Snomo in couloir

Mr Oker,
Did you really not get that? I think that nothing from WMC would be beyond your personal contempt and criticism based on your previous posts.

Please do not make this into a personal agenda with Mr. Oker, stick to discussing the issues please.

I am gonna cronie up with Alisa on this one... I find "WMC's" rhettoric to be too much 'us vs them'.

I also agree with Oker, though I am not one of SCotsman's henche men. At times "WMC's" agenda seem vague and ever changing. How can you get on board a ship who's course you are not sure of? Or you don't know who is captaining? Pick a destination and stick with it! aye?

Most appalling fo all.... who the heck uses Nelly Furtado for a sled head soundtrack?!?!?

Most appalling fo all.... who the heck uses Nelly Furtado for a sled head soundtrack?!?!?

THIS.

Far more damaging than the sound of 2-stroke in the wilderness.

<snip>The point was also being made that there are discussions of social conflict in the snowy backcountry that are discussed here on TAY. Did you really not get that? I think that nothing from WMC would be beyond your personal contempt and criticism based on your previous posts. Now you could just censor WMC apparently, Moderator.<snip>

I do not understand what leads you to bring up concern about censorship - if something in one or more of my posts has led to that, feel free to bring it up in a PM or a direct reply here.

As I've noted on the forum in the past, I believe that you are raising some valid concerns (including challenging some of your more strident detractors regarding the notion that skiers have "equal access" in the areas of concern and so should simply be satisfied), and I would support a reasonably scoped proposal, but that I saw what I'd seen proposed thus far as a bit of an over reach. I hardly feel "personal contempt," but I'm sorry if somehow I managed to give you that impression by not agreeing wholesale with your stance.

And yes, I do get that. I was simply trying to point out that if you are concerned about respectful discussion and want to avoid distractions, you might want to choose your words a bit more carefully so as to model a respectful and focused discussion (and so as to avoid disenfranchising those who you would hope to have join forces with you). But you are more than welcome to disregard my input, and I'm open to the possibility that your approach to inspiring action on this issue may be more effective than is readily apparent to me. I suppose it is possible that poking folks in the eye with a stick (i.e. implying that folks are ignoring important issues while wasting effort on pee in the skin track etc.) is an effective way to get them to buy into your thinking.

I do not understand what leads you to bring up concern about censorship - if something in one or more of my posts has led to that, feel free to bring it up in a PM or a direct reply here.

As I've noted in the past, I believe that you are raising some valid concerns (including challenging some of your more strident detractors regarding the notion that skiers have "equal access" in the areas of concern and so should simply be satisfied), and I would support a reasonably scoped proposal, but that I saw what I'd seen proposed thus far as a bit of an over reach. I hardly feel "personal contempt," but I'm sorry if somehow I managed to give you that impression by not agreeing wholesale with your stance.

And yes, I do get that. I was simply trying to point out that if you are concerned about respectful discussion and want to avoid distractions, you might want to choose your words a bit more carefully so as to model a respectful and focused discussion (and so as to avoid disenfranchising those who you would hope to have join forces with you). But you are more than welcome to disregard my input, and I'm open to the possibility that your approach to inspiring action on this issue may be more effective than is readily apparent to me. I suppose it is possible that poking folks in the eye with a stick is an effective way to get them to buy into your thinking.

Well those are some gracious words that imply integrity so I thank you, sincerely, for that.

I will leave it up to you and others who may want meaningful conversation and I would attempt to reply but there seems to be the pattern of endless nitpicking and faux-civil passive aggression and other aggression. And I respond in my own way at times...Many times here I was carefully civil while other stuff was flung back. No tone or approach goes without the ridiculous retorts and attacks by some.

My language is what it is, it is quite toned down here. Really I had hoped to have some meaningful conversation here and we could give each other slack- I could also- but some here just want to derail the conversation and attack this poster. I am fine with defending and hitting back, but that is not OK.

It is up to folks here whether to have meaningful conversation or just continuous meaningless stuff...

Thank you, there has been some good here, and we thank the individuals who have contacted us in the past and recently in support of Wenatchee Mountains Coalition Proposals for significant winter non-motorized areas..

A few thoughts, for what little they're likely worth. I don't think it helps to drop to or even towards the level of others when they're dropping below your own standards for constructive dialog (which I assume is part of what you are trying to drive here). My input has been shared in the spirit of giving feedback on what might lead me to be more likely to support a WMC proposal (and no, I'm not going to forge my own proposal - I have other causes that take my time and mental energy, so this falls more into the "would support if I bought into what's being proposed category" for me). I perceive that the majority (but certainly not all) of the other posters here have given input in a similar vein.

As for "meaningless stuff," in my experience, the more you bring up these sorts of meta-discussions such as whether people are focusing on meaningful topics on the forum, the more the thread is likely to dwell there instead of focusing on the substance (e.g. whether your most recent suggestion of a protected area with associated new sno-park is both practical to implement and considered desirable by enough folks to spark a bit more support from the vocal posters here).