American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

I am not a member of the ACA. I have never taken a class nor have I paid dues. Clear enough?

I am not having any problem with this at all. I think that many however forget that it was pointed out that RICH is the sole owner of the ACA and can do with it as he pleases. You have NO say in that. NONE. NADA. FACT. So what was it again that I was having trouble following? :ne_nau: Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

Kinda funny how ya'll are voting and ya'll don't know what you are voting on and if that vote will have any meaning whatsoever. Just sayin'

---

Its not about short term memory problems......ITS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH YOU. It can't get any simpler than that. Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true. I firmly believe in social pressure and I dare say the changes the ACA have thus far initiated seem correlated to the this round of internet dialog. The chance of his decisions being unrelated and random seem really limited.

Ironically......we do have a say and it has been very vocal. Rich does have the legal authority to make whatever decision he wants. We can make whatever social media decision we want. I don't confuse "having a say" with controlling the outcome. When it boils down to it...only Rich can do that. But as we have seen....we can make the internet a real uncomfortable place for his antics and business model.

The only thing I find funny or ironic at this point is that the ACA's fickleness is evident in your own statement. Rich has stated directly that he will give his company away based on an internet poll. Do you not trust his words as honest? I am even willing to trust him on this. I could be proven wrong.

I truly don't understand why you spend your time on an issue and thread that you obviously have no passion or interest in. Its easy to ignore us and the thread. Pretty simple, actually requires no key strokes or movement of the mouse. If you are trying to persuade me that this dialog and "cause" is invalid.....you are barking up the wrong tree. if it hasn't been obvious yet, I am pretty confident about it and committed to seeing this through.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

:roflol::roflol: Yes, Tom, "we" will accept you.
Btw, your tithe can go to Mark's Chevron location in Layton. I heard he needs the money to go canyoneering...

:lol8:

---

:iagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

---

There must be an official name for this style of "argument". Tom, the 'ole mighty Wikipedia Wizard?

After only 32 years of anecdotal evidence I have learned the opposite is likely true. The author likely knows that either: the intent is to insult; the desire is somewhere there to insult; or they fully accept that it will be the likely outcome and just want to save some face. I could be wrong this time.

Classic examples unrelated to your statement:

"I am not a racist or anything but (insert racist comment)"
"I don't want to be an asshole but (insert major insult)"

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

I am not a member of the ACA. I have never taken a class nor have I paid dues. Clear enough?

I am not having any problem with this at all. I think that many however forget that it was pointed out that RICH is the sole owner of the ACA and can do with it as he pleases. You have NO say in that. NONE. NADA. FACT. So what was it again that I was having trouble following? :ne_nau: Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

Kinda funny how ya'll are voting and ya'll don't know what you are voting on and if that vote will have any meaning whatsoever. Just sayin'

---

Heres Rich's quote:
"On November 1st, I will post a poll so everyone can VOTE on their favorite plan for the future. I will give this website and the rights to the name to the person who receives the most votes. They can take it from there."

So, yes, it even looks like a non member who admittedly has had very little contact with Rich(you) can have a say. Probably carry as much or more weight than some of us who paid our dues, served on a committee for canyon leaders, put on a Rondy, started the longest standing thread on the ACA site, taught courses and collected ACA membership fee's, carried new canyon gear around the state at my risk, to sell for Rich, had the design idea for the totem, in use now and I could go on.

My wife and I paid for a technical course from Rich. My Wife, daughter and I paid for a rescue course we took with Bruce Silliman, I have never received any free canyoneering training from Rich, other than a WFA course, Jim Cleary and I took from him in Cedar City.

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception.

---

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Now YOU'RE in trouble, Dear Kurty...

Please, PLEASE. Rich is the KING of deception.

Any Emperoring will be done by MOI.

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

There must be an official name for this style of "argument". Tom, the 'ole mighty Wikipedia Wizard?

After only 32 years of anecdotal evidence I have learned the opposite is likely true. The author likely knows that either: the intent is to insult; the desire is somewhere there to insult; or they fully accept that it will be the likely outcome and just want to save some face. I could be wrong this time.

Phillip

---

Start at "No True Scotsman" and try to parse it out from there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

And by the way, it is not a form of "argument", it is a form of logical fallacy, ie, an attempt to AVOID an actual argument.

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Now YOU'RE in trouble, Dear Kurty...

Please, PLEASE. Rich is the KING of deception.

Any Emperoring will be done by MOI.

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Tom :moses:

---

I apologize to you Tom, bad word choice for sure.

King title is his, and well earned.

Little further irony---Rich always bemoaned Shane and considered and announced him as a liar on many occasions,things that make you go hmmmm:wtf:
at least Shane used to put a disclaimer under his posts:lol8:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

ITS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I truly don't understand why you spend your time on an issue and thread that you obviously have no passion or interest in. Its easy to ignore us and the thread. Pretty simple, actually requires no key strokes or movement of the mouse. If you are trying to persuade me that this dialog and "cause" is invalid.....you are barking up the wrong tree. if it hasn't been obvious yet, I am pretty confident about it and committed to seeing this through.

Phillip

---

Phillip, Phillip, Phillip. Are you now speaking for the whole group? This great big group of "WE"? :haha:

It is amazing how much you have divined about me. Truly! :haha: Phillip, you haven't been around these parts very long now have you. You don't know me at all. You don't have the foggiest idea about how passionate I am about canyoneering, training, and people who have contributed to the sport in a very significant way. I am not a very talented canyoneer really and not much to look at but maybe you ought to ask around about me and my "passions" before you make such wild statements. You are new to this forum (post count) and the vast majority of your posts are clearly Rich/ACA based. Nothing else really. I get that. But please, post away. Feel free to post anything you want within the very loose rules of Bogley. But please know that I have a long history of canyoneering, it is one of my passions, and I have earned my stripes (or at least my Freezefest chef's hat.) :haha: I am even responsible for starting many, many people in this sport. I have always been respectful of you and I will continue to do so. But it seems that you really have difficulty with opposing viewpoints. You telling me, in essence to "shut up" really is not pursuasive. And it certainly won't intimidate me. Again, you REALLY don't know me. :haha: As you post your opinion, remember I am entitled to remind the crowd of facts and express my opinion. So take a deep breath. Believe me, I am not trying to persuade you to do anything, or be anything, or believe anything. That would not seem possible now would it. I am a simple guy, stating simple legal/corporate facts and my little 'ole opinion, which really seem to bother you. Why does that trouble you so much?

BTW, if you were kicked out of the ACA and I am not a member, seems you and I ought to go out back and just yell at each other because neither of us have a "vote". :lol8: (But I guess that I can vote and so can you!!!! Yippee!)

So Philip, have a wonder evening. I will do the same. :2thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

at least Shane used to put a disclaimer under his posts:lol8:

---

:lol8: I still use it on occasions when appropriate....

**This post neither represents nor reflects the opinions of Climb-Utah.com management. These statements may or may not be true. Shane has been known to be full of crap.

Dear Tom, I am not avoiding anything, am I? Do tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

:lol8: I still use it on occasions when appropriate....

**This post neither represents nor reflects the opinions of Climb-Utah.com management. These statements may or may not be true. Shane has been known to be full of crap.

---

:haha:Yup, thats the one, honesty up front is refreshing:cheers:

vs. this:kicknuts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Heres Rich's quote:
"On November 1st, I will post a poll so everyone can VOTE on their favorite plan for the future. I will give this website and the rights to the name to the person who receives the most votes. They can take it from there."

So, yes, it even looks like a non member who admittedly has had very little contact with Rich(you) can have a say. Probably carry as much or more weight than some of us who paid our dues, served on a committee for canyon leaders, put on a Rondy, started the longest standing thread on the ACA site, taught courses and collected ACA membership fee's, carried new canyon gear around the state at my risk, to sell for Rich, had the design idea for the totem, in use now and I could go on.

My wife and I paid for a technical course from Rich. My Wife, daughter and I paid for a rescue course we took with Bruce Silliman, I have never received any free canyoneering training from Rich, other than a WFA course, Jim Cleary and I took from him in Cedar City.

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception.

---

Thanks for the Rich quote. As for your last paragraph, when did I accuse you of not understanding the ACA? I simply stated a corporate fact that applies universally. Please re-read my post.

I seem to be getting under some skin here. Sorry fellas.

And for the record, I like Jim Cleary, he was my WFR course instructor and a really good one at that. I like Bruce and I appreciate him assisting me when I was dun stuck in Trail a few Freezefests ago. Seems we like and respect a bunch of the same people. We just disagree about Rich. Again, you clearly have more experience with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Dear Tom, I am not avoiding anything, am I? Do tell.

---

Not finding the exact quote you are referring to, allows me to do-si-do any specific inflection I may have made... my intention was to point out that:

The general shape of this thread, which started over on Canyons, tunneled over to Bogley, tried to go back to Canyons, etc... is

1. Phillip makes a claim about facts about the ACA, and asks (essentially) for clarification from Rich;

2. Rich replies with personal insults and obfuscation, for example, the third post in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

The trouble with Phillip is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn’t so. By "well-documented" he is referring to things he has written.

Don't count on me to waste my time responding in detail about all of Phillip's BS. I have better things to do.

The ACA will continue to be what it was always meant to be. It will continue to educate people and EMPOWER them to enjoy canyons safely. It will continue to teach people like Phillip, Tom, Kurt and others, who can take what they learn and share it with others. I feel a lot of pride reading the technical tips and advice these people give to others, knowing they are sharing what they learned from me and the ACA. No amount of whining about what the ACA should have done can take that away.

---

3. Phillip reacts to Rich's (successful) personal attack and obfuscation with an emotional response and...

4. away we go.

5. repeat ad nauseum.

That is the "avoiding" I am talking about, perhaps more properly called mis-direction.

Your pointing out (correctly) that it's Rich's proprietorship and he can do what he (darn well) likes is perhaps interesting, but does not address "the issue".

"The Issue" is the alleged fraud perpetrated on the community by CALLING it something it is not (an Association) and Rich's success at getting it treated as a community organization, at least at some level, with members of the community, land managers, members of the ACA, the Canyon Group Owners, etc. all of which abet the alleged fraud by treating the ACA as something other than one man's sole proprietorship.

That the ACA acts in some ways like an Association, and is a benefit to the community (while an opinion that I hold, less strongly now than in the past) is not germane to the original claim. This, too, is a mis-direction and obfuscation.

Your pointing out that yes it is a sole proprietorship so he can do what he wants agrees with Phillip's premise, but avoids addressing the alleged fraud. When Rich is asked to address THIS issue, he generally goes to Ad Hominem attacks or Verbal Abuse, and then usually to a Martyrdom argument, which might fall under "Special Pleading": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Allow me to quote from the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[3][4][5][6][7] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument. However, because a statement can be countered by multiple lines of reasoning, any name-calling relating to the mental faculties of the opponent is typically a case of argumentum ad hominem. For example, ad hominem attacks would include saying the opponent is slow-witted, uneducated, too drunk to think clearly, or needs more sleep for correct judgment. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. But, the implication is that the opponent is too "idiotically ignorant" to think clearly, about anything. A example of a direct ad hominem fallacy would be "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

---

Rich has made claims about giving up the ACA. Let us see if Rich is good to his word. I support Rich in being good to his word.

Tom :moses:

p.s. How's my shade-tree lawyering coming along???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Phillip, Phillip, Phillip. Are you now speaking for the whole group? This great big group of "WE"? :haha:

It is amazing how much you have divined about me. Truly! :haha: Phillip, you haven't been around these parts very long now have you. You don't know me at all. You don't have the foggiest idea about how passionate I am about canyoneering, training, and people who have contributed to the sport in a very significant way. I am not a very talented canyoneer really and not much to look at but maybe you ought to ask around about me and my "passions" before you make such wild statements. You are new to this forum (post count) and the vast majority of your posts are clearly Rich/ACA based. Nothing else really. I get that. But please, post away. Feel free to post anything you want within the very loose rules of Bogley. But please know that I have a long history of canyoneering, it is one of my passions, and I have earned my stripes (or at least my Freezefest chef's hat.) :haha: I am even responsible for starting many, many people in this sport. I have always been respectful of you and I will continue to do so. But it seems that you really have difficulty with opposing viewpoints. You telling me, in essence to "shut up" really is not pursuasive. And it certainly won't intimidate me. Again, you REALLY don't know me. :haha: As you post your opinion, remember I am entitled to remind the crowd of facts and express my opinion. So take a deep breath. Believe me, I am not trying to persuade you to do anything, or be anything, or believe anything. That would not seem possible now would it. I am a simple guy, stating simple legal/corporate facts and my little 'ole opinion, which really seem to bother you. Why does that trouble you so much?

BTW, if you were kicked out of the ACA and I am not a member, seems you and I ought to go out back and just yell at each other because neither of us have a "vote". :lol8: (But I guess that I can vote and so can you!!!! Yippee!)

So Philip, have a wonder evening. I will do the same. :2thumbs:

---

I think the "we" is accurate but I will rephrase.....I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

The passion comment, context is important. I think it is obvious that the context of that was related to this thread. Not the broader passion of canyoneering or training. Not freezefest or the number of canyoneers we have introduced to the sport. Not our shared passion for cooking. Not about the broader divining nature of your "passions". But about the ethical issues surrounding the ACA. And to this end I think it is fair to say.....you haven't dealt with those ideas. I think there is complexity were you think there is simplicity.

I do find it ironic that I am the only one who seems to get labeled for my "ad nauseum" habits. Ugh. Good gracious, I get that you think this boils down to the simple laws you have stated. I really do get that. I really get that. I really do. Really.

Difficulty with opposing views? I don't think you will find many other folks (on these forums) who have stood up to the level of personal attacks, insults about their ideas, and other noteworthy internet machinations who has avoided mostly attacking in kind. Not only that, but someone who has constantly gone out of their way to thank folks for their ideas that noticeably differ from mine or even those that attack me. That willingness to accept opposing views on my part has been obvious the last month. I engage just about every idea presented, even yours. That may not stop me from continuing my internet battle with Rich's ACA but it diminishes the extremely limited evidence to support your claim (one of the few that gets under my skin). And I will assume you intend to stir my pot on this one....its a well known and important skill for lawyers. You are good at wether intentional or not.

Don't believe I got kicked out of the ACA just the forums but it is up to Rich to clarify that. I don't hold my breathe....he shares you proclivity for derailing and subterfuge.

Never told anyone to shut up or tried to intimidate anyone here. To clarify, I called into question your intent for continuing to try and derail this thread. I called into question your complete and utter dismissal of our views without ever actually analyzing them in a public manner. (problems with opposing views?)

I try and engage responses that use my quote or name specifically. It is obvious that is a flaw. For my benefit and the communities it has become obvious that I should just not respond to you. I hope I can do better.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

3. Phillip reacts to Rich's (successful) personal attack and obfuscation with an emotional response and...

4. away we go.

5. repeat ad nauseum.

That is the "avoiding" I am talking about, perhaps more properly called mis-direction.

---

It has become painfully obvious how easily I fall for these traps. Its a consistent problem and it can affect the thread in a negative way. And I don't think I am too far off on recognizing such traps with Scott. There are moments were I am obviously naive and unskilled. Much to learn.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

It has become painfully obvious how easily I fall for these traps. Its a consistent problem and it can affect the thread in a negative way. And I don't think I am too far off on recognizing such traps with Scott. There are moments were I am obviously naive and unskilled. Much to learn.

Phillip

---

There's the old "count to ten" rule; for the internet, that's probably the "count to one thousand" rule.

:moses:

Yeah.....100 may work out better for me in the future. I try to edit and tease out "bad" ideas as much as possible. Unfortunately, that doesn't always account for the questions "should I respond" "does this help my original idea/comment" "is this an argumentative trap" etc. So be it....I guess I can still fall back on the fact that on most occasions I remain sincere.

Tom, this is good. I have perceived equal personal attacks on Rich as you state above against Phillip, but let me not protect the very, very good ACA product, that which Rich teaches, what which he has done for the community, or all things "Rich" in general. I will set that aside. I will set aside the legal definition (or lack thereof) of an "Association".

So let's continue. You speak rationally oh Emperor, my Emperor. Since I am not a part of the ACA or the direct history of the ACA, what was the first legal entity created that was "the ACA?" I must admit, I never cared what that entity was. I figured that if I wanted to join the club, I could. I was more concerned with the product and the face of the ACA, Rich Carlson, who never offended me. Of course I can't really think of anyone who offended me except this one girl in first grade who called me "strawberry freckle face". But I have since accepted my Opie-ness. (For you youngin's, find the Andy Griffith Show and watch it and you will know what I kinda looked like as a kid. :haha:) But i digress.....

Is it the name "Association" that troubles some of you and your definition of that word, or is it that the ACA evolved from a democratic entity to a nondemocratic entity or both? Or (as it seems with some of the more vocal out there) a deep hatred/betrayal/been dun lied to by..... :hair: Rich :hair:, that is so offensive? Are we confusing hatred for Rich and using the something like unto the "Straw man" fallacy? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument (Wiki is fun for all!). That is what it really seems like to many who have commented on this forum and on the Yahoo group. Is it the name that is so darn good that many will now vie for control?

And just for arguments sake, suppose Rich pulls the plug on the whole darn vote idea and offends the same people all over again. Would the next in line be therefore banned to the flatlands by all canyoneers? Would you give the next guys/gals a chance if Rich put them in place? Would you support a group who takes over the ACA simply because Rich gave/sold it to them and you didn't have a vote for something you didn't have a say in anyway?

I would frankly suggest that Rich rescind his internet vote offer for a bunch of reasons. I don't know much about these new fangled computers and such, but internet ballot box stuffing wouldn't seem to be too hard for these bright young computer savvy kids now would it? I don't think any "voted" in idea or group would hold any more legitimacy than an appointed fresh face. Future conduct and product will either keep and improve the ACA or it will die. Probably any result, appointed or voted, will alienate a bunch of people. Hopefully, whatever happens, people will be patient and positive.

But hey, as I have said all along, Rich can do what he wants to do. If it is a vote he wants, vote away. I will send my one in if I have a vote because I will play fair and vote only once. If he chooses his successor(s) then I will begin with a positive attitude and wait and see how it goes, and I hope it goes well.

Scot

It is not understatement that my opinion here really does not matter. However, I do know a thing or two about nonprofit associations. I completely agree with you that internet votes are a non-starter. If ACA is really serious about changing the leadership, the most important thing is to not confuse this with democracy as in everyone has an equal vote. Associations have valuable resources and must be run as benign dictatorships. There must be a leadership circle, which is necessarily more important than everyone else in the organization. This type of transition needs to be performed in some smokey back room. They only recording of the proceeding should be the carefully prepared minutes of the acting association secretary as approved by the ad hoc executive committee of the newly reorganized association. This ain't democracy and it can't be. Some might whine about such a transition but the reality is that only a handful of individuals will ever put enough work into such an organization that their opinions should matter. Capisci?

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinesnaper

Scot

It is not understatement that my opinion here really does not matter. However, I do know a thing or two about nonprofit associations. I completely agree with you that internet votes are a non-starter. If ACA is really serious about changing the leadership, the most important thing is to not confuse this with democracy as in everyone has an equal vote. Associations have valuable resources and must be run as benign dictatorships. There must be a leadership circle, which is necessarily more important than everyone else in the organization. This type of transition needs to be performed in some smokey back room. They only recording of the proceeding should be the carefully prepared minutes of the acting association secretary as approved by the ad hoc executive committee of the newly reorganized association. This ain't democracy and it can't be. Some might whine about such a transition but the reality is that only a handful of individuals will ever put enough work into such an organization that their opinions should matter. Capisci?

Ken

---

In this case it is not an Association, but a sole proprietorship. Rich is the Dictator. He gets to decide the process. He has proposed and committed to a process. I, for one, would like to see him keep his word. There are mechanics of the process to work out, to avoid "rigging", but it seems like a fairly reasonable process can be created.

Although I get your drift, Ken. Usually the Dictator has the privilege of choosing a junta, then resigning, then the junta collectively decides how to proceed from there.

:moses: