Open letter to Ebert

For the posting and discussion of Access Issues and Closures for Areas around South Africa.
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Open letter to Ebert

Post by justin »

Dear Ebert,

The recent article with the comments relating to 'Chosspile being closed to 99 9999% of south Africans’ has been taken down. This is due mostly to trash talk beginning and people posting anonymously.

Whilst I find the subject matter interesting, the amount of negativity (rather than discussion) is another reason that forced me to shut it down.
Should you wish to pursue this matter (and it would be great if you did). It is my opinion that you need to give this more thought and investigate the subject matter. Also be sure to look into how individuals, companies and clubs have invested in land over the many years (and not just in SA!).

FYI: Climbing is just one aspect of mountains, many hikers are also stopped from entering the mountains as well - get the hikers on your side and you’ll have a much stronger force behind you.

Then be sure to look into the property laws of South Africa. Individuals, organisations and companies own vast tracts of mountainside in SA. Like any landowner, they are entitled to bar access to their private property.
Just like you have the right to tell XYZ persons (or club member) to not come into (enter) your property where you live - your lawful right.

This may sound a little condescending, but if you want to make change, you need to go and do homework. I say this to you as someone who knows just a tiny bit more than you do.

To close on this:
You’re shouting the odds, making claims (some maybe true, some maybe false) and just every once in a while you say something that makes a good point (like a politician). You seem to be having trouble bringing your matter to a point where it can be taken seriously (and you have some really stupid followers/supporters saying some really dumb sh!t too - not helping your cause!).
Should you choose to submit an article I can assist by disabling comments thereby stopping the dumb comments (made by anonymous people).

I am interested to hear if you have you ever been involved in negotiations to gain access to an area (closed or not)?

Again, I’m happy to discuss with you further. You can respond by mail me or call me.

Sincerely,
Justin

This post will be locked and no one will be able to respond.
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
User avatar
Forket
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:34 pm
Real Name: Everyday Troll

Open letter to Ebert?

Post by Forket »

That letter isn't very open when nobody can comment.

MCSA strong arms their way through another argument :pukel:

28 days till I write an open letter to National Newspapers regarding the inequality of the mountain access of South Africa. I'll make sure it gets to every province!

I know I need to do some homework:)

Ebert Nel
User avatar
Forket
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:34 pm
Real Name: Everyday Troll

Re: Open letter to Ebert?

Post by Forket »

Read below. You can not sweep this under the rug. The youth need to understand that the Mountain Club of South Africa isn't what it seems.

We want a fair shot at a permit for everyone!
Attachments
Screenshot_20200824-110448_Gallery.jpg
Screenshot_20200824-110448_Gallery.jpg (1.36 MiB) Viewed 4382 times
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert?

Post by justin »

Forket wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:19 am 28 days till I write an open letter to National Newspapers regarding the inequality of the mountain access of South Africa. I'll make sure it gets to every province!
I don't read the papers too much these days, did I miss it :!: :?: :?:

28 days till... not sure I can hold my breath this long Ebert! Please give us an update

p.s. I have unlocked the post
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
Logic
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 8:54 am

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Logic »

Priveleged white man refused membership to an exclusive, patriarchal (predominantly white) social club... cannot imagine anything more newsworthy.
AndrewV
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:40 pm
Real Name: Andrew Vermaak

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by AndrewV »

As an outsider not knowing any of the parties, or being an MCSA member, I've a question.

What makes you think it's ok to troll and repeatedly aggravate a club who has negotiated access to various areas, and then complain publicly when they refuse to accept your membership application?

I'm sure there are better ways to handle the situation? Based on the very limited info available and your admission of poor behavior towards the mcsa, any open letter you publish will not cast you in a favorable light.

Perhaps try find an alternative solution, coupled with an undertaking to cease trolling?
User avatar
Forket
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:34 pm
Real Name: Everyday Troll

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Forket »

Oh, so now, weeks later, the topic is open to discussion on climbza? :puker: fail

I compiled a 9000 word statement, explaining my case and sent it to the jhb chairperson, instead of creating a larger divide in our community, by making it public.

