| Author |
Topic |
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1262 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2012 : 7:50 PM
|
DCIPHER[/quote]
since you are somebody who admits to wanting a plaque, who is your plaque for? Friends? Strangers?
Hmmmmn I don't want a piece of metal denoting I lived or died and a 2x6 with felt pen on it would serve as good as anything. Probably strangers who as pointed out would be extremely few and far between.
What do you hope it evokes when they see it?
The plaque being biodegradeable will last a short time and become just another relic to make someone ask" who would throw what appears to be a piece of 2x6 this far off the trail?"
[/quote]
How does a plaque help you when you are pushing up the daisys? |
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2012 : 8:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dav1481
quote:
Originally posted by DCIPHER
If you argue that you think a plaque is OK if a legacy was left in the region, then I suppose the argument becomes one of management eg. who decide when/where/how, and by what standards do we make the decisions.
Yes, that's the direction my argument would take, but the procedural challenges are obvious. After all, we can't have my children someday gluing my name on a rock near one of my favorite lakes (because what did I do to deserve that kind of respect?). A few more well-meaning and misguided families like that, and now you've got plaque pollution.
So while I must say I would have preferred if this plaque wasn't put there in the first place, now that it has I feel a bit compelled to defend it. Whoever put it there did a decent job. It wasn't placed in an obtrusive location and isn't environmentally insensitive. At worst, it is visual pollution if you happen to be standing next to it.
I don't see this second paragraph following from the first. As you pointed out, a few more families, and in your opinion, it's a problem. That of course, is subjective as well, some may feel there is a problem with one, or 3, or 10, or 100. If you are saying, it's not a "problem" yet, because there is only one, I understand. I don't think any of us are tearing at the collar to go remove this one, but I don't think that justifies the action. Of course, you won't see a few in the same location for quite a long time (probably not in our lifetimes I imagine), because people will want to place their plaque away from others...so we'll probably see more and more in disparate locations.
quote:
Originally posted by dav1481
It is certainly no more distracting than the noise of a major highway 100 m behind the frame.
The highway is a completely separate issue. It would be very difficult to argue one intrusion justifies another, unless you feel the area is a complete write-off, and that now, anything goes in that area....or alternately, anything that is a lesser intrusion than the highway in your judgment.
quote:
Originally posted by dav1481
And while I'm certainly not qualified to judge whether or not he 'deserved' to be venerated in this manner, it seems to me that, in a town like Nordegg, he's got to be close enough to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Well, if you feel he should be given the benefit of the doubt, you have made a judgment....and you're entitled to it, for me, everyone from Nordegg does not by default, deserve a plaque.
quote:
Originally posted by dav1481
I just hate to see mud slung at the well-intentioned living. In the world of plaque-graffiti, this can be no worse than a mild offense.
I'm not sure what you consider "mud" slinging, I think people here have been mild to say the least. Everyone has been pretty civil, and, for example, I appreciate your honest answers, even though, obviously, I disagree.
I'm not sure just how well-intentioned these people were. I think they had fine intentions towards their friend. Towards the environment, and the rest of the visitors to that site....I'm not so sure. If they did have good intentions towards us, I wish they had thought more about they are entitled to do that...hopefully some people will do a quick google search and see threads like this to make them aware of some of the issues, if they are that blissfully careless about the matter.
I'm not sure I agree either that this is a mild offense...frankly, I'd personally rather see walls of concrete covered in graffiti....or any man made structure, than objects out in the wilderness. I do notice that the type of graffiti plays into your judgment...so I assume you'd feel different if somebody put on a spray painted name, or, presumably, a plaque of lesser quality. For me, I think the difference is just a "cosmetic" one...the principle is the same.
|
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2012 : 8:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by brucew
DCIPHER
since you are somebody who admits to wanting a plaque, who is your plaque for? Friends? Strangers?
Hmmmmn I don't want a piece of metal denoting I lived or died and a 2x6 with felt pen on it would serve as good as anything. Probably strangers who as pointed out would be extremely few and far between.
What do you hope it evokes when they see it?
The plaque being biodegradeable will last a short time and become just another relic to make someone ask" who would throw what appears to be a piece of 2x6 this far off the trail?"
[/quote]
How does a plaque help you when you are pushing up the daisys?
[/quote]
Hey! You're not a genuine CT nutcase!
|
|
|
876 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2012 : 11:23 PM
|
@DCIPHER
All I'm saying is they obviously thought they were creating a tasteful memorial to someone they cared for. Like you, I don't agree with the idea of placing plaques in the natural environment save perhaps a few exceptions, such as when an individual or event has significantly shaped the history of the area. I think in theory it would be best if approval was granted by the land authority. I am, however, sympathetic to their intention and I believe that some forethought was taken when selecting what they perceived to be a low-impact location and display. Do I think it is a great idea? No. Does it bother me that they've done it? No. But that's just my visceral reaction in this case. And while - yes - the discourse has been civil, I'd hate to see it take a familiar path and devolve into twenty-eight pages of insanity.
It's funny. When you google Brent Young's name a couple months from now, one of the top search results will be a picture of a plaque indicating the 39 years of opportunity with which this man was able to breathe, love, and carve out his legacy. This picture will be followed by a debate among armchair quarterbacks about whether this memorial, that was not his request, which was placed by loved ones in his memory amounts to an obtrusive and unwelcome stamp on the earth. Maybe that's a good thing. The conversation is a good one; it's too bad he can't weigh in. |
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 09:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dav1481
@DCIPHER
All I'm saying is they obviously thought they were creating a tasteful memorial to someone they cared for. Like you, I don't agree with the idea of placing plaques in the natural environment save perhaps a few exceptions, such as when an individual or event has significantly shaped the history of the area. I think in theory it would be best if approval was granted by the land authority. I am, however, sympathetic to their intention and I believe that some forethought was taken when selecting what they perceived to be a low-impact location and display. Do I think it is a great idea? No. Does it bother me that they've done it? No. But that's just my visceral reaction in this case. And while - yes - the discourse has been civil, I'd hate to see it take a familiar path and devolve into twenty-eight pages of insanity.
It's funny. When you google Brent Young's name a couple months from now, one of the top search results will be a picture of a plaque indicating the 39 years of opportunity with which this man was able to breathe, love, and carve out his legacy. This picture will be followed by a debate among armchair quarterbacks about whether this memorial, that was not his request, which was placed by loved ones in his memory amounts to an obtrusive and unwelcome stamp on the earth. Maybe that's a good thing. The conversation is a good one; it's too bad he can't weigh in.
I agree with most of this. However, I think it's a very good thing that the debate will be there, I hope it comes first, not second, and if it deters one more plaque from going up, that would be terrific.
You know it's easy to get emotional about this. You're a very sensitive person obviously, which is a good thing. You can label all of us "armchair quarterbacks" (vs what? should we actively get involved...go out and remove this?), and talk about "breath, love, etc), and it's wonderful to have sympathy, but grieving and hardship simply don't entitle you to do whatever you like. It certainly doesn't mean we should not be able to discuss it. Though I think it is kind of you to think of their possible feelings in seeing a thread like this, it is their actions that initiated it, they didn't ask for the thread, and we didn't ask for a plaque.
If "forethought" was put into this as you say, in picking a "low impact" location, then the family would certainly be aware of the repercussions of their actions, their responsibilities, and the controversy. Apparently that did not dissuade them, and honestly, if they didn't want anyone to see it, they could have hidden it away some place very obscure...or better yet....don't put a plaque at all, which after all, by it's very nature, was meant to be seen. It becomes a bit absurd to plan a plaque but only desire some certain percentage of people to happen across it, or want some given level of intrusion.
You're right, it is too bad he can't weigh in....though I suppose his opinion wouldn't matter anymore than anyone else's, except perhaps in degree of influence on the family. This is, after all, about them. The plaque isn't 'for him', it's "for them".
In any case, I think your compassion is admirable, but I don't think it should stand in the way of talking about this, or deciding whether this is desirable or permissible. I maintain it isn't. To be really blunt, it's narrow-sighted, intrusive, and self-serving, BUT I am willing to guess that their grief clouded their judgment. I would give them that benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
|
|
|
876 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by DCIPHER
I agree with most of this. However, I think it's a very good thing that the debate will be there, I hope it comes first, not second, and if it deters one more plaque from going up, that would be terrific.
You know it's easy to get emotional about this. You're a very sensitive person obviously, which is a good thing. You can label all of us "armchair quarterbacks" (vs what? should we actively get involved...go out and remove this?), and talk about "breath, love, etc), and it's wonderful to have sympathy, but grieving and hardship simply don't entitle you to do whatever you like. It certainly doesn't mean we should not be able to discuss it. Though I think it is kind of you to think of their possible feelings in seeing a thread like this, it is their actions that initiated it, they didn't ask for the thread, and we didn't ask for a plaque.
If "forethought" was put into this as you say, in picking a "low impact" location, then the family would certainly be aware of the repercussions of their actions, their responsibilities, and the controversy. Apparently that did not dissuade them, and honestly, if they didn't want anyone to see it, they could have hidden it away some place very obscure...or better yet....don't put a plaque at all, which after all, by it's very nature, was meant to be seen. It becomes a bit absurd to plan a plaque but only desire some certain percentage of people to happen across it, or want some given level of intrusion.
You're right, it is too bad he can't weigh in....though I suppose his opinion wouldn't matter anymore than anyone else's, except perhaps in degree of influence on the family. This is, after all, about them. The plaque isn't 'for him', it's "for them".
In any case, I think your compassion is admirable, but I don't think it should stand in the way of talking about this, or deciding whether this is desirable or permissible. I maintain it isn't. To be really blunt, it's narrow-sighted, intrusive, and self-serving, BUT I am willing to guess that their grief clouded their judgment. I would give them that benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
I agree that the debate is important and I don't think that compassion should preclude judgement on something that was certainly intended to be a public monument. After all, we all have a stake in our public places. To restrain your dissent, even on empathetic grounds, could be called irresponsible.
I think my compassion lies more with the deceased than those who placed the plaque. It's a shame that his name has to be attached to a debate he would want no part of. This is a guy who loved the mountains and lived (and died) for the freedom of the hills, and the idea that he would have never wanted a plaque in his name makes its existence just a little more appropriate in my opinion. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:15 AM
|
It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. It's funny when someone posts a post on an internet forum blasting people for posting on an internet forum.
The discussion is merely using this plaque as an example - Brent Young really doesn't have anything to do with it.
And there's nothing wrong with a civilised discussion about the ethics of mountain memorials on a forum intended for such discussion.
I think that there is a difference between putting up something for the family and putting up something for others. If it is for others to see, the standards should be much more stringent, and it should need approval from the authorities in charge of deciding what public monuments and such go in the area - such as the officially-placed one at the Memorial Lakes, or for the guy who died on Blueberry Hill. I may or may not agree with those, but could direct my concerns about an individual monument or about the standards in general to the appropriate authorities. I don't think it is good for random people to start cementing in their own memorials for everyone to see.
If it is intended just for the family, then it should be something just the family should see. I think a family should find a really secluded spot where they could put their stone/2x6/plaque off a trail in a place they could return to, but others wouldn't often stumble upon. and it should be small. I don't mind if I find something little like that in the middle of nowhere that doesn't jump out.
the big annoyance with the BC situation is that the family claimed they were personal memorials yet put them out for the public to see everywhere they went, and then complained when the public didn't like them as much as they did. |
|
|
876 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. It's funny when someone posts a post on an internet forum blasting people for posting on an internet forum.
The discussion is merely using this plaque as an example - Brent Young really doesn't have anything to do with it.
And there's nothing wrong with a civilised discussion about the ethics of mountain memorials on a forum intended for such discussion.
I think that there is a difference between putting up something for the family and putting up something for others. If it is for others to see, the standards should be much more stringent, and it should need approval from the authorities in charge of deciding what public monuments and such go in the area - such as the officially-placed one at the Memorial Lakes, or for the guy who died on Blueberry Hill. I may or may not agree with those, but could direct my concerns about an individual monument or about the standards in general to the appropriate authorities. I don't think it is good for random people to start cementing in their own memorials for everyone to see.
If it is intended just for the family, then it should be something just the family should see. I think a family should find a really secluded spot where they could put their stone/2x6/plaque off a trail in a place they could return to, but others wouldn't often stumble upon. and it should be small. I don't mind if I find something little like that in the middle of nowhere that doesn't jump out.
the big annoyance with the BC situation is that the family claimed they were personal memorials yet put them out for the public to see everywhere they went, and then complained when the public didn't like them as much as they did.
I pretty much agree with all of this. I hope it didn't sound like I wanted to take the discussion out of the forum because that isn't my intent. It was a good topic to post and I think the conversation has been respectful and has raised some interesting points. I just hope it doesn't devolve like so many CT threads on topics like this. |
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 1:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. It's funny when someone posts a post on an internet forum blasting people for posting on an internet forum.
The discussion is merely using this plaque as an example - Brent Young really doesn't have anything to do with it.
And there's nothing wrong with a civilised discussion about the ethics of mountain memorials on a forum intended for such discussion.
I think that there is a difference between putting up something for the family and putting up something for others. If it is for others to see, the standards should be much more stringent, and it should need approval from the authorities in charge of deciding what public monuments and such go in the area - such as the officially-placed one at the Memorial Lakes, or for the guy who died on Blueberry Hill. I may or may not agree with those, but could direct my concerns about an individual monument or about the standards in general to the appropriate authorities. I don't think it is good for random people to start cementing in their own memorials for everyone to see.
If it is intended just for the family, then it should be something just the family should see. I think a family should find a really secluded spot where they could put their stone/2x6/plaque off a trail in a place they could return to, but others wouldn't often stumble upon.
Have you seen the plaque on Grotto? What do you think of it? While I don't condone any unofficial plaque, and I worry about proliferation, relatively speaking, I like the location of that one.... |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 1:57 PM
|
That part was primarily directed at nmcan84.
If everyone stays respectful and impersonal, then it all works. :) |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 2:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by DCIPHER
Have you seen the plaque on Grotto? What do you think of it? While I don't condone any unofficial plaque, and I worry about proliferation, relatively speaking, I like the location of that one....
I haven't seen it. |
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 2:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
quote:
Originally posted by DCIPHER
Have you seen the plaque on Grotto? What do you think of it? While I don't condone any unofficial plaque, and I worry about proliferation, relatively speaking, I like the location of that one....
I haven't seen it.
One good thing is that it's not at the summit....it's along the direct route line...on a small high point...that one of the main paths winds over...fairly high up as I recall, so only people on their way to the summit are likely to come across it. I...THINK...it was a few feet off the path...it wasn't particularly glaring...
The plaque was nicely written....of course they acknowledge he never actually went up anything!! I at least remember thinking that I at least applauded the restraint of not putting it at the summit or a very obvious rock in the open alpine. |
|
|
972 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 5:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
That part was primarily directed at nmcan84.
If everyone stays respectful and impersonal, then it all works. :)
i wasn't trying to blast anyone on here and saying they can't discuss the topic,i was just simply stating the truth. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 6:13 PM
|
well, an opinion. Unless you know the guy well enough to be sure that he would never have touched an internet forum.
But it's still a really pointless point, and even in regard to a third party, it sounds ridiculous to post a post on a forum about what's wrong with posting on a forum. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Brent Young Memorial Plaque
