The Steve Grossman Historical Thread Omnibus

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 20 of total 23 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Original Post - Dec 27, 2014 - 08:47pm PT

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 27, 2014 - 08:51pm PT

i'll sort through and organize these by subject over the next while... and as SG continues to post i'll continue to add to the first post of this thread.

a big thanks to Steve Grossman for all of his work scanning and posting over the years...

and another big thanks to all of the contributors to these threads...

between the original scans and all of the first and second hand information that comes out in the conversations that follow, these threads are truly historical climbing information goldmines!

Steve Grossman

Trad climber

Seattle, WA

Dec 28, 2014 - 10:41am PT

Thanks so much for taking the time to list all of these wonderful threads for folks to enjoy.

So many great articles buried in this forum just waiting for a little stoke.

This is the best way of engaging climbers of record that I have been able to come up with and the main reason that I have put so much time into scanning all of this material. Almost four thousand scanned pages and photos so far...

Happy New Year and Thanks again for your efforts!

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Dec 28, 2014 - 06:10pm PT

"I have put so much time into violating all of these copyrights. Thousands of violations so far...."

Steve, seriously, do you even know how copyright law, public-domain, and fair-use works in this country? I'm seriously asking. I can point you to a page that summarizes the laws by the publication/origin date of the material and type of copyright that is applicable, which might help you a lot. You do not have permission to post all of these works in their entirety. If you did have such permission, you would know to include the mandatory phrase: "Reprinted [or used, etc.] with permission of the [author] [publisher][etc.]."

Bottom line is that your lack of professionalism seriously muddies what would otherwise be a very admirable effort (librarian rather than historian, though it be). As it is, the taco stand forum has become a very large pile of copyright-violation suits waiting to happen. It's hard to cheer on large-scale violations of the law, even if it's you.

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Dec 28, 2014 - 06:21pm PT

So Mad Bolter, what do you think we should do?

I live not far from him, and if I invited him over for a beer and some chat about climbing history, he'd probably accept. You could wait behind the door, and spring out and knock him unconscious when he came in.

But then what? Do you think beheading is the right punishment? Or maybe you'd like to waterboard him for a while first? Would you get off on that?

Everybody on ST except you seems to enjoy his historical threads. But of course that doesn't matter, does it? He's a copyright bandit and must be punished. Even if half the people whose copyright he's violated are reading and enjoying those violations.

Ah, wait! I've got the perfect punishment! After you knock him out, you can tie him to a chair and then when he wakes up you can talk endlessly. Listening to that would surely be worse than death.

On the other hand, you could delete your post, and go back to arguing with him on the WOS thread.

Risk

Mountain climber

Olympia, WA

Dec 28, 2014 - 07:28pm PT

Very low to the most minuscule litigative risk. Keep it coming' Steve! We're not much different than a local bulletin board, after all,

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Dec 28, 2014 - 07:33pm PT

Well, Eric Bjornstad won't be suing him at least.
Steve, just remember, I still 'know people' in Chicago - yer gud to go!

zBrown

Ice climber

Brujò de la Playa

Dec 28, 2014 - 08:20pm PT

You are on a roll nah. Keep on rollin'. Thanks Steve for all you've done.

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 28, 2014 - 09:11pm PT

okay so as i see it, there are three separate questions regarding copyright and 50-75% of the thread starting posts that steve has made...

1. are they currently legal?

no, by the letter of the current laws, posting full reproductions of copyrighted works online is, with a few exceptions, illegal.

2. is anybody or any entity going to act litigiously with regards to this type of posting being technically illegal?

highly, highly, highly unlikely. unless an entity is trying to establish a precedent there is no reason to waste time and money on pursuing someone who a. will voluntarily take the work down if requested [i know this is true because steve has taken down madbolter1's copyrighted content in the past], b. is making very little money from it [while steve doesn't make any money directly, it could be argued that ST does make some] and c. is not effecting the "violated's" ability to make money as the rights owners are in general not making any money from this content either [while i didn't go through and count, i'd guess about 95% of these articles are from magazines that are now defunct or at least out of print...]

