butitsadryheat wrote:I mean, look at your post here. It has attacks, name calling, and you try to look down your nose at those who surrounded you

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:Squishy, some charcoal may help. You should try it.

I found "those people can eat my shorts.... " funny!

Hardly original. It's from "The Simpsons"!

kozman18 wrote:The recent SP thread regarding the unfortunate death of a climber on Mt. Shasta demonstrates the drastic difference between a site that is moderated and one that isn’t.

Last December, when climbers on Mt. Hood went missing, a few SP members, including one now banned, decided it would be a good opportunity to explain the mistakes made by (and to cite the stupidity of) the still missing climbers. It was pointed out by other members that such a discussion was inappropriate given the purpose of the thread, and the fact that it was being monitored by friends, family of the missing, and the media. Nonetheless, the destructive banter continued until the thread got dumped into the now-defunct PnP cesspool.

I understand that the recent Mt. Shasta thread was edited/moderated to remove some inappropriate comments/behavior. The result was that the thread did exactly what it was intended to do – providing positive support for the missing climber and his partner, and keeping the SP community posted on rescue efforts. If you read this thread, you saw the best that SP has to offer -- what SP should strive to be. Quite a contrast from the path the Mt. Hood thread took and IMO a breath of fresh air.

For those who value their right to free speech above (almost) all else (as I do), remember that moderation of a forum like SP does not violate this right. The first amendment guarantees freedom from governmental abrogation of your right to speak. The first amendment does not guarantee the right to speak anywhere, anytime, about anything. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater without repercussion, and you can’t post political signs on my front lawn without permission. Many of the people who now populate the new PnP do not understand this – they trot out the Bill of Rights without the slightest understanding of what they really mean, and then cry and bitch about the loss of rights they never had. (They conveniently forgot that all SP members agree, in advance, to be moderated for inappropriate content – it’s in the rules, black and white).

...

The garbage that is being freely tossed about in that forum is exactly that: garbage. I don’t miss it one bit – SP is a much better place without it, and without those who vow (as part of some perverted “code of honor”) to never be silenced regardless of the time, place or content of their speech. Where I am from, this behavior isn’t considered a “code,” it’s known as Tourette Syndrome.

Hopefully, there’s a cure.

squishy wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:I mean, look at your post here. It has attacks, name calling, and you try to look down your nose at those who surrounded you

well said.

So when is this forum getting dumped? It's been about PnP at least under the surface from the very beginning, mentioning it 3 times in the opening post...

I noticed that as well. Although well intentioned, it should no have invoked PnP, it didn't need it...

kozman18 wrote:

squishy wrote:I noticed that as well. Although well intentioned, it should no have invoked PnP, it didn't need it...

I didn't know there was a ban on mentioning the old PnP and/or the "new" PnP.

The original post wasn't about PnP, it was about the positive effect moderation had on the Shasta thread, and the fact that moderation doesn't result in any loss of rights.

mrchad9 wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

squishy wrote:I noticed that as well. Although well intentioned, it should no have invoked PnP, it didn't need it...

I didn't know there was a ban on mentioning the old PnP and/or the "new" PnP.

The original post wasn't about PnP, it was about the positive effect moderation had on the Shasta thread, and the fact that moderation doesn't result in any loss of rights.

Have to agree with squishy here. Of course there is no ban on mentioning PnP, but your opening mentioned it three times. If your point was only to mention the positive aspect of the Shasta vs. the Hood thread, then PnP didn't need to be mentioned at all, certainly not repeatedly, and your point might have been better served.

butitsadryheat wrote:could? or couldn't?

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:Squishy, some charcoal may help. You should try it.

I found "those people can eat my shorts.... " funny!

Hardly original. It's from "The Simpsons"!

butitsadryheat wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:could? or couldn't?

If you read the posts, I think could.

I think he couldn't

We'd better stop. Might get moved to off-route

butitsadryheat wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:could? or couldn't?

If you read the posts, I think could.

I think he couldn't

We'd better stop. Might get moved to off-route

kozman18 wrote:

CClaude wrote:If you are going through a decision making process and its a risk that sits in the grey zone (or not) but if the little voice in your head tells you that if you mess up, the wrath that will come down will be quick and humiliating, maybe it will keep a friend alive.

I think we can all learn from the decision-making of others -- analyzing those decisions and the outcome can be instructive. I read accident reports for that very reason, and try to pick up pointers on SP. Hopefully, this has helped me avoid bad situations in the mountains as a result.

My point is that there is a time and place for everything. The time to analyze decision-making is after the fact, when all the facts are known. The place is not in a thread about a climber who is missing. SP can be a good place for such analysis, but those who are offering opinion and/or criticism should balance the instructive aspects of their remarks against respect for the climber/family/friends involved.

My other point is that the freedom to make such remarks is not one protected by the First Amendment, and those who confuse their desire to say whatever they want with the right to say it, do not understand what a "right" is.