Read the MCSA Johannesburg and Magaliesberg constitution.

The committee members aren't acting in accordance to the mandate given to the public in their constitution and this needs to change.

Ebert Nel
AndrewV
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:40 pm
Real Name: Andrew Vermaak

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by AndrewV »

If MCSA committee members are falling short of their mandate, this then would be a matter for mcsa members to act on. MCSA has zero responsiblity or accountability to non members. As a non members, neither you nor I have a legitimate claim to prescribe to them how to act.

Seems youre in a bit of a predicament....
User avatar
Forket
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:34 pm
Real Name: Everyday Troll

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Forket »

The mandate given to the public in the JHB MCSA’s constitution states:
“…the sole object of promoting the interests of mountaineering primarily in South Africa on a non-professional basis as a recreational pastime conducting its activities for the benefit of the general public and making itself accessible thereto. In so doing, its objects, which are essentially the same as those of the Mountain Club of South Africa, inter alia shall include: to organise and facilitate mountaineering to procure and protect real rights in and access to mountains and mountain area”.

The National constitution of the MCSA contradicts that stating: “The MCSA offers mountaineering which includes climbing of all types and hiking opportunities to its members”.

It is essential to note that the national MCSA constitution also states that each MCSA section acts as its own entity (MCSA divisions are unique, legally) as the club is run by volunteers and these volunteers change yearly, thus the Constitution of MCSA divisions had been created to keep the volunteering committee members' decisions in line with why the club was created.

Some MCSA committee members are not acting in accordance to their constitution, neither to the factors enabling them to be a Public Benefits Organization. A Public Benefits Organization is tax-exempt and is legally bound to act in an altruistic or philanthropic manner, in layman’s terms “for the well-being of others”, as a non-profit entity, while the MCSA JHB & Magaliesberg constitution states “… for the sole object of promoting the interests of mountaineering, …for the benefit of the general public and making itself accessible thereto.”

The MCSA is not acting in accordance to their constitution.

I'm not arguing this on climbza, as topics are moderated, edited, merged, closed to commenting, etc. This is no longer a platform that encourages freedom of speech. Instead its become a platform that hosts bunch of naysayers that are disconnected from the outdoors and the community.

I'm not trolling! I'm creating awareness; encouraging people to open their eyes, look at what's happening in certain parts of our country and to stand up and say something about it. If its not fair and just towards the GENERAL PUBLIC, then you have the right to do something about it.

Ebert Nel
Chris F
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Chris F »

If you don't like the way the forum is run, why are you still posting?

If someone is forcing you to post against your will, just cough 3 times, and we'll send the police round.
User avatar
Thermophage
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:03 am
Real Name: Cuan Lohrentz
Location: Cape Town

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Thermophage »

Forket wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:35 pm The mandate given to the public in the JHB MCSA’s constitution states:
“…the sole object of promoting the interests of mountaineering primarily in South Africa on a non-professional basis as a recreational pastime conducting its activities for the benefit of the general public and making itself accessible thereto. In so doing, its objects, which are essentially the same as those of the Mountain Club of South Africa, inter alia shall include: to organise and facilitate mountaineering to procure and protect real rights in and access to mountains and mountain area”.

The National constitution of the MCSA contradicts that stating: “The MCSA offers mountaineering which includes climbing of all types and hiking opportunities to its members”.

It is essential to note that the national MCSA constitution also states that each MCSA section acts as its own entity (MCSA divisions are unique, legally) as the club is run by volunteers and these volunteers change yearly, thus the Constitution of MCSA divisions had been created to keep the volunteering committee members' decisions in line with why the club was created.

