Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

It's All Kitchen Sponges and Bad Advice about Climbing on the Internet

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 11:22:21 AM6/23/02
to
I got to thinking about this...

We are told that bad advice can get you killed. Therefore, anyone who offers
such is aggressively flamed. That is the premise anyway.

I say bullshit. I've always said bullshit. The aggression is there, naked
for all to see. The bad advice is the excuse to unload a little personal
angst onto someone else. Sure, bad advice should be corrected. But ya know,
after the 5th verbal attack, er I mean admonishment, the correction is on
the record. Subsequent nasty posts can't really be justified under that safe
haven, can they?

Kitchen sponges. I think of kitchen sponges. We've all heard how horrible
these things are, breeding grounds for bacteria. I've read that kitchen
sponges are dirtier than the bottom rim of most toilet seats.

Then one day Slime, of all people, asked who ever died from a kitchen
sponge. It was his way of debunking what he saw as a myth. Hmmm, I thought,
who died indeed? I don't know and don't care enough to find out. But it got
me to rethink the 'common dangers of the household,' and blind acceptance of
conventional wisdom. Well, what of the common dangers of climbing? What of
the conventional wisdom regarding bad advice about climbing on the internet?
It just played itself out yet again, much to my interest. Please consider...

The recent Bill bashing thread, you know, the one where everyone is mad at
an Austrian troll so they take it out on the most convenient punching bag
they can find? Sure, you know the one. In that thread, we are once again
assured that bad advice kills. Kills! And therefore, any social constraint
against bad behavior, really shitty behavior, is null and void. Never mind
that Bill offer no freaking advice at all! Never mind that he uttered one
sentence declaring what the whole world already knows! He has offered bad
advice in the past and that is justification enough! People can pile on like
GI blanket party and kick the literary shit out of some poor hapless bastard
who runs afoul of these, um, safety police. One even contends that
eventually the group will rise up in unison and run the offenders off! Is
that tar and feathering bullshit or what?

Bad advice kills? Kitchen sponges. I'd like to know of some of the real life
examples of where rec.climbing bad advice has gotten someone killed. Put up
or shut the up. Who, when, how...has been killed from bad advice about
climbing on rec.climbing? Quote the threads and cite the obits. Put a little
iron in your self righteous justifications.

See, I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I always have. I think the
average reader of this newsgroup is smart enough to cross check the
information they receive here. I don't believe anyone is stupid enough to
take blind advice from a total stranger and go apply it in the real world to
the extent that they wind up dead. Just like I don't believe people eat off
of dirty kitchen sponges. The bodies just aren't piling up.

See! Our policy of gang beating anyone who offers up such advice must be
working!

Whatever. It's all a big todo about kitchen sponges. So the next time you're
the 5th poster to say 'bullshit' about some technical whatnot, imagine a
dirty kitchen sponge. Imagine all of the dead housewives, twitching, still
warm on the linoleum floors, having tragically succumbed to another toxic
infection. Think kitchen sponges.

And then tell the truth. You're piling on because it feels good. The harsh
words aimed at your targets are not a community service. They never were.
End of story.

DMT


Russ Walling

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 1:10:04 PM6/23/02
to
in article uhbppja...@corp.supernews.com, Dingus Milktoast at none@yabis
wrote on 6/23/02 8:22 AM:

> Bad advice kills? Kitchen sponges. I'd like to know of some of the real life
> examples of where rec.climbing bad advice has gotten someone killed. Put up
> or shut the up. Who, when, how...has been killed from bad advice about
> climbing on rec.climbing?

Dead men can't type.
(I know, I know.... weak... and I just got up)
Russ

Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 6:18:56 PM6/23/02
to
Dingus says...

>I got to thinking about this...

That was your first mistake.

>The recent Bill bashing thread, you know, the one where everyone is mad at
>an Austrian troll so they take it out on the most convenient punching bag
>they can find? Sure, you know the one.

Everyone? Now THAT'S bullshit. Dagmat's post generated zero angst from me.
But you know what? Dingus, you're trying to establish yourself as the group's
premier troll and I personally could care less about that - I routinely respond
to what I know is a blatant troll. But yours become cheaper by the day.

>People can pile on like GI blanket party and kick the literary shit out
>of some poor hapless bastard who runs afoul of these, um, safety police.

You really are hard for Bill, eh? You go, guy!

>I'd like to know of some of the real life examples of where rec.climbing
>bad advice has gotten someone killed. Put up or shut the up.

OK, now it's your turn to shut the fuck up (is that even remotely possible for
you, Oh Great One)? In the first place, does someone first need to die to make
it valid?

How about we talk about single point toprope anchors? And rather than talk
about death, let's talk about something worse than death. Ready? Our group had
just done a relatively obscure route towards the left end of Rattlesnake Point,
the most overclimbed crag in Ontario. Two of our gang were first time climbers,
so I was leading or setting topropes on routes that they could manage. We'd
just finished a route that was too hard for them and thus decided to head
eastward for some easier stuff. I was packing up gear so Karen led the gang
over to Chalkey's Balance Climb, an easy, short route certain to rebuild lost
confidence. I stayed behind to butterfly the rope and reorg the rack.

As I walked towards Chalkey's, I noticed a guy being lowered off his highest
piece and as he lowered, he cleaned all the lower lead gear. It seemed odd that
he didn't climb 3' higher (it was easy ground) and throw a sling around one of
the many trees at the cliff edge. His belayer was a young lady. I said to her
that I hoped they didn't plan to toprope off that single piece. She told me he
had done numerous FA's in the area and knew his shit. I told her not to TR off
a single piece and moved on.

I was about 15' up Chalkey's when she started up on TR, with a single hex as her
anchor. I was not far away and asked the leader if he really wanted her TR'ing
off a single piece. His response was simple. He told me to fuck off and that
the nut was bomber. I gave up on meaningful communication and continued my
lead. As I approached the top of my route, I heard her scream as she fell. I
looked to my left and watched as she landed in the talus. A large block was
laying in wait for her lower spine. It was cocked at an angle such that, once
it broke her back, her body looked like an inverted "V".

She went silent. I yelled over to him to not move her. I'd been trained in
emergency medicine and knew that it probably didn't really matter, since she
fell from 30' up, but the rule is to not move back and neck injury victims until
the med guys arrive. But he lifted her off the block and when he did, she
screamed out and I've never been able to forget the sound. I've heard it again
and again in my mind. Find a way to plug my brain into a recorder and I'll give
you the video - I've replayed it tto many times. Over the next half hour, her
screams of agony gradually got weaker and weaker. When SAR arrived, they gave
her a shot of morphine and she immediately passed out.

He spent the next 45 minutes rationalizing his single point anchor. He told
everyone that would listen that it was a bomber nut. So let's rewind to my
experience. Here I was, a solid 5.9/10 leader on a 5.3 route. When she decked,
I freaked. I could not complete the lead. I downclimbed to my highest piece,
backed it up and lowered off. I was a wreck. So the dude walked over to me and
I'm sure he remembered my advice - and told me it was a bomber nut. My reply
was very simple: "Obviously not."

I was nauseous. SAR took her down the hill to an ambulence. We packed up and
left after I went to the top and rapped down to reclaim my gear. Later, we
heard that she survived and is a quad. To me, this is worse than death. She's
totally dependant and he's totally responsible. If I had to deal with her life,
death would seem to be a bargain. If I had to deal with his life, death would
be too cheap.

So tell me Dingus, why do you throw this shit out? Do you want people to
believe that 5mm perlon is acceptable for a belay escape? If so, I hope you're
willing for Burl to use it the next time you go for the hardest lead of your
life, on RPs, way out in the back country. Do you want to TR off a single point
anchor? Bill has supported these kinds of scenarios, and more. He's a
cheap-assed troll and the more you fall in line with him, the more you become a
cheap-assed troll. You're kinda looking sorta gay for Bill and I have no
problem with that. You're free to live your life but if you think his bad beta
is welcome here, then you got another think a comin.

I've seen people fuck up and pay the price. Over the last few weeks, some
talented people have bought the farm and it's a no-brainer to realize that some
of the people reading this group are new enough to not know how to figure it
out. They come here seeking knowledge. 5mm perlon belay escapes are not the
kind of knowledge we want to instill in them. You and I are old farts that went
at it slower than people do today. How long did it take you to climb 5.11? It
took me almost a decade. These days, people are flying past 11s their first
year. They are not learning the old fart's way. Do we owe it to them to teach
them the way? Not necessarily. But should we sit back when a fully distrbed
hack tells them to girth hitch runners to wires? No way.

>Who, when, how...has been killed from bad advice about climbing on
>rec.climbing? Quote the threads and cite the obits. Put a little
>iron in your self righteous justifications.

Why is death a prerequisite? Why isn't it valid in your world when a
beatutiful, healthy young woman is turned into a quad? She trusted her
boyfriend in the same way some people trust rec.climbing. I know this because
I've been on the sidelines at a few crags as newbies talked about what they had
read here. I personally would rather give advice here that is on the more
universally accepted side and realize that some people will take their own
risks. I'm completely comfortable with people that take risks. I've climbed
with Derek Hersey and loved what his spirit offered. I pained over his death,
but I also knew that he rolled his own dice.

>See, I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I always have. I think the
>average reader of this newsgroup is smart enough to cross check the
>information they receive here. I don't believe anyone is stupid enough to
>take blind advice from a total stranger and go apply it in the real world to
>the extent that they wind up dead. Just like I don't believe people eat off
>of dirty kitchen sponges. The bodies just aren't piling up.

I'm personaly not willing to deal with the mathematical side. When I saw that
one newbie trust an idiot, it was enough for me. People that climb with me know
that I don't go by the book. I don't always set anchors that look like they
came out of John Long's books. I rarely use belay signals, except with newbies,
etc., but my primary perspective is survival. I also look for humor and ways to
learn. But you think that Bill is an incredible troll. That in itself shows
that you know his technical advice is faulty. How many need to die, Dingus?
Why must they die? If a young, happy, healthy, beautiful person is turned into
a quad, why doesn't that register in your perfect system? Here we sit, reading
about incredibly experienced people that bit the big one doing what should have
been a routine bail and you want to stand behind Bill's bullshit? Your
credibility is fading fast.

>See! Our policy of gang beating anyone who offers up such advice must be
>working!

This is a humorous perspective from one that has recently offered up his flames
from a second alias. Search "Dr. Schitt" to see how Dingus has hidden his
flames. Lame, dude. Bill knows exactly who is flaming him, but until you
fucked up, we didn't know who Dr. Schitt was.

>And then tell the truth. You're piling on because it feels good. The harsh
>words aimed at your targets are not a community service. They never were.
>End of story.

You're full of Schitt once again. It doesn't really feel all that good flaming
Bill. Those of us that have called bullshit on him know what we're in for. He
could look at black rock, proclaim it to be white and even Al Gore could not
convince him that he is wrong. God could part the heavens and carve "This rock
is BLACK!" right before his eyes and he's remain steadfast in his reply. It's
like Monty Python has infused his moronic brain with a reason to be wrong. And
you, Dingus, are riding shotgun, seemingly in love with his mission. You're
going down the wrong road, dude. It's a no-win no brainer. Apporopro, no?

Oh, yea, back to our two first time climbers at Rattlesnake Point? One of them,
the one with incredible potential - he quit climbing right there. And that's
fine with me, I don't try to push people into climbing if they aren't into it.
But I think back to how he'd progressed so far, so fast, then to quit by a mere
injury that prodused a quad. Nowhere near your criteria of death. I'm not
sorry that I can't give you any stories of death that you seem to lust for your
proof. But, old man, the old ways of learning to climb are largely gone. You
asked for average and we no longer live in an average world.

Hey, dingus, I know you're not going to reply. One of your friends emailed me a
couple of years ago and told me not to bother flaming you because you'ld
kill-filed me but I guess your Dr. Schitt replies to me disproved that, eh?
What alias will you use to reply to me next? Afraid of looking trolled? Lame!

Lynne

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 7:10:25 PM6/23/02
to
"Mad Dog" wrote

<snip horrifying accident account>

> I've seen people fuck up and pay the price. Over the last few weeks, some
> talented people have bought the farm and it's a no-brainer to realize that
some
> of the people reading this group are new enough to not know how to figure
it
> out. They come here seeking knowledge.

Absolutely, 100% correct. While it's not my only source of knowledge (and I
hope no one else's!), information here is one of the sources upon which I
draw in order to make my own decisions. I'm sure there are many folks just
like me doing the same thing.

I've learned some good stuff here, between all the fucking tiresome flame
wars.


David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 7:55:23 PM6/23/02
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> writes:

> I was about 15' up Chalkey's when she started up on TR, with a
> single hex as her anchor. I was not far away and asked the leader
> if he really wanted her TR'ing off a single piece. His response was
> simple. He told me to fuck off and that the nut was bomber. I gave
> up on meaningful communication and continued my lead. As I
> approached the top of my route, I heard her scream as she fell.

