Appalachian Trail record-setter says Baxter State Park officials 'vilifying' him - Pr

[BirdBrain]

I stand by what I said there, BB, and how I said it, which I took care in phrasing. Your example proves my point.

I have given you credit for your analysis of this situation. You have shown ability to cut through much of the crap. I am loath to assume intent. It is hard not to assume intent when you "took care in your phrasing". There are many ways to convey a thought. If I say that Mount Washington is the highest mountain on the AT, obviously that statement is not true. However, if you say "You are not telling the truth" vs "That statement is not accurate" or "you are mistaken" or "your belief is incorrect" or "actually Clingmans Dome is the highest peak at 6643'" you will provoke different emotions. The average Joe would hear "you are lying" if faced with the first phrasing. I am going to give you enough credit to know that. You "took care in your phrasing". Furthermore, you read my reply that included that it does not prove intent to deceive. That was in response to your careful phrasing. My point is true and accurate and you know that. I do not believe an analytical person like you would miss that point. It is hard to not believe that because you "took care in your phrasing" that you did not chose the most provocative phrasing. This seems out of character for you. I believe you are trying to portray Bissell in the worst possible light, to borrow a phrase. I am not going to debate any of the other points further with a lawyer. There is no profit in it. We are not in court here. I have enjoyed the analysis that comes with skills and abilities. I will not enjoy it if we debate further.

[Traveler]

Your approach is also to refuse to address Scott's statements, to admit that he might be telling the truth. By your lights, his telling the truth in this case is either impossible or irrelevant.

But I'll pose you the question directly so you can't say you weren't given the chance. Do you think it's possible Scott's account of his and his party's interaction with BSP personnel is true? Ball's in your court, Traveler.

I do not violate Park regulations wherever I am, be it BSP, North Cascades NP, Acadia NP, or where ever. When faced with a citation, most people will claim innocence or conversation that provided permission. If there was a wrong here the citation should provide the day in court to demonstrate the capricious nature of the citation.

Is it possible? Sure, so is big foot and space aliens. However if your opinion is that being told to keep the booze away from families and children was a full waiver of any rules, then we are back to opinion.

Since this is obviously very important to you to win this, I tell you what. You win, I lose. There. Done. Thanks for playing!

[BirdBrain]

But I'll pose you the question directly so you can't say you weren't given the chance. Do you think it's possible Scott's account of his and his party's interaction with BSP personnel is true? Ball's in your court, Traveler.

Not might fight. However, I assume Scott is telling the truth. That does not mean that Denico is not telling the truth or that hearsay conveyed by Scott about alcohol approval is true. People make assumptions based on allegiances. I see the possibility of all parties being honest, but possibly inaccurate. Some of that honesty can be calculated to avoid other facts that do not help their side. I assume neither party went into this with malice. I assume Scott was not told directly. I assume Scott's sponsor's were told directly. I do not know if Scott's sponsors told Scott. I cannot imagine why they would withhold that though. I assume Scott was exhausted and went with the moment and had no part in the planning of the alcohol. Those assumptions are based in taking people at their word. Other people are making assumptions based on emotion or intent or prejudice. I know he sprayed alcohol everywhere. I know that is a violation. We have absolute proof of that fact. Any dedicated leave no trace person should be able to grasp the danger of celebrators spraying sugary beverages on a remote peak... time after time as they finish their self absorbed accomplishment. The yellow jackets they attract to the spot by repeated contamination in a specific and popular and remote spot is real. His actions were illegal and irresponsible. He should man up on that. He has not.

[Driver8]

[QUOTE=BirdBrain;1994091]It is hard to not believe that because you "took care in your phrasing" that you did not chose the most provocative phrasing. This seems out of character for you. I believe you are trying to portray Bissell in the worst possible light, to borrow a phrase.[/I]

I've posted in another thread that I am skeptical of Bissell's story and believe Scott is telling the truth. Bissell's positon reeks of plausible deniability and overreach of authority. I agree at this is probably forced on him by funders or meddlesome threats of litigation. I agree with you that I was pushing my point, but I did have a genuine point and stand by it.

[rickb]

I do not violate Park regulations wherever I am, be it BSP, North Cascades NP, Acadia NP, or where ever.

It's not just the citation, but how the "Headlines" we're crafted for public consumption-- to shame Jurek to the greatest extent possible:

• He was a litter bug (we only learned this was because of Champagne spry days later)
• he was guilty of violating State Alcohol laws. Yikes! (Not that he took a pull from a celebratory bottle handed to him by another inspirational individual)
• He was in violation of hiking in an illegally large group (Not that he was cited for being with 2 people over the 12 person limit, and that the extra two Mitch be tag alongs.

This strategy was worthy of the NFL, and speaks volumes regarding the people crafting it. By the time the truth is made known, the damage is largely done.

[Driver8]

Since this is obviously very important to you to win this, I tell you what. You win, I lose. There. Done.

I don't see this as a game but rather want to find out what the truth was here, as best we can understand. Approaching it as a game to win or lose gets in the way of that. If it's just a game to be won or lost, the truth doesn't matter. If that's your approach to discussions like this, that's a bigger difference between us than where we happen to stand on this specific issue.

[jdx1177]

I fully agree with that point. If groupies are part of Baxter's calculations, that is insane. However, I believe the group Scott claims as less than 12 does not include his film crew. That is equally insane. I could be wrong about that. I am not trying to deceive though. My point is it seemed to me that D8 was implying that BSP approved a group larger than 12 when Scott states that he registered within the limit of 12. I am making no claim on group size. I am simply stating both cannot be true.

