Utah ancient rock: US scouts could face charges

reply to post by ArMaP


Let's take the example of the rock that was toppled.

Basic shape, OVOID. There's a LOT of those. Very close to the SAME shape and not that different in size.

So, let's say a rock was 1cm longer than another one.

Are you REALLY INSISTING that the 1cm greater length significantly enhances your viewing experience of THAT specific rock vs the one 1cm shorter? The psychologist in me doubts the significance of that . . . certainly for most people.

And, I must say . . . given that my dissertation was in this ballpark . . .

YOUR WRITINGS ON THIS THREAD

ABOUT THIS TOPIC

ARE worshipful . . . regardless of your protestations to the contrary.


.

I don't observe you being logically consistent:

Restricted
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

As someone who rarely gets to see such things I believe I probably appreciate them more than you do. I'd like to see them as nature left them.

Soooooooooooo . . .

WHEN

and on what AUTHORITY

did YOU or anyone

decide that humans were NOT part of

"nature?"

As for not being the kind of person I described, I'm glad to hear it.

Thanks. I risked a beating as a teen to let a deer escape and avoid shooting it myself and before telling my parents a deer was present. I have a hard time killing even a chicken for needed food.

PS: As I hike these kinds of places I like to envision them before man got to them. This country must have been spectacular. This kind of destruction ruins the experience for other people.

I think you are being more than a little absurd here.

Rocks like that fall off their pinnacles fairly frequently from water erosion, severe winds, thawing and freezing.

So you come upon a rock in this PRISTINE area . . . there are no foot prints after the cloudburst and fierce windstorm.

The rock is beside its pinnacle on the ground--from the reasonably fresh skid marks . . . it could have happened in the last 3-4 months.

You really have no evidence to tell you that it was toppled by people vs other "natural" forces.

How would your EXPERIENCE OF THE PRISTINE be the least bit compromised even if it HAD have been toppled by irresponsible drunken teens?

It's the IDEA in y'all's head that this is soooooo UNRIGHTEOUS and evil

that seems to make all the difference.

I'm just contending that THAT IDEA

IN THIS CASE

is OVERBLOWN.
.

BO XIAN
Let's take the example of the rock that was toppled.

Basic shape, OVOID. There's a LOT of those. Very close to the SAME shape and not that different in size.

So, let's say a rock was 1cm longer than another one.

Are you REALLY INSISTING that the 1cm greater length significantly enhances your viewing experience of THAT specific rock vs the one 1cm shorter? The psychologist in me doubts the significance of that . . . certainly for most people.

Yes, there may be other rocks very similar to that one, but if one is 1 cm longer, why is it that there is that difference? Slightly different material? Different erosion? Why?

That's the kind of questions that pop in my head when I see things like that.

And, I must say . . . given that my dissertation was in this ballpark . . .

YOUR WRITINGS ON THIS THREAD

ABOUT THIS TOPIC

ARE worshipful . . . regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

In your opinion, which is irrelevant for the reality of the way I act.

And there's no need to shout.

BO XIAN
I have a hard time killing even a chicken for needed food.

Does that makes you a chicken worshipper?

Jedimind
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

What happened with Aaron Ralston has no similarity at all to what the scouts who knocked over the formation said they were trying to prevent (I've heard the excuse was that a child seeking shade under it could've had it fall on them.

Aaron Ralston "was descending a slot canyon, a suspended boulder he was climbing down became dislodged" which is obviously entirely different than anything involving this ancient rock,NOT A SUSPENDED BOULDER btw, in the youtube video which is just on a relatively flat area, not having anything to do with descending a slot canyon or a suspended boulder...c'mon now.

the scouts who knocked over the formation said they were trying to prevent

first and foremost we do not know what they talked about before the rock was pushed. all we see is the actual
pushing. sure they were cutting up, haven't you ever done something you felt was imporant and had a good time doing it. then celebrated after you did it.

But as I pointed out, the chances of that happening are practically zero.

you better go watch it again, the boulder was up on top of for lack of a better word a pedestal, then look at the base of the rock, on the side he was standing, it is not much higher than he was tall. give or take a few feet. but if you look to the direction it fell at least a 10 to 15 foot gully it fell into. and how do we know if they came up to the rock through the gully or not, maybe they did saw how it hung over and how high it was above them. here are some screen shots.

this one shows the hole at the end of the gully you see at the 14 sec mark of the video under the rock


these next two show how big of a support that the rock was sitting on not the whole top of the pedestal.





it is not that unlikely that some people would've like to climb to the top of it. and seeing how easy he pushed it over, it was not that stable.

if someone was to climb up on top of it, and was to jump up and down on the down hill side in which the rock rolled. it could of very well happened.

and the slot canyon that Ralston was in is also very ancient, and that boulder had more than likely been hanging there as long if not longer that the rock, and it became dialoged because the effects Ralston weight on it or his hanging from it.


ETA: just wanted to show the rock roll into the gully/ washout under it under it.

reply to post by BO XIAN


You obviously have an anger problem. Maybe you should see someone about it.

Civilization means we're supposed to respect what we come in contact with. They didn't respect what they came in contact with. They should be punished for their stupidity.

reply to post by ArMaP



My emphases are "shouting" only to those dedicated to the

web Vulcan Mind Meld Mind control meme that ALL CAPS = SHOUTING

instead of raised eyebrows
or
raised voice tone frequency
or
dropped voice tone frequency
or
slower cadence voice tone frequency

etc. etc. etc.

I don't march to that drum. Assume what you will.

= = = =

In terms of the 1cm different rock.

I can't believe that were you standing beside or between the two rock examples

that you COULD TELL WITHOUT MEASURING that they were different.

Therefore . . . that situation reduces yet MORE the numbers of folks who would be THAT worshipful about THAT difference.

It's just a farce to trump up all manner of angst over the 1cm difference. It IS truly inconsequential . . . which is back to my point . . .

as dastardly as their deed was . . . in the over all scheme of all the hootu's their deed was INCONSEQUENTIAL. Certainly not worth messing up their lives over.

imho, of course. imho . . . perhaps only . . . LOL.

reply to post by ArMaP



Nope.

Show me on the thread where I have the least bit SOUNDED like a chicken worshiper.

Maybe I'm just squeemish about chopping chicken heads off.

Or maybe I just prefer to let living things live as much as workable.

reply to post by Restricted


silly ASSUMPTIONS

OR PROJECTIONS

again.

I doubt my blood pressure has changed hereon at all this morning.

It takes a lot to excite me one way or the other.

reply to post by Restricted


Oh, DEAR ME!

IF we are going to punish folks for their stupidity . . . we'll have to vacate Wash DC immediately . . . and a lot of university professorships . . . and most of the media talking heads . . . and all the globalists . . . we'd have to change the Fema death camps into Fema Stupidity camps. LOLOLOL

BO XIAN
My emphases are "shouting" only to those dedicated to the

web Vulcan Mind Meld Mind control meme that ALL CAPS = SHOUTING

instead of raised eyebrows
or
raised voice tone frequency
or
dropped voice tone frequency
or
slower cadence voice tone frequency

etc. etc. etc.

I don't march to that drum. Assume what you will.

Well, in all the years (17 years, if I'm not mistaken) I have used the Internet, I have always seen writing in ALL CAPS as being considered shouting.

You can add emphasis with underlined, italic, bold or different coloured text, and as that is what most people use that's what I was expecting.

I will try to remember that, for you, ALL CAPS is not shouting.

I can't believe that were you standing beside or between the two rock examples

that you COULD TELL WITHOUT MEASURING that they were different.

I didn't say I could.

It's just a farce to trump up all manner of angst over the 1cm difference. It IS truly inconsequential . . . which is back to my point . . .

What angst? I said it would make me think about it, just that. I know that English is not my natural language, but is what I write that hard to understand?

as dastardly as their deed was . . . in the over all scheme of all the hootu's their deed was INCONSEQUENTIAL. Certainly not worth messing up their lives over.

I agree that prison is over reacting (and stoning them even worse, obviously), but I don't think they should be left without at least some kind of reprehension or some work for the community.

BO XIAN
Or maybe I just prefer to let living things live as much as workable.

And I prefer that rocks are left as they were, just that.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


All I said was that the only excuse I heard, which was supposedly posted on their facebook page with the original video, was that it was done in order to prevent a child looking for shade from having it fall on top of them. You're right, who knows if this is true but if it is, I stand by my opinion that this scenario is extremely unlikely that the rock would finally fall at that precise moment after millions of years due to the last straw of erosion, wind, etc...I wasn't talking about it falling from a person exerting physical force upon it, which is a different issue.
Aron Ralston was exerting physical force, someone climbing on top of the rock and jumping up and down is exerting physical force and thus they are taking on that risk themselves. Of course I realize the rock is in an extremely precarious position, that's the point of the attraction in the first place.

I don't quite understand, are you implying that they were correct in doing what they did? Do you have any possible scenarios in which it was justified? Going by the logic of 'someone could jump on it and hurt themselves' it was correct to knock it over? I guess we should fill in the grand canyon then because someone could fall in.

LeChatNoir put it perfectly: "The leaders had no excuse. Do they do this on their trips to mountaintops too? Push rocks off the side to make things 'safer'? Anybody walking around in Goblins will quickly gather some respect for these towering blobs of rock, and it's easy to use common sense to see what is safe for climbing, and what looks loose. Most people follow the signs, and don't climb around too much. Those that climb generally know what they are doing, and would understand loose rocks as a risk of their hobby, not something to be 'mitigated.' "

so lets say the park rangers decided to push the rock over because it was unsafe, and video taped it and put on the web.
and made the claim that it was to save lives. what would people say.

anyone could look at the rock and see it was unsafe.

so lets say a school took a group of children out on a field trip.or a family took their kids.

and there were a bunch of young boys say age 6 to 12, even older up to 18. boys will be boys. hell even girls like to play like that. climbing and jumping all around while others run up and down the washout, or yes sitting in the shade under the rock. rock fell, kids died or got hurt. then everyone and their brother, would say that it should have been barricaded off. they should have known some one would have got hurt.

or would you have said they should have known better than to play or sit under it.

not everything needs a scientist, engineer, or some degree holder to know something is unsafe and something needs to be done. although some of them would have you think that it does.

i haven't been to the Grand Canyon, just saw the pictures that my parents took when they and my brothers went.
i saw a lot of barricades where it was unsafe and that the mule trails down were made as safe as possible.

besides if they hadn't of put the video up on the web, chances are that the rangers would have thought it happened by it's self.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thx for your kind reply. You communicate very well, of course.

If I "shout" it's usually in ALL CAPS AND Red with lots of exclamation points and underlines. LOL.

I LIKE lots of expressiveness just in chatting about the weather.

Have you been to the Middle East. They tend to stand virtually nose to nose yelling at one another literally--and are merely calmly talking about the weather. LOL.

I agree that prison is over reacting (and stoning them even worse, obviously), but I don't think they should be left without at least some kind of reprehension or some work for the community.

ACTUALLY, I agree. . . . particularly if the rock was in any kind of governmental authority park.

If private land--then whatever the land owner decreed that was remotely reasonable.

If in vast public 'wastelands,' . . . no biggy, to me. Such rocks fall off their perches reasonably frequently.

reply to post by Jedimind


Wellllllllllll, it's not THAT FAR FETCHED to

speculate that a 5 year old toddler could sit under it in the shade. And his immature 14 year old brother of significant bulk and cluelessness could unawarely or unthinkingly lean against the other side to his brother's death.

hounddoghowlie
...
i haven't been to the Grand Canyon, just saw the pictures that my parents took when they and my brothers went.
i saw a lot of barricades where it was unsafe and that the mule trails down were made as safe as possible.

LeChatNoir
"Goblin Valley State Park is very unique. I've never seen a place like it which lets visitors freely climb and wander around the rocks. It is not prohibited even to climb on top of the features, but there are signs at the entrance which recommend against this, both for the hazards of rockfall and to prevent damage to the site. It seems that the local operators of the park do not like visitors getting too close to things, but rules at the state level do not reflect this; all the park can do is to ask you nicely to keep off."

I can't believe I'm having to make the point that the actions in the video were inappropriate considering that a big part of the appeal of the location is to see these interesting ancient rock formations in the first place. Why would anyone defend pushing them over is beyond me. Is it as bad as murder? No. But it's still not right in my book.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I read in the news today that the Scout leaders are now getting death threats.

Amazing, since the Boy Scouts have had their share of sexual abuse rampant within that system (in the US and Canada) and I didn't see anyone threaten death over THAT, but do so over a rock?

sigh

www.youtube.com...

Again, natural selection. Leave the rock alone.

Put me down for a "...it's just a rock." vote. People, focus. Why did they make a point to say "170 Million year old rock"? That's not all that old for a rock, is it?