Some MCSA committee members are not acting in accordance to their constitution, neither to the factors enabling them to be a Public Benefits Organization. A Public Benefits Organization is tax-exempt and is legally bound to act in an altruistic or philanthropic manner, in layman’s terms “for the well-being of others”, as a non-profit entity, while the MCSA JHB & Magaliesberg constitution states “… for the sole object of promoting the interests of mountaineering, …for the benefit of the general public and making itself accessible thereto.”

The MCSA is not acting in accordance to their constitution.

I'm not arguing this on climbza, as topics are moderated, edited, merged, closed to commenting, etc. This is no longer a platform that encourages freedom of speech. Instead its become a platform that hosts bunch of naysayers that are disconnected from the outdoors and the community.

I'm not trolling! I'm creating awareness; encouraging people to open their eyes, look at what's happening in certain parts of our country and to stand up and say something about it. If its not fair and just towards the GENERAL PUBLIC, then you have the right to do something about it.

Ebert Nel
I get you dude. I see it on the MTB forum as well. One cannot ask a question or query a big entity in any manner without being told they're trolling, no matter how polite or subdued one may approach it. And then shit get's moderated/censored as soon as anything gets heated. IMO, we need people to question things and clubs etc. Glad you are, even if one doesn't manage to achieve what they set out to, at the very least one will get some people to rethink their conclusions.
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by justin »

Forket wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:50 am Oh, so now, weeks later, the topic is open to discussion on climbza? :puker: fail
Forket wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:35 pm I'm not arguing this on climbza, as topics are moderated, edited, merged, closed to commenting, etc. This is no longer a platform that encourages freedom of speech. Instead its become a platform that hosts bunch of naysayers that are disconnected from the outdoors and the community.
On the subject of unlocking the topic (or rather locking it).
I am open to constructive arguing, however when offensive comments are put down and people stray from the subject matter it all gets out of hand. This is why I initially locked it down and asked you (Ebert) to respond (at which point I would be able to post your response up). I was (am constantly) trying for a healthier debate.

You then started another topic (2nd and 3rd post). So I merged them in here (above).

Yes, it is a thing that users are able to edit their posts (change their tune).
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by justin »

Forket wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:35 pm I'm not trolling! I'm creating awareness; encouraging people to open their eyes, look at what's happening in certain parts of our country and to stand up and say something about it. If its not fair and just towards the GENERAL PUBLIC, then you have the right to do something about it.
Did you get a response from the club?
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
User avatar
Forket
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:34 pm
Real Name: Everyday Troll

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Forket »

Actions speak louder than words.

As you've mentioned, the topics on this forum never follow the initial cast, so I'm not going to nibble of your fishing attempt any longer.

If the MCSA does not do anything regarding the 3 points I raised (points which are closest to home and in the public's best interests) I'll make it a public affair, when the club least wants/needs it.

Ebert Nel
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by justin »

Ok, what is the timeline that you have given the MCSA to respond to you?
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
User avatar
emile
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:41 am
Real Name: OneDog

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by emile »

Howzit

I have found in my life that the best solutions come from understanding the other party's viewpoints, so I force myself to try and seen all sides of a story. It's a work in progress, and sometimes it's hard work.

Ebert, you've created an image of yourself that's really hard to look past. You've gone out of your way to present to the world a brat that's testing the limits of free speech and tolerance.

And now you're throwing a vloer moer to get yourself heard, because in reality your cause is pretty mundane, there's no loss of life or livelihoods and people are tired of your s**t. I think most people just go "ah f@*$, not again" when your name pops up in the forum. Maybe you have a good point, maybe not, I find it really hard to want to read those long bits you posted above.

Your conduct is harming your cause more than you realise.
User avatar
emile
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:41 am
Real Name: OneDog

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by emile »

Actually, I want to add something to that.

Where I live now access restrictions are placed on areas from time to time for indefinite periods of time for various reasons.

There are grumblings about it, but it's respected....because uhm, respect.

I'm not sure of the mechanics but I gather it's not impossible to negotiate about the access. So the people who want it go about it carefully and respectfully.

I shudder to think what impression a person with your tactics (blatantly disregarding access arrangements and bragging about it) would leave here. The consequences would most likely be permanent access restrictions, because nature comes first, no questions.

You can hate the MCSA all you want, but in their way they are just trying to preserve something. You come along banging your war drums and pissing on everything will make any organisation think twice about letting you and your types in the gate.

Serious question: What would you do if a tribe who was forced from the land claims and wins back ownership of (for argument sake) Chosspile and bans access, because to them the mountain is sacred. Will you take this same approach to deal with them? Threaten them with newspaper articles and brag about sneaking in?
Marshall1
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:38 am
Real Name: Derek Marshall
Location: Port Elizabeth
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Marshall1 »

@ Emile, a tribe that wins back ownership probably does not have a constitution that says: “…the sole object of promoting the interests of mountaineering ... itself accessible thereto... its objects, which are... shall include: to organize and facilitate mountaineering to procure and protect real rights in and access to mountains and mountain area”. The tribe would not be hypocritical to its own constitution. Which would make it easier for The Others to swallow.

Justin clearly likes hearing from Ebert or needs the clicks for his advertising. I like hearing from Ebert. He has a view point, which is much more interesting than "I left my f@%^ing sunglasses at Silvermine".

The MCSA's greatest enemy is lack of interest & their memberships innate agility re snuffing-out fun. Unfortunately fighting them, stimulates them, which helps to keep the club ticking along.
User avatar
justin
Posts: 3923
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 am
Real Name: Justin Lawson
Location: Montagu/Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by justin »

Please: Language guys (trying to be family friendly over here)
Yes, I edited the naughty words out of your posts.

As above, IMO Emile and Derek both have valid points. Organisations, governments, etc need to be challenged from time to time, but there is no need to set fire to things in order to get their attention.

@Derek It's not the advertising, I promise!!!!

Arguing/challenging is acceptable and promotes growth, fighting does not.

I am now going away from my screen (up the mountain I might add).
Everyone please play nicely :cyclops: :cheese:
Climb ZA - Administrator
justin@climbing.co.za
User avatar
emile
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:41 am
Real Name: OneDog

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by emile »

Derek (and Ebert), I don't really care about the argument or constitution, I was trying to point out (apparently it was clumsy) that rethinking the approach might yield better results for this holy quest for freedom for all. Another viewpoint that might better the chances of success. Perception is reality.

I should probably just scroll by next time.

Cheers mother-naughtywords
:pirat:
Earl
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:14 am

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Earl »

I joined as a child, enjoyed decades of membership. This has nothing to do with age or money. It is all attitude. Ebert has long since proved he flouts the directives of fair use and progressive climbing community. I know it is tough being young and super talented, not to mention always right, but working against the people that got you to where you are is simply narcissistic. Maybe we should just rename him to Trumpet?
Old Smelly
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:21 pm

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Old Smelly »

I have compiled (and deleted) several responses to this nonsense and I must admit I am of the opinion that no response to him is best but that is also pointless -as some casual observer may think he is making a point and not behaving like a capricious self serving brat who cares only about himself and the attention he can garner from continually throwing tantrums and not listening to the rational responses he receives again and again...

NO I don't represent the MCSA and yes I have the facts - the Land Owner requires people who venture onto his land to belong to a club and the MCSA and the University Clubs are the ones he has approved - no amount of carping or posturing can change this - Chosspile is on Private Property and the MCSA is not controlling the land.

My opinion is that should a future employer read all of this they would hopefully garner some insight into the pathological problem that you have Ebert - that of behaving like a brat and threatening any form of authority - in this case a basically faceless organisation in the hope of gaining some form of community support for your history of Trespassing.

To this end I ask "What is your Real Objective?" WHAT IS IT THAT YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE?