I hope to be never seeing anything like this. Still, it takes me too
much hesitation and qualms before I make comments to people that I am
not climbing with.

> I personally would rather give advice here that is on the more
> universally accepted side and realize that some people will take
> their own risks. I'm completely comfortable with people that take
> risks. I've climbed with Derek Hersey and loved what his spirit
> offered. I pained over his death, but I also knew that he rolled
> his own dice.

That's the main issue. When telling people about climbing, teach
them what risks they take, and what they can avoid. You may not be
responsible for their life and decisions, but you are responsible for
anything you contribute to that. In particular, if the people are
looking to you as their source of information.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David....@t-online.de

John Lawrence

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 9:10:28 PM6/23/02
to
pretty grim story....would you argue that she knew the risks she was taking
climbing with *him* ?


David Kastrup <David....@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:x5hejt5...@tupik.goethe.zz...

Michael A. Riches

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 9:53:37 PM6/23/02
to
in article 8kuR8.50896$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, John
Lawrence at jesla...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 6/23/02 7:10 PM:

> pretty grim story....would you argue that she knew the risks she was taking
> climbing with *him* ?
>

I would argue that she didn't. Trust in a partner comes in many forms and
often the less knowledgeable of the partners has absolutely no idea of the
consequences they face.

You can tell people, till your blue in the face that climbing is dangerous,
but they still take unnecessary chances. In this scenario it wouldn't have
taken the more knowledgeable of the partners more then a few seconds to back
up his system. Did she know the dangers of a single point anchor...??? Seems
to me that if she did she wouldn't have climbed on it, ask anybody...top
roping ain't dangerous. You've got a rope that will save you from any fall,
right...???

Ratzzz...(But, that wasn't the point....)

Dwight Haymes

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 1:32:26 AM6/24/02
to

Lynne <LynneSP...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BzsR8.152514$6m5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

> I've learned some good stuff here, between all the fucking tiresome
flame
> wars.

There's been some tiresome nonsense, yes. But hasn't anyone else found
some of this funny? I've been entertained. This is better than
Shakespeare.

Dwight

David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 3:41:11 AM6/24/02
to
"John Lawrence" <jesla...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> pretty grim story....would you argue that she knew the risks she was taking
> climbing with *him* ?

No, that was my point. They guy was exposing her to a risk that he
himself chose to neglect without giving her a way to choose
otherwise. He "knew" his anchor to be bomber and that he himself
would not hesitate rapping or toproping from it, in spite of this
being inherently dangerous. She didn't.

That story, fortunately, was not from my own experience. As a sort of
a meagre example from me: when I am rapping in non-alpine terrain, I
rarely use an autoblock (except when I know I have to fiddle
non-trivially with gear). When I teach beginners to rap, I tell them
all about autoblocks, hand them a Prusik, explain what it does and why
it is a good idea. They usually employ it until they at least have a
good grasp on rapping in general to actually know when it is not going
to help them much. They also know that it might be more appropriate
to use in situations different from the one on the local crag.

While I tell them all about the stuff and recommend it to them, I
don't usually use it myself. I know the risks I am taking (for what
it's worth), they know I know.

That's ok. Not telling people in the first place about possibilities
of saving their necks, isn't.

Daniel Goodman

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 5:35:14 PM6/24/02
to

Sort of like "If your parachute fails, bring it back to us for a
full refund", eh, wot?

"Eh, wot, no posts
from dead men?"
/
/
o o
---^^^^---- ----^^^^----
U


Dan Goodman

John Lawrence

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 6:16:44 PM6/24/02
to
interesting situational `risk' triangulation......lookit........ woman (A)
is exposed recklessly to risk by man (B) diagnosed correctly and pointed out
by observer (C) who thus is exposed to risk of retaliation from (B).......
wonder what liability lawyers could make of that ....


David Kastrup <David....@t-online.de> wrote in message

news:x53cvdk...@tupik.goethe.zz...

VikingBabe

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 8:41:31 PM6/24/02
to
John Lawrence wrote:

> interesting situational `risk' triangulation......lookit........ woman (A)
> is exposed recklessly to risk by man (B) diagnosed correctly and pointed out
> by observer (C) who thus is exposed to risk of retaliation from (B).......
> wonder what liability lawyers could make of that ....

the above reminds me of a situation where one of my friends was
asked out by this guy (call him mr. b if you like).

she was going to go. she told me all excited-like.

i knew he was a jerk (mr. b dated another one of my friends).

i told her.

she told him (what a dumb ass).

mr. b got bent and made my life hell for over a year.

creepy dudes suck.(almost as bad as the london wall crowds on
saturday!)

jenn

Andy Gale

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 9:22:11 PM6/24/02
to

VikingBabe wrote:


>
> she told him (what a dumb ass).


:^) That's funny.


>
> mr. b got bent and made my life hell for over a year.
>
> creepy dudes suck.(almost as bad as the london wall crowds on
> saturday!)


London Wall was wide open on Wednesday.


Andy


VikingBabe

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 11:21:27 PM6/24/02
to
Andy Gale <ag...@NOSPAM.edu> writes:

>
>
> VikingBabe wrote:
>> creepy dudes suck.(almost as bad as the london wall crowds on
>> saturday!)
>
>
> London Wall was wide open on Wednesday.

dearest andy the sport climbing playboy,

are you asking me out or just trying to make me jelous?

;-*

jenn

Bill Zaumen

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:12:45 AM6/25/02
to
In article <af5hg...@drn.newsguy.com>, Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote:

> Dingus says...
>
> >I got to thinking about this...
>
> That was your first mistake.
>

> How about we talk about single point toprope anchors? ....

> I was about 15' up Chalkey's when she started up on TR, with a

> single hex as her anchor. .... I heard her scream as she fell. I


> looked to my left and watched as she landed in the talus.
> A large block was laying in wait for her lower spine.

> He spent the next 45 minutes rationalizing his single point anchor.

> Bill has supported these kinds of scenarios, and more.

Jeff McCoy is "embellishing" as usual, misquoting a thread on slings
untying. I specifically said that a single nut or bolt was
not an adequate anchor.

Someone commented that the tails of a water knot could creep,
and I posted a comment that I saw a sling untie on a top rope
someone else had set up (I had walked over to belay, couldn't see
the anchor, asked the climber about it, and he said it was a tree
3 feet in diameter---the type that you find in the Sierras that are a
couple of hundred feet high). He told me *nothing* about anything else.
Pointing out that a someone *had* seen a sling untie is useful---it
tells you it is something you might see in practice, not a theoretical
problem. Instead, Mad Dog launched one of his many personal attacks.

Jeff McCoy has been mad about this topic for at least 1.5 years.
If you look at the tone of his postings (and I hadn't contributed
to this thread up to now), it should be pretty clear that he has
a long-term grudge.

Bill

--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.

Spammers can try mailto:s34...@aol.com mailto:sdkj34...@aol.com

Nafod40

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:14:42 AM6/25/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message news:<uhbppja...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I got to thinking about this...
>
> We are told that bad advice can get you killed. Therefore, anyone who offers
> such is aggressively flamed. That is the premise anyway.
>
> I say bullshit. I've always said bullshit. The aggression is there, naked
> for all to see. The bad advice is the excuse to unload a little personal
> angst onto someone else. Sure, bad advice should be corrected. But ya know,
> after the 5th verbal attack, er I mean admonishment, the correction is on
> the record. Subsequent nasty posts can't really be justified under that safe
> haven, can they?

The proof of the pudding is that the exact same thing happens on
rec.hobby.knitting, soc.dogwalking, and especially comp.<name your
OS>.advocacy. Only they don't use the safety excuse. They're just
jerks.

Even the Marine Corps Drill Instructors learned that if you actually
want to impart some critical safety-of-life information to somebody,
as opposed to just jacking up the stress level for its own sake (which
has its uses) you don't yell. It is counter-productive. It does not
work. No matter how good it feels to do it.

So if the goal is to actually exchange some info, even with a third
party watching the thread, its the wrong approach.

Lord Slime

unread,
Jun 24, 2002, 10:59:05 PM6/24/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
> Bad advice kills? Kitchen sponges. I'd like to know of some of the real life
> examples of where rec.climbing bad advice has gotten someone killed. Put up
> or shut the up. Who, when, how...has been killed from bad advice about
> climbing on rec.climbing?

Sorry Dingus, you ask a rhetorical question. Since bad
advice is consistantly exposed here, and has been for at
least 10 years, there SHOULD be no examples.

- Lord Slime

Ken....@cs.cmu.edu

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 12:16:07 PM6/25/02
to
"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:

It is worse than that.

Craig's (aka Dingus') question is a strawman with a false premise. I
don't bash bad advice to protect readers so much as to protect the
newsgroup. Think "eternal vigilance". Who wants to be part of a
group where most of the advice is flawed? What recourse do we have
other than sending replies (either by email or followups)?

I have a lot more that I might say on the subject, but frankly I'd
rather talk about climbing than how we should behave.

Ken

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:33:16 PM6/25/02
to

<Ken....@cs.cmu.edu> wrote

> Craig's (aka Dingus') question is a strawman with a false premise.

No it isn't Ken.

> I
> don't bash bad advice to protect readers so much as to protect the
> newsgroup.

You don't bash period.

> Who wants to be part of a
> group where most of the advice is flawed?

You labeled my thread a strawman but you're ignoring the point and trying to
steer this to another purpose. It's not necessary. Let me state it again so
there is no misunderstanding...

Bad advice needs to be corrected.

I mean it too. People such as yourself and Slime and others are always
willing to apply a critical eye to proffered advice. I appreciate that
effort AND HAVE BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM IT!

None of that justifies the pile on me too bullshit that passes for community
service here. And we both know it.

Back to the Zauman thread, he posted a sentence declaring some Americans
aren't very polite. That elicited the "Note to Zauman" thread bashing him,
not for posting bad advice, but for daring to post at all. A subsequent post
argued that these nasty kinds of posts are justified and even necessary
because 'bad advice can get you killed." I wanted to debunk that particular
myth and I think I did just that.

Hell, YOU are proof that you don't have to be nasty to correct bad advice.
But you don't engage in the pile on behavior in the first place.

Here's the deal... people will go on posting bad advice. Others will go on
correcting it (thanks again to those of you who can and do). And still
others will take these opportinities to launch vitriole filled ad hominin
attacks on the hapless bastards who start it all. And finally, a precious
few will attempt to justify these attacks with the nobel banner of
"community service." Cause after all, bad advice kills. What I wanted to do
was seperate the correction from the attacks. The one does not justify the
other.

So when people feel the need to flame Bill, I would only ask they drop the
self righteous crap about community service and admit the truth... they are
attacking him because they don't like him. The advice is but a vehicle to
deliver their true message.

Strawman? I always side with the First Amendment and fight against any group
that attempts to silence a member because that member is deemed unworthy.
Correct the advice by all means. But don't obliterate the individual because
you don't like the manner in which he argues. That is not a new position for
me, eh?

DMT


Andy Gale

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:37:06 PM6/25/02
to

VikingBabe wrote:

> Andy Gale <ag...@NOSPAM.edu> writes:

};^)>

Clearly the latter. As to the former, with a handle like VikingBabe who
wouldn't be intrigued? But on the otherside there is the email address,
whatever would I do if you didn't like me @ all?


Andy


Adam

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:49:44 PM6/25/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uhha6ur...@corp.supernews.com...

>
>>
> Back to the Zauman thread, he posted a sentence declaring some Americans
> aren't very polite. That elicited the "Note to Zauman" thread bashing him,
> not for posting bad advice, but for daring to post at all.

I didn't see it that way. My take was that someone who already had a bad
track record here posted to apologize on behalf of "us" because a couple of
people flamed (and rightly so) a foriegner who thought she had the right to
critique our American rescue teams/skills with no actual first hand
knowledge.

So, both the flames against the forienger and Bill were perfectly justified
in that case. I also think anyone who decided to post something as stupid
as Bill's apology -in German no less, wow aren't we all so impressed- would
have garnered the same thrashing. You, or me or Byrnes or Jeff, Brutus or
Inez, or any newbie would IMO recieve pretty much the same response.

It isn't a "oh look Bill posted *something*, let's hammer his sorry ass"
mentality no matter how much Bill-the-victim-who-loves-it says it is. It's
clearly a "Look Bill posted something *idiotic_AGAIN* " kind of thang.

A.


Adam

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:53:17 PM6/25/02
to
Here's a few pics of us from Wild Iris this last weekend.

http://209.211.253.177/wyoming/

A.


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 1:59:53 PM6/25/02
to

"Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote

> My take was that someone who already had a bad
> track record here posted to apologize on behalf of "us" because a couple
of
> people flamed (and rightly so) a foriegner who thought she had the right
to
> critique our American rescue teams/skills with no actual first hand
> knowledge.
>
> So, both the flames against the forienger and Bill were perfectly
justified
> in that case.

Justified? Lay it out for me dude. Justify it. Seriously. Not some juevinile
argument that 'he made me do it." I challenge you to justify either set of
cited flames.

> I also think anyone who decided to post something as stupid
> as Bill's apology -in German no less, wow aren't we all so impressed-
would
> have garnered the same thrashing.

OK. Let's stop right here. You are either misreading what I'm trying to say
or I'm failing miserably in stating it...

Flaming Bill in the context of that one sentence german post has nothing to
do with the correction of bad advice. I reject any attempt to relate the
two.

DMT


Adam

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 2:05:47 PM6/25/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uhhboqc...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote
>
> > My take was that someone who already had a bad
> > track record here posted to apologize on behalf of "us" because a couple
> of
> > people flamed (and rightly so) a foriegner who thought she had the right
> to
> > critique our American rescue teams/skills with no actual first hand
> > knowledge.
> >
> > So, both the flames against the forienger and Bill were perfectly
> justified
> > in that case.
>
> Justified? Lay it out for me dude. Justify it. Seriously. Not some
juevinile
> argument that 'he made me do it." I challenge you to justify either set of
> cited flames.

Well we'll just go around in cricles then, won't we? How can one
empirically justify something like a flame. I'll rewrite the above then:

**IMO** someone with no first hand knowledge of a rescue situation gone bad,
who posts a blanket criticism of American rescue personell and techniques in
comparison to those in Europe deserves a good flaming.

and

**IMO** When said person gets said flaming, someone who takes it upon
themselves to apologize "on behalf" of this newsgroup/country as a whole for
being "impolite" also deserves a good flaming.

S'ok?

> > I also think anyone who decided to post something as stupid
> > as Bill's apology -in German no less, wow aren't we all so impressed-
> would
> > have garnered the same thrashing.
>
> OK. Let's stop right here. You are either misreading what I'm trying to
say
> or I'm failing miserably in stating it...
>
> Flaming Bill in the context of that one sentence german post has nothing
to
> do with the correction of bad advice. I reject any attempt to relate the
> two.

Nope, no misread or mis-state. I'm not trying to relate the two. I'm only
saying as a stand-alone post, Bill's little apology deserved a righteous
roasting.

A.


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 2:37:24 PM6/25/02
to

"Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote

>How can one
> empirically justify something like a flame.

How indeed? Go back and reread some of the flames, er, I mean justifications
for the treatment of Bill. A major rationalization was offered - bad advice
about climbing can kill. So the nasty posts are both warranted and
necessary. Verily, we are assured we will eventually rise up and throw the
bugger out!

Well, we've peeled that onion and found an ad hominem flame at it's core.
Safety issue my ass. I rest my case.

> I'm not trying to relate the two. I'm only
> saying as a stand-alone post, Bill's little apology > deserved a
righteous
> roasting.

Cool. You don't attempt to cloak your admittedly unjustifiable flames under
the guise of 'safety issue' or 'community service.' Our work is done here.

DMT


Adam

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 2:52:48 PM6/25/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uhhdv26...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote
>
> >How can one
> > empirically justify something like a flame.
>
> How indeed? Go back and reread some of the flames, er, I mean
justifications
> for the treatment of Bill. A major rationalization was offered

Not by me. Since when does only bad safety advice get flamed?

> bad advice
> about climbing can kill. So the nasty posts are both warranted and
> necessary. Verily, we are assured we will eventually rise up and throw the
> bugger out!

Well, those people don't speak for me, however I can see how when someone
consistently does as Bill does with the poor advice and inability/refusal to
admit error, that tends to lower regard for him as a whole. It just speaks
to character. I'm surprised this surprises you.

> Well, we've peeled that onion and found an ad hominem flame at it's core.
> Safety issue my ass. I rest my case.

Safety case my issue! I rest my ass.

> > I'm not trying to relate the two. I'm only
> > saying as a stand-alone post, Bill's little apology > deserved a
> righteous
> > roasting.
>
> Cool. You don't attempt to cloak your admittedly unjustifiable flames
under
> the guise of 'safety issue' or 'community service.' Our work is done here.

Hmmm... Ok I guess in the strictest sense the flames in question are
"unjustifiable" but only because there is no way to measure what is and what
isn't justifiable. So in that sense all flames are such.

A.


Nate B

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 2:56:46 PM6/25/02
to

"Adam"

> Ok I guess in the strictest sense the flames in question are
> "unjustifiable" but only because there is no way to measure what is and
what
> isn't justifiable. So in that sense all flames are such.


You guys must have been kept inside to wash desks back when everyone else
was out on the playground.

Bill pisses people off, so they flame him. Bill doesn't know how to play
well with others. Get it?

- Nate


Adam

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 3:06:00 PM6/25/02
to

"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:afaed8$cocib$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de...

I get it. And I agree completely. But, in the end those are still
judgement calls. You and I and many others judge the flames to be valid,
while DMT judges otherwise.

A.


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 3:25:35 PM6/25/02
to

"Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote

> Well, those people don't speak for me, however I can see how when someone
> consistently does as Bill does with the poor advice and inability/refusal
to
> admit error, that tends to lower regard for him as a whole. It just
speaks
> to character. I'm surprised this surprises you.

Adam, you're making me laugh dude (in a friendly way)!

I have not once spoken of my personal opinion of Bill. Not once. I haven't
defended his posts. Not a single time. I haven't defended his advice. I
didn't defend his German ditty. I haven't told you a single thing about my
Bill Zauman reading habits. My view of Bill's character is a totally unknown
element in all of this and will remain so. It's all so 'beside the point.'

Here is a little secret I'll throw out for free though.

The power Bill has to piss people off is given to him by the very people he
pisses off!

A very simple sentence. And the utter naked truth.

How I view Bill is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the thread and it
is also entirely irrelevant as a safety issue. I'm surprised that surprises
you.

I started this thread to debunk the notion that ad hominem attacks are a
community service related to safety. At first you seemed to be objecting to
that point. Subsequent clarifications have yielded agreement... the flames
in question are not justifiable in that sense. THAT was the point of my
initial post.

Our relative opinions of Bill Zauman were never at issue here. Nor were they
stated. Nor will they be in my case.

DMT


Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 3:35:13 PM6/25/02
to
Dingus says...

>I always side with the First Amendment and fight against any group
>that attempts to silence a member because that member is deemed unworthy.

Really? I seem to remember you once posting something on the order of "shut the
fuck up".

>Correct the advice by all means. But don't obliterate the individual because
>you don't like the manner in which he argues.

You're oversimplifying a situation that's evolved over an extended period of
time. Sure, you're taking the high ground, supposedly, but then you've admitted
how you think he's such a great troll. Do you think it's proper to post bad
safety beta as a troll, then defend it until the end of time? You defend his
right to argue in the manner he chooses, but you've criticized others for their
manners. Isn't that odd, especially since he's done plenty of name calling
himself, sometimes striking first?

>That is not a new position for me, eh?

Thanks for the laughs, Dr. Schitt. Here's a napkin to wipe your tear.

Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 3:47:07 PM6/25/02
to
Dingus says...

>I have not once spoken of my personal opinion of Bill. Not once.

Not entirely true, Dr. You said something about him being the best troll
around. That was your personal opinion about Bill, plain and simple.

>Here is a little secret I'll throw out for free though.

Not a secet to me, dude.

>The power Bill has to piss people off is given to him by the very people he
>pisses off!

And you've been motivated to start this extended drivel by the people that piss
you off. BFD. Totally normal.

>How I view Bill is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the thread and it
>is also entirely irrelevant as a safety issue.

Yea, right - bias never does alter perspective, does it?

>I started this thread to debunk the notion that ad hominem attacks are a
>community service related to safety.

At least you're hiding behind that premise while making backhanded slaps, eh?

>At first you seemed to be objecting to that point. Subsequent clarifications
>have yielded agreement... the flames in question are not justifiable in that
>sense. THAT was the point of my initial post.

I'm not so sure Adam's agreeing as much as you think.

>Our relative opinions of Bill Zauman were never at issue here. Nor were they
>stated. Nor will they be in my case.

How mysterious! You should write murder novels and get paid for your schlock.

Yawn.

Nate B

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:49:35 PM6/25/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast"

> I have not once spoken of my personal opinion of Bill. Not once. I haven't
> defended his posts. Not a single time. I haven't defended his advice. I
> didn't defend his German ditty. I haven't told you a single thing about my
> Bill Zauman reading habits. My view of Bill's character is a totally
unknown
> element in all of this and will remain so. It's all so 'beside the point.'

Here's a gem. The old quota-a-philosopher trick works every time.

- Nate


********************************************************************
Subject: Re: Small cams and climbing accidents?
Date: 2001-07-31 22:43:54 PST
Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> Then you must think Lao Tsu was pretty stupid as well, when he
> wrote, "If a man is bad, do not abandon him." (I presume you
> think Batten is bad).

Dude, I have tried to stay out of all your endless frays.
I've avoided the acrimonious "you're a fucking idiot"
threads. I've never once referred to you as a moron, much
less a Zaumoron or whatever it is they call you. Hell, to be
honest I filtered your ass for over 6 months so I didn't
have to keep seeing the endless political bickering.

But I gotta tell ya, that right there does it for me.

You so miss the point. I have to assume it's this quality
that has earned you your nickname.

You SO miss the point.

DMT

**************************************


MarkW

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:50:22 PM6/25/02
to

"VikingBabe" <I_dont_like...@all.com> wrote in message
news:3D17CB4B...@all.com...

> creepy dudes suck.(almost as bad as the london wall crowds on
> saturday!)

It seems often crowded but I only see one or two climbers actually climbing.
Is someone hiding the bottle of Tequila right as I walk by?

MarkW


VrticlVice

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 5:18:14 PM6/25/02
to

Andy Gale <ag...@scripps.edu> wrote:

>VikingBabe wrote:

>> Andy Gale <ag...@NOSPAM.edu> writes:

>>> VikingBabe wrote:
>>>
>>>> creepy dudes suck.(almost as bad as the london wall crowds on
>>> saturday!)

>>> London Wall was wide open on Wednesday.

>> dearest andy the sport climbing playboy,
>>
>> are you asking me out or just trying to make me jelous?
>>
>> ;-*
>>
>> jenn

>};^)>

>Clearly the latter. As to the former, with a handle like VikingBabe who
>wouldn't be intrigued? But on the otherside there is the email address,
>whatever would I do if you didn't like me @ all?


>Andy

Andy,

As a rec.climber once told me:

Get a room!

John H.


Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:56:14 PM6/25/02
to
Nate says...

>Here's a gem. The old quota-a-philosopher trick works every time.

Dammit Nate! Quit piling on or you'll soon be in the doghouse too.

Ken....@cs.cmu.edu

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 5:37:03 PM6/25/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

> <Ken....@cs.cmu.edu> wrote


>
> > I
> > don't bash bad advice to protect readers so much as to protect the
> > newsgroup.
>
> You don't bash period.

Sorry, Dingus. My bad. It looks like I take some of what's said
around here way too personally. I mistakenly equated reasoned
criticism and agressive flaming.

> Bad advice needs to be corrected.
>
> I mean it too. People such as yourself and Slime and others are always
> willing to apply a critical eye to proffered advice. I appreciate that
> effort AND HAVE BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM IT!
>
> None of that justifies the pile on me too bullshit that passes for community
> service here. And we both know it.

[remove foot from mouth] Right. I didn't mean to disagree.



> Back to the Zauman thread, he posted a sentence declaring some Americans
> aren't very polite. That elicited the "Note to Zauman" thread bashing him,
> not for posting bad advice, but for daring to post at all. A subsequent post
> argued that these nasty kinds of posts are justified and even necessary
> because 'bad advice can get you killed." I wanted to debunk that particular
> myth and I think I did just that.

Well... it's an argument worth debating. I can see valid points on
both sides. Either way, bashing away at someone doesn't usually help
matter - the flame thrower is a tool that is all too easily abused
(though from time to time no substitute can equal its impact).

> Here's the deal... people will go on posting bad advice. Others will go on
> correcting it (thanks again to those of you who can and do). And still
> others will take these opportinities to launch vitriole filled ad hominin
> attacks on the hapless bastards who start it all. And finally, a precious
> few will attempt to justify these attacks with the nobel banner of
> "community service." Cause after all, bad advice kills. What I wanted to do
> was seperate the correction from the attacks. The one does not justify the
> other.

Let me say that I hope everyone is listening to you!

> So when people feel the need to flame Bill, I would only ask they drop the
> self righteous crap about community service and admit the truth... they are
> attacking him because they don't like him. The advice is but a vehicle to
> deliver their true message.

I put Bill in a different category altogether. He is a certified pain
in the ass who wont shut up, even when an overwhelming contingent of
regulars have tried to show him the light. He deserves to be flamed.
Not because someone will actually listen to him - I doubt he has a
whit of credibility left and I (for one) am not about to let his
errors go unchallenged - but because he is a disruptive voice here,
clearly acting outside of accepted norms.

> Strawman? I always side with the First Amendment and fight against any group
> that attempts to silence a member because that member is deemed unworthy.

But you are siding against those who flame! That's hypocrisy, Dingus.
Really, it is - I don't mean to use the word as an insult. In my
view, you are getting dragged down by application of ideology without
considering the consequences. Why do you think I mentioned "eternal
vigilance" earlier? It is because I enjoy the priviledge of
participating in a great newsgroup; I've seen the way other groups
have gone; and I DON'T want the same to happen to rec.climbing.

I know we disagree on this. You're not going to convince me that
group effort to quiet unruly voices is wrong, and I don't hold much
hope of convincing you of the converse. I do hope others think about
the issue, though. Mostly I hope we can find a path towards a better
newsgroup.

Ken

Tim Stich

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 8:03:32 PM6/25/02
to
"Dwight Haymes" <hay...@gte.net> wrote in message news:<K9yR8.2895$t7....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> Lynne <LynneSP...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:BzsR8.152514$6m5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > I've learned some good stuff here, between all the fucking tiresome
> flame
> > wars.
>
> There's been some tiresome nonsense, yes. But hasn't anyone else found
> some of this funny? I've been entertained. This is better than
> Shakespeare.
>
> Dwight

Very seldom are they very entertaining. The one time they are is when
it's all tongue in cheek. Yeah, I can do without them. Actually, the
periphery of flame wars is sometimes good fodder for jest. But a good
rec.climbing song lyric rewrite is the shit. You betcha.

-Tim

Chris Jain

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 9:11:04 PM6/25/02
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<af5hg...@drn.newsguy.com>...

snip
> You're kinda looking sorta gay for Bill
snip

Not cool, Mad Dog.

Here I am reading something I thought was both eloquent and sobering
and then I come across this crap.

Richard Schwaninger

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:03:38 AM6/26/02
to

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

> I got to thinking about this...
>

> Kitchen sponges. I think of kitchen sponges. We've all heard how horrible
> these things are, breeding grounds for bacteria. I've read that kitchen
> sponges are dirtier than the bottom rim of most toilet seats.

Hey, not mine. I use ANTI-BACTERIAL stuff.

Rich rookie

Bill Zaumen

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:07:03 AM6/26/02
to
In article <Y22S8.66986$EP.7083@sccrnsc03>, "Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote:


> It isn't a "oh look Bill posted *something*, let's hammer his sorry ass"
> mentality no matter how much Bill-the-victim-who-loves-it says it is. It's
> clearly a "Look Bill posted something *idiotic_AGAIN* " kind of thang.

There's nothing "idiotic" about posting a statement that it is too bad
some Americans aren't polite in response to two people basically shouting
"F__ you" with one seconding the other.

Adam

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:12:05 AM6/26/02
to

"Bill Zaumen" <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nobody-2506...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net...

> In article <Y22S8.66986$EP.7083@sccrnsc03>, "Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It isn't a "oh look Bill posted *something*, let's hammer his sorry ass"
> > mentality no matter how much Bill-the-victim-who-loves-it says it is.
It's
> > clearly a "Look Bill posted something *idiotic_AGAIN* " kind of thang.
>
> There's nothing "idiotic" about posting a statement that it is too bad
> some Americans aren't polite in response to two people basically shouting
> "F__ you" with one seconding the other.
>

Whatever you say Bill. Whatever you say.

A.


Julie

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:29:02 AM6/26/02
to
Chris Jain wrote:
>
> Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote
>
> > You're kinda looking sorta gay for Bill
>
> Not cool, Mad Dog.

Of all the Zaumoronic elusions ... what I'm really tired of is this,
the homophobic 'accusations'.

[First, I apologize for posting it in reply to this message. I'm
home with the flu and befuddled both mentally and software-wise.
I've been watching this thread, and this I feel compelled to add ...
but not as a reply to MD. It's the Zaumoron who's the repeat
offender.]

Calling someone gay, as an insult, is like calling them a nigger.

It pisses off (we can only hope unintentionally) many, many utterly
wonderful human beings. It leaves egg on your own homophobic and
bigoted face. It utterly fails, however, to deliver the intended
insult! If you called me a dike, as an attempt to insult me, it
would mean no more to me than if you called me a chink. It says
much more about your own failings, than mine.

Bill, you're apparently an intelligent person. Enough with the
links to irrelevent articles already. Please find some way to
insult people, since you must, that will restrict the insult to its
target.

JSH

Bill Zaumen

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 1:19:12 AM6/26/02
to
In article <3D196D3E...@NOSPAMbu.edu>, Julie <jh...@NOSPAMbu.edu> wrote:

> Chris Jain wrote:
> >
> > Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote
> >
> > > You're kinda looking sorta gay for Bill
> >
> > Not cool, Mad Dog.

> [First, I apologize for posting it in reply to this message. I'm
> home with the flu and befuddled both mentally and software-wise.
> I've been watching this thread, and this I feel compelled to add ...

> but not as a reply to MD. It's the Z..... who's the repeat
> offender.]

Julie, let's see if you apologize for the following outburst---I had
*nothing* to do with those comments. I didn't initiate them,
didn't reply to them, and didn't even see them until I saw
your message. If you want to shout at Mad Dog for his behavior,
please feel free to, but don't blame me for what he said. Or are
you just being a troll and purposely trying to post libelous
insinuations and using your "flu" for cover?

If the problem is in fact the flu, drink plenty of fluids, shut off
the computer, and get some rest.

Bill

>
> Calling someone gay, as an insult, is like calling them a nigger.
>
> It pisses off (we can only hope unintentionally) many, many utterly
> wonderful human beings. It leaves egg on your own homophobic and
> bigoted face. It utterly fails, however, to deliver the intended
> insult! If you called me a dike, as an attempt to insult me, it
> would mean no more to me than if you called me a chink. It says
> much more about your own failings, than mine.
>
> Bill, you're apparently an intelligent person. Enough with the
> links to irrelevent articles already. Please find some way to
> insult people, since you must, that will restrict the insult to its
> target.
>
> JSH

--

Michael Creel

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:44:03 AM6/26/02
to
Amongst other interesting reading, your description of the TR anchor
failing was especially horrifying. I once witnessed an accident that was
essentially identical, complete with warnings, etc., except that the
injury was less severe, thank god. People often just don't listen to
advice, good or bad. So probably it's not too important that it be
corrected. Besides, any idiot who thinks you can learn to climb reading
RC is likely going to get hurt regardless.
M.

David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 6:10:05 AM6/26/02
to
Michael Creel <michae...@uab.es> writes:

> Amongst other interesting reading, your description of the TR anchor
> failing was especially horrifying. I once witnessed an accident that
> was essentially identical, complete with warnings, etc., except that
> the injury was less severe, thank god. People often just don't
> listen to advice, good or bad. So probably it's not too important
> that it be corrected.

There are people that are thankful for it, and heed it. If you don't
even attempt to tell, as many spiteful idiots as appreciative
learners will get killed and injured.

Just give the advice, _then_ let Darwin sort out the stupid ones.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David....@t-online.de

Steven Cherry

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:21:08 AM6/26/02
to
In <wku1nr2...@cline116.dsl.frii.com> Ken....@cs.cmu.edu writes:

>> So when people feel the need to flame Bill, I would only ask they drop the
>> self righteous crap about community service and admit the truth... they are
>> attacking him because they don't like him. The advice is but a vehicle to
>> deliver their true message.

>I put Bill in a different category altogether. He is a certified pain
>in the ass who wont shut up, even when an overwhelming contingent of
>regulars have tried to show him the light. He deserves to be flamed.
>Not because someone will actually listen to him - I doubt he has a
>whit of credibility left and I (for one) am not about to let his
>errors go unchallenged - but because he is a disruptive voice here,
>clearly acting outside of accepted norms.

Dingus, I honestly don't think people like or dislike Bill, or that
that's much of a factor here. I agree that the hits he took on the
Dagmar thing were over the top, but people are just on a hair-trigger
when it comes to his posts, and frankly, he has no one to blame for
that but himself. Look, when it hasn't rained all year, if you see
the slightest puff of smoke, you call for the water-filled C-130s
first, and decide how serious it is later.

I think Ken puts his finger on the nub of it in the text quoted above.
There's two distinct things going on. One is the problem of bad advice.
The other is the way some posters act "outside of accepted norms" as
Ken puts it. It's certainly possible to deal with the bad advice without
setting the flamethrower on anything higher than "gentle," and I think
any examination of the archives would show that that's what's generally
done here.

But when someone is persistently wrong, twists arguments beyond
recognition, ignores the main point of a post to attack some side point or
incidental observation, brings utterly irrelevant analogies and arguments
to the table, and refuses to obey the simplest laws of logic and standards
of debate, and does all this consistently, over a period of many months,
then the unique problem of enforcing social norms without having face to
face contact or any personal knowledge of the participants arises.

The solution, time and again, in forum after forum, is flaming and piling
on. I'm sure I speak for many of us when I invite those critical of these
tactics to find better ways and to describe them. I know I'd be happy to
try something else.

-steven-
--
<ste...@panix.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you think broadcast TV represents the full range of
American opinion, you haven't spent enough time on Usenet.
-- Mike Godwin

Julie

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 1:57:56 PM6/26/02
to
Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> Julie, let's see if you apologize for the following outburst---I had
> *nothing* to do with those comments. I didn't initiate them,
> didn't reply to them, and didn't even see them until I saw
> your message. If you want to shout at Mad Dog for his behavior,
> please feel free to, but don't blame me for what he said.

You've missed my point (no big surprise I guess). I'll try to say
it real plain-like.

Several times, as a google search will show, you've responded to
people that have pissed you off by posting links to articles in some
SF newspaper about being gay. So your idea of an insult, is to call
someone gay.

That's just plain disgusting (see below).

My only apology is that I addressed this issue as a response to MD's
post; it should have been in response to one of yours. Your
behavior did indeed initiate this response from me.

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:26:31 AM6/26/02
to

"Steven Cherry" <ste...@panix.com> wrote


> The solution, time and again, in forum after forum, is flaming and piling
> on. I'm sure I speak for many of us when I invite those critical of these
> tactics to find better ways and to describe them. I know I'd be happy to
> try something else.

I think gang beating of any kind is despicable.
Period. No rationalizations of "he made us do it" will ever convince me
otherwise.

Alternate means? Sure. Get a grip! You can't control Bill but you certainly
are master of your own domain aren't you? If that is beyond your capacity,
use a filter. There are more than enough techno-climbers left who can
correct bad advice without the seemingly obligatory 50-post flame wars.
Sheesh!

DMT


Lord Slime

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 10:57:10 AM6/26/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
> I mean it too. People such as yourself and Slime and others are always
> willing to apply a critical eye to proffered advice. I appreciate that
> effort AND HAVE BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM IT!

Okay. But your premise was that since nobody died from (bad) advice
on rec.climbing...

>
> None of that justifies the pile on me too bullshit that passes for community
> service here. And we both know it.

"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" Ask any grade-schooler what his/her
*justification* is for picking on some other kid. They don't justify it, it's
human nature. We'd all need masters degrees in psycology to take this
thread much further.

> Here's the deal... people will go on posting bad advice. Others will go on
> correcting it (thanks again to those of you who can and do). And still
> others will take these opportinities to launch vitriole filled ad hominin
> attacks on the hapless bastards who start it all. And finally, a precious
> few will attempt to justify these attacks with the nobel banner of
> "community service." Cause after all, bad advice kills. What I wanted to do
> was seperate the correction from the attacks. The one does not justify the
> other.

So what you're advocating is.... Victorian politeness to mask our
killer instincts?

>
> So when people feel the need to flame Bill, I would only ask they drop the
> self righteous crap about community service and admit the truth... they are
> attacking him because they don't like him.

I don't think so. Quite a few times over the years my passengers, white-
knuckled in the other seat, would ask, "Why are you passing all these cars?
Are we in a hurry?"

"Naw, because it's fun, and I can."

- Lord Slime

Lord Slime

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 10:59:55 AM6/26/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
> Here is a little secret I'll throw out for free though.
>
> The power Bill has to piss people off is given to him by the very people he
> pisses off!

Gee Dingus, been to one-too-many of those feel-good seminars
that are so popular in California? Have a Merlot and stop spanking
your kids.

