Snow Creek ascent 3/17/09

[AlanK]

I think that FIGHT ON has made his point (over and over and over and over). When he breaks the law, he puts things back, albeit without accepting any consequences for his actions. In order to be consistent, he needs to request that people doing the Snow Creek route put their footsteps back.

OK, now maybe FIGHT ON can move to his next, and far more serious crusade. He'll be leading the campaign here on the San Jacinto Board to make people stop exceeding the speed limits on the roadways. We can be sure that he never speeds, so only he is holy enough to lead this important crusade.

[halhiker]

Civil disobedience doesn't have to be big orchestrated protests; it can be small acts of knowingly disobeying unjust laws. I think the laws regarding Snow Creek are unjust and while quite low on the level of importance, they are still worthy of consideration.

I agree with Perry that the Water District is trying to ignore the situation and if people are not blatantly challenging the status quo then they will not up their enforcement level.

Also, can we get some kind of universal health care so FO can get the medication that he needs?

[Andy]

As long as we're in confession, I still talk on my cell phone when driving. "looking over shoulder for SWAT team"

[zippetydude]

Andy: I understand about the driving, can't say I don't answer it once in a while myself, although I try not to. The ones I really can't understand are people who hike while on the cell phone...it's really none of my business, since they're not hiking with me, but somehow I alway shake my head. It just seems wrong to my antiquated system of beliefs.

FIGHT ON: A point of distinction. If the property were owned by a private party, say for example you, and you had signs saying No Tresspassing, well, I'd respect that. Your reasons could be completely arbitrary, but that wouldn't bother me, because it's your property.

But any time a governmental entity, which is supposed to represent me (or us, as hikers and fellow citizens) places a restriction on how we use what is ultimately our property, I tend to respect the purpose of the restriction and make sure I don't violate that (I don't litter or pee in streams) but I don't hold the agency's rules with the same regard I do with an individual's private property.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I am curious if you distinguish those points. Similarly, I don't see this specific instance of trespassing as being any different from deliberately speeding, as others have mentioned. Do you?

z

[EnFuego]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder

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

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with both of you. In my expert opinion, I think Fight On merely suffers from "Faecal Encephalopathy". It's possible he may have a slight variation which could include "Cranio-Rectal Syndrome" or "Cranial Rectosis".

In lay man's term, he simply has shit for brains or in the latter diagnosis, he merely has his head up his ass.

[bluerail]

....saturday I slipped onto the tram going down without paying. There, now I feel better.

[Zé]

but Fight On is now illegally stamping register logs. and promoting the idea that it's okay on the internet!

[FIGHT ON]

but Fight On is now illegally stamping register logs. and promoting the idea that it's okay on the internet!

Johioseph! You gotta attend one of our ULBC seminars!
Don't pay any attention to your conscience dude. Guilt, is like carrying around a bag of bricks. All ya gotta do is set em down.

[FIGHT ON]

Andy: I understand about the driving, can't say I don't answer it once in a while myself, although I try not to. The ones I really can't understand are people who hike while on the cell phone...it's really none of my business, since they're not hiking with me, but somehow I alway shake my head. It just seems wrong to my antiquated system of beliefs.

FIGHT ON: A point of distinction. If the property were owned by a private party, say for example you, and you had signs saying No Tresspassing, well, I'd respect that. Your reasons could be completely arbitrary, but that wouldn't bother me, because it's your property.

But any time a governmental entity, which is supposed to represent me (or us, as hikers and fellow citizens) places a restriction on how we use what is ultimately our property, I tend to respect the purpose of the restriction and make sure I don't violate that (I don't litter or pee in streams) but I don't hold the agency's rules with the same regard I do with an individual's private property.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I am curious if you distinguish those points. Similarly, I don't see this specific instance of trespassing as being any different from deliberately speeding, as others have mentioned. Do you?

z

Zip, What I see is a guy gearing himself up to hike snow creek.
And choosing to suck into a way of thinking to justify trespassing.
If I owned the land and had the same restrictions you would not trespass?

[KathyW]

I think we should agree to disagree on the trespassing issue and move on to more interesting topics.