*You are apparently living in the Western Cape - so why are you fighting for your supposed access to Chosspile? No real reason?
*Is it truly for access to some Private Property owned by a Farmer that you feel should be expropriated for Public Use? Is that what this is all really about?
*Or is the truth more about your need for attention and a personal Vendetta against a Private Club that should be allowed to admit who they like or not, as that is their privilege as a Club?
*Or are you trying to right some terrible wrong and just cannot articulate it?

I don't think you need to respond but you are welcome to - I certainly hope no one bothers to officially, based on it being a total waste of their time...
Really, its not that bad...I think it's my shoes...
User avatar
XMod
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Real Name: Greg Hart

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by XMod »

What Thermophage said.
I think Ebert raises some valid points, as much as members of the forum like to sh_t all over him as soon as he writes something (typical internet! :roll: ).

The club cannot claim to represent or govern climbers as a group nationally, the simple fact of the matter is that most climbers are not MCSA members. On the contrary, in my experiences with the club in the past, it is primarily focused on pursuing the best interests of it's members, which is fine, they are a club after all and one that is run on a voluntary basis. However they cannot then simultaneously claim to be acting in the interests of all climbers and they are most definitely not in a position to rule over the actions of non-member climbers.

As an example: The permit system for bolting new routes - the club has no authority to grant 'permission' to bolt a route. The permission has already been given by the park authorities for bolting at existing, recognised crags. I can assure you that the parks do not recognise the club as having any authority whatsoever over what happens on lands they manage - this from the horses mouth, so to speak. At best the 'permit system' is simply a record and registry of bolts that have been placed. It's great that the club has taken it upon themselves to perform that function but they do need to be realistic about the role they are actually performing within the system set in place.

It would appear to me that perhaps the club needs to review their constitution or live up to it. Certainly there seems to be grave misconceptions by some members as to the extent of their power and the direction in which their efforts should be aimed.

(Please note I am NOT anti-MCSA. They are a great club but they have in many cases overstepped the boundaries and in many other cases failed to live up the higher ideals upon which the club was founded. We are all human I guess so I don't expect everyone or thing to be perfect).
Trapsikies
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:31 am
Real Name: Cameleon

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Trapsikies »

justin wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:18 am Please: Language guys (trying to be family friendly over here)
Yes, I edited the naughty words out of your posts.
As sole Admin (presumably) you have a responsibility to do this in a manner that does not compromise the integrity of the form, but i fear that the lack of diversity shows.
You have your finger stuck deep in the pie and broadly speaking this form reflects only that of your own opinion and some of your fellow comrades in arms.

I believe Forket is trying to warn the climbing community of the autocratic powers that be and resolve issues that have effected him and his fellow climbers.

PS. You should consider paying Forket for the revenue he has accumulated as well as the audience he has sustained over the years. (This has been mentioned in the past)
User avatar
Nic Le Maitre
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:40 am
Real Name: Nic Le Maitre
Location: Stellenbosch

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Nic Le Maitre »

@Trapsikies: Justin isn't the only moderator, he's just the most active. I mostly just delete spam.

Back on topic:
@Ebert, if you want to join the MCSA, you can just join the CT section, pay your money, and you're in. Or if you find them too exclusive form your own club that can regulate (to some degree) its members and then approach Choss for access. The MCSA does need to change IMO, but that change will only come from within if it is driven by passionate members, not by people banging on the door and shouting.
Happy climbing
Nic
Old Smelly
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:21 pm

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by Old Smelly »

I wonder if any of you are literate sometimes...

No you cannot just start your own club to get access to Chosspile - the landowner was quite clear on that - only the clubs he agreed to -as he wants to be able to deal with recognised bodies he can hold responsible - for exactly the reasons Ebert has highlighted - to stop rebellious and random people from just doing whatever they like on his land...

I am also pretty sure every section has their own rules for new members joining and that they would look very carefully at known troublemakers...

As for the wording of the club constitution - there is a point that needs to be made for those of us who are literate - I can say that I will always act in the best interests of everyone except when it is harmful to myself and everyone will understand that this doesn't mean I am going to let everyone come live at my house... Yes my altruistic intention is to help EVERYONE - but in what way does that affect my rights...

So similarly I believe the MCSA can say they act in the best interests of all climbers, but where does this exclude protecting their right of access for their members and other climbers? Or if they try and set up something to help all climbers - such as bolting policies or access regulations to a private property - you would have to be pretty bloody minded to deliberately go against it -and yet we have tons of such individuals who feel they should be allowed to just do what they want.

We live in a pretty lawless country where mutual agreement and self regulation can achieve a lot - so it is that the MCSA can step in and help co-ordinate things so that they are set up for the best interests of the climbing community. Naturally there is always room for a differing viewpoint or proposing alternative arrangements BUT we do know that in the interests of retaining access and preserving the environment we as climbers should be seen as working together. This constant tantrumising so one person can trespass on someone elses private property cannot be seen in the context of a dissenting voice. That is just misleading and untrue.

Should there be other individuals who feel misunderstood or think they can propose a better way of doing things I suggest that you chat to the right people in your Section of the MCSA. Otherwise its just the normal grumbling on a forum because you feel left out or want attention...
Really, its not that bad...I think it's my shoes...
AndrewV
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:40 pm
Real Name: Andrew Vermaak

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by AndrewV »

Yup, MCSA has an obligation to look after their members as a priority, this should be obvious, since members pay fees which provides finding to where required pay for access.

The concept should be easy to grasp!!!
User avatar
XMod
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Real Name: Greg Hart

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by XMod »

AndrewV wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:23 pm MCSA has an obligation to look after their members as a priority!
MMmmm Ja sometimes to the detriment of other climbers' interests unfortunately. A certain section head nearly got access to one of the best walls in the world shut down by jumping in without consulting the active climbers (the people using the kloof the most) nor any prior knowledge of the situation - all done in the interests of "protecting access for MCSA members".

I have also experienced being given misinformation about bolting permission, then roasted by the very MCSA committee member who said it was ok to bolt when Parks freaked over bolts in a protected Archeological site (Luckily I kept all the e-mails hey?!). I have been blocked from bolting routes, and forbidden from placing glue-ins when one was clearly needed (the bolt is now loose leaving the route in a very dangerous state).

Like I said I don't expect everyone or everything to be perfect but clearly there are some issues!! You can't just avoid the subject with that statement sorry!
AndrewV
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:40 pm
Real Name: Andrew Vermaak

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by AndrewV »

In any group there will always be someone who performs the best and also someone who performs the worst.

What Forket (and perhaps others) is missing is that the MCSA is beholden to its members who pay for the privilege of access. I think their constitution may be poorly worded, I believe the intention is that the general public are free to apply for membership, and as a result their rights as a member will be protected.

The only feasible way to change things is to become a member, then their is an obligation for them to hear you and a process to follow to effect change. Ranting about a club that won't accept you because of your behavior will only cause them to close ranks and no member will want to stand by someone with a with a tarnished reputation
rasmus
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:11 pm

Re: Open letter to Ebert

Post by rasmus »

The argument that one shouldn't complain or have an opinion if one isn't a member is the same as saying you shouldn't have an opinion about government or politics (or at least shut up about it) if you are not an active, card carrying party member. I don't think it's valid, although you obviously have a higher chance of being heard as a member.

As far as I know MCSA is some kind of public benefit organization and not a private, members-only club/business. In this it is similar to the American Alpine Club, BMC and many others. In my opinion this is a much nobler purpose, but also means that the club must exist within the larger society and evolve with the times. In many aspects the MCSA looks from the outside a fair amount behind fx AAC and other clubs worldwide. Considering fx the way one becomes a member. This is one of the reasons I have personally hesitated to apply for membership in spite of supporting most of what the club does. Smells enough like old, classicist Britain that it goes against my culture :lol:
Post Reply