Cavers - why do we bicker about access so much?

[royfellows]

I get all stressed out about various trivia in life

Small things don't matter?

 

[And]

I should clarify my comment elsewhere, and given this thread is about bickering and misinterpretation it probably fits best here. Although I don't particularly agree with Peters' approach a lot of the time, he and Roy were sharp enough to see what I was getting at. My comment was more of a positive comment - as I see it both CAL and PDCMG are access groups set up to suit certain access conditions, and those sitting on the committees (as Bograt stated in his excellent comment #4 earlier in this thread) probably have no desire to set up group or sit on it, and are certainly aren't after any power. These groups (and those on regional councils etc) are trying their best given the circumstances they find themselves in, and are just average cavers who just want to get on with caving. However, these groups are maligned online for doing the job they do, which is seemed was due in part to misinterpretation of their role and motivations, and leads to bickering i.e. CAL was being unfairly maligned in the other thread. I apologise if I misinterpreted (proving my own point here!) those and what set up CAL too - maybe I should have said defenders.



Ian, why do you seem to be angry? Maybe you need to read and think about others' posts before commenting? In this spirit of this thread, I'm sure we, and all of us on this forum, have more in common with each other than any differences, and don't need to bicker. If we met in person, I'm sure we'll get on really well, and actually have very similar views on access - but we wouldn't talk about boring stuff like that, and get on with exploring the underground! 

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Take my mother in law... No, seriously, Take Her!

 

[Ian Adams]

Ian, why do you seem to be angry?

Because you made a sweeping statement (which now appears to have been removed) in which you placed CAL and PDCMG in the same light. I was one of the few people that worked VERY hard to ensure that EVERYONE has freedom of access to as much as possible (in Wales) and to be likened to a group that appear to be doing precisely the opposite was unacceptable. Your statement was short and brash without any hint of ?lightness? in it at all.

Maybe you need to read and think about others' posts before commenting?

It was precisely because I DO read all the other posts that I was so annoyed. There are a small contingent of people on this forum who are determined to cause trouble by deliberately twisting other peoples statements, opinions and hard work for the apparent sole purpose of gaining support whilst at the same time lecturing that other people should respect others opinions.

I don?t know you but I do know what you wrote. I don?t know why you wrote it although I assume you have also read other peoples posts (as you suggest I should). When the shit-stirrers cause enough confusion and deliberate obfuscation (they might well call it mischief, I call it malice) then I cannot be surprised when someone takes the ?bait? as you apparently did.

This is a private forum and we all have to live within the ?rules? (and that is totally fair enough). One person is extremely adept at creating dis-harmony without breaking the rules. Some of the moderators break the rules and there is no comeback on them. We have to live with that. What I/we don?t have to live with is blatantly untrue statements which are (potentially) damaging. That is libel.

Something may well be said in a light heart but it needs to be made very clear that is the case.

Again, precisely because I have read everything, the impression received is that the ?bollox? that has been spouted by the ?troublemakers? appears to be working and it cannot go unanswered.

? Who was it that said ?All it needs for evil to flourish is for a good man to sit back and do nothing?.? ?

I won?t sit back and let these evil, malignant troublemakers spread their polluted propaganda.

So bad is their nastiness, that they post on another forum where the moderators remove (posts and threads) that contain argument ? knowing that if they are challenged the thread will be removed and they seem to think they are on high moral ground. One recent post suggested that ?mine explorers? are altruistic? (and cavers are not) ? referring to this thread and the CAL issue. The fact is, CAL is altruistic and exists to keep open access for ALL without charge of any kind. Purporting otherwise and making statements in a domain where  you know an argument cannot be returned is deliberately inciteful.

So, am I angry? ?yes?. Can I rise above it?  ?don?t know, it?s really getting me down?. I have done so much (as have so many others) to improve access for EVERYONE and although we don?t expect a round of applause, what we don?t expect is this constant bullshit attacks from a small number of extra-ordinarily obnoxious people that spread disease and dis-harmony among the vast majority of ?normal? cavers.

In this spirit of this thread, I'm sure we, and all of us on this forum, have more in common with each other than any differences, and don't need to bicker. If we met in person, I'm sure we'll get on really well, and actually have very similar views on access - but we wouldn't talk about boring stuff like that, and get on with exploring the underground! 

I actually think you are right. I have met some people face to face who are nothing like what they appear to be on here. (one was exactly the same). Perhaps, if it were practical, we could all  meet and enjoy our company. I am sure we would find reconciliation and harmony. Sadly, it is impractical and it won?t ever happen.

Still, if you are ever in North Wales, let me know (or let me know where you are) ? at least we can resolve this one issue harmoniously.

Ian

 

[droid]

For those that aren't on AditNow, here's the post re 'altruism' that Ian refers to:

"And that to me is the main difference between the caving and mine exploration worlds.

we seem to be able to organise relatively free access without the interminable 'Committee' process that cavers seem to love (?) so much.

There's a refreshing altruism in the mine world."

There would be nothing to stop you arguing with this on AditNow. And note the '?' in parentheses. That's deliberate.

