personally think all the chalked up holds look like shit too but I do use chalk. And so does everyone else, which is what makes it a problem and everyone would have to stop using it to solve that problem. Which would be great but is not realistic.

The draws are an area where a single climber can make a huge difference though and is a much more realistic goal.

But yes, I am a hypocrite and not proud of it.

I think walls look better with chalk and draws on them, so I'm not a hypocrite.

Jay


notapplicable


Dec 31, 2010, 10:24 PM
Post #91 of 285 (4195 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

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:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

I wasn't criticizing the "trashy" comment. I was criticizing your ability to judge how difficult it is to hang draws on a 5.14. Although after reading your post, you didn't comment on the difficulty of hanging the draws, but on cleaning them. But then you missed the point of leaving of the draws up, which is the difficulty of hanging them again, given that by definition of "project," climbing the route is currently too hard for you.

Jay

I'm not saying you don't loose some advantage by taking them down, you clearly do. If climbing a neighboring route and prehanging them on rappel is an option then I'd go that route, if it's not then leaving them up becomes a bit more defensible IMO.

I've never climbed at Smith but the pictures make it look like the cliff top access is not ideal so maybe reaching the anchors via other means is not really an option. If it is though, someone is just being lazy...


notapplicable


Dec 31, 2010, 10:27 PM
Post #92 of 285 (4191 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

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:
notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
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

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.
Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...
I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.

And it should be an issues with the climbers. I personally think all the chalked up holds look like shit too but I do use chalk. And so does everyone else, which is what makes it a problem and everyone would have to stop using it to solve that problem. Which would be great but is not realistic.

The draws are an area where a single climber can make a huge difference though and is a much more realistic goal.

But yes, I am a hypocrite and not proud of it.

I think walls look better with chalk and draws on them, so I'm not a hypocrite.

Jay

You're weird


moose_droppings


Dec 31, 2010, 11:04 PM
Post #93 of 285 (4184 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3345

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:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land. Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.

Jay and you are both intentionally ignoring that I had originally stated that not all liability claims are the same and need to be put into context with the circumstances. Different circumstances to both of your prior scenarios can change the outcome without changing either of your stated assertions.
But now neither of you will except anything that doesn't fit your ever narrowing tolerances. It's a given if we restrain the circumstances that you and Jay want to impose then that someone probably won't be held liable. All I've said throughout is that each case is different and not all cases will withstand either of your initial asserted defenses of assuming risks or inherent risk.


Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response.



Edited because it's late and I'm tired.


(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Dec 31, 2010, 11:20 PM)


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 11:21 PM
Post #94 of 285 (4174 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [moose_droppings] 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

moose_droppings wrote:
Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response.

The problem is that you're actually stupid, so referring to you as an idiot isn't actually a personal attack, but merely a fact.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 31, 2010, 11:21 PM)


jt512


Dec 31, 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #95 of 285 (4172 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [moose_droppings] 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

moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land.

Similarly if a United Airlines 747 dropped an engine onto him he could sue United Airlines, yet neither scenario has anything to do with the subject.

Jay


moose_droppings


Jan 1, 2011, 12:41 AM
Post #96 of 285 (4158 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3345

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

jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land................................................................snip snip snip

Similarly if a United Airlines 747 dropped an engine onto him he could sue United Airlines, yet neither scenario has anything to do with the subject.

Jay

Still refuse to take things in their full context. Now lets show what the very next line of that quote is.

moose_droppings wrote:
Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.

Your so simple to predict.

I guess if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can always try to baffle them with bullshit.


I almost stooped to your level and was going to do some name calling.
God how petty that would of been.


gosharks


Jan 1, 2011, 2:31 AM
Post #97 of 285 (4150 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 6, 2004
Posts: 268

Re: [notapplicable] 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

notapplicable wrote:
I've never climbed at Smith but the pictures make it look like the cliff top access is not ideal so maybe reaching the anchors via other means is not really an option. If it is though, someone is just being lazy...
Lol.

"not ideal," especially at Picnic Lunch Wall, would be putting it lightly.


camhead


Jan 1, 2011, 8:46 AM
Post #98 of 285 (4117 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20695

Re: [gosharks] 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

it's really funny to compare and contrast the development of this thread and its sister thread on mountainproject.


socalclimber


Jan 1, 2011, 9:20 AM
Post #99 of 285 (4103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2431

Re: [tripperjm] 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

tripperjm wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
bill413 wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
bill413 wrote:
adam14113 wrote:
I wouldn't have been as nice as those guys

I was amazed at how civil they were to him. And, at the thief's unconcern about theft.

taking a draw is not against law. in fact it is against the law to leave pieces on the wall and I do not understand why lazy sport climbers have to leave their unsafe draws on every wall.loose some of those fat pounds out of your love handles and carry six freaking draws on your harness and clip and clean it after you are done.And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

While the thief claimed they were "unsafe" and "badly worn" - they were not. The people who were working that route knew the draws and their history. The thief claimed that (apparently) all the draws on the route were unsafe, but the anchor biners were fine. There was a little discussion there where the owners pointed out that carabiners were normally shaped like the ones that were being stolen. Maybe he mistook bent gates for damage?

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

Well I don't noes about teh local climbers... but ewe can OG BET that there wood be a jiant party hear on teh knob, with people poynting and laughing with red and green arrows. But sadly, that will never happen, cuz ewe don't climb.




jt512


Jan 1, 2011, 9:49 AM
Post #100 of 285 (4073 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

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:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*
So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land................................................................snip snip snip

Similarly if a United Airlines 747 dropped an engine onto him he could sue United Airlines, yet neither scenario has anything to do with the subject.

Jay

Still refuse to take things in their full context. Now lets show what the very next line of that quote is.

moose_droppings wrote:
Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.

Yeah, that changes everything. *roll*

http://jt512.dyndns.org/...s/kruger-dunning.pdf

Jay

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