Yah, I'm thinking that if we don't respect the concept of FA (not my def'n of anarchy btw) then we'll be dealing with a nice little totalitarian dictatorship...
Letting the FA decide how a climb is protected for all future generations constitutes a dictatorship too. The FA being the dictator. Democracy would allow climbers to vote on, then retro-bolt a route even if the tyranical dictator FA didn't like it.
Are climbers: 1. Whinny conformists? 2. Dictators in training? 3. Anarchists? 4. Democratic whatevers?
More importantly, what are you (the general you, not the one guy I quoted)?
The one thing about doing runouts... eventually someone will fall, and i bet anyone who falls on an unsafely bolted runout will wish there had been an extra "dogging" bolt in the wall rather than a pin in the ankle or worse
True but You know it's runout. You know the risks involved. Some[not me] enjoy runouts. This is not enough reason to add a bolt(s). Just because a route has a bolt on it doesn't mean its a sport route. Like I said before there's enough rock for eveyone. Why must you climb this runout route or alter it so you can?
If you look hard enough and put in days of work you to can have a climb to call your own. There is so much rock. Go out a find new cliff. You'll be doing a better service than changing someone elses route.
Yah, I'm thinking that if we don't respect the concept of FA (not my def'n of anarchy btw) then we'll be dealing with a nice little totalitarian dictatorship...
Letting the FA decide how a climb is protected for all future generations constitutes a dictatorship too. The FA being the dictator. Democracy would allow climbers to vote on, then retro-bolt a route even if the tyranical dictator FA didn't like it.
Are climbers: 1. Whinny conformists? 2. Dictators in training? 3. Anarchists? 4. Democratic whatevers?
More importantly, what are you (the general you, not the one guy I quoted)?
Dave
To answer anyway...in climbing (and in life) I'll take a responsible dictator over a democracy any day...
Personally, I don't think routes established ground-up should be altered by anyone but the FA, as I stated above, and then I imagine it to be done in a manner similar to conditions of the route's original establishment IE: while on the sharp end.
Rap-bolted routes are another animal all together, IMHO, especially routes which are installed by one guy then FA'd by another.
FYI, in my area, many of the sport routes were developed using RB's on lead. In one case I know of the RD even used an extension ladder to place most of the bolts. (Rap-bolting can be harder than other methods on a 60 degree overhang.)
In a sport climbing context, how the bolts got there is completely irrelevant. Lead, rap-bolting, ladder, hover-pack, whatever.
In reply to:
Even then, the adjustments should be made by the original bolt installer, as they generally tend to take pride in their work and would be the most suited to doing a quality job.
Wow, an argument! (Not a good one, unfortunately.)
Here's my problems with it: (i) if we are altering a route, presumably the FA either already did not do a sufficiently high quality job, or new information he was unaware of (alternative sequences, broken holds, etc) resulted in a change in the optimal location for a bolt, and (ii) installing bolts is piss easy, deciding the location where they should go is what is hard. In the case that the optimal location has moved, in order to even know that (and decide to retro) we have to have already solved the difficult optimal-location component. In the case that the FA did a shitty job, why trust him to do a better job this time?
Since doing the deed takes almost zero skill, arguing that the FA be the one to do it on the grounds that he'd do a better job is broken: he wouldn't do a better job.
And this is actually something we could even experimentally test if you don't believe my arguments above. All it takes is a "pepsi challenge" of retro-bolted routes. Can you tell the difference between a route that was retro'd by the FA and a route that was retro'd by someone else? It's a difference that makes no difference.
Do you need a dictionary for "especially", also? As I mentioned, my dictionary even lists "sport" as a synonym. Is sport passive? ;)
Do you need a dictionary for "synonym?"
I'm pretty sure I know what it means. :)
In reply to:
In reply to:
But I think the bigger problem is that you're not understanding how this works. It is quite possible for your (or my) dictionary to be wrong. The word means what people use it to mean.
Then it seems that it is you who doesn't understand "how this works," because I'm telling you what the word means to me. I would never think of my climbing as entertainment. "I climb for entertainment"? It sounds wrong. I would never think say that.
Either way: can I get you to agree that what you think the word means to you is apparently not what it means to the typical native English speaker?
In reply to:
In reply to:
Can you enumerate what type of data, if it were produced or could be produced, would convince you that you're mistaken?
I can't be mistaken, by your own argument, because the word means to me what it means to me.
Either you don't understand my "argument" or are deliberately misrepresenting it. If it's the former, I'd be happy to explain further.
In reply to:
I do agree with you though that playing modern video games is entertainment, but that's because they are more like watching movies than engaging in a physical sport.
For one thing, you're wrong. (I can tell you don't play modern video games. Whether you want to use the word "sport" or not, they are often much more similar to playing sports or games than to watching movies. For an extreme example, have you ever heard of DDR?)
For another thing, physical sport is entertainment, too.
This is one hugely funny (and entertaining!) thing about climbing. They all think they are engaging in a non-conformist's activity. It permeates the rhetoric about the so-called "golden age". It even has (ironically) shown up in the rhetoric in favor of the FAVD, in this thread---that is, the notion that climbers are non-conformists has been used to try to bludgeon our reasoning skills into blind VD-conformity!
The reality is a little different.
In fact, rock climbers have tight-knit social groups with their own set of norms and standards governing acceptable behavior, often spoken with moral overtones or in religious language. Historically, the Rock Cult approach to climbing has even gone so far as to hilariously proscribe harmless behaviors like sitting in your harness under the wrong circumstances. Most climbers conform to these standards without thinking, even when it makes no sense. This thread has formed up to be a perfect example: note the ongoing lack of real arguments from the pro-VD side, and the huge Unthinking Masses pledging their allegiance to their precious dogma.
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 2, 2007, 4:33 PM)
can I get you to agree that what you think the word ["entertainment"] means to you is apparently not what it means to the typical native English speaker?
No, I've never heard anyone refer to rock climbing as entertainment.
In reply to:
For another thing, physical sport is entertainment, too.
I completely disagree. I've participated in rock climbing, sky diving, yoga, judo, karate, aikido, kung fu, tai chi chuan, fencing, and god knows what else, and I've never thought of any of those pastimes as "entertainment." I doubt that my usage of the word is that different from most native English speakers. Frankly, I think yours is.
Of all the definitions listed here, none explicitly mentions physical sport; and although you could exptrapolate "agreeable occupation of the mind" to include physical sports, I think it's a bit of a stretch, and not one that most people would make in their routine usage of the word.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 2, 2007, 4:02 PM)
can I get you to agree that what you think the word ["entertainment"] means to you is apparently not what it means to the typical native English speaker?
No, I've never heard anyone refer to rock climbing as entertainment.
For another thing, physical sport is entertainment, too.
I completely disagree. I've participated in rock climbing, sky diving, yoga, judo, karate, aikido, kung fu, tai chi chuan, fencing, and god knows what else, and I've never thought of any of those pastimes as "entertainment." I doubt that my usage of the word is that different from most native English speakers. Frankly, I think yours is.
I have limited googling time, but I'm pretty confident that usage exists for all of those.
And if dictionaries don't convince you, I don't know why I should expect that usage examples will. You still have not answered my question: what sort of data, if any, would convince you that you are wrong about what this word means (for most native English speakers)? Is there any?
can I get you to agree that what you think the word ["entertainment"] means to you is apparently not what it means to the typical native English speaker?
No, I've never heard anyone refer to rock climbing as entertainment.
For another thing, physical sport is entertainment, too.
I completely disagree. I've participated in rock climbing, sky diving, yoga, judo, karate, aikido, kung fu, tai chi chuan, fencing, and god knows what else, and I've never thought of any of those pastimes as "entertainment." I doubt that my usage of the word is that different from most native English speakers. Frankly, I think yours is.
I have limited googling time, but I'm pretty confident that usage exists for all of those.
And if dictionaries don't convince you, I don't know why I should expect that usage examples will. You still have not answered my question: what sort of data, if any, would convince you that you are wrong about what this word means (for most native English speakers)? Is there any?
I'd have to hear people in ordinary conversation use the word that way.
Of all the definitions listed here, none explicitly mentions physical sport; and although you could exptrapolate "agreeable occupation of the mind" to include physical sports, I think it's a bit of a stretch, and not one that most people would make in their routine usage of the word.
Dictionaries are not law (and if they were, we'd have a problem, since they usually send you in circles). It doesn't matter whether we "extrapolate" a particular wording from some random dictionary. What matters is how people use words, in their respective languages, dialects, sub-cultures, etc.
(And by the way, try dict.org for a better online dictionary. No advertisements, regexp support, etc.)
Of all the definitions listed here, none explicitly mentions physical sport; and although you could exptrapolate "agreeable occupation of the mind" to include physical sports, I think it's a bit of a stretch, and not one that most people would make in their routine usage of the word.
Dictionaries are not law (and if they were, we'd have a problem, since they usually send you in circles). It doesn't matter whether we "extrapolate" a particular wording from some random dictionary. What matters is how people use words, in their respective languages, dialects, sub-cultures, etc.
(And by the way, try dict.org for a better online dictionary. No advertisements, regexp support, etc.)
For fuck's sake I'm not treating the dictionary as law. I assume that it reflects current usage. Here's a representative definition from dict.com:
" 2. That which entertains, or with which one is entertained; as: (a) Hospitality; hospitable provision for the wants of a guest; especially, provision for the table; a hospitable repast; a feast; a formal or elegant meal.
(b) That which engages the attention agreeably, amuses or diverts, whether in private, as by conversation, etc., or in public, by performances of some kind; amusement."
As usual, there is no mention of active participation in a highly physically demanding sport. I cannot fathom thinking of rock climbing as "entertainment," although I can understand why the climbing gym would advertise itself as such. They mean exactly what Healyj means when he demeaningly calls sport climbing "entertainment." He/they are implying that the activity is a risk-free relatively passive, effortless "entertainment," not unlike watching a movie or playing a video game. The gym uses the term to foster this view to appeal to a market who is looking for precisely that experience.
Once established, a climb is a creation of the first ascentionist--and, as such, a reflection of his vision or lack thereof. In this respect, climbs are not really so different from paintings or other forms of art. And, similarly, there are many different forms of art, each with its own dedicated group of patrons.
The problem with altering existing climbs is that we must necessarily deprive one group of climbers from experiencing the climb as the FA did--to accommodate another group of climbers. Even if the second group of climbers may be larger, what about minority rights? In my opinion, mere "consensus" when it comes to altering an existing route is not a high enough standard.
If you enjoy gymnastic sport climbing simply go to a museum of modern art. If you enjoy more adventurous trad climbing visit a museum of ancient history--the choice is yours and there is currently no shortage of available museums.
To continue this analogy a little further, altering existing climbs is not really so different from burning any paintings or books you don't happen to like--and depriving all future people the opportunity to judge the merits of these creations for themselves. History tells us that this behavior is quite undesirable where the greater good is concerned.
What the fuck is this guy doing? There is a perfectly good gear placement in the crack?!!!! God i hate stupid bolters (not all of them just the dumb ones).
As far as retro-bolting... you have to respect the wishes of the FA team. Even if one disagrees with the other. If you start adding bolts it changes the route. Being run out is the signature of some routes. For example: If I want the crap scared out of me I will go climb a Gilge route or seek out some other X or R route (ie Super Pin, Bachar-Yerian).
Dont be a pussy and bolt just cause you dont have nuts.
What the fuck is this guy doing? There is a perfectly good gear placement in the crack?!!!! God i hate stupid bolters (not all of them just the dumb ones).
Jay, I would have thought that by now that picture would no longer work, but apparently that's not the case.
What the fuck is this guy doing? There is a perfectly good gear placement in the crack?!!!! God i hate stupid bolters (not all of them just the dumb ones).
Jay, I would have thought that by now that picture would no longer work, but apparently that's not the case.
Nah, that pic is a harpoon that goes straight for the gills.
To continue this analogy a little further, altering existing climbs is not really so different from burning any paintings or books you don't happen to like--and depriving all future people the opportunity to judge the merits of these creations for themselves. History tells us that this behavior is quite undesirable where the greater good is concerned.
Curt
so in plain english: altering a route which is poorly bolted would be depriving a future RD the opportunity to experience a poorly bolted route, thereby perhaps removing a motivation to aspire to something greater than those who have come before.
or:
If you wish to have better developed routes in the future, you must leave the poorly developed ones for those who come next to learn from. To do otherwise would be counterproductive.
As usual, there is no mention of active participation in a highly physically demanding sport. I cannot fathom thinking of rock climbing as "entertainment," although I can understand why the climbing gym would advertise itself as such. They mean exactly what Healyj means when he demeaningly calls sport climbing "entertainment." He/they are implying that the activity is a risk-free relatively passive, effortless "entertainment," not unlike watching a movie or playing a video game. The gym uses the term to foster this view to appeal to a market who is looking for precisely that experience.
Jay
Although I agree with you on this point I think you maybe over looking the difference between how you engage the activity you know as rock climbing and how other user groups engage in the activity they call rock climbing. For some user groups climbing is treated more like hanging out at a buddies house playing video games, going to a BBQ or having diner and a movie with friends. An ever increasing number of climbers (if that term can be appropriately applied to them) spend the majority of there time at the crag lounging around, talking, listening to head phones, flirting with the girl one route over, spraying beta, playing with there dog, sleeping (I've seen it), playing PSP (seen this too), spraying more beta, or any manner of activity other than climbing.
I can see how someone who spends less than 1/10 of there time engaged in any form of climbing and considers going to the crag more of a social activity than a sport could look at it as entertainment. And if you take this definition as a guide they might be closer to the truth than either of us would like to admit.
jt512 wrote:
(b) That which engages the attention agreeably, amuses or diverts, whether in private, as by conversation, etc., or in public, by performances of some kind; amusement." -
I mean honestly, what's more entertaining than sitting on your ass talkin shit while you watch your buddy flail.
Im not saying that its right, I'm just saying that it is.
And if dictionaries don't convince you, I don't know why I should expect that usage examples will. You still have not answered my question: what sort of data, if any, would convince you that you are wrong about what this word means (for most native English speakers)? Is there any?
I'd have to hear people in ordinary conversation use the word that way.
I'm assuming that you are including written and online "ordinary conversation" (by the principle of charity; but if I'm wrong, you really need to do some reading before we can discuss this any more times). Some of these are and some are not from actual conversation, but all are informal written text in a conversational tone (e.g., I included some rc.com area or photo descriptions and their comments). (And, again, if you are demanding it come from actual conversation, either spoken or not, rather than just (legitimately) complaining about the fact that those previous examples were all from one type of non-conversational, advertisement-style usage, again, my preemptive response is that you need to do some reading before I'll continue engaging with you in this much detail when you slip into your tendencies toward pseudo-scientific prescriptivism.)
I also omitted referencing posts by me or healyje from earlier in this thread, although it is certainly still valid usage data.
To continue this analogy a little further, altering existing climbs is not really so different from burning any paintings or books you don't happen to like--and depriving all future people the opportunity to judge the merits of these creations for themselves. History tells us that this behavior is quite undesirable where the greater good is concerned.
Curt
so in plain english: altering a route which is poorly bolted would be depriving a future RD the opportunity to experience a poorly bolted route, thereby perhaps removing a motivation to aspire to something greater than those who have come before.
or:
If you wish to have better developed routes in the future, you must leave the poorly developed ones for those who come next to learn from. To do otherwise would be counterproductive.
Your talking about "Proof reading a route", correcting the typos. That's all well and good. The problem arises with giving 'carte blache' to every persons whim. I'm for corrective adjustments but they must be tempered. If this step is taken as no biggy then the next logical step of adding a bolt or two isn't that far away. A lot of leg work must be done to justify a corrective adjustment.
Contact FA climber(s)------------BEST or Consult the home crag RDs[more than one] see what they think-------------- GOOD
Poll a bunch of climbers at the base------------------------ NOT GOOD ENOUGH
New analogy: Would you pick up a strange dogs turd off of a lawn that's not your own? Not the best analogy mind you, there's plenty of flaws but you get my drift. Or at least the dogs
And if dictionaries don't convince you, I don't know why I should expect that usage examples will. You still have not answered my question: what sort of data, if any, would convince you that you are wrong about what this word means (for most native English speakers)? Is there any?
I'd have to hear people in ordinary conversation use the word that way.
I'm assuming that you are including written and online "ordinary conversation" (by the principle of charity; but if I'm wrong, you really need to do some reading before we can discuss this any more times). Some of these are and some are not from actual conversation, but all are informal written text in a conversational tone (e.g., I included some rc.com area or photo descriptions and their comments). (And, again, if you are demanding it come from actual conversation, either spoken or not, rather than just (legitimately) complaining about the fact that those previous examples were all from one type of non-conversational, advertisement-style usage, again, my preemptive response is that you need to do some reading before I'll continue engaging with you in this much detail when you slip into your tendencies toward pseudo-scientific prescriptivism.)
I also omitted referencing posts by me or healyje from earlier in this thread, although it is certainly still valid usage data.
I'd say that (nearly) all of those are using the word "entertain' in a non-literal way, to, in a sense, downplay the experience, almost facetiously. Note that the one about the group visiting the valley is the Healy definition of climbing-as-entertainment turned on its head and applied to trad climbing!
Notapplicable gets it. Going to the crag to watch chicks is entertainment. Going to the crag to work on your climbing, a hobby you take seriously, is not.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 3, 2007, 1:55 AM)
Of all the definitions listed here, none explicitly mentions physical sport; and although you could exptrapolate "agreeable occupation of the mind" to include physical sports, I think it's a bit of a stretch, and not one that most people would make in their routine usage of the word.
Dictionaries are not law (and if they were, we'd have a problem, since they usually send you in circles). It doesn't matter whether we "extrapolate" a particular wording from some random dictionary. What matters is how people use words, in their respective languages, dialects, sub-cultures, etc.
(And by the way, try dict.org for a better online dictionary. No advertisements, regexp support, etc.)
For fuck's sake I'm not treating the dictionary as law. I assume that it reflects current usage.
Nitpicking gloss text is a sure sign of someone who doesn't understand what dictionaries are. That's all.
In reply to:
Here's a representative definition from dict.com:
" 2. That which entertains, or with which one is entertained; as: (a) Hospitality; hospitable provision for the wants of a guest; especially, provision for the table; a hospitable repast; a feast; a formal or elegant meal.
(b) That which engages the attention agreeably, amuses or diverts, whether in private, as by conversation, etc., or in public, by performances of some kind; amusement."
Yes. Now go to WordNet and look around the semantic web (and notice "sport" and "entertainment" are listed as coordinate terms). Or look down to the synonym (or thesaurus) list on that same page (which are communicating the same sort of thing). Also, lookup "entertain" (which includes the uber generic "to engage the attention of agreeably", and a pointer to see "amuse"). Etc.
Or read my post above with the additional (non-advertising) usage data. (Usage always trumps a dictionary.)
In reply to:
As usual, there is no mention of active participation in a highly physically demanding sport.
Why would there be? Active participation and high physical demands are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for something being "entertainment".
Do you want a Venn diagram?
In reply to:
I cannot fathom thinking of rock climbing as "entertainment," although I can understand why the climbing gym would advertise itself as such.
Well, I think you are infected by your fair share of old school climbing memes. (As has also been evidenced in earlier toprope "redpoint" discussions, or in this thread, with your indication that you are pro-VD, but only when we're talking about traditional routes.)
Thinking of climbing as anything but a kind of entertainment (whether a "lifestyle" or whatever), strikes me as extremely unhealthy and childish. In fact, it can even be dangerous. As I said earlier, it is a potential symptom of infection by a type of mind-virus, which, in some strains, is potentially terminal if left untreated.
Now is probably where I'm supposed to tell you that if you think climbing is more than entertainment you should "get a life". However, since I know you have a healthy set of other interests and hobbies (at least some of which are you are pretty darn good at), instead, I'm writing this unusually uninsulting (and alliterative and self-referential!) sentence. .... (ouch)
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 3, 2007, 2:01 AM)
Fracture, I have never heard anyone, ever, in ordinary conversation refer to participating in any demanding sport as "entertainment." Got that? Nobody, ever.
Fracture, I have never heard anyone, ever, in ordinary conversation refer to participating in any demanding sport as "entertainment." Got that? Nobody, ever.
I couldn't have asked for a funnier ending. (Yes, I am giving up.)
19 /
16%
