American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxnitsuaxx

Dude. Phil. Seriously bro. You like, blew my mind right there. Foucault - didn't he make cars or something? And I don't believe in sociological concepts either; if it's not mentioned in the Bible I don't talk about it. That's devils' talk right there.

Seriously man? Were you expecting me to be impressed at your ability to blather on about some ostensibly esoteric terms that are actually pretty basic concepts? I got a hint for you - pedantry doesn't work if the object of your condescension isn't impressed. It's pretty obvious that you misunderstood my question; you were probably trying to anthropomorphize the little facepalm guy that I used in order to parse more meaning from my question. It's perfectly reasonable that you would want to add some sort of structure to canyoneering. Personally, I see no need for it. Canyoneering is a fun way to spend a weekend for me, nothing more. If canyoneering is a strong part of your self-identity then it makes sense to create a culture around it so that you can belong. That structure and culture will inevitably result in the "hierarchy" and "agency" issues that you put "in quotation marks" so we could all be "real impressed" with your "big words". Not my cup of tea - but whatever. My issue is with the Machiavellian politicking that surrounds your attempt at "structure". This ain't international politics and it ain't multibillion dollar business deals. I'm not trying to belittle canyoneering; I love to do it myself. I'm just confused at the amount of vitriol, wasted energy, and bad feelings that surround something as seemingly simple as doing canyons.

I've got my dictionary out so you can use all the big words you want buckaroo.

---

While Phillip has lived in Southern Utah for a number of years, he still has hope of finding people to have actual sophisticated, intellectual discussions with - ya know, with multi-syllable words et al.

Sorry Phillip. Try again elsewhere. Even the lawyers here (down south) are anti-intellectuals.

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxnitsuaxx

PS - you're the one to whom EVERYONE is responding negatively. You think we're all just a bunch of antagonistic assholes or do your people skills need a little work? Piece of advice - if you think everyone is rude...it's probably you. That one's for free.

---

All true canyoneers respond to Phillip's discourse negatively. Tom does not respond to Phillip's discourse negatively. Therefore Tom is not a true canyoneer.

And you're a lawyer? :facepalm1:

:moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Let me retrace my path a mile or two. IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!!!! it is not your concern. It is not my concern. Apparently no one but Rich owns the ACA. Isn't that the end of the story-- legal and moral and ethical? I am very sorry but you can't control what ain't yours. If Rich is as bad as you all say, you are not ever going to control or pay homage or protect that name. Well I guess you could pay homage but it still won't be yours and you won't have any say in it. Period.

I am not defending the ACA or Rich with these comments, just stating fact; cold, hard, fact. What is so wrong with all the big wigs starting the U.S. Canyoneering Association? The North American Canyoneering Association? The Area Formerly Known as Mexico Canyoneering Association? I don't see anyone doing that but those mentioned in the first post (i think) of this thread. I now see a promising group that has formed. This group is a group of individuals who are big boys, independent men and Rich is not on the Board (or what ever the leadership group is called -- operative word for many, "group"). Rich is involved..... (begin evil music now) da da dummmmmm. (end evil music) But under the corporate documents, he does not control anything. He can be fired. Right?

---

I don't know, Scott. Fraudulent name, we have a report from someone who was defrauded. Sounds like CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT time to me. Gotta watch some late night TV, get that guy's phone numba...

:moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

Are you always so antagonistic and sarcastic? I have seen several of your former "students" and I wouldn't have guessed that was one of your primary characteristics.

---

No not alway's, but I certainly can be, if I feel a comment post, or thread warrant's it. You have informed me I read to much into that remark, issue resolved.

As for my ability to have constructive dialogue, feel free to assume whatever you want.

Try not to assume to much but your contributions thus far haven't given me much hope. Still have some, we share respected friends.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

Try not to assume to much but your contributions thus far haven't given me much hope. Still have some, we share respected friends.

Phillip

---

Spidey is a great guy in corpus, but has yet to settle on an Internet Persona. :bandit:

:moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I'll believe it when the moving van backs up to the ACA doors. This is not Rich's first melt down. Those who have been around for a while have seen this exact same movie before.

Rich posts this stuff to rally the ACA supporters so they will beg him to stay and post warm fuzzy threads. Same old story, just a different day...

:-)

---

Heres my quote from this thread--I still stand behind it in every way.

"Same book, different chapter, same ending...................:facepalm1:"

Looks as if we are in complete agreement....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restrac2000

Changes:

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/s...ds-a-New-Owner

---

Well, there is your golden ticket to Wonka land. Feel better now? We'll see who wins the "prize" although I am not sure with this group and the egos that exist in it that I would go anywhere near that "prize".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I believe most the "big wigs" as Scott calls them are opposed to an umbrella organization for numerous reasons.

Personally I believe an Umbrella organization is detrimental to the sport. I prefer to support my causes buffet style.

---

Frankly, I probably agree with you. I do like a training entity and I like standards. I particularly like the idea that there will be an association of guides that have testing and peer reviews. I like that. But as you can tell after about 12-13 years of active canyoneering, I never did join the ACA although I have sent several people their way for training. Time never worked for me to go get formal training. I have been the beneficiary of their training, however. Should there be canyoneering organization to cover me? I don't really care. If I like it I join, if i disagree with what they may represent to Zion Park I can write my own letter and tell them they don't represent me. It just seems in the past the membership and organization of the ACA seemed to suggest that they in fact did represent a whole bunch of people, whether a majority or not I don't know. It didn't matter because I never joined or quit or got offended.

How about 6 pages on this thread. Come on people, we are close. :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Well, there is your golden ticket to Wonka land. Feel better now? We'll see who wins the "prize" although I am not sure with this group and the egos that exist in it that I would go anywhere near that "prize".

---

We'll likely never meet as I don't participate much in the larger circle of canyoneers anymore. That said, there is nothing about the outcome that was ever gonna make me feel "better"? I think people assume providing a dissenting voice is fun and easy. Its not.

Do I think it could lead to better outcomes. Yep. Will it? Time will tell. I think there may be people out there who can take it on. I have already passed on emails to about five folks in the larger outdoor/canyoneering community who I know have professional contacts. Who knows how many highly qualified people may come out of the woodwork. But I think its fair to say that most of us who have been vocal aren't the proper ones to take it on.

I actually wish Rich the best and think he could do wonders in the private sector.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

Gotta watch some late night TV, get that guy's phone numba...

:moses:

---

And that there is the reason I will never advertise (on TV or Radio).....:haha: I am not one of "them."

I just want to know what kind of shoes Tom is wearing in that picture. :mrgreen:

Is hanging on a single friction hitch still a part of the curriculum that is taught? {Satire unintended...just curious}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spidey

I Never tried to predict the future Shane. I replied to the insinuation that any of us that are now making up the ACGA are incapable of thinking for ourselves. Phil has pointed out my assumption was wrong, that although I believe his language implied that he did not mean that, issue resolved.

As for you and I ever being in the same place?:lol8::lol8: Other than possibly being physically in the same vicinity as each other at points in time.

---

You remind me of the woman that marries the serial killer while he is in prision.....

Outside of his dining habits I'm sure Jeffery Dahmer was a nice guy...... :eat:

:bert:

This "PissAnt" has been officially banned from the ACA forum for asking relevant questions that have been deemed "ignorant and moot". For those wishing either to see success with the ACA or possibly take it over I would suggest using the ACA forum to ask the important, pertinent business questions that make or break its future direction.

I hope more folks (even if they are a possible minority) speak up on the ACA forum to help direct its future. In the past similar announcements have happened for the ACA. If anybody out there actually wants to see new leadership in the ACA than I suggest keeping the direction of the ACA thread relevant to the ACA success and not solely about Rich. There are hard and important questions about the ACA's infrastructure that need to be asked and answered over the next month if it is to move on. I hope someone is willing to ask them.

For those wondering why so many of the people vocal about the ACA have brought Rich's personality into the equation than I don't think you have to look any further than what just happened on their forum. A paid member (all courses) and one of the few who actually wrote a check to the Pro Division was just banned from the forums he helped make possible. This happened subjectively and solely because of my dissenting view. That doesn't happen in professional environments.

Phillip

If the future of the ACA is really up for grabs.... The ACA needs to be set up with a 12 member (or more) Board of Directors established by a vote of its membership. Board members should serve a 2 year term with the terms staggered so 6 members are up for vote every year. The initial 12 can be anyone willing to sit on the BOD with the first official election for all 12 seats set for 3 months in the future. All 12 initial seats would be up for vote with those receiving the most votes being put into the initial 2 year positions and the bottom six only serving one year to get things rolling.

A resolution passes when the BOD votes for an item and it wins by a simple majority. All BOD members share power equally. The future direction of the ACA would be established after the first official democratic election.

That sounds simple enough to me....

thanks yet again for giving us a lovely glimpse into the delusional world of rich carlson! stay classy! :eek2:

it's a shame you didn't leave it up long enough for everyone to get a look at the side of rich carlson we've all come to love over the years. :facepalm1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

thanks yet again for giving us a lovely glimpse into the delusional world of rich carlson! stay classy! :eek2:

it's a shame you didn't leave it up long enough for everyone to get a look at the side of rich carlson we've all come to love over the years. :facepalm1:

---

(for those following along at home, rich just posted a series of outbursts on the ACA site calling phillip a blathering idiot, regularly referring to him as "pissant," referring to a series of private emails where apparently many people concurred with the assessment. of course, after rich realized what a douche he looks like, he removed the posts...)

He moved them to thread called "piss ants"