Thanks for the discussion Steven. As is often the case on the internet, I think both sides jumped to conclusions and over-reacted a bit initially on this, and it was good to actually have a direct dialog. As a disclaimer I don't speak directly for the race or Laz and I'm not involved in any part of managing the race. I'm just someone who has a deep connection to both the park and the race and am passionate about protecting both. The basic summary of what I was attempting to say regarding the race rules on where people can and can't be is that they're there to: 1. Protect the park and the race's permission to use it 2. Protect the runners' experience and the outcome of the race They apply to everyone (even crew and official media) and are absolutely not there for the purpose of excluding anyone. Unfortunately there just simply isn't enough space and a line has to be drawn or it becomes a slippery slope of more people in more places doing more things. But better information on this does need to be easily available and I think any additional creative ways of letting more people experience a bit of the race without harming the two points above would be welcome. Laz has worked tremendously hard and done a great job on the difficult task of trying to balance those things. Sometime before next year's race I'll make a post on this and would be happy to incorporate any ideas into that (until then, people can check out the Media in the Wilderness post for some additional context).
When replying to another comment I noticed I spelled dialogue wrong, and it's driving me nuts that I can't edit it. 😅 Living in the UK has screwed up my spelling so much, because I'm always thinking "wait, I think that's the UK way of spelling it, this must be the US way (or vice versa)" on things that are actually spelled the same in both places.
Thank you John and Steven for opening this dialogue up to all of us. There are so many of us developing an interest in these races, and some really important points (such as environmental factors) are valuable knowledge for us to have for this sport to continue in the future all over the world.
Thanks Steven and John for having this important conversation. It's an opportunity to provide additional history, context and, most important, the "whys" behind some of the restrictions for the Barkley Marathons. Really enjoyed the interview and as a fan of John Kelly and the Barkley, learned a lot!
Very true. Ultimately, we'll see media all over the course, because legally they can be. But the spirit of it might slow or limit that for a bit longer.
Sorry guys but this is not that complicated! If you are in a public park, on a marked trail, you are free to do whatever you want within the rules of the park. This includes filming and cheering people! If the competitors and their support crew are told part of the rules of the competition includes xyz by Laz that’s up to them. But you cannot make another member of the public live by your private rules. Jeez. Sad that you had to go through this Steven. But nice of John to share his insight. Thanks
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it's right to do. There are plenty of law abiding selfish jerks all over the place. The problem here is good people (which I try to assume people are until they prove otherwise) not knowing some of the potential harm that can come from these things and ending up smothering what we all love.
@@RandomForestRunner thanks John. So who gets to decide if something is the “right thing to do”? Laz or Steven? Both are good people I am sure! But one is attempting to control the other. Preservation of the race is a nice excuse, but I see through it and so do most people. Nothing against the Barkley race or the park. I’m all for both being run sustainably and safely. But I didn’t see a breach of either in Stevens video. He is an ultra runner and it’s his local park for god’s sake.
@@lrcsquash6056well, this could dive right into a pretty deep philosophical rabbit hole. 😅 Outside of the law, I believe it's up to each individual to determine what they think is right based on the information they have. The goal here was to provide more information, as much as possible, so that people could better be able to decide what they think is right. Not all of that information is easily accessible and people on both sides initially acted and responded without the complete picture (I truly believe both are good and did not do anything they knew or thought to be wrong at the time). Yes it's Steven's local park and no one is saying he shouldn't use it, but that can easily be done without putting the race or sensitive areas of the park in danger. If someone is having a wedding in a public park I don't think anyone would think it's right for a stranger to go stand next to the couple, film, and cheer as they read their vows (no, that's not an exact analogy for what happened but it's the closest I could think of). No one is trying to control anyone, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. There is nothing to see through and I don't believe most people think that. Preservation of the race and the park's sensitive areas are very real concerns that have both been in significant danger before. I just spent more time than I should have trying to find the TN Senate Joint Resolution online. I have a physical copy that at some point I can take a picture of and post if nothing else, but this reference is all I could find online - wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0547&ga=104. It goes into the steps Barkley must take to continue, including altering the course to avoid sensitive areas, limiting the number of people, and not posting notice of the event ahead of time. I tried to be 100% transparent and as open as possible, and if a 30 minute discussion and follow up comments can't convince you otherwise then I doubt anything else I can say will unless we're able to meet in person one day and have a more in depth conversation. In any case, if both sides still disagree then each is free to do whatever they want within the law to preserve what they think is right. To that end, Laz is already looking at designing a course that avoids all public areas entirely, including the accessible portions of Rat Jaw.