- Lord Slime

Lord Slime

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:31:24 AM6/26/02
to
"Richard Schwaninger" <ric...@alpineclimb.org> wrote in message

> Dingus Milktoast wrote:
> > Kitchen sponges. I think of kitchen sponges. We've all heard how horrible
> > these things are, breeding grounds for bacteria. I've read that kitchen
> > sponges are dirtier than the bottom rim of most toilet seats.
>
> Hey, not mine. I use ANTI-BACTERIAL stuff.

A solution to a non-existant problem.

- Lord Slime


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:52:24 AM6/26/02
to

"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> wrote

> Okay. But your premise was that since nobody died from (bad) advice
> on rec.climbing...

That excessive insulting posts in the guise of corrections are not
necessary. Yup, I made that exact point.

> Quite a few times over the years my passengers, white-
> knuckled in the other seat, would ask, "Why are you passing all these
cars?
> Are we in a hurry?"
>
> "Naw, because it's fun, and I can."

Yeah, I remember TR about that.

DMT


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:42:32 AM6/26/02
to

"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:3d19de44$0$183$7586...@news.frii.net...

Dude, you got me to laughing you bastard!

DMT


Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:46:22 AM6/26/02
to
Julie says...

>Chris Jain wrote:

>>Mad Dog wrote


>>>You're kinda looking sorta gay for Bill

>>Not cool, Mad Dog.

First a short reply to Chris: You're right, that was not a cool thing to say.
But I'm not cool and I wouldn't want to be cool. Dingus is most people's idea
of cool and I don't want to be like him. NosireeBob, totally uncool, that's me.
But, Chris, since you're playing cop, I gotta ask why you've never ragged on
Bill when he's made some kind of gay slur? (Before you reply, Bill, do some
Google work and you'll find your comments that I'm talking about. Hint: they
were before you and I had any kind of antagonistic interaction.)

>Of all the Zaumoronic elusions ... what I'm really tired of is this,
>the homophobic 'accusations'.

>[First, I apologize for posting it in reply to this message. I'm
>home with the flu and befuddled both mentally and software-wise.
>I've been watching this thread, and this I feel compelled to add ...
>but not as a reply to MD. It's the Zaumoron who's the repeat
>offender.]

The antihystamines must be giving you vision problems. Looks like it's me your
flames should be directed at.

>Calling someone gay, as an insult, is like calling them a nigger.

To you, maybe, but not to me. Race and sexual preference slurs are different.
Both are cheap shots, but, depending on the circumstances, the reaction of the
receptor could be expected to vary widely.

>It pisses off (we can only hope unintentionally) many, many utterly
>wonderful human beings. It leaves egg on your own homophobic and
>bigoted face. It utterly fails, however, to deliver the intended
>insult! If you called me a dike, as an attempt to insult me, it
>would mean no more to me than if you called me a chink. It says
>much more about your own failings, than mine.

Whatever. That's your opinion. Mine differs. Calling me a homophobe and a
bigot might be offensive to some people that know those words don't describe me
accurately, but it doesn't bother me. Fire away!

I'll tell you how I feel about it... The members of this newsgroup could be
easily stereotyped by the range of material they post. Many, possibly most, are
what I'd call transactional. They mostly stick to the facts, whether their post
be about snow conditions, route beta, current events or whatever. If they write
a trip report (most don't) then you might get a little more insight into their
personality, but these people do a good job of keeping it impersonal. They
rarely or never flame anyone, maybe not even in response to an overcooked flame
someone else sent their way.

Another stereotype is the troll. Trolls seem to get intense satisfaction out of
generating many replies to their posts. Some say that trolls are egomanaics
that need regular stroking. I don't know about that, but I do believe that most
trolls are not really interested in a truly open and honest discussion. Why do
you suppose that is? To me, it seems like odd behavior. Personally, I'd rather
be called a name than to have to deal with people that play mind games. To
clarify, trolls like Batten are often funny and harmless - it's still a mind
game but trolls like Bill and Dingus are apparently after something else. I
don't find beta trolls to be funny and whereas I don't know of any proof about
whether or not they are harmless, I also don't see how anyone could find any
value in them. Then again, I'm not into trying to mess with someone's head, so
the things that give giggles to Dingus and Bill might not register to one as
boring as I.

My own opinion is that these beta trolls have an emotional problem or two, but
this opinion is not exclusively mine. A couple of years ago, rec.climber
friends began emailing to ask what I thought was "wrong" with Dingus. We all
sensed a change in his atitude. Sure, from time to time, the old Dingus would
pop back up - you know, the Dingus we all know and love. But then the new
Dingus would re-emerge. Can you guess what traits we all saw emerging in the
new Dingus? As these conversations went on, I wasn't drawn in all that much. I
know how people's lives and perceptions change with time. It just didn't matter
much to me.

The emergence of Dr. Schitt changed all that. Being such a distinctive nickname
caused me to check out this poster right away. Before long, I had him pegged as
Dingus, but it wasn't until the end that he fucked up and gave up the evidence.
So let's take a little look at what Dingus said when he was hiding behind his
Dr. Schitt handle...

--------------

Search Result 3
From: Dr. Schitt (drsc...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: question for climber-attorneys in OR
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-04-17 21:19:39 PST

"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a9ke34$3sg9h$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Well aren't you a piece of work! Bolting - was it? - in an area where it
> was clearly not allowed. Now you're looking for an attorney to work for you
> for free.
>
> Good luck, dickweed.

Nate the Prick in classic form.

----------------------

Now why would good old Dingus use another alias to flame Nate? Not only that,
ohmygod, he called him a name! I thought Dingus was above all that? Dawn
defended Dingus not long ago, until I exposed him as Dr. Schitt. Dawn, why
don't you speak up and answer this question. You said that Dingus didn't do
this kind of shit. What gives?

----------------------

Search Result 25
From: Dr. Schitt (drsc...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: How tough is climbing in comparison to.....
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
View: Complete Thread (90 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-01-26 12:46:08 PST

"Dingus Milktoast" <crha...@midtown.net> wrote in message
news:3C52CF5B...@midtown.net...
> "Dr. Schitt" wrote:
>
> > It is quite apparent you can't read.
>
> Are you the kettle or the pot?

Kettle, that's me.

---------------------------

This might be funny if it wasn't sort of sick. Here we see Dingus having
conversations with himself. Isn't that against the rules? He did this a few
times and maybe it was entertaining to one of his selves but to me it was wasted
bandwidth. In fact, that's what Dingus has become - wasted bandwidth. I used
to look forward to his contributions, but his trend towards facination with
trolling has pushed him into the land of eternal boredom. I hope at least part
of the former Dingus can resurface some day. He was the guy that could describe
his experiences so well. His stories seemed very real. The psychobabble crap
he's spewing out lately is just troll slop.

So, Chris, to get back to you, all I can say is that if Dingus is as cool as
people here say he is, I'm glad I'm not cool. I'll go ahead and see things my
way and if I call Bill a moron or whatever and it pisses you off, flame away, no
problem. But why aren't you cops applying your principles in a more uniform
manner? No worries - I really don't have time to play in your game right now.

For those of you that emailed me saying that I was wrong about Dingus being Dr.
Schitt, I will post the proof one last time. Now shut the fuck up!

-----------------------

From: Dr. Schitt (drsc...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Climb Off: Tips for more Slothful Slogging:
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
View: Complete Thread (13 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-04-20 08:00:45 PST

"Eric D. Coomer" <coo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

> No joke. My dream has ALWAYS been to haul nutcracker in the valley. Too
> slabby most of the way, but I think the bulge would make an EXCELLENT
> porta-city. I'd love to set up the ole cabana and a couple of cases of beer
> (this may call for a pony keg actually). Too much fun.

Reeds Direct... steep, close to the road, popular. Set up near the top of p2
where folks can get by (being forced to do that last wide bit), turn on the
digital camcorder, smoke a fattie, pop the top on a beer and enjoy the show.

Bishops Terrace... set up under the roof. Another fun locale.

DMT


Message 7 in thread
From: Dingus Milktoast (none@yabis)
Subject: Re: Climb Off: Tips for more Slothful Slogging:
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
View this article only
Date: 2002-04-20 08:05:44 PST

"Eric D. Coomer" <coo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

> No joke. My dream has ALWAYS been to haul nutcracker in the valley. Too
> slabby most of the way, but I think the bulge would make an EXCELLENT
> porta-city. I'd love to set up the ole cabana and a couple of cases of beer
> (this may call for a pony keg actually). Too much fun.

Reeds Direct... steep, close to the road, popular. Set up near the top of p2
where folks can get by (being forced to do that last wide bit), turn on the
digital camcorder, smoke a fattie, pop the top on a beer and enjoy the show.

Bishops Terrace... set up under the roof. Another fun locale.

DMT

Michael Boos

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:52:47 PM6/26/02
to
Dwight Haymes wrote:
> There's been some tiresome nonsense, yes. But hasn't anyone else found
> some of this funny? I've been entertained. This is better than
> Shakespeare.

Yes, some of it has been funny, but quite some was not so - taste
seems to be an individual matter, as is honesty of DMT/Dr. Schitt :-(


--
*********************
L. Michael Boos
CH-8001 Zuerich
*********************
to e-mail remove 4 dots from left to right

VikingBabe

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:50:33 PM6/26/02
to
VrticlVice <vrtic...@aol.com> writes:


> As a rec.climber once told me:
>
> Get a room!

so she was tired of sharing hers with you then?

jenn

Andy Gale

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 1:35:39 PM6/26/02
to

Julie wrote:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
>>Julie, let's see if you apologize for the following outburst---I had
>>*nothing* to do with those comments. I didn't initiate them,
>>didn't reply to them, and didn't even see them until I saw
>>your message. If you want to shout at Mad Dog for his behavior,
>>please feel free to, but don't blame me for what he said.

> Several times, as a google search will show, you've responded to


> people that have pissed you off by posting links to articles in some
> SF newspaper about being gay. So your idea of an insult, is to call
> someone gay.
>
> That's just plain disgusting (see below).
>
> My only apology is that I addressed this issue as a response to MD's
> post; it should have been in response to one of yours. Your
> behavior did indeed initiate this response from me.


Well, Julie. IIRC Maddog has been guilty of the gay "insults" as well.
As far as I can tell they are both guilty. I have no idea which one of
them started it and I really don't care. And I also don't care to go
google up the proof. I'll leave that to the protagonists.

But I agree that it is just plain disgusting.

Personally, I think the only way to prevent Bill's bulldog tactics is to
never ever post in a thread in which he is involved. I am breaking my
own rule here. I probably shouldn't.


Andy


VrticlVice

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 2:22:58 PM6/26/02
to
VikingBabe<I_dont_like...@all.com> wrote:

>VrticlVice <vrtic...@aol.com> writes:

>jenn

Nope, just something said to me in similar circumstances. I thought Andy might
recognize the quote.

John H.

Andy Gale

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 2:28:50 PM6/26/02
to

VrticlVice wrote:


> Nope, just something said to me in similar circumstances. I thought Andy might
> recognize the quote.
>
> John H.


I recognized it.


Andy


rich rookie

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 2:31:42 PM6/26/02
to

"Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:3d19de46$0$183$7586...@news.frii.net...
Agreed, 'twas just a flashback to a previous thread about viral and
bacterial restiance. Personally, I don't worry about these things too much.
I've probably eaten worse stuff than I can even imagine.

For advise, from here or anywhere else, common sense rules (most of the
time). That, and trying methods you question at times when failue wouldn't
be fatal.

rich Rookie

Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 2:36:19 PM6/26/02
to
Andy says...

>IIRC Maddog has been guilty of the gay "insults" as well.

Yes, guilty as charged.

>But I agree that it is just plain disgusting.

I agree, however I find it appropriate, because it makes him whine more.

>Personally, I think the only way to prevent Bill's bulldog tactics is to
>never ever post in a thread in which he is involved.

That's good advice, but why are we not following it?

Nate B

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:08:24 PM6/26/02
to

"Andy Gale"

> Personally, I think the only way to prevent Bill's bulldog tactics is to
> never ever post in a thread in which he is involved. I am breaking my
> own rule here. I probably shouldn't.

The Zauman pull is a strong one, Andy. It's a pull that clearly not even
the congeniality and social decency of Karl and Inez could resist. Yes
Andy, if you can believe it, even I have broken down on occasion. Don't be
so hard on yourself.


- Nate

VrticlVice

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:19:49 PM6/26/02
to
Andy Gale <ag...@NOSPAM.edu> wrote:


>I recognized it.

>Andy

I don't usually do this but...

:-)

John H.

Nate B

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:23:07 PM6/26/02
to

"VrticlVice"

> I don't usually do this but...
>
> :-)


Does this mean you got lucky?