I'm pretty sure in Scott's blog response he says that the film crew was not his or commissioned by him. I think he said they were independent and came out several times to film some of his thru

[BirdBrain]

[QUOTE=Driver8;1994121]

It is hard to not believe that because you "took care in your phrasing" that you did not chose the most provocative phrasing. This seems out of character for you. I believe you are trying to portray Bissell in the worst possible light, to borrow a phrase.[/I]

I've posted in another thread that I am skeptical of Bissell's story and believe Scott is telling the truth. Bissell's positon reeks of plausible deniability and overreach of authority. I agree at this is probably forced on him by funders or meddlesome threats of litigation. I agree with you that I was pushing my point, but I did have a genuine point and stand by it.

Well that confirms my suspicion. You intended to call Bissell a liar. I am certain that attitude of presumption is useful to certain clients. I am not going to assume anyone is lying until there is proof.

[Driver8]

Well that confirms my suspicion. You intended to call Bissell a liar. I am certain that attitude of presumption is useful to certain clients. I am not going to assume anyone is lying until there is proof.

I did not intend to call him a liar, otherwise I would have used that word. I am very skeptical of his position and have been upfront about that. If that angers you, I regret that, but your feelings are yours to deal with. Baxter is understandably a hot button with you, and your strong feelings influence how you interpret this discussion. Appreciated and understood. This topic has some well worn ruts in it by now. Probably time to graze in other pastures.

[rocketsocks]

[IMG]http://www.*************************/wcf/images/smilies/sip.gif[/IMG]

[rocketsocks]

sip.gif.....................

[BirdBrain]

I did not intend to call him a liar, otherwise I would have used that word. I am very skeptical of his position and have been upfront about that. If that angers you, I regret that, but your feelings are yours to deal with. Baxter is understandably a hot button with you, and your strong feelings influence how you interpret this discussion. Appreciated and understood. This topic has some well worn ruts in it by now. Probably time to graze in other pastures.

Don't waffle now. We parsed that chosen phrasing to death. Any reasonable reading of that parsing removes all doubt of intent. And don't bring a red herring into this specific point. I respect Bissell less each day. Baxter does not equal Bissell. Baxter will go on long after Bissell dies. I got ruffled over an ignorant person being called a liar. I would have a similar reaction if you said it about Scott... and I am speaking the truth.

[BirdBrain]

I'm pretty sure in Scott's blog response he says that the film crew was not his or commissioned by him. I think he said they were independent and came out several times to film some of his thru

Do you find that a credible stance? Don't get excited folks. I am asking a question, not making a statement.

[rgarling]

Do you find that a credible stance? Don't get exciting folks. I am asking a question, not making a statement.

Absolutely. Lots of people were interested in the finish.

[jdx1177]

Do you find that a credible stance? Don't get excited folks. I am asking a question, not making a statement.

Yes I kinda do. Again I haven't gone back to re-read the blog but I believe he also said that they were also filming other athletes in different disciplines for a larger project, not just one about him.
Scott has given me no reason to doubt him or his intentions yet. I haven't seen any contradictory statements coming from his camp. As far as BSP or whatever employee is representing them(I don't see how you separate the two) did release information that contradicts actual evidence. I'm referring to the fact that BSP stated he was fined on the summit when there is pretty clear photographic evidence to the contrary. To me this directly speaks to BSPs integrity not Scott's.

Now for some pure speculation.... I would think that if Scott was looking for this to be an exploitive money making venture that he could have made a much bigger spectacle out of the whole hike, I'd imagine any marketing/publicity intern at one of his sponsors could have done a better job promoting it than he did. I feel he played it fairly low key overall.

[Another Kevin]

I'm pretty sure in Scott's blog response he says that the film crew was not his or commissioned by him. I think he said they were independent and came out several times to film some of his thru

Do you find that a credible stance? Don't get excited folks. I am asking a question, not making a statement.

Absolutely. A publication like Runner's World or Outside could be reasonably expected to cover such a feat for its own benefit - stories such as this sell advertising.

I am, however, not sure whether he may not be vicariously liable for their behaviour, on the grounds that his presence and the publicity attached to his attempt incited their misbehaviour. But for him, they would not have been there.

I suppose that a farther stretch could hold that since he sought publicity, their presence to report on him created an agency relationship - qui facit per alium facit per se.

Or it could be that he neglected an affirmative duty to prevent them from violating the rules. This last possibility is highly unlikely. Ordinarily, a member of the general public has no legal duty to stop crimes in progress, nor to report misdemeanours. Some states have specific laws requiring bystanders to report felonies, or crimes that result in serious bodily injury or death, or crimes committed against children, but none of those appear to apply here, unless the actions of the media were sufficiently damaging as to constitute aggravated criminal mischief. and Maine still has a misprision statute.

[BirdBrain]

Scott has given me no reason to doubt him .....

I am thankful that there is a general agreement in that regard. There is little debate about that point.

[Driver8]

... and I am speaking the truth.

As you see it. Peace be with you. This is going nowhere.

[Traveler]

I don't see this as a game but rather want to find out what the truth was here, as best we can understand. Approaching it as a game to win or lose gets in the way of that. If it's just a game to be won or lost, the truth doesn't matter. If that's your approach to discussions like this, that's a bigger difference between us than where we happen to stand on this specific issue.

lol cute. I just tired of you making it personal and ascribing positions, thoughts, or motivations to me that I don't have. Besides, the kerfuffle is pretty well beat to death, even the horse came back to life and said it was enough.

[TD55]

At some point someone is going to have to determine the definition of commercialization of the trail and select ways to control and limit that commercialization. Some in authority may conclude that a "no broken windows" doctrine is best. That means enforce all regulations with no exceptions.
AT hiker behavior has changed dramatically over the years. Those aren't all old Boy Scouts and veterans out there anymore enjoying nature and some peace and quite. Portions of the trail have simply become urbanized.