@@UltraTrailSteven yes and I’m loving this interview, gotta say...what could have been the next UA-cam drama, you snuffed it out quick by not being petty and handling it like a pro.
I get that they want to limit people and media on the course and the spirit of it, at the same time, if it is a public area, public park...you can't stop media...there are laws against that. The sport is growing, they'll eventually be media all over the place there.
Having finished this interview the word convenience comes to mind. A word that seems foreign to the concept of Barkley. The admiration for Barkley seems to come from its difficulty and distinction from nearly everything else. These appear to be the foundations of the mystique that draw us into its flame. Yet we as the audience expect it to change to fit our understanding of convenience. We want it to tell us how to keep it safe. We want readily available information about how we should act. An old saying is what we observe we inevitable change. I would offer we could learn lessons from Barkley both near and far. Meaning I do not think it is entirely on the Race or its personnel to explain to us what we should do. Simple decorum and appreciation that we can do better might serve as guiding lights. Not everything needs be convenient or Barkley Lesson One.
Not exactly, it's more akin to selector bias or cognitive dissonance. This is about choices we don't appreciate we are making. Not the restrictions of only knowing one think at a time given a starting condition.
While I completely understand the NO OFF TRAIL for anyone THE aspect of needing more veteran racers to insure others have a chance seems strange given the point of the race is self sufficient navigation Keith Dunn is interesting because that’s and Alert for anyone remotely close to come out and look
Yeah I have two friends that were virgins and they didn’t need a veteran to follow. It all depends of the persons knowledge of the park, and ability to navigate.
If the RD/participants want to be in a competitive bubble and if the park is really concerned about the number of people in he park for the event, then the park should close to public access for the 60 hours of the race. If not, then we are back to the simple issue that the public can go where the park allows public access. It’s nonsense about not cheering the competitors. You’re in a public place. It’s up to the competitors to ignore the outside influence if that is what they are required to do. The cost of closing the park is posting signs that it is closed. A large number of parks across the country did that when COVID started. Once it is posted any violators are in the wrong and the RD would be correct to challenge them. John is an incredible athlete and the race is amazing but what should happen is the RD should apologize to you for over-reacting.
As I mentioned in the conversation with John, I did communicate with Laz and offered my apology, and Laz did as well. We both agreed we could have handled it better. No hard feelings here. Thank you for watching,
Good - sounds cool. Yes nearly all races are oorn for spectators & relatives and crew to cheer & video. Most runners in uk expect to be videod by public whilst out running - & runners don't object. I don't know any race in uk - where the RD has been able to ban videoing by - 500 - 20 000 plus spectators & fans.
Mmmm. Interesting. Is there any signage up in the (public) park from the state park authorities themselves stating that the general public are not to enter certain areas? I would find that interesting if theres not. Also getting permission from the RD is a courtesy thing by the look of it! There are no legal requirements for anyone with a camera or backpack to ask permission from anyone at any time as it is a PUBLIC park. I hear John’s dialogue but its skewed from someone who has had the (so called privelege) to get in that race. The argument of media needing 100 people in this case is null and void! You were one guy with a camera.... no difference from a hiker working their way through the park themselves and stumbling on the race. It is cliquish theres no question... lets call it what it is. John seems a great guy but his side of the argument is skewed. Great video though
Thanks for the thoughts and the questions. Most trailheads have signs saying to stay on trails. That doesn't mean everyone is going to see them or that some people aren't still going to be tempted to head off trail if they know or think it's where the Barkley course goes (as they have in the past). Someone intentionally heading out there to film some of these spots where it heads off trail and to insert themselves into the race is much different than someone out for a hike stumbling on the race. The latter doesn't scale. The former goes from one person in one spot, to then two thinking it's fine, then to four, and eventually to people all over the course and some inevitably starting to go off trail themselves. This progression already happened in camp the past few years and led to the campground being entirely rented out and closed. There has to be a line. My view is skewed by actually having the experience and the information not only as someone who knows the race but as someone with deep roots in the local community who knows the good the race does for it and wants it to be able to remain there. So yes, I'm unapologetically fully biased towards wanting what's best for the park and the race. That was the whole goal in doing this interview, and I hope is one that's shared by anyone who's a fan of the race or of public parks. Copy / pasted from my response to another comment: Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it's right to do. There are plenty of law abiding selfish jerks all over the place. The problem here is good people (which I try to assume people are until they prove otherwise) not knowing some of the potential harm that can come from these things and ending up smothering what we all love.
No there is not signage from the park stating that a certain area is off limits due to the Barkley. However, there was a sign I think at the campground saying it was rented out for an event. It is a courtesy to the RD and the race to ask permission. You are right, legally there is no requirement. It is about protecting the park. John has a unique perspective as a local that grew up at the base of the mountain. He certainly cares for the park and the Barkley more than most.
@@RandomForestRunner I appreciate the honesty about your skewed view and insight into your thought process, I do get it, believe me. I do hope however the jerk comment is not directed at me because that is something I definitely am not. Yes I am a keen respectful outdoors person who has spent most of my life in the mountains, national parks and such like areas and of course I think it goes without saying that I am indeed thoughtful and protective of the natural environment.
@@Frater369 Again, that was copy / pasted from another reply and as indicated this discussion and series of events involved good people not having all the information. The point was that legal and ethical are not always equivalent, and that ethical is a function of circumstances and actions, not just the latter (as many people on both sides tried to make it out to be). But I was being a bit facetious about the skew / bias. Those are usually caused by a lack of information or a willful focus or disregard to certain pieces of information. I'm speaking not just as a Barkley runner, but as a friend of Frozen Head, a member of the local community, an outdoors enthusiast, and really as a supporter of individual rights and small business if we consider that an issue here as well. For this specific situation I don't think you can find many people, if anyone, with a more complete set of information and experiences who can try to speak to it from all sides. Saying I'm skewed here is like telling a doctor that their view of medicine is skewed, because of all that studying and practicing of medicine they've done. That's not to imply I know everything in this matter or that there are things I haven't thought of; I'll continue to try to learn, grow, and do better in this or anything else I personally consider worthwhile. I would never disregard anyone's opinion the same as I would hope mine wouldn't be written off as skewed. Thanks again for the thoughts. Would be happy to continue the conversation if our paths ever cross, but at this point I doubt we'll come to see eye to eye via UA-cam comments.
If you're going to attempt to be a "content provider" you need to start thinking much wider than yourself. The fact you admit that showing up to Barkley, as just an extraneous "fan", filming runners and a part of the course with NO ONE's permission in advance was wrong is a start. But it frightens me you didn't have the wherewithal to recognise this BEFORE you acted. Seriously, it shouldn't be this hard for people to have some common respect for others; it shouldn't be 'act without thinking first, get caught, apologise, possibly do it again'. I didn't watch the interview as frankly, I think it's a waste of Laz's and John's time to have to explain decent manners to you.
Sorry, but you are in the wrong here. The race takes place in a national park which is open to the public. Going there is his right and he doesn't need to ask permission. The fact that other UA-camrs have been given 'permission' to film while others have been told to take their footage down is favouritism and bullshit.
Thanks for the discussion Steven. As is often the case on the internet, I think both sides jumped to conclusions and over-reacted a bit initially on this, and it was good to actually have a direct dialog. As a disclaimer I don't speak directly for the race or Laz and I'm not involved in any part of managing the race. I'm just someone who has a deep connection to both the park and the race and am passionate about protecting both.
The basic summary of what I was attempting to say regarding the race rules on where people can and can't be is that they're there to:
1. Protect the park and the race's permission to use it
2. Protect the runners' experience and the outcome of the race
They apply to everyone (even crew and official media) and are absolutely not there for the purpose of excluding anyone. Unfortunately there just simply isn't enough space and a line has to be drawn or it becomes a slippery slope of more people in more places doing more things. But better information on this does need to be easily available and I think any additional creative ways of letting more people experience a bit of the race without harming the two points above would be welcome. Laz has worked tremendously hard and done a great job on the difficult task of trying to balance those things.
Sometime before next year's race I'll make a post on this and would be happy to incorporate any ideas into that (until then, people can check out the Media in the Wilderness post for some additional context).
Thank you, John! I really appreciate the open dialogue. We definitely want to preserve the park and the Barkley!
Hi John Kelly - well done in offering this great interview - with Steven & for everyone to watch & participate
🥁🎺🎺🙏🌈💫👍🎸🦠🦜🙏🏃♂️
When replying to another comment I noticed I spelled dialogue wrong, and it's driving me nuts that I can't edit it. 😅 Living in the UK has screwed up my spelling so much, because I'm always thinking "wait, I think that's the UK way of spelling it, this must be the US way (or vice versa)" on things that are actually spelled the same in both places.
Thank you John and Steven for opening this dialogue up to all of us. There are so many of us developing an interest in these races, and some really important points (such as environmental factors) are valuable knowledge for us to have for this sport to continue in the future all over the world.
What a great interview. I love how the interviewer actually listened. I wish every interviewer had this skill. Well done.
Thank you!
Big fan of John Kelly. The mind is a very powerful thing. Thanks, Steven. Great interview.
Thanks for listening; I agree! Thanks!
Thanks Steven and John for having this important conversation. It's an opportunity to provide additional history, context and, most important, the "whys" behind some of the restrictions for the Barkley Marathons. Really enjoyed the interview and as a fan of John Kelly and the Barkley, learned a lot!
Thank you, Reto! It was a good chat and I enjoyed it as well!
It’s wonderful to see another perspective maturely presented.
Thank you. John did an excellent job!
Great insight and interview. Thanks for that guys! I'm glad to hear this is behind and that lessons have been learnt 😁. Well done for standing tall 👍!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@UltraTrailSteven So much more I want to say about this situation... I root for you...
Very nice work. I really like John’s tone and mood. Very reasonable and explains this very well. Thanks for doing this!!
I agree, John was super nice for doing this, and a great spokesperson for our sport and the Barkley.
I learned so much and I’m intrigued by the Barkley now. I see both sides. Glad it’s all getting handled respectfully 💯💯💯👌🏻
Glad to hear it
Thanks for putting this together and adding a lot more clarity, something that is sorely needed. Keep up the great work!
Thank you, Al!
My favorite ultra runner thanks for this interview 👍
Thanks for watching!
- warm thanks Steven - great update on Barkley marathons. 🙏🙏🏃♂️🏃♂️🎸👍💫🌈🏅🥁🥁🎺🎺🎺
Thank you!
Amazing steven. Well done in getting this interview - with John Kelly
Thank you! It was a good chat!
Watched the full interview - well prepared set of questions- very good answers from John
Very cool discussion, and I learned a lot about Barkley. It’s a very difficult balance to improve the coverage and persevere the magic of the race.
I did too! Thank you, Shawn!
Very true. Ultimately, we'll see media all over the course, because legally they can be. But the spirit of it might slow or limit that for a bit longer.
This was handled in a most mature manner. Subscribed.
Thank you! I appreciate the support!
Wainwrights attempt will be cool. Following the FKT’s made last Summer bearable. Thanks for organising the interview with John.
I enjoyed following the FKTs as well!
Trying out my first xoskin shirt today! Thanks for gear lists!!
Awesome! I hope you love it!
Great Interview!! He is very knowledgeable about the Park
He really is!
That's a good topic for the Barkley & great job with the questions & getting John Kelly on board Steven 👍🏃
Thank you, Martin!
Fair play to both gentlemen for discussing this. @UltraTrailSteven superb content and keep up the great work. You're a top bloke.
Thanks mate!
Sorry guys but this is not that complicated! If you are in a public park, on a marked trail, you are free to do whatever you want within the rules of the park. This includes filming and cheering people! If the competitors and their support crew are told part of the rules of the competition includes xyz by Laz that’s up to them. But you cannot make another member of the public live by your private rules. Jeez. Sad that you had to go through this Steven. But nice of John to share his insight. Thanks
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it's right to do. There are plenty of law abiding selfish jerks all over the place. The problem here is good people (which I try to assume people are until they prove otherwise) not knowing some of the potential harm that can come from these things and ending up smothering what we all love.
John said it well. It’s about preserving the park and the Barkley.
@@RandomForestRunner thanks John. So who gets to decide if something is the “right thing to do”? Laz or Steven? Both are good people I am sure! But one is attempting to control the other. Preservation of the race is a nice excuse, but I see through it and so do most people. Nothing against the Barkley race or the park. I’m all for both being run sustainably and safely. But I didn’t see a breach of either in Stevens video. He is an ultra runner and it’s his local park for god’s sake.
@@lrcsquash6056 👌🏻👏
@@lrcsquash6056well, this could dive right into a pretty deep philosophical rabbit hole. 😅 Outside of the law, I believe it's up to each individual to determine what they think is right based on the information they have. The goal here was to provide more information, as much as possible, so that people could better be able to decide what they think is right. Not all of that information is easily accessible and people on both sides initially acted and responded without the complete picture (I truly believe both are good and did not do anything they knew or thought to be wrong at the time). Yes it's Steven's local park and no one is saying he shouldn't use it, but that can easily be done without putting the race or sensitive areas of the park in danger. If someone is having a wedding in a public park I don't think anyone would think it's right for a stranger to go stand next to the couple, film, and cheer as they read their vows (no, that's not an exact analogy for what happened but it's the closest I could think of).
No one is trying to control anyone, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. There is nothing to see through and I don't believe most people think that. Preservation of the race and the park's sensitive areas are very real concerns that have both been in significant danger before. I just spent more time than I should have trying to find the TN Senate Joint Resolution online. I have a physical copy that at some point I can take a picture of and post if nothing else, but this reference is all I could find online - wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0547&ga=104. It goes into the steps Barkley must take to continue, including altering the course to avoid sensitive areas, limiting the number of people, and not posting notice of the event ahead of time. I tried to be 100% transparent and as open as possible, and if a 30 minute discussion and follow up comments can't convince you otherwise then I doubt anything else I can say will unless we're able to meet in person one day and have a more in depth conversation.
In any case, if both sides still disagree then each is free to do whatever they want within the law to preserve what they think is right. To that end, Laz is already looking at designing a course that avoids all public areas entirely, including the accessible portions of Rat Jaw.
Thanks for doing this, Steven and John!
Thanks for watching!
Keep goingg♥️😍
Thats the plan.
For real though, someone get that guy a haircut...😅
HAHA that's what the Rona does to you!
LOL!
Rocking the Kris Kringle look!
It's the Heisenberg Principle.
Not gonna lie, I had to Google that lol
@@UltraTrailSteven You can't observe an event without changing the event you observe...
Yesssss I have finally made it!
haha all caught up now?
@@UltraTrailSteven yes and I’m loving this interview, gotta say...what could have been the next UA-cam drama, you snuffed it out quick by not being petty and handling it like a pro.
@@CelineFerocious thanks! I really appreciate that!
I get that they want to limit people and media on the course and the spirit of it, at the same time, if it is a public area, public park...you can't stop media...there are laws against that. The sport is growing, they'll eventually be media all over the place there.
Word!
Having finished this interview the word convenience comes to mind. A word that seems foreign to the concept of Barkley. The admiration for Barkley seems to come from its difficulty and distinction from nearly everything else. These appear to be the foundations of the mystique that draw us into its flame. Yet we as the audience expect it to change to fit our understanding of convenience. We want it to tell us how to keep it safe. We want readily available information about how we should act. An old saying is what we observe we inevitable change. I would offer we could learn lessons from Barkley both near and far. Meaning I do not think it is entirely on the Race or its personnel to explain to us what we should do. Simple decorum and appreciation that we can do better might serve as guiding lights. Not everything needs be convenient or Barkley Lesson One.
Ah yes, the Heisenberg Principle.
Not exactly, it's more akin to selector bias or cognitive dissonance. This is about choices we don't appreciate we are making. Not the restrictions of only knowing one think at a time given a starting condition.
While I completely understand the NO OFF TRAIL for anyone
THE aspect of needing more veteran racers to insure others have a chance seems strange given the point of the race is self sufficient navigation
Keith Dunn is interesting because that’s and Alert for anyone remotely close to come out and look
Yeah I have two friends that were virgins and they didn’t need a veteran to follow. It all depends of the persons knowledge of the park, and ability to navigate.
If the RD/participants want to be in a competitive bubble and if the park is really concerned about the number of people in he park for the event, then the park should close to public access for the 60 hours of the race. If not, then we are back to the simple issue that the public can go where the park allows public access. It’s nonsense about not cheering the competitors. You’re in a public place. It’s up to the competitors to ignore the outside influence if that is what they are required to do. The cost of closing the park is posting signs that it is closed. A large number of parks across the country did that when COVID started. Once it is posted any violators are in the wrong and the RD would be correct to challenge them. John is an incredible athlete and the race is amazing but what should happen is the RD should apologize to you for over-reacting.
As I mentioned in the conversation with John, I did communicate with Laz and offered my apology, and Laz did as well. We both agreed we could have handled it better. No hard feelings here. Thank you for watching,
Good - sounds cool. Yes nearly all races are oorn for spectators & relatives and crew to cheer & video. Most runners in uk expect to be videod by public whilst out running - & runners don't object. I don't know any race in uk - where the RD has been able to ban videoing by - 500 - 20 000 plus spectators & fans.
Agreed. Restrict access or shut up and smoke a cigarette. Laz is really concerned with the environment 🤡
Mmmm. Interesting. Is there any signage up in the (public) park from the state park authorities themselves stating that the general public are not to enter certain areas?
I would find that interesting if theres not. Also getting permission from the RD is a courtesy thing by the look of it! There are no legal requirements for anyone with a camera or backpack to ask permission from anyone at any time as it is a PUBLIC park.
I hear John’s dialogue but its skewed from someone who has had the (so called privelege) to get in that race.
The argument of media needing 100 people in this case is null and void! You were one guy with a camera.... no difference from a hiker working their way through the park themselves and stumbling on the race.
It is cliquish theres no question... lets call it what it is.
John seems a great guy but his side of the argument is skewed.
Great video though
Thanks for the thoughts and the questions. Most trailheads have signs saying to stay on trails. That doesn't mean everyone is going to see them or that some people aren't still going to be tempted to head off trail if they know or think it's where the Barkley course goes (as they have in the past). Someone intentionally heading out there to film some of these spots where it heads off trail and to insert themselves into the race is much different than someone out for a hike stumbling on the race. The latter doesn't scale. The former goes from one person in one spot, to then two thinking it's fine, then to four, and eventually to people all over the course and some inevitably starting to go off trail themselves. This progression already happened in camp the past few years and led to the campground being entirely rented out and closed. There has to be a line.
My view is skewed by actually having the experience and the information not only as someone who knows the race but as someone with deep roots in the local community who knows the good the race does for it and wants it to be able to remain there. So yes, I'm unapologetically fully biased towards wanting what's best for the park and the race. That was the whole goal in doing this interview, and I hope is one that's shared by anyone who's a fan of the race or of public parks.
Copy / pasted from my response to another comment: Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it's right to do. There are plenty of law abiding selfish jerks all over the place. The problem here is good people (which I try to assume people are until they prove otherwise) not knowing some of the potential harm that can come from these things and ending up smothering what we all love.
No there is not signage from the park stating that a certain area is off limits due to the Barkley. However, there was a sign I think at the campground saying it was rented out for an event.
It is a courtesy to the RD and the race to ask permission. You are right, legally there is no requirement. It is about protecting the park.
John has a unique perspective as a local that grew up at the base of the mountain. He certainly cares for the park and the Barkley more than most.
@@RandomForestRunner I appreciate the honesty about your skewed view and insight into your thought process, I do get it, believe me. I do hope however the jerk comment is not directed at me because that is something I definitely am not.
Yes I am a keen respectful outdoors person who has spent most of my life in the mountains, national parks and such like areas and of course I think it goes without saying that I am indeed thoughtful and protective of the natural environment.
@@Frater369 Again, that was copy / pasted from another reply and as indicated this discussion and series of events involved good people not having all the information. The point was that legal and ethical are not always equivalent, and that ethical is a function of circumstances and actions, not just the latter (as many people on both sides tried to make it out to be).
But I was being a bit facetious about the skew / bias. Those are usually caused by a lack of information or a willful focus or disregard to certain pieces of information. I'm speaking not just as a Barkley runner, but as a friend of Frozen Head, a member of the local community, an outdoors enthusiast, and really as a supporter of individual rights and small business if we consider that an issue here as well. For this specific situation I don't think you can find many people, if anyone, with a more complete set of information and experiences who can try to speak to it from all sides. Saying I'm skewed here is like telling a doctor that their view of medicine is skewed, because of all that studying and practicing of medicine they've done. That's not to imply I know everything in this matter or that there are things I haven't thought of; I'll continue to try to learn, grow, and do better in this or anything else I personally consider worthwhile. I would never disregard anyone's opinion the same as I would hope mine wouldn't be written off as skewed.
Thanks again for the thoughts. Would be happy to continue the conversation if our paths ever cross, but at this point I doubt we'll come to see eye to eye via UA-cam comments.
First rule of fight club Is you can't talk about fight club !!
If you're going to attempt to be a "content provider" you need to start thinking much wider than yourself. The fact you admit that showing up to Barkley, as just an extraneous "fan", filming runners and a part of the course with NO ONE's permission in advance was wrong is a start. But it frightens me you didn't have the wherewithal to recognise this BEFORE you acted. Seriously, it shouldn't be this hard for people to have some common respect for others; it shouldn't be 'act without thinking first, get caught, apologise, possibly do it again'. I didn't watch the interview as frankly, I think it's a waste of Laz's and John's time to have to explain decent manners to you.
Wat bs
Sorry, but you are in the wrong here. The race takes place in a national park which is open to the public. Going there is his right and he doesn't need to ask permission.
The fact that other UA-camrs have been given 'permission' to film while others have been told to take their footage down is favouritism and bullshit.