3. should this type of posting [specifically from out of print articles and by not for profit individuals] be illegal? i.e. is there an argument that this type of posting both harms no one and is in the public's interest?

this is the only question worth discussing, imo. while i can't speak for grossman, to assume that his postings are unprincipled and due to a lack of understanding of current laws, is to be presumptuous and condescendingly dismissive.

all new eras, specifically in times of technological and communicative revolutions, require careful reconsideration of old laws. when this doesn't happen, in some cases the only way for many individuals to effect change, is via civil disobedience.

in this case i'm not seeing who steve's posts are in general harming. as mentioned, with maybe a handful of exceptions, most of the magazines that have been scanned are either defunct or no longer for sale. so with a few possible exceptions, the original authors, and publishers are not being robbed of any current compensation. at the same time, for all intents and purposes, neither ST nor SG, makes any significant money off of this material and more importantly, if there is any issue, steve would, i suspect, be willing to take anything down that a rights holder objected to.

otoh, this information was not born in a vacuum. while it's convenient and philosophically satisfying to think of each individual as being a cultural island, it simply isn't true. because this isn't true, it is not just the "creator" who is owed certain rights, imo. to cut to the chase, while i think it is important, in cases such as this, that we protect the rights of those individuals who are putting or intend to put their work out onto the marketplace [someone like tami knight or other individuals who have their work for sale comes to mind], i think an arbitrary copyright period of author's life + 70 years, is absurd if applied in all cases. specifically in this case, if the rights holder has ceased to have their work on the marketplace, there should be a much shorter period [say 5-10 yrs] after which a rights holder would, without active registration, either lose their copyright outright, or at least open their work up to being used for not-for-profit purposes.

simply put, if the "creator" wants protected rights to their work after they have put said work onto the for-pay marketplace, they also owe the collective the ability to continue to pay for access to the work. just as the collective should protect the "creator's" market based compensation as long as the "creator" is putting their work out into the for-pay marketplace, then, in the age of the internet, the rights holder owes the collective not-for-profit use if they are no longer putting said work out into the for-pay marketplace [or at least providing some show of an intent of putting said work out there in the future via active and opt-in registration, rather than the opt-out style of copyright that we currently have.] [imesho]

the above argument is why in this case, regardless of steve's intentions, i think this type of posting is an important and timely act of civil disobedience.

and one that i support.

[that said and while i don't remember any, if there are complete works on here that are still on the marketplace, email me and i'll be happy to take those links down]

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Dec 28, 2014 - 09:50pm PT

So, what I'm hearing is: "We like Steve. We like reading this stuff. We don't give a crap who might be 'harmed' because we don't even think the law is 'legit' in the first place (it's not convenient for us), so 'harm' is an abstraction we just don't give a crap about. So, keep it coming!"

Cool. Far be it from me to buck the crowd. After all, as I've seen my whole life, the crowd can't be bucked in any venue. Legal, illegal, moral, immoral, sick, twisted, whatever. If the crowd likes it, all else is irrelevant. Until the crowd changes its view (which it will), and then whatever is the new view is what all shall conform to.

Ahhh... collectivism at its finest, in the finest new Amerikan tradition, property-rights be damned. Goooo majority faction!

Just too danged much trouble to sort out all those thorny permission problems. So rationalizations reign supreme. Just, please, don't call it "history." It's not even responsible librarian work. LOL!

Carry on....

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 28, 2014 - 10:11pm PT

madbolter1:

ha!

god damn your inflammatory invective makes it hard to have a civil conversation... while i get you were responding to a collection of posts, assuming you read what i wrote directly above you, you certainly have a problem with either reading comprehension or at least summation.

We like Steve.

if you've paid attention to what i've posted in the past, you'd know this wasn't a factor, either to the positive or to the negative... ha.

We like reading this stuff.

again, this didn't have anything to do with it.

We don't give a crap who might be 'harmed'

no, i'm quite cognizant of this and specifically outlined why in most cases copyright is important and should be protected.

because we don't even think the law is 'legit' in the first place

do you think copyright laws as they currently stand are "correct" in all current cases, given the new technologies we now have? as i argued above, just as new technologies have made it necessary to rethink copyright laws in the past, the internet and the potential for "free" distribution makes it necessary to rethink them now.

(it's not convenient for us), so 'harm' is an abstraction we just don't give a crap about.

it's quite apparent from your style of argument that you think you are the only one who thinks sufficiently deep about questions such as these.

it is your undoing in effecting the changes you believe in...

carry on.

zBrown

Ice climber

Brujò de la Playa

Dec 29, 2014 - 08:29am PT

perhaps someone (madbolter1)? could review the list for rights violations (who and how)

perhaps then some of us could contact the violatees and attempt to obtain permissions

Some got six month, some got one solid
Some got one solid year indeed
Some got six month, some got one solid year
But me and my buddies all got lifetime here

Viola Lee Blues (used without permission)

MSmith

Big Wall climber

Portland, Oregon

Dec 29, 2014 - 11:18am PT

Ghost

Everybody on ST except you seems to enjoy his historical threads. But of course that doesn't matter [to madbolter], does it?

nah000

should this type of posting be illegal? i.e. is there an argument that this type of posting both harms no one and is in the public's interest? ... all new eras, specifically in times of technological and communicative revolutions, require careful reconsideration of old laws ... when this doesn't happen, in some cases the only way for many individuals to effect change, is via civil disobedience. ... in this case i'm not seeing who steve's posts are in general harming

The above quotes pretty much summarize this thread. 1) We like it, bring it on, and 2) if it's illegal, so what, it shouldn’t be illegal.

Nah000, I co-authored a small guidebook on a quarry in Riverside. Several years ago Steve scanned and posted the guidebook in its entirety on the Taco. Steve knew the posting was illegal. He knew the posting was unwanted by the author (me). He knew it was unwanted because his sole purpose was to use the posting to ridicule me. The only reason it's not on the Taco now is that I requested Supertopo to remove the post as it was in violation of law.

Was the posting of my guidebook the only thing Steve's put up that is both illegal and unwanted. Not likely. Perhaps the reason you don't care is that, unlike me, you haven't had your stuff stolen and posted against your will.

This gets to the larger question of Steve as a historian. A real weight rests on the shoulders of the historian, because a historian crafts the perceptions of the reader. The often used phrase “rewriting history” comes from the fact that persons can create a skewed reality of the past, usually through the simple emphasis on certain points at the exclusion of others. This is why a true historian typically has a great deal of formal training in the process and ethics of the packaging and retelling of history. It's the obligation of the true historian to remain neutral and impartial to the extent possible. In the case of the violation of my guidebook, Steve was not acting within the professional bounds of a historian. So don't be surprised as I bristle at your opening post of links to all of the materials Steve has "collected."

zBrown

Ice climber

Brujò de la Playa

Dec 29, 2014 - 11:25am PT

The only reason it's not on the Taco now is that I requested Supertopo to remove the post as it was in violation of law.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work? I suppose that you could request from the ST how many times it was illegally downloaded and ask for compensation.

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2014 - 12:26pm PT

MSmith:

thanks for the backstory. while i didn't see your guys' guidebook when it was posted, i did know it had been. unfortunately, and i'm not certain why i was under this impression, i mistakenly understood that it was taken down by Grossman at your request.

if this wasn't the case and your requests weren't respected by Grossman, and you had to go through CMac and co, then i get now why madbolter1 is seeing red.

in that case, my apologies to both of you, for my mistaken assumption.

that said, my personal position on these types of postings, as i attempted to explain, is more nuanced than: "if it's illegal, so what, it shouldn’t be illegal."

one of those nuances is that in a case like yours, if a rights holder asks for something to be taken down it should be taken down immediately...

regarding your last paragraph and with regards to the idea of SG as "historian", [and which i agree is the larger question that is clouding the more important and worthwhile debate regarding copyright], i have no argument as i'm in agreement with your concerns. while you may not follow ST closely, if you go back a few pages in my posting history you'll see that i've said as much more than once.

with that said, those concerns don't change the value i see in both the postings and more importantly all of the first and second hand accounts that those threads have generated.

to me that is the beauty of these threads: there is no filter, and there is no historian. when i read an account in a post, it is often by the first ascensionist themselves... as but one example where else would i find an incredible response like this about an obscure climb that the lowe clan did, by jeff lowe himself:

There are a few comments I can make about the '71 climb:

1- Greg didn't feel comfortable leading on that pig-iron winter ice, so George and I did all the leading. Greg felt bad about this, so when he got home to Utah after the climb, he looked for ice to practice on, and found Malan's Waterfall virtually in his back yard. He made several trips up there to boulder and perfect his techniques over the next month, then led the first ascent of the full climb in 3 pitches by the harder left side, which would be WI 6 by today's standards. Thus was born modern waterfall high-standard free climbing.

2- I couldn't afford the double leather climbing boots of the day, but found a pair of Dunhill leather hunting packs, with felt liners on sale for $20. These were completely bendy and had uppers all the way up to mid-calf, but they were warm, and served their purpose. It's a wonder my Chouinard rigid crampos didn't break on the climb, though, paired with such flexible footwear.

3- Although most people know of Greg, George and me, probably few have heard of Dave. Dave was a cousin to Greg and me - George's brother. In my teenage years Dave was one of my main partners, behind Greg and George. He was quite a good rock climber and could follow most things I could lead. Later, he spent a season or two as a ranger in the Tetons, before graduating from college with a geology degree. He eventually worked his way into a high position with an oil company, based in Ankorage, Alaska. In the early '90's he had just finished developing a new technology or protocol for a more efficient and environmentally sound way to extract oil from the gound - which would cut out a middle-man step - when his home was broken into in the middle of the night, Dave was beaten so severely that he suffered brain-damage that he never recovered from, and his computer was stolen with all the pertinent data and info on the process he'd developed. We theorise that the "middle-man" company had hired the thugs to do this, but nothing was ever proven. A real mystery and tragedy.

there is no hand of the historian here.

which is why i find this assemblage so compelling.

to be clear what is compelling is only rarely the scans in and of themselves. rather, what makes this list, for the most part, worth celebrating, are the conversations that come out of them.

and hate him or love him in his role as a "historian", Grossman deserves credit for starting what are an incredible series of online conversations...

if that last line can be agreed to, then we can move past, what is to me an irrelevant part of this specific thread and discuss how best to handle copyright...

while i, as stated, have my own views regarding copyright, i also think respect in small communities is important, and i think something like what zBrown has suggested may be a worthwhile middle ground solution and something that i would be willing to contribute to - and possibly organize.

obviously i won't do it alone, and would need enough other individuals to share in the grunt work for that to be an option that i'd contribute to...

so specifically to you and madbolter1, do you see value in this assemblage or no? if you do, would you be willing to work with me in securing permissions so that this can step out of the grey and be legitimized?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Dec 29, 2014 - 12:33pm PT

Nah000, I don't know your real name. If I did, I'd use it. Let me assure you that my "invective" post was not about you. I understand what you are doing by compiling the threads. In fact, there was no "invective" at all. Some sarcasm, yes (again, not directed at you). The fact that my post followed yours did not mean that it was a response to you in particular. And tone is plenty hard to convey in this sort of context.

Regarding "invective...."

Whaaaat??? "Get off" on waterboarding??? Beheading???

So, nah000, why not hit up Ghost for "inflammatory invective"? HIS sort of comments are okey-dokey, but I play with a little sarcasm in response to that sort of flagrant crap, and that's "invective?"

No, Ghost gets a pass, followed then by others encouraging Steve along this illegal path.

Whatever. It is to laugh, and I do. Let's get to cases....

We like Steve.

if you've paid attention to what i've posted in the past, you'd know this wasn't a factor, either to the positive or to the negative... ha.

We like reading this stuff.

again, this didn't have anything to do with it.

Actually, the people that like Steve (again, my post was not directed at you) DO give him a pass, even when he's demonstrably off base, as in this very case. Your replies are again and again making it out that I was responding to you, while I was not. I was responding to a general tone and approach on this thread, not to mention a general forum-wide lack of respect for property rights. This thread is a microcosm of the forum in general, where more people posting clearly have not thought through the nature of property rights and instead just have a general, superficial notion of "fair distribution". So, don't personalize my response. It was not at you.

because we don't even think the law is 'legit' in the first place

do you think copyright laws as they currently stand are "correct" in all current cases, given the new technologies we now have? as i argued above, just as new technologies have made it necessary to rethink copyright laws in the past, the internet and the potential for "free" distribution makes it necessary to rethink them now.

That was the first part of my post that responded to you directly, and I'll get to that in a moment, along with your notion of "civil disobedience."

it's quite apparent from your style of argument that you think you are the only one who thinks sufficiently deep about questions such as these.

it is your undoing in effecting the changes you believe in...

I don't think I'm the "only one," but in point of fact I actually have thought through (and written on) these issues in a professional capacity at a level of both depth and breadth exceeded by most people at the taco stand. If I speak with a bit of "authority" it is because I actually do know what I'm talking about and can back it up with credentials and demonstrable professional history.

Regarding my "undoing in effecting the changes...," kudos for using "effecting" correctly. I'm serious. Most people can't seem to keep "effect" and "affect" straight!

However, I'm not trying to "effect changes." I have zero capacity to do that. All I can do is present the facts in various ways and with various tones. People that read the facts and get all hung up on "tone" or some such thing, and so feel free to ignore the facts... well, as I say, I've seen plenty enough of that throughout the course of my life. That's the human condition. We typically "go" with what we like and that feels good to us rather than committing to go where the facts actually lead.

Civil Disobedience

Okay, this is actually a substantive idea. It doesn't work in this context because what Steve is doing (and others are encouraging) does not meet the criteria (a la Martin Luther King Jr.), which are at a minimum:

* Unjust law -- The law being disobeyed must be an unjust law that violates the rights (typically civil rights) of a subset of the population, thus being in violation of the "equal protection" principle. A law is not unjust simply because you and others don't like it. The point of the rule of law is that at any given moment we are bound to obey laws that we don't like or think are not well composed.

* Principled disobedience -- When you appeal to "civil disobedience," you are committing to thoroughgoing, intentional, and systematic disobedience. You then do not cherry pick when you will obey and when you will disobey, as (typically) a matter of convenience. If you think that copyright laws are actually unjust (see above), then you must go commit the utter and complete disobedience of copyright law. Your argument that "i think an arbitrary copyright period of author's life + 70 years, is absurd if applied in all cases" rises to neither the "unjust" nor "principled" criteria.

* Seeking the punishment -- This is a tough one, but it clearly distinguishes the wannabes from the truly civilly disobedient. The POINT to genuine civil disobedience is PROTEST! The goal is to present your case to the court of public opinion BY arousing outrage at your punishment due to your disobedience of an unjust law. You seek to effect fundamental change or abandonment of an unjust law by demonstrating the INJUSTICE of your punishment. Again, the black civil rights movement (think Rosa Parks, et al) provide classic examples of this principle, while just blithely disobeying this or that copyright law you don't happen to like are not examples at all.

* Making it public -- This point corresponds to the point just above, but it explicitly emphasizes the reformatory aspect of the disobedience. You don't just steal copyrighted material to "disobey," even if the theft itself is public. What you must do instead is contact the authorities and say, "Look, come get me! This is what I'm doing." You contact the media and attempt to make your PUBLIC case to them, engaging them in the process of your punishment. You turn punishment into PUBLIC protest.

These are the minimum criteria of genuine civil disobedience, and you see ALL of them employed in the civil rights movement. Steve's scanning and posting of copyrighted materials qualify under NONE of these.

If you wish to change copyright laws, there are mechanisms and procedures for doing so that are themselves within the law. Meanwhile, as you noted, there is some arbitrariness to the laws; but wherever YOU would draw the lines would also include some arbitrariness. That's the nature of such laws, and that fact makes such laws neither unjust nor worthy of cherry-picked disobedience. So, while working to change the laws to more reflect where you would happen to draw the lines, you comply with the laws as they are. The whole point to the rule of law is that you obey UNLESS you can rise to the standards of genuine civil disobedience.

The Federalist Papers devote around half of the spilled ink to discussions of property rights in an effort to show how the Articles of Confederation were utterly inadequate to protect property rights. Most of the responses from the Anti-Federalists granted the importance of the subject but were concerned to limit the power of the federal government WHILE still enabling it to protect property rights. My point is that there was absolutely nothing more important to ALL of the founders than the protection of property rights. And the fact that intellectual property is more "abstract" than, say, a house does not make our rights to that property any less pressing. Indeed, it can well be argued that intellectual property is the sort most in need of protection, as it is the "closest" to "us" of all of our property!

You argue that no real harm is being done. But you can't say that. The reason such lengthy periods of time are associated with intellectual property is just because it is SO hard to project into the future what later use may be made of the property, what movie may be made, what book may later expand upon an interview, and so forth. It is often the case that a later use was literally unimaginable at the time a work was copyrighted, and it often takes decades for such uses to play out.

Practical Suggestions

I'm not just off on a theoretical harangue here. There are practical ways that this particular matter could be handled in keeping with the law and that would demonstrate respect for any potential future use.

* Fair Use -- The scans could be of a few "leading" paragraphs, the intent of which is to draw interested readers into getting hold of the entire original. The point of fair use is to point people TO the original. Steve (and you) could be making people aware of the existence of the material, which is a worthy service in its own right.

* Citation -- Coupled with fair use would be proper citation, making it easy for people to contact the rights-holder directly. If the small, partial scans included explicit linkage to the editor of the magazine, for example, that also encourages people to contact the rights-holder directly to obtain the full copy.

* Access -- Ideally, for a project like you envision, you want people to have ready access to the full material, and you want to do so without violating copyright. More on that just below.

Here is just one suggestion (there are many permutations and entirely other ideas that could be worked out):

Steve wants to act as the grand librarian for the climbing community. Fine. Let him use NACHOS or NARCHA or whatever it is to provide a single clearinghouse for exactly the sort of fair-use, properly-cited snippets I've just described. He could spend some of the donation money I'm sure is rolling in to seek explicit permission from the copyright holders to post the entire articles when possible. Where such permission cannot be obtained, he could provide a "petition" page on his site that enables users to quickly "sign a petition" and with a click have it sent off to the copyright holder requesting that that material be released for republication on the site (along with an explicit listing of what rights would be granted). Thus, there would be a true "omnibus" site that provided as much full-material as can LEGALLY be obtained, while providing an easy means for people to seek the relevant permissions in the cases where a copyright holder is reticent.

As it is, what Steve is being applauded for is literally and sheer intellectual and procedural laziness. Nah000, I don't fault you for your compilation! You are simply trying to provide the very sort of list that our "librarian in chief" claims that NARCHA is all about in the first place. But the taco stand is not the place for it, for the reasons given above, if concern for the law is really any serious consideration. Having a hot scanner is NOT ground for applause. It is ground for rebuke and for encouraging participants to raise the bar. We CAN do better, and we should. The REAL work in such librarian efforts is not in keeping the scanner hot. The REAL work is in doing it legally.

nah000

climber

no/w/here

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2014 - 12:51pm PT

madbolter1:

thanks for the response.

it looks like we have an old fashioned cross-posting essay-off... haha.

since i beat you by a few minutes, i'l let you respond to what i most recently wrote, given that it was based on new information, before i respond to what you've written.

cheers to all!

MSmith

Big Wall climber

Portland, Oregon

Dec 29, 2014 - 12:54pm PT

Nah000, thanks for the de-escalating tone of your last post.

--Mark

edit: this refers to what is now your longer, next-to-last post

the albatross

Gym climber

Flagstaff

Dec 29, 2014 - 01:11pm PT

Thanks for the compilation, nah000.

I am pleased to see the discussion that follows, as well.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Dec 29, 2014 - 01:16pm PT

Nah000... MUCH appreciated. Thank you very much.

and hate him or love him in his role as a "historian", Grossman deserves credit for starting what are an incredible series of online conversations...

Absolutely. Credit where credit is due: Steve certainly has invested some significant time into his librarian efforts, and I say that with exactly zero sarcasm.

I cannot give credit when Steve touts himself as a "historian," which he absolutely is not. And I profoundly question his capacity to even act as a compiler, for the very reasons (among many others) that we have been discussing on this thread. A hot scanner is not actually the hard work.

We ARE a community, and the taco stand actually has gained some international (and mainstream) exposure. We the community represent our values before an increasingly watching world.

I do see tremendous value in the compilation efforts that Steve (and you) have worked toward. Our shared history literally defines us, and our community engagement deeply matters to most of us. That is exactly why so much of Mark's and my past history with this very community was painful. That is also why it is SO critical that that history be even "compiled" without bias and with an eye trained to honesty and factuality to the extent possible. So, yes, I applaud the compilation efforts! I am also deeply suspicious of the compiler!

There are ways to get over the legal hurdles, and I do hope we rise to that challenge.

Thank you again, most sincerely, for your efforts both in compilation and in this very thread.

Messages 1 - 20 of total 23 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Return to Forum List

Our Guidebooks

Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles

The Kohala Ditch Trail: 36ish hrs on foot... to and from the headwaters. [5 of 5]
May 31, 2019; 11:57pm
A Winter Traverse of the California section of the PCT Part 8
May 31, 2019; 10:05pm
Supertopo,A trip report for posterity
May 18, 2019; 7:33am
Balch Fest 2013. Two Days in and Around and On The Flake. The Official Trip Report
Nov 18, 2013; 8:22pm
TR: My visit to the Canoe
Aug 14, 2006; 12:29am
View more trip reports >

Recent Route Beta

El Capitan, West Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 30, 2019
Half Dome, Regular Northwest Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 18, 2019
El Capitan, West Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 17, 2019
El Capitan, Pacific Ocean Wall Base
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Mar 31, 2019
Mescalito South, Cat in the Hat
Red Rocks, Nevada USA, Mar 16, 2019
View more route beta >