- Nate


A. Cairns

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 2:59:58 PM6/26/02
to

Steven Cherry wrote:

> when someone is persistently wrong, twists arguments beyond
> recognition, ignores the main point of a post to attack some side point or
> incidental observation, brings utterly irrelevant analogies and arguments
> to the table, and refuses to obey the simplest laws of logic and standards
> of debate, and does all this consistently, over a period of many months,
> then

then he's a lot like me, or at least I think I'd be a fan
but Bill is too tame

Andy Cairns

VrticlVice

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:34:01 PM6/26/02
to
Nate wrote:

>Does this mean you got lucky?

>- Nate

No, I quit flirting with online babes a long time ago.

I am just being cryptic because of the NOSPAM in everybodies e-mail address.
You want the whole story, you'll have to e-mail me.

John H.

Nate B

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 5:02:51 PM6/26/02
to

"VrticlVice"

> You want the whole story, you'll have to e-mail me.

You should know that gossip runs pretty rampant when rec.climbers get
together. Unless this story involves shaved goats and a few aliens, it'll
probably be lost on me in comparison.


- Nate

VrticlVice

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 5:37:19 PM6/26/02
to
>Unless this story involves shaved goats and a few aliens, it'll
>probably be lost on me in comparison.


Dead cats, maybe. I don't use Aliens.

John H.

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 6:31:43 PM6/26/02
to
Maddog assassinates:

> A couple of years ago, rec.climber
> friends began emailing to ask what I thought was "wrong" with Dingus. We
all

> sensed a change in his attitude. Sure, from time to time, the old Dingus


would
> pop back up - you know, the Dingus we all know and love.

All right, let's get it out in the open then...

My disillusionment all started with your first Bill Zauman jihad, that
idiotic 100 post thread about George Bush. You absolutely disgusted me, both
of you, with your petty juvenile behavior. Ah fuck, it made me crazy!

In anger I posted a very nebulous remark voicing the desire to smack the
shit out of, or beat the hell out of, or something to that affect, "two
partisans." That was my sole comment and as close as I ever came to naming
the great Maddog.

The result? Ever since, you've seen fit to criticize, make fun of, insult
and stalk, yes, stalk me. Dozens of times. Like a hurt little boy. In all
that time I resisted responding. I was hurt too, and insecure enough to know
I played a role in this loss of friendship. So I didn't respond. But ya
know, after 6 months, my perceptions did in fact begin to change, to sour,
to darken. Rather than succumb to these powerful antisocial urges I felt, I
filtered you. Out of sight, out of mind. I never once responded to your
baiting, for month after month after month. Google it up, it's all there.

So after more than a year, a fucking year! of your gratuitous attacks,
perhaps I grew tired of it. Perhaps as I watched you disembowel your victims
I felt more solidarity with them, having suffered a similar fate myself. If
you continuously beat a dog at least have the good graces not to act
surprised when it's behavior changes.

You are the most childish person on this newsgroup Maddog. By far. You're
good at the dozens I'll grant you that. Anyone stupid enough to take you on
your own turf will get disemboweled. But I don't fight with your rules. And
if I've given you but a taste of that which you have dished out all these
years, you goddamn well deserve it. My fighting comes from a book of five
rings. I'm not going to be inhibited by someone else's morality. I define my
own as I go.

The final straw was when you took it upon yourself to email me and call me
your illegitimate brother. After all your posturing, after all your attacks,
after all the mean and petty things you have said directly about me, to me,
after
all that, you called me a sonofabitch in a personal email and pretended it
was a compliment. Like all that other shit was just so much hot air.

I make no apologies for anything. I never will either. When I go to war I
make the rules. I will use any tool at my disposal, any time I wish and in
any fashion. The rules of a civilized society are weapons in such a
conflict, not a restraint. As you all too well know. Honesty??? Don't make
me laugh! You lost the privilege long ago! I afford my enemies NOTHING,
least of all a slice of my personal integrity. You've already sliced up my
liver. At least allow me to apportion my morality as I choose!

But this doesn't have to continue. It never did and you hold the keys. This
can all just STOP. It's really simple. Just STOP. All you have to do is
STOP. I don't want a discussion. I don't
want to hear your side yet again. I don't want anything to do with you.
Ever. Just STOP.

Or don't. As you so often and so repeatedly charge, I can go either way. But
it will only get worse. And it's not necessary.

Just STOP.

DMT


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 6:33:52 PM6/26/02
to
Ken....@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
>
>
> But you are siding against those who flame! That's hypocrisy, Dingus.

So sue me. Some people act like hypocrisy is a crime. If so, the entire
human race is guilty. For example, I'm increasingly against capital
punishment too. Yet I'd kill anyone who dared lay a hand on one of my kids.
That is a hypocrisy I will gladly take to the grave! No one is entirely
consistent and no one is above the occasional hypocrisy. Consistency is the
refuge of a juvenile mind. Admitted hypocrisy is a recognition of the human
condition. The first thing the cowards do when questioned is attack the
person leveling the charge. If I feared the label hypocrite I wouldn't dare
utter a word here!

> Really, it is - I don't mean to use the word as an insult. In my
> view, you are getting dragged down by application of ideology without
> considering the consequences.

Well different things make us tick Brah, that much is clear. Would it
surprise you to learn I was nearly dismissed from the military, with grave
consequences, for fighting related to the breaking up of GI blanket party?
And yet, hell, I've started more than one fight myself. Gee, how DARE I?
I'll tell you how I dared... I looked the Captain right in the eye and I
told him I'd do it again. THAT's how I dared correct a wrong. You know the
dude they were beating was way more fucked up than Zauman. He'd even done
things that directly caused me pain. Sorry, I don't subscribe to groups that
contain cowards, not then, not now. Not ever. No fancy words will ever put a
smiley face on a gang beating.

> Why do you think I mentioned "eternal
> vigilance" earlier?

Because you see yourself as an elder statesman and cop all rolled into one.
In my more lucid moments I can forgive you for it because I believe your
intentions are mostly good.

> It is because I enjoy the privilege of
> participating in a great newsgroup;

I've never doubted that particular aspect of your personality. Why do you
persist in questioning mine? You do you know, and have done so from my
earliest postings here. You might find the kernel of antipathy right there,
if you looked closely enough. See, there is more than enough hypocrisy to go
the world around. It comes in all flavors and colors.

> I know we disagree on this. You're not going to convince me that
> group effort to quiet unruly voices is wrong, and I don't hold much
> hope of convincing you of the converse.

Not when the group does the things it does. If perhaps more followed your
example I could be convinced. But as long as there are nasty sonofabitches
in your group kicking the blanket with a mad glee in their eyes I'll be
counseling against letting your vigilante pals ever hold sway. Some of them
are miserable fucks and you and I both know it.

> I do hope others think about
> the issue, though. Mostly I hope we can find a path towards a better
> newsgroup.

We can. It's this easy... STOP.

DMT


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 6:40:10 PM6/26/02
to

"Michael Boos" <b.o...@alp.as.ch> wrote

> as is honesty of DMT/Dr. Schitt :-(

Honesty? Don't make me laugh! What role does honesty play in a war? Should
we tell the opposing
army we are lying in wait? Should we advertise the weaknesses we discover?
Tell them who the spies are? Do we show the enemy any pity, any
respite, in any arena?

Not for me to answer. Nor will I answer questions about my relationship to
the good Dr. and what brand of sunglasses he chooses to wear or who's
computer he types on. What the fuck
more do you want anyway? It's all me OK? Always
was,
always will be and I said so as directly as I'm inclined to speak. How may
times must I say it? If you see an anonymous troll, paint it me and move on,
M'Kay? Call me Batten, call me battin, call me Shit, call me, um, Zauman if
it pleases you. I'm out here, with itchy finger and watery eyes,
and I might come at you from any one of a dozen different directions!

Not a satisfactory answer? Up the ante then...

I'll tell ya what Michael, take some free shots at me. Go ahead. All you
want. I'm insecure enough to believe it's probably my fault anyway. I'm sure
one of my smart assed comments set you off and brought this fate upon me. So
I'll take the blame up front.

Bearing that blame I'll turn my cheek, for months at a time, years even,
literally; if I must. I'll
take any jibe, any insult, any cheap ass shot you care to make. You can make
fun of me and use the very honesty you accuse me of lacking to publicly
ridicule me with my own words. You can side with my detractors and insert
your ad hominem attacks into virtually any thread you wish. Go ahead, do it!
Cause it's all been done
before. It's old hat and it's been done by far better trolls than you bud.

I won't make any public statements about you either. I won't bring up your
name in
private conversations. I'll try to avoid talking about you if someone else
does. I won't heap all the blame upon you should I fail even in that.

But it's hard for me, ya gotta know. I have my impulsive nature and I'm
quick to take offence at these sorts of things. I have a long memory too. If
I have to (and if you take me up on this I'll have to) I'll filter
you so I won't be subjected to a random yet continuous barrage of trolls and
digs. Out of sight, out of mind, at least in theory. If I don't see your
trolls I won't be as tempted to respond, no matter how hurtful the dig, no
matter how mean spirited the impulse behind it. That way, when you do the
same to others, I might not so quickly jump to the conclusion that this new
target is but a victim of the same sorry tactics. Being called gay is
liberating when you see clearly for whom the bell tolls, pal.

But please accept my apologies in advance should I one day tire of trying to
be someone I'm not. Understand that because of the nature of my work I'll
eventually see your posts despite my better judgment and best efforts to
avoid them. So if you're still trolling me a year out, or more... criminy, a
lot of
things change in a year; computers, accounts, locations, companies, ISP's,
impulse control.
Chances are I'll eventually stumble into one of your little love notes. Or
perhaps you'll send me an unwanted email calling me a sonofabitch in the
most insulting fashion and actually kid yourself into thinking it a
compliment. Whatever. Like I said, it's all been done before and by trolls
much meaner than you kid.

Please understand that underneath everything else I am not going to lay down
and let you or anyone else just walk all over me any time they please. Not
gonna do it. But
the manner and choosing of my response is mine to take. THAT I won't
apologize for. Not now, not ever. My response will not be defined in the
Miss Manners section of the local rag, nor will it found in the conventional
wisdom of rec.climbing or in the newer sections of the Good Book. Those are
weapons, not rules. It will be
tailor-made for you though. That you can count on. I'm ex-military and all
that it
connotes. I
studied the shit. I study my opponents. When I go to war, well, I go to war.

So if I
should fail in my lofty goal to turn the other cheek, should I let slip the
dogs of war, even temporarily, just to give them some exercise as it were,
well, that is
a burden of the soul I will have to bear. Just know that they'll be neither
polite nor predictable. Don't act surprised when you
feel unexpected and unexplained teeth biting into your pant leg, sniffing
for that Achilles heel.
You will have deserved it by then, a hundred times over. You will have
crossed the Rubicon. On this side of the river the rules are different. Over
here we make them up as we go.

If you pine for the norms of a civilized society, if you long for that
honesty you so dearly covet, you can even go home again. Just
stop launching the cruise missiles. Stop setting the land mines. You've had
a taste of the kind of warfare that can be brought to bear, a taste mind
you, and
perhaps you find it unpalatable. I doubt it, but that is a doubt I'm willing
to benefit. Stop the
hostilities, ALL OF THEM, and maybe we can all walk away
without further hassle.

Just don't make the mistake of assuming you know who the dogs are, or to
whom they answer. You don't. That's the beauty of it. You will never know.
Your knowledge is irrelevant, as is my honesty in the matter.

The war can stop right now. It's in your hands, uh... Michael. Just STOP.
Don't argue, don't dissemble, don't even respond. This isn't point/counter
point. This isn't a negotiation session. I don't care to hear your point of
view.

Just STOP.

Cause it only gets worse from here, for all of us. Simple as that.

STOP.

DMT

David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 7:03:57 PM6/26/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

> You are the most childish person on this newsgroup Maddog. By far.

Where does this leave me? Inez told me I was the court jester. Would
that not imply I should try not being topped "by far" in childishness?

Sigh. Where is my place? What should I hold onto? Actually, I
asked myself this very question this evening as I tried crimping onto
some tiny edges in order to be able to hook my right foot onto the
edge of a slab I did not trust. Isenberg is a former quarry, and if
a slab forming a roof actually shofts under your weight, it makes you
nervous.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David....@t-online.de

David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 7:06:15 PM6/26/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

> always will be and I said so as directly as I'm inclined to
> speak. How may times must I say it? If you see an anonymous troll,
> paint it me and move on, M'Kay? Call me Batten, call me battin, call
> me Shit, call me, um, Zauman if it pleases you. I'm out here, with
> itchy finger and watery eyes, and I might come at you from any one
> of a dozen different directions!

I suppose that you sleep until the watery eyes are back to normal.
Could be that things look more ridiculous and less worth bothering
about then.

Lynne

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 7:42:00 PM6/26/02
to
Dingus,

It is honestly not my intent to fan the flames, but how do you explain that
Dr. S posted before you in the thread in question, signed w/"DMT" and after
Mad Dog pointed it out, you posted the identical post to Dr. S's, but with
your Dingus account. Am I missing something here? If I am, please let me
know.

FYI here is the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&th=6e4e6640aeb87
533&rnum=9

I don't know this Schitt character, but if you had fun with it, what else
matters? This really isn't a war, it's a newsgroup. Sometimes it's pretty
good, too, but some of this stuff is just nuts. I hope you aren't taking it
as seriously as it appears!

Peace,
Lynne


Mad Dog

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 7:19:56 PM6/26/02
to
Dingus says...

>Maddog assassinates:

>> A couple of years ago, rec.climber friends began emailing to ask what
>>I thought was "wrong" with Dingus.

>All right, let's get it out in the open then...

'Bout time, Dr.

>My disillusionment all started with your first Bill Zauman jihad,

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but I'm talking about your behavior well before
that.

>In anger I posted a very nebulous remark voicing the desire to smack the
>shit out of, or beat the hell out of, or something to that affect, "two
>partisans."

Kind of childish, eh?

>That was my sole comment and as close as I ever came to naming the
>great Maddog.

But you've made clear implications a number of times, huh?

>The result? Ever since, you've seen fit to criticize, make fun of, insult
>and stalk, yes, stalk me.

Don't flatter yourself. I have no interest in stalking you. This is a public
forum and I'm free to read your posts and reply if I want to. Stalk? That's a
laugher. Sounds like you have a terminal case of Runaway Ego.

>Rather than succumb to these powerful antisocial urges I felt, I
>filtered you. Out of sight, out of mind. I never once responded to your
>baiting, for month after month after month.

I wonder how you know I baited you if you'd filtered me? Interesting... You
know, I've never bothered to filter anyone. And I've had no problem avoiding
many of your posts over the last few years. Those few I did read were not
motivational like your old stuff, so it was easy to skip.

>So after more than a year, a fucking year! of your gratuitous attacks,
>perhaps I grew tired of it. Perhaps as I watched you disembowel your victims
>I felt more solidarity with them, having suffered a similar fate myself. If
>you continuously beat a dog at least have the good graces not to act
>surprised when it's behavior changes.

So what you're saying is that when you call Nate a prick from a hidden alias,
that's OK but when I call Bill or you any of the many names I've used, that
makes me bad? Strange value system you have there. And again, I (we) saw a
change in your behavior before I ever made my first reply to Bill.

>You are the most childish person on this newsgroup Maddog. By far.

Ouch, that cut so deep - watch me bleed. Careful not to walk into that mirror.

>But I don't fight with your rules. (snip) I define my own as I go.

That's clear to see. You hide behind an alias to make your flames. You make
claims and when they are refuted (as in Nate's little google reminder a few
posts ago to this thread) you don't face up to it.

>The final straw was when you took it upon yourself to email me and call me
>your illegitimate brother.

I've got a damn good memory, but I don't remember doing that. Forward it to me
so I can see what you're talking about. I keep ALL of my sent mail and it's not
in my file of emails to you.

>I make no apologies for anything. I never will either. When I go to war I
>make the rules.

Go, man, go! Blood, gore, veins in your teeth! Kill! Kill!! Kill!!!

>Honesty??? Don't make me laugh!

Likewise. You're no model of honesty nor integrigy, so be careful - the fall
down offa that high hourse is a mighty long one.

>But this doesn't have to continue. It never did and you hold the keys. This
>can all just STOP. It's really simple. Just STOP. All you have to do is
>STOP. I don't want a discussion. I don't want to hear your side yet again.

Yea, right, Dingus. Of course you don't want to hear my side after you've
spouted all this shit about me stalking you and cutting out your liver. For a
guy that likes to troll, you sure take the other side of it pretty damn
seriously. But I will stop, at least on this thread. You trolled me and I
trolled you. Finally, you offered up some of your feelings. Some of them seem
pretty strange, considering your own behavior, but like you say, you make your
own rules.

>I don't want anything to do with you. Ever. Just STOP.

Fine. Take your toys and go home. I'll try not to taunt you with my replies in
the future now that I know how fragile you are. I thought that troll masters
like you could take the heat, but I guess you have a soft heart. I apologize
for the gay slurs and those kinds of things, but my on-topic flames I stand
behind. You've not been the puritan you seem to think you are.

Lynne

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 7:52:35 PM6/26/02
to
Dingus, my apologies and never mind. I see from looking at this again that
you posted first and whoever is this Dr. Schitt posted after you. Next time
I'll keep my big nose out of this schitt. I do hope you are not taking this
all seriously, though. Life is far too short for that.

Peace (yes, I stole this off Karl),
Lynne


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:08:25 PM6/26/02
to

"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote

> You make
> claims and when they are refuted (as in Nate's little google reminder a
few
> posts ago to this thread) you don't face up to it.

OK, tell me, you read the post. What is my opinion of Bill Zauman? What was
it I was supposed to refute? Nate simply validated my claim.

DMT


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:08:07 PM6/26/02
to

"Lynne" <LynneSP...@insightbb.com> wrote

> but how do you explain that

I'm not going to explain anything with respect to alleged aliases and my
alleged use
of them. Get over it.

> I hope you aren't taking it
> as seriously as it appears!

I'll be OK Lynne. The mountains are just outside my door.

DMT


Karl Baba

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 2:37:36 AM6/27/02
to
My experience is that when that I harbor ill will for "enemies" in my
heart, I lose the ability to enjoy peace and love in my life. So, for
my own selfish reasons, I don't retain any negative feelings about any
of ya'll whether you deserve it or not. You're all forgiven whether you
need it or not!

It makes me sad to see folks that I know to be good folks having bad
feelings towards each other since I believe they would be fine with
each other if they met on the stone rather than on the screen. I accept
that too since it's human nature.

Yeah, I nipped at Bill a bit, not to condemn him, but to highlight a
behavior that probably causes a fair amount of grief in his life. I
understand. After all, I love to be right, not wrong! We all do. My
girlfriend and I have a game where the partner who can prove he or she
is right gets to gloat in a good natured way. The problem is that being
right is over-rated. It gains little of the popularity, respect, or
honor that we imagine it affords. In this climbing game, there is
plenty of gray areas too. The gear or practices that we argue about are
rarely the real cause of accidents. More dangerous are inattention,
fatigue, ego, and bad karma.

I'm a little clueless about who's right or wrong in endless
debate/flame threads. I get bored and ignore them when they lose all
spark of life, humor, or reality.

It's transparent when politicians ignore the real issues, don't address
the main rational points in a debate, but rather obfuscates,
pontificate, and regurgitate. It's worse when climbers do it since we
aren't trying to get elected. It garbles communication which erodes the
role and value of truth in human relations.

I think its fine that folks point out the potential errors in the
opinions posted here. Whether you are nice or nasty about it only
reflects on you and affects the quality of your life. Personally, after
folks state their case, I think it's wise to agree to disagree rather
than push harder and harder back and forth, proving nothing and
impressing no-one.

Nobody should take my word for it. Look deeply at your life and witness
the negativity that little grudges, enemies, and hatreds breed in your
heart. If you forgive all, you can enjoy undivided tranquility without
ruminating on insults and slights that pile up with time. Don't worry,
the folks you let off the hook suffer plenty on their own without your
help.

Peace and Love

Karl "Damn Californicatin Hippie" Baba

.

--
Guide Guy
http://member.newsguy.com/~climbing/

Bill Zaumen

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 3:07:01 AM6/27/02
to
In article <3D1A00A4...@NOSPAMbu.edu>, Julie <jh...@NOSPAMbu.edu> wrote:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >
> > Julie, let's see if you apologize for the following outburst---I had
> > *nothing* to do with those comments. I didn't initiate them,
> > didn't reply to them, and didn't even see them until I saw
> > your message. If you want to shout at Mad Dog for his behavior,
> > please feel free to, but don't blame me for what he said.
>

> You've missed my point (no big surprise I guess). I'll try to say
> it real plain-like.


>
> Several times, as a google search will show, you've responded to
> people that have pissed you off by posting links to articles in some
> SF newspaper about being gay. So your idea of an insult, is to call
> someone gay.

Actually, there was only one message I recall: a reply to
a message from Eric C, who wrote, "F__ me". I simply provided him
with a link in case he literally meant what he said, and suggested
other explanations such as excessive use of alchohol as well.
The joke was that, by saying that to a guy, Eric suggested his
own sexual orientation (inadvertantly, inaccurately, and unintentionally,
I'm sure) and I merely offered a helpful suggestion as a cute way of
showing him what he had actually said.

The facts are that most of these people go around making comments
about sexual orientation when they are pissed off (and you are of
course completely silent about that). If I bother to respond, I'll
tell them that, if their comment was meant as a pass, they should try
someone else. I wouldn't want to go out with you either, for that
matter, because you have a nasty attitude, so it isn't clear how
saying that is homophobic. Conceivably I might post a link as well, but
only if there was something that would fit in the paper that day.

If you have any gay friends, ask them about that---I'm sure
they'd be delighted if people reacted to crossed signals about who
is interested in whom by effectively saying, "no thanks" or indicating
that they are straight or suggesting a more suitable venue where
they might have better luck. That is far better than grabbing the
nearest baseball bat or tying someone to a fence post and beating
them to death.

BTW, the last time you were on my case was about a month ago.
Female trouble? (Do a google search too---the wise crack has
at least two meanings, maybe three or four, or ask someone who has
actually seen the film).

Bill

--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.

Spammers can try mailto:s34...@aol.com mailto:sdkj34...@aol.com

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 9:37:49 AM6/27/02
to
Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> BTW, the last time you were on my case was about a month ago.
> Female trouble?

Bill, Bill, Bill. You sunk so low with this one, you actually
made me laugh out loud. I say it's impossible for anyone to be
this socially clueless. Troll, troll, troll.

Dawn

Geoff Jennings

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:24:51 PM6/27/02
to
Anne in NYC,

Did you see this picture?

http://209.211.253.177/wyoming/P6230016.jpg

--
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. - Edward
Abbey

"Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:h62S8.308561$352.31677@sccrnsc02...
> Here's a few pics of us from Wild Iris this last weekend.
>
> http://209.211.253.177/wyoming/
>
> A.
>
>
>
>


Geoff Jennings

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:31:00 PM6/27/02
to
I have an idea....

Somebody smarter than me write a script that will post everytime Bill does,
with a disclaimer that Bill is known to many as posting erroneous and
sometimes dangerous advice, and should be ignored.

Then, we will let new folks know what the consensus opinion of Bill seems to
be, so nobody has to post refuting him.

Then, EVERYONE puts Bill and the autoresponse in their killfile.

Troll problem solved.

I really like most of you, but I'm starting to get really, really tired of
some of you, and largely due to these threads. Bill was put in my killfile,
and I'd ask people to stop responding to him. Please.

Geoff


--
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. - Edward
Abbey

"Steven Cherry" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:afcbjk$qq1$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <wku1nr2...@cline116.dsl.frii.com> Ken....@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>
> >> So when people feel the need to flame Bill, I would only ask they drop
the
> >> self righteous crap about community service and admit the truth... they
are
> >> attacking him because they don't like him. The advice is but a vehicle
to
> >> deliver their true message.
>
> >I put Bill in a different category altogether. He is a certified pain
> >in the ass who wont shut up, even when an overwhelming contingent of
> >regulars have tried to show him the light. He deserves to be flamed.
> >Not because someone will actually listen to him - I doubt he has a
> >whit of credibility left and I (for one) am not about to let his
> >errors go unchallenged - but because he is a disruptive voice here,
> >clearly acting outside of accepted norms.
>
> Dingus, I honestly don't think people like or dislike Bill, or that
> that's much of a factor here. I agree that the hits he took on the
> Dagmar thing were over the top, but people are just on a hair-trigger
> when it comes to his posts, and frankly, he has no one to blame for
> that but himself. Look, when it hasn't rained all year, if you see
> the slightest puff of smoke, you call for the water-filled C-130s
> first, and decide how serious it is later.
>
> I think Ken puts his finger on the nub of it in the text quoted above.
> There's two distinct things going on. One is the problem of bad advice.
> The other is the way some posters act "outside of accepted norms" as
> Ken puts it. It's certainly possible to deal with the bad advice without
> setting the flamethrower on anything higher than "gentle," and I think
> any examination of the archives would show that that's what's generally
> done here.
>
> But when someone is persistently wrong, twists arguments beyond


> recognition, ignores the main point of a post to attack some side point or
> incidental observation, brings utterly irrelevant analogies and arguments
> to the table, and refuses to obey the simplest laws of logic and standards
> of debate, and does all this consistently, over a period of many months,

> then the unique problem of enforcing social norms without having face to
> face contact or any personal knowledge of the participants arises.
>
> The solution, time and again, in forum after forum, is flaming and piling
> on. I'm sure I speak for many of us when I invite those critical of these
> tactics to find better ways and to describe them. I know I'd be happy to
> try something else.
>
> -steven-
> --
> <ste...@panix.com>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> If you think broadcast TV represents the full range of
> American opinion, you haven't spent enough time on Usenet.
> -- Mike Godwin


Adam

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:43:52 PM6/27/02
to
For the record, that dog's name is "Thor" (not kidding).

I'm assuming Anne is a fan of the pug? This was my first exposure to one.
They are like little land pirhana's coming at you with their razor teeth and
old man type wheezing as they attempt to playfully bite you. Actually this
one came at me pretty seriously while making a tuna sandwhich between burns
at Sinks. Feeding frenzy!!

A.

"Geoff Jennings" <ge...@texaskilonewton.com> wrote in message
news:DTHS8.3429$071.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Geoff Jennings

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:54:37 PM6/27/02
to
Fan doesn't begin to describe. I used to have a roommate with a pug. I
thought it was a silly little dog at first, but grew attached, and have
suffered pug withdrawal since moving.

And I kinda meant to just email that to Anne.

Geoff

--
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. - Edward
Abbey

"Adam" <as...@attbi.com> wrote in message

news:s9IS8.13943$Uu2.1257@sccrnsc03...

Gnarling

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:57:52 PM6/27/02
to
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Zaumen) wrote in message news:<nobody-2706...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>...

Bill ponders...



> BTW, the last time you were on my case was about a month ago.
> Female trouble?

Cringe! Are you keeping time as to when women flame you? Are you
wondering if the flames are a consequence of PMS? You know, some
things should be taboo, and this subject is one of them. Besides,
just like me, Julie is a drag queen. Her real name is Bill.

> (Do a google search too---

no, too boring. We know you were trying to pun.

I say, let's just get on with business as usual. Folks have posted
some cool trip reports lately and I wonder, Bill, have you been
climbing anything except your office chair?

Love and kisses,
Inez

Sketchball

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 5:04:38 PM6/27/02
to
Karl Baba <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:<260620022337361880%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com>...

> My experience is that when that I harbor ill will for "enemies" in my
> heart, I lose the ability to enjoy peace and love in my life.
(long peace and love post)

> Peace and Love
>
> Karl "Damn Californicatin Hippie" Baba
>
> .

NOOOOO man! C'mon don't encourage them to kiss and make up - that's
like taking the spurs off the roosters at a cock fight!!!

Rec.climbing is known, more so than almost any other climbing
discussion group, for the endless petty flame wars. That's why it has
such high entertainment value (OK that and Batten....).

You guys keep battling, I've got a ringside seat right over here ;)

Julie

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 5:48:51 PM6/27/02
to
"Geoff Jennings" <ge...@texaskilonewton.com> wrote

> Anne in NYC,
>
> Did you see this picture?
>
> http://209.211.253.177/wyoming/P6230016.jpg

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! That was great!

JSH, sucker every time

Karl Baba

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 6:00:10 PM6/27/02
to
In article <63ef4df7.02062...@posting.google.com>,
Sketchball <sketc...@my-deja.com> wrote:

I don't have much objection to a little dirty fun if everybody is
having a good time. My post is for those who might be tempted to
forsake the less enjoyable aspects of the dark side.

But if you're going to go flaming, make it entertaining and maybe even
good natured... or not. The whole spectrum exists in the world and on
the net, When one frequency vibes too much, another wavelength goes to
balance it. Choose your poison

Peace

karl

Phil Box

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 6:27:25 PM6/27/02
to

"Sketchball" <sketc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:63ef4df7.02062...@posting.google.com...

When I was about say 5 years old I was over visiting Grandma. I was
playing with some toys under the dining room table when a bit pushing and
shoving broke out between my uncles who were young adolescents at the time.
I remember a lot of tangled up legs and lotsa noise, shouting etc. Of course
Grandma got the stick out and there were lots of recriminations and
accusations over who started it, but here was me still under the table wide
eyed with aprehension. I feel a little like that kid viewing this current
flamewar. I feel like a little kid amongst giants battling. Sorry for
butting in, I`ll just go back to playing with my toys under the table now,
don`t pay me any heed.
...Phil...


Karl Baba

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 7:49:06 PM6/27/02
to

> In article <63ef4df7.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> Sketchball <sketc...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> NOOOOO man! C'mon don't encourage them to kiss and make up - that's
> like taking the spurs off the roosters at a cock fight!!!
>
> Rec.climbing is known, more so than almost any other climbing
> discussion group, for the endless petty flame wars. That's why it has
> such high entertainment value (OK that and Batten....).
>
> You guys keep battling, I've got a ringside seat right over here ;)

Another thing to consider is the price we pay for being an acrimonious
medium. It's like we're sitting in a redneck biker bar throwing bottles
at the band and wondering why no chick ever come to the bar!

Lots of folks have told me that they left or ignore rec.climbing
because of the flaming and attitudes. If we balanced that with some
support and fun, experienced folks with real beta and tips would be
more likely to drop in. Folks would be more likely to share their
intimate and funny climbing stories without so much fear of being
ravaged.

Would it be boring if you walked down city streets and most folks
smiled at you? if your car broke down and you didn't have any doubt
that folks would stop and help right away? if you could leave your
doors unlocked? If you didn't have a partner and you could just wander
by a popular crag and folk would hook you right up? We pay a price for
our insecurities, our aggressiveness, our closed minds.

Jason said it great "Be the change you want to see" Don't complain
about the government, the Israelis and Palestinians, or whomever if you
act the same way in your own microcosm

Obviously, I have too much time on my hands today. Cleaning up after a
wall. Gotta hook myself up with some more climbing so I'm not net
nerding it too long. Maybe time for some Tuolumme Meadows.

Peace

Karl

JP

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 8:27:00 PM6/27/02
to
"Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:270620021649062282%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com...

>
> Jason said it great "Be the change you want to see" Don't complain
> about the government, the Israelis and Palestinians, or whomever if you
> act the same way in your own microcosm

Not to take anything away from Jason or his SO but...
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Just FYI.

Lynne

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 9:31:43 PM6/27/02
to
I really like this, Karl. It would make a great addition to the FAQ!

Peace already! :-)
Lynne

"Karl Baba" wrote

Michael A. Riches

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 11:51:16 PM6/27/02
to
in article xjIS8.3501$071.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net, Geoff Jennings at
ge...@texaskilonewton.com wrote on 6/27/02 11:54 AM:

> And I kinda meant to just email that to Anne.
>
>
>
> Geoff

Boy, did you ever screw up...snicker, snicker.

Ratzzz...(Noooooo, I won't ever make fun of ya fer it...)

Chris Jain

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:12:10 AM6/28/02
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<afcnk...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> First a short reply to Chris: You're right, that was not a cool thing to say.
> But I'm not cool and I wouldn't want to be cool. Dingus is most people's idea
> of cool and I don't want to be like him. NosireeBob, totally uncool, that's me.
> But, Chris, since you're playing cop, I gotta ask why you've never ragged on
> Bill when he's made some kind of gay slur? (Before you reply, Bill, do some
> Google work and you'll find your comments that I'm talking about. Hint: they
> were before you and I had any kind of antagonistic interaction.)
(snip)

I'm not "playing cop." I just read r.c. messages that interest me and
speak my mind as the mood strikes me.

I don't usually read Bill's posts and didn't see any gay slur posted
by him. By the time a thread turns into a flame war I've already tuned
out. But I certainly don't think that it is more appropriate for Bill
(or anyone else) to do this either.

>
> >Calling someone gay, as an insult, is like calling them a nigger.
>
> To you, maybe, but not to me. Race and sexual preference slurs are different.
> Both are cheap shots, but, depending on the circumstances, the reaction of the
> receptor could be expected to vary widely.
>
> >It pisses off (we can only hope unintentionally) many, many utterly
> >wonderful human beings. It leaves egg on your own homophobic and
> >bigoted face. It utterly fails, however, to deliver the intended
> >insult! If you called me a dike, as an attempt to insult me, it
> >would mean no more to me than if you called me a chink. It says
> >much more about your own failings, than mine.
>
> Whatever. That's your opinion. Mine differs. Calling me a homophobe and a
> bigot might be offensive to some people that know those words don't describe me
> accurately, but it doesn't bother me. Fire away!
(snip)

I've never met you in person. I "know" you only by what you post, as I
would guess is true of most people on r.c. I'm not so naive as to
believe that the every persona projected in r.c. fully reflects all
the facets of a real "flesh and blood" person.

You're free to disagree (of course) but Julie pretty much summed up my
thoughts on this, but stated it far more eloquently than I could. A
slur based on sexual orientation may not be identical to an ethnic
slur, but in my mind its pretty close.

I found your post on the top-rope accident to be compelling reading.
Well-written and with an important point. I can only speak for myself,
but unfortunately the gay slur only detracted from your post, in my
mind. You're free to disagree but I'm just saying what I feel. But I
am glad that you posted your message and I am glad that I read it.

Maybe my choice of words, "not cool" wasn't the best. "Tacky, below
par, offensive, petty" would have been more descriptive of what I was
thinking but I was trying not to be too rude. I'm not trying to imply
that anyone should try to be "cool" or "politically correct" (I hate
that term) but in my opinion you could have been true to yourself
without using that.

> So, Chris, to get back to you, all I can say is that if Dingus is as cool as
> people here say he is, I'm glad I'm not cool. I'll go ahead and see things my
> way and if I call Bill a moron or whatever and it pisses you off, flame away, no
> problem.

Exactly, feel free to speak your mind as you see fit, as is your
right. And as will I.

> But why aren't you cops applying your principles in a more uniform
> manner?

When I post, I really dont' see any obligation to go and read through
every post in r.c. and make sure what I'm saying applies to everyone
equally. But I'm honestly not trying to single you out on this. I'd
feel the same way about someone else posting the same thing.

> No worries - I really don't have time to play in your game right now.

No game. Just stating my opinion. You or anyone else is free to
disagree.

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:37:42 AM6/28/02
to
Karl Baba <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:270620021649062282%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com...

>
> If we balanced that with some support and fun

I think we do. Let's be fair here. The very vast majority of people on
this NG don't engage in endlessly futile flame wars.

Dawn


Maohai Huang

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 9:03:13 AM6/28/02
to
"Lynne" <LynneSP...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<cjsS8.5101$Uu2.314@sccrnsc03>...

> Dingus,
>
> It is honestly not my intent to fan the flames, but how do you explain that
> Dr. S

why the hell do you care ? why would anonymous post be such
a big deal if it were indeed posted by someone who usually doesn't
post anonumously? I don't give a shit who the random poster is
if the post is about opinions (flames included). If the opinion is
presented well, I could accept it even it were from a fortune cookie.
Actually anonymous posts have an advantage over posts signed
by someone who is known. Anonumous posts force the readers to take the
post at their face values so that the readers will focus more on
the ideas expressed.

David Kastrup

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 9:03:30 AM6/28/02
to
"Dawn Alguard" <da...@tradgirl.com> writes:

So it seems our typical trolls here are low quality. Too transparent,
not compellingly offensive (or offensively compelling?) enough.

The high mark of a troll is that everybody knows he is being played
for a sucker, but still can't resist.

Lynne

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 9:43:45 AM6/28/02
to
"Maohai Huang" <q0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d204f859.02062...@posting.google.com...

Why the hell do you care if I care, if you don't "give a shit"? I'll tell
you why anyway. I care because I am disappointed that someone I like to
read might be purposely disrupting this newsgroup, and too cowardly to do it
under his regular name. I see that as dishonest and weak, and I happen to
hold honesty in high regard. So I was disappointed and hoping he could
explain it away for me. My retraction was incorrect, as was pointed out to
me in email, and I am disgusted by this crap and the people propagating it.
It's all rather pathetic and sad.

"Anonymous posts force the readers to take the post at their face values so
that the readers will focus more on the ideas expressed" - that's rich.
These anonymous posts do nothing but attempt to provoke tempers and
aggression. You may enjoy that crap, but I most definitely do not. I
really can't imagine why anyone would encourage this to continue. I think
this shit sucks no matter how you look at it.

I wonder why some of these people even participate in this newsgroup, other
than to cause trouble? Yeah, I know I don't have to read it. Once the
flame throwers are engaged at full blast, I do not, but I guess I am still
naive enough to hope for some worthwhile ideas in some of these posts. You
don't have to give a shit, but I choose to do so.

Peace,
Lynne


Jason Liebgott

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 11:20:41 AM6/28/02
to
"JP" <jptoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afgaj...@enews3.newsguy.com...

Right, actually I think that's what she said and attributed it to Gandhi -
but I forgot that part and just kept the little snip that could fit into the
last 4 bits I have in my brain memory.

Jason Liebgott


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages