#!markdown
Dude, I was trying to be light hearted, not get under your skin. And I really
did not see how your original comment related to mine. I don't think you
really clarified that in the one I'm replying to now, but I get the feeling
that it's just because you think I shouldn't try to dampen the situation with
people misconstruing the facts. Whether or not that was the connection you
were making initially, you obviously made that point here and I'm sorry, but I
have to disagree. There were a reasonable number of comments where the premise
was not supported by the facts (whether they were presented poorly or not),
there were significant gaps in logic or were just plain hateful. I'm OK with
it it if you think it's lame or useless, but I was trying to make it plain
that those comments, or parts thereof that I highlighted, should be ignored
because of their flaws. And, I think it's important because if they are not
ignored, and end up making their way into people's understanding of the
incident then they have a view that isn't based on the reality as best as it
can be determined. If I helped just one person realize that something was bunk
that might otherwise have led to the promotion of ignorance, hate or violence
I consider it worthwhile. And you're an X-files fan too hey. I loved it from
the first episode. I actually think the quote you used supports my actions; if
someone's paying attention to what I've written and they've understood and
agreed with it, I'm stoked. I don't understand your reasoning for why the
situation shouldn't have been dampened. I'm far from the only one who has been
trying to do it. Cam's been culling comments left and right, quite a few of
which I responded to. And in all this, and acknowledging that I really can be
a arrogant asshole, I don't think I have any special level of intelligence for
this sort of thing or can understand these things when others can't. Rather I
feel that I miss things sometimes and have benefited from the views of others,
and I don't see any reason why I can't contribute in the same way.
I know I'm messing up the order of your comment here, but I'll go up to the
top paragraph now. I do ride Fromme. I probably get out to ride on average
once per week and about 80% of that is on Fromme. I suspect you're
misunderstanding what I meant. I think you made an erroneous assumption that I
meant that the density of people up on Fromme is low relative to other,
equivalent outdoor recreation/biking/hiking/trail running zones. I did not
mean that to be relative to other such zones. I meant it in the broadest
possible sense. Like it has a lower density than almost everywhere else on
earth where people exist and go about their business. Sure there's lower
density areas, and I similarly imagine violence is even rarer in those places,
but overall Fromme has to be relatively low density in that context. Overall
my point was really that all things being equal, as interactions between
people increase in frequency, that conflict, violent or otherwise, would also
likely increase. I don't know that for a fact, I don't study the frequency of
violence, but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. What do you think?
Why did you quote "second half comment?" I initially thought you were mocking
a typo I made or something, which I'm very prone to make, but I can't find it.
To me, in your second comment you're making a different point about the gender
and size aspects than what you did in the original, and I think I agree with
some of what you're saying now. I still don't really see much of it as being
very relevant because it's hypothetical, I'll play along. The reaction of an
individual to someone in an altercation would typically be influenced by the
gender and size of that person, sure, but I bet it wouldn't be that uniform
either. In the example you give of the 69 year old woman as opposed to the 50
year old man I'm not on board with you though. I don't think you're judging
that situation by the right parameters. What matters is what they did. If they
did the same thing in each case, I consider them equally culpable of assault.
I concede that the hypothetical victim might feel more intimidated in the case
of the bigger man (which you didn't specify by the way, I'm assuming the
woman, bad knees and all isn't some over muscled gorilla), and there's
probably some legal term or charge for that sort of thing, then I would be on
board the intimidation being worse. But is that what you mean? I really might
not be following you, sorry. I'm up for another round if you are, even if it
is an academic discussion of what might have been.
While I see that we've had two incidents on the same mountain in the past
month, I don't see them as being in anyway comparable other than by geography.
So, I really don't see your point about the gender of the saboteur. It seems
pretty plain to me that it was really a man and a woman collectively over the
longer term anyway. But I couldn't care if it was Georges St Pierre or Betty
White doing the sabotage, the nature of the sabotage is the only thing that
can rationally be used to judge culpability. Surely you see that? Again
though, maybe I'm going on about something that isn't what you were meaning.