 

[badger]

problems with the written word,

" I never said she stole my money "

how you read this sentence can be different to the next. the sentence has 7 meanings which one you read might not be the same as the the person intended who wrote it.

it is true there is a lot of deliberate twisting/play on words by people on the forum and its is hard at times to see through it and rise above it.
especially if you think the comments are deliberately aimed at you personally.

for me when I write stuff I know my grammer is often incorrect or not there at all, this can lead to people not understanding or completely getting the wrong end of the stick.

is there an answer, well, maybe the cavers who deliberately twist, incite mischieviousness or generally want to cause people to feel the comment is aimed personally should look within themselves to what they are doing and why.

for those who get drawn in, maybe should take a step back, wait before replying and see the comments for what they are. 

 

[andrewmcleod]

Whereas more likely to be the case is that one of the owner's conditions on having his site accessible is that access is managed by a process where others actually have to ask the body charged with controlling the site on his behalf.

I do think it curious that so many caving landowners seem to want a body to manage access on their behalf yet I have never heard of a climbing site where a landowner wants access to be controlled on their behalf. For locked sites I can understand that someone has to hold keys and landowner may not want to be involved, but for open sites? Why is there (to my knowledge) no example of a landowner specifying a limit of how many climbers may use a crag per day etc? Why are Derbyshire landowners apparently happy with a Derbyshire key but Dales landowners want a permit system? (not to be unfair to the CNCC, I get the impression they are currently fighting to get all sites to open access rather than permits).

I think it's probably one of those interesting cultural phenomena rather than something deliberate. Also the BMC aim to improve access but outside of the few crags they own never attempt to control it.

 

[Wayland Smith]

I think that many land / cave owners require, or accept locked gates.
Because in the past some club or organisation has advised them that the "best" thing
is to allow the group to manage things so that the landowner is not bothered by loads of people asking individually.

I do not think that the land owners think this up themselves.
It seems to be many of these old guard that oppose free access, Derbyshire keys and God forbid CROW.

 

[droid]

I take your point, badger, and it's a valid one.

Written communication is very 'one dimensional', lacking the subtle nuances of tone and inflection that indicate mischievousness in spoken conversation, which often will provoke amusement rather than anger. So it does need thought.

However, overblown accusations don't help. Everyone here that reads posts from people they've not met forms a mental image of the character of that person ( well, I do, and I'm arrogant enough to assume others do too), and tend to react to posts based on that mental image. This image may be far from the truth and not shared by everyone. If that image is highly negative....cue the overblown accusations. Maybe a more charitable attitude is called for?

Like the interpretation of 'mischievousness vs malice'? Depends on your internal construct of the person's character.

It's a bloody minefield and no mistake.....lol

 

[Oceanrower]

I think that many land / cave owners require, or accept locked gates.
Because in the past some club or organisation has advised them that the "best" thing
is to allow the group to manage things so that the landowner is not bothered by loads of people asking individually.

I do not think that the land owners think this up themselves.
It seems to be many of these old guard that oppose free access, Derbyshire keys and God forbid CROW.

But, to carry on from the previous point, if I go and climb at, for example, Winspit Quarry or (more caving related) Fairy Cave Quarry, I don't 'bother' the landowner by asking permission.

Why should I have to when I go caving?

 

[todcaver]

Because all the power tripping smart arses got in there years ago and convinced the landowner it be for the best !!  No real reason other than that as you quoted .
it's something to talk about , a story to tell ya !  :tease:
They will then tell you it's for conservation reasons ( or =there special and have respect for nature and you Obviously don't !
Just one person going down a cave can affect its well being , but they won't admit to that either - they are special after all !
Almost like saying I've climbed a new route / mountain , it was amazing in every way but now I own it and nobody else is allowed up there , oh I've ok'd it with the landowner - if all you lot turn up you'll wreck the place !

 

[droid]

You don't have to ask permission. just join the Penzance Caving Club.

(For those with chronic sense-of-humour-failure that was a joke)

 

[Brains]

You don't have to ask permission. just join the Penzance Caving Club.

(For those with chronic sense-of-humour-failure that was a joke)

The NCIP has made several trips in the past (No club in particular...)

 

[martinr]

 

[Peter Burgess]

There's no way I am going to think about this place while I am away. That's just sad. I have had some interesting advice. I am not sure it would go down too well at the moment! I might change my mind next week.

Three bits of advice have stuck in my mind, two of which have the potential to reduce bickering, the third is a simple well-known morale-raising phrase in the face of a barrage of antipathy from several members.

1. "Don't play with the mad people, Peter". Not so far from the second, I suppose, which is....

2. "Do not respond to deliberately targeted provocation". This advice already being acted upon. It's how topics get locked and sensible debate is thwarted.

3. "Don't let the bastards grind you down". Absolutely.

 

[droid]

With regard to certain people's 'provocative' comments: don't say anything on line that you wouldn't say face to face.

The level of civility might diminish face to face, as one or two keyboard warriors are well aware.

 

[Ian Adams]

With regard to certain people's 'provocative' comments: don't say anything on line that you wouldn't say face to face.

Good advice. I like that 

Ian

 

[droid]

Best not lend your UKC ID to Newstuff then.....lol

(amended by Pegasus - please don't use his real name, thank you)

 

[cavemanmike]

i prefer to speak to people face to face. they are usually less provocative and a bit more subdued when you can see the colour of there eyes

 

[cavemanmike]

Best not lend your UKC ID to Newstuff then.....lol

he won't like you calling him Newstuff on here 

Amended by Pegasus - please don't refer to his real name, thank you