And this response regarding "stakeholders," when sandia appears to have gone by pizzaman, from 5.28.09


Originally Posted By: pizzaman
"Too bad the U.S. didn't have more civilized, English-type access laws, so we could avoid the squawking from lord-of-the manor types.

GCC may have its head up the a** of local land managers, who have their heads up the a** of local to-the-manor-born types, bird-watching zillionaire board members, gentlemen climbers, etc., (all of whom Spatz once described to me, in zombie zoning board staff-speak, as "stakeholders") --- none of whom put a priority on the interests of the poor, dumb-a** non-resident climber scum."


Good evening, Pizzaman,

Having never recalled using the word "stakeholders" in conversation or in print, I'd would be pleased to learn otherwise. If I remember correctly, you did take exception to my use of "mitigation" regarding efforts to remind users of the MUA to follow the posted rules.

Since the GCC has a long record of supporting efforts to keep the MUA open, including offering to pay for port-a-johns, doing trail and campsite maintenance, and reminding climbers that responsible stewardship of the MUA is the best defense against the campground's closure, I'm not sure how this could be construed as bowing to monied interests or not advocating on behalf of average climbers, as I explained at the end of this thread:

http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/29447/MUA_camping#Post29447
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.