The cliche I used was not in any way meant to serve as a joke about the
incident on Fromme, it was meant to point out the absurdity of discussing
hypotheticals in relation to something that actually happened. Surely you get
that. And when I wrote "cliche, I know," I was poking fun at myself for the
lack of originality. Hell, even "cliche, I know" is a cliche and it's
essentially always used in the sense I did. I most certainly did not intend to
incense you over it.
I really don't think getting poked with a pole is that significant though, no.
Maybe it's just because I'm lazy and hate hassle, but I wouldn't go to the
cops under most circumstances if someone beat the shit out of me. Certainly
not in something comparable to the incident on Fromme. I do make a distinction
between being poked (which is relevant here) and stabbed though.
I don't really ever provoke anyone. I'm actually a reasonably big guy myself
and rarely do I find myself physically intimidated, although with the passing
of time I get saggier and weaker. Anyway, as I'm sure is common, in defence of
something worthy I would try not to let that be a factor. I have lived up to
that on a small number of occasions, but must confess I have also failed in
ways that I've long regretted. In any case, I can take a punch pretty well.
Seriously. As you can probably tell, I've got a thick cranium.
So am I right in assuming you're all in to this because of what it might have
been, or is it the magnitude of the violence that appears to have gone down?
I've only been living here since 2002 and have always been impressed at the
general lack of violence in pubs and whatnot, so maybe that's the missing
context for me. I've seen so many fights that maybe I'm a bit numbed to it
all. Nevertheless though, my opinion remains that the hubbub is
disproportionate. Would you be this concerned if a couple of folks, of any
stripes, got started on a donny brook in Lynn Valley Mall? I don't mean that
rhetorically, and I'd like to know why that would or would not be any
different to your level of concern over this incident. (I realise I've opened
the door for you to throw this in my face as a hypothetical. Have at it if you
like.)
Boy, sorry for the 'war and peace' in comment form here. I do hope it doesn't
infuriate you at least.
Feb. 3, 2015, 11:38 p.m. - NatBrown
#!markdown Dude, I was trying to be light hearted, not get under your skin. And I really did not see how your original comment related to mine. I don't think you really clarified that in the one I'm replying to now, but I get the feeling that it's just because you think I shouldn't try to dampen the situation with people misconstruing the facts. Whether or not that was the connection you were making initially, you obviously made that point here and I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There were a reasonable number of comments where the premise was not supported by the facts (whether they were presented poorly or not), there were significant gaps in logic or were just plain hateful. I'm OK with it it if you think it's lame or useless, but I was trying to make it plain that those comments, or parts thereof that I highlighted, should be ignored because of their flaws. And, I think it's important because if they are not ignored, and end up making their way into people's understanding of the incident then they have a view that isn't based on the reality as best as it can be determined. If I helped just one person realize that something was bunk that might otherwise have led to the promotion of ignorance, hate or violence I consider it worthwhile. And you're an X-files fan too hey. I loved it from the first episode. I actually think the quote you used supports my actions; if someone's paying attention to what I've written and they've understood and agreed with it, I'm stoked. I don't understand your reasoning for why the situation shouldn't have been dampened. I'm far from the only one who has been trying to do it. Cam's been culling comments left and right, quite a few of which I responded to. And in all this, and acknowledging that I really can be a arrogant asshole, I don't think I have any special level of intelligence for this sort of thing or can understand these things when others can't. Rather I feel that I miss things sometimes and have benefited from the views of others, and I don't see any reason why I can't contribute in the same way. I know I'm messing up the order of your comment here, but I'll go up to the top paragraph now. I do ride Fromme. I probably get out to ride on average once per week and about 80% of that is on Fromme. I suspect you're misunderstanding what I meant. I think you made an erroneous assumption that I meant that the density of people up on Fromme is low relative to other, equivalent outdoor recreation/biking/hiking/trail running zones. I did not mean that to be relative to other such zones. I meant it in the broadest possible sense. Like it has a lower density than almost everywhere else on earth where people exist and go about their business. Sure there's lower density areas, and I similarly imagine violence is even rarer in those places, but overall Fromme has to be relatively low density in that context. Overall my point was really that all things being equal, as interactions between people increase in frequency, that conflict, violent or otherwise, would also likely increase. I don't know that for a fact, I don't study the frequency of violence, but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. What do you think? Why did you quote "second half comment?" I initially thought you were mocking a typo I made or something, which I'm very prone to make, but I can't find it. To me, in your second comment you're making a different point about the gender and size aspects than what you did in the original, and I think I agree with some of what you're saying now. I still don't really see much of it as being very relevant because it's hypothetical, I'll play along. The reaction of an individual to someone in an altercation would typically be influenced by the gender and size of that person, sure, but I bet it wouldn't be that uniform either. In the example you give of the 69 year old woman as opposed to the 50 year old man I'm not on board with you though. I don't think you're judging that situation by the right parameters. What matters is what they did. If they did the same thing in each case, I consider them equally culpable of assault. I concede that the hypothetical victim might feel more intimidated in the case of the bigger man (which you didn't specify by the way, I'm assuming the woman, bad knees and all isn't some over muscled gorilla), and there's probably some legal term or charge for that sort of thing, then I would be on board the intimidation being worse. But is that what you mean? I really might not be following you, sorry. I'm up for another round if you are, even if it is an academic discussion of what might have been. While I see that we've had two incidents on the same mountain in the past month, I don't see them as being in anyway comparable other than by geography. So, I really don't see your point about the gender of the saboteur. It seems pretty plain to me that it was really a man and a woman collectively over the longer term anyway. But I couldn't care if it was Georges St Pierre or Betty White doing the sabotage, the nature of the sabotage is the only thing that can rationally be used to judge culpability. Surely you see that? Again though, maybe I'm going on about something that isn't what you were meaning. The cliche I used was not in any way meant to serve as a joke about the incident on Fromme, it was meant to point out the absurdity of discussing hypotheticals in relation to something that actually happened. Surely you get that. And when I wrote "cliche, I know," I was poking fun at myself for the lack of originality. Hell, even "cliche, I know" is a cliche and it's essentially always used in the sense I did. I most certainly did not intend to incense you over it. I really don't think getting poked with a pole is that significant though, no. Maybe it's just because I'm lazy and hate hassle, but I wouldn't go to the cops under most circumstances if someone beat the shit out of me. Certainly not in something comparable to the incident on Fromme. I do make a distinction between being poked (which is relevant here) and stabbed though. I don't really ever provoke anyone. I'm actually a reasonably big guy myself and rarely do I find myself physically intimidated, although with the passing of time I get saggier and weaker. Anyway, as I'm sure is common, in defence of something worthy I would try not to let that be a factor. I have lived up to that on a small number of occasions, but must confess I have also failed in ways that I've long regretted. In any case, I can take a punch pretty well. Seriously. As you can probably tell, I've got a thick cranium. So am I right in assuming you're all in to this because of what it might have been, or is it the magnitude of the violence that appears to have gone down? I've only been living here since 2002 and have always been impressed at the general lack of violence in pubs and whatnot, so maybe that's the missing context for me. I've seen so many fights that maybe I'm a bit numbed to it all. Nevertheless though, my opinion remains that the hubbub is disproportionate. Would you be this concerned if a couple of folks, of any stripes, got started on a donny brook in Lynn Valley Mall? I don't mean that rhetorically, and I'd like to know why that would or would not be any different to your level of concern over this incident. (I realise I've opened the door for you to throw this in my face as a hypothetical. Have at it if you like.) Boy, sorry for the 'war and peace' in comment form here. I do hope it doesn't infuriate you at least.