|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jan 10, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #26 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
Dingus, You have absolutely NO support for your questionable argument. You get off subject. Did anyone say that chipping doesn’t happen? Did anyone say that you can’t find some crags that are so polluted that it is sickening? Just because something happens doesn’t make it right. Lyn Hill freed a route. Did she do the chipping? Dude if you want to debate stay within the argument. You even support the argument yourself by saying how it is a joke that no one leaves a trace. Obviously this bothers you. if you have to ask if the topic is a question of ethics then most likely you already know that it is, and you just are looking for more fools to go along with you. you don’t ever see anyone say, “hey I’m gonna go replant a forest are there any questions of ethics on this topic?” By changing subject and trying to support your arguments with drama (using computers, etc.) only weakens your argument and your ability to hold one. Chipping is in question of everyone’s ethics, even you dingus. Otherwise you wouldn’t have given more support to the argument. (Lyn Hill, Owens Gorge. Etc.) Dude, chipping, gluing, defacing, polluting are all wrong. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 10, 2003, 12:36 AM
Post #27 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Boulderingmadman wrote: "there is NO DIFFERENCE between anchoring a loose piece of rock and putting a new one on." And in the VERY SAME post: "and YES, there is a HUGE difference between bolting and gluing on a flake to a boulder and drilling a bolt and running a sling around a microwave oven sized block..." Whoa! THAT is a neat debating style. Mind if I try it? You should NOT glue loose flakes onto boulders. You SHOULD glue loose flakes onto boulders. Wow. That works pretty good. Covers all the bases in one post. Now I'm just poking a little fun at you my man. I do understand your points. But I must say, climbing at places like Jailhouse Rock opened my eyes to the simple fact that one size does not fit all in the ethics department. And even if I don't agree with the tactics and techniques employed by the locals at a given area, I must start from a point of respect or how can I expect them to respect the ethics of my areas when they come visiting? It all comes down to respect. Some of us have it, some do not. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 10, 2003, 12:41 AM
Post #28 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"Dingus, You have absolutely NO support for your questionable argument. " My argument? My argument is this: in certain places, in certain situations, altering the rock has been deemed acceptable. That is not a point of debate. It is fact. If has been fact since the beginning of this sport. Everything else, glueing, chipping, blatant hold manufacter (ever climbed Serenity Crack?), it's all a question of degrees. I start from a position of respect for local ethics. That is my position. You do what you wish. But don't come to my house and tell me how to behave. It won't be accepted. Cheerio, DMT
|
|
|
|
|
lynne
Jan 10, 2003, 12:54 AM
Post #29 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2002
Posts: 154
|
I absolutely agree with you Dingus that local ethics prevail on what is acceptable, however that doesn't stop me from finding the practices of chipping and glueing to be offensive as hell. If any local ethic allows or encourages this type of activity, I am disgusted. Are you trying to say that there are areas where chipping is actually OKAY? Somehow I find it hard to believe that a majority of climbers in any area could possibly be happy with chipping and I suspect there must be some history to explain the evolution of some phucked up ethics like that. I confess I am completely ignorant about the history of these areas to which you refer, though. I always thought local ethics were applied to questions of development, bolting, retrobolting and chopping. I always assumed chipping was something that was done and only 'accepted' because it was too late to change it after the fact. Am I totally wrong? (It certainly wouldn't be the first time.) At any rate, I personally feel that if someone prefers manufactured routes, then they would enjoy the gym. Part of the joy and challenge of outdoor climbing for most people is finding a way up a beautiful and/or challenging line. Hacking one into the stone is just wrong on so many levels. Unless I'm mistaken, Lynn Hill didn't chip those holds on El Cap, so I don't find the legitimacy of her ascent to be quesitonable in the least. If they were chipped specifically for her or by her, that would be another story.
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Jan 10, 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #30 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
Quote: I leave you with this thought... Lynn Hill freed the Nose via blantantly chipped holds. I don't hear much debate about the ligitimacy of that ascent. But you might hear debates as to the legitimacy of the ‘variation’ with respect to the ‘naturalness’ of the route. How am I supposed to discuss ethics with someone named Dingus Milktoast?
|
|
|
|
|
swohletz
Jan 10, 2003, 8:07 AM
Post #31 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: 114
|
I was at an area climbing this weekend and on a particularly hard climb we saw what we thought was chalk but when a buddy climbed it he found it was actually glue, holding key holds on. With those holds the climb was a 12c if my memory serves me correctly. Without them, I don't know how climbable it would have been. Is this a common practice? I was honestly surprised....figured this fit in with the current discussion
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Jan 10, 2003, 8:22 AM
Post #32 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Dingus, Suprised to see you here. I've been a lurker on that other board for years. Is this research on the "dying usenet" issue? Just curious. Over the years I've found that I agree with your views 99 out of 100 times. Sorry, off topic. Doug
|
|
|
|
|
socialclimber
Jan 10, 2003, 12:41 PM
Post #33 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
Personally I would say let it fall if it's going to. Having said that, I know of a case on a classic sport climb called "Bogus Machismo", Grade 32(5.13 something) where holds have been glued because if they hadn't been, there wouldn't be a climb. I guess it comes down to the locals and how much they treasure the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
el_duderino
Jan 10, 2003, 2:25 PM
Post #34 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 5
|
I agree with Dingus, the rest of you just sound like ignorant, elitest morons.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jan 10, 2003, 2:34 PM
Post #35 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
No. Just another bunch of stupid climbers trying to "make" things. If it breaks off, it breaks off. The end. I hate that crap. Bolting and gluing. How vain.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jan 10, 2003, 3:51 PM
Post #36 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
I agree with the local ethics standard (even though I disagree with the ethics of some areas - like grid bolting or bolting where there's clean pro available). But even local ethics have a limit. The vast majority of climbers will agree that chipping and glueing is not acceptable - anywhere. So the Dingus crying "local ethics, local ethics" on this one just doesn't hold water with me. Just because a group of local people think it's ok doesn't mean that the rest of the climbing community is going to accept a lower ethical standard that most of us abhore. Regardless of their "for-the-sake-of-safety" intentions (and when did risk aversion become a character trait of climbers?), those guys manufactured a problem, and I don't see anything acceptable about that. The worst part is that now there's a video of their work in the internet, and that will only make their poor ethics seem acceptable to others who might not know any better. Maybe I'll start refering to such weenie ethics as "Dingus ethics" from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
socialclimber
Jan 10, 2003, 4:06 PM
Post #37 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
I like the way el_duderino carries an argument ands backs up his point with hard facts. You don't leave us morons much room to move with a water tight angle like that
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jan 10, 2003, 4:42 PM
Post #38 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
When I posted above I had not watched the video. I just now viewed it, and I think even less of what those guys did. Safety? It's not that big of a big flake. It's at the bottom of the boulder, so it's not going to fall on anybody's head. The worse it might do is break a lower leg bone - no more damage than what I've seen happen in some 10-15 foot falls. It's not even THAT loose, in my opinion. I've encountered much looser and much bigger flakes/blocks on trad and sport routes, even slung them for pro. It also looks to me like even if it did fall off you could still have a problem there using handholds that are higher up but still in reach, you just wouldn't have as low a start, and the problem would either be harder or easier. Safety??? Jeez. Most boulderers I know have bigger cajones than those guys do.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jan 10, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #39 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Most of us have transportation that could get us to THAT climb. I think that we should stop considering a bunch of ... people ... as OWNERS of that crag. Unless they own the land, which I still question as being important, nature and the rocks belong to all of us (as climbers). I think the whole idea of ownership of a route or a crag sucks. It is either okay or not okay to modify the rock to suite one's climbing needs regardless of location. Yes I understand that this is actually off-topic since the question is about this specific incident but hey, it's hard to stay on topic in this place. Dave PS, it sucks to hear about the Nose having chipped holds. I had not heard that before.
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jan 10, 2003, 5:20 PM
Post #40 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
Dingus Just stop and think. Ethics are simple. They are rules of right or wrong. This post is about ethics, not situations. Now you can make situations where doing something may “seem” right. But does the ethics change? NO! You see, is it wrong to chip? Yes! Has chipping happened? Yes! Are there situations that chipping seemed to be ok? Yes! Is chipping still wrong? Yes! Dingus you can throw every situation you want at anyone and the bottom line is that it is still wrong. The fact is the slab was glued. It is done and over with.. are these guys looking for justification for their actions? If so why? Oh I have a notion… because they know it was against the ethics of climbing. If you pay attention you will also notice that they did such a good job. What does this tell you? that this isn’t the first time they have glued slabs. So they obviously are making up “situations” where they feel justifies gluing, chipping or whatever. Either way it is wrong. Will it stop? No. But agree on one thing… it is wrong. Simple.
|
|
|
|
|
rocks4jules
Jan 10, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #41 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 287
|
Wow - some of the responses are quite harsh! I must agree with the fact that nature needs to run its course. We should never alter rocks, forests, streams, etc. Bush approved the altering of the Klamath river in California, which was able to supply new areas with the water. However, now hundreds of salmon have died, due to them missing the memo of the alteration. This is just an example of our ignorance when it comes to altering nature for our own pleasure or "safety." If we want to climb rocks and mountains, then I say go for it. Climb the hell out of it. But do not change anything! If it seems too unsafe, then go somewhere else. I agree with most -- climb in a gym if you want controlled environments. Bye. Jules
|
|
|
|
|
dekenstructor1
Jan 10, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #42 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 115
|
Just stop and think. Ethics are simple. They are rules of right or wrong. This post is about ethics, not situations. Now you can make situations where doing something may “seem” right. But does the ethics change? NO! You see, is it wrong to chip? Yes! Has chipping happened? Yes! Are there situations that chipping seemed to be ok? Yes! Is chipping still wrong? Yes! -thrillseeker05 If ethics were simple, ts5, then this discussion would not be taking place. Also, there would be no such this as an ethicist (which there are) and there would probably be no war (or no peace, depending upon which one all took to be the ultimate). And, just so you are aware, etics are about situations. Regarding your q&a session: Is chipping wrong? Yes. (Statement of ethical opinion (your own (with hope for universality))) Has chipping happened? Yes. (Statement of fact) Are there situations that chipping seemed to be ok? Yes. (Statement of ((multiple) situational) ethical opinion) Is chipping still wrong? Yes. (Ethical opinion (your own (again, with hope for universality))) Let me help you out with something: If you believed, as you claim, that chipping is wrong writ large, then there would not be situations for you (writ small) in which chipping "seemed" ok. What does this "seeming" mean, after all? To me, it is an admission of situational differences. (As, 1) were there no differences in situations 2) chipping were universally wrong, and 3) there were (are) situations in which it is apodictically apparent that one should not chip (as, indeed, i believe you want to/do believe), then 4) it would never be the case such that in x situation does it seem as though it is alright to chip holds). This admission seems awkward, given your belief that chipping is always wrong. To provide an extraordinarily cliche example of the attention that situational ethics warrant: Is stealing wrong? Yes. Has stealing happened? Yes. Are there situations in which it seems alright to steal? Yes (Imagine that you and your family is being held captive in x dungeon. If you do not eat, then you will all die. The guard has been proved with a feast just outside of your cell. You have been provided with nothing. The guard leaves for a moment. You have the opportunity and ability to steal some of his food to save your family. Would you do it? (For the record, I hope that you would.)) Is stealing still wrong? Yes, writ large, stealing is wrong. In the example given above, it is not. (Both immediate above statements are of my own ethical opinion (with hope for universality.)) I am hopeful that it will be realized that no matter what one's OPINION on this board is, it is simply a matter of a culturally produced individual belief, despite all self-delusional appearances of universality. There would not be a thread here were this not the case. Cheers. -Ken p.s., I am against chipping, glueing, etc. in all cases, regardless of the situation (statement of individual ethical opinion (with hope for universality)). There are many places that i cannot climb yet due to their difficulty or will not climb yet (?) due to their danger. One day....
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Jan 10, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #43 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
Its unlikely, but possible that the repair work may at some point erode,break off, etc., so that the repairs are more evident, or even unsightly. I say let nature take its course. If the flake was really that loose, and safety is the real concern, then just help mother nature along and break off the flake. In this case, more like the process of cleaning a route, rather than chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jan 10, 2003, 8:18 PM
Post #44 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
Ken, Redundant writing doesn’t make for a valid argument. Ethics are simple and no they are not individual beliefs. Beliefs and ideas are for individuals. Ethics however are universal. Take a philosophy class and a debate class and then we can talk. Ethics are universal laws of right and wrong. If chipping wasn’t wrong there would have never been a question of ethics. It is universally known within the sport of climbing that chipping goes against the ethics of the outdoor sport. (this is NOT my opinion) So Ken, stealing is wrong and it does go against the ethics of the world. Stealing and killing are two classic forms of wrongs that are against the ethics of all cultures. So this wouldn’t just be your belief that you want to make universal. So back to simplicity.. chipping, gluing, defacing, littering, are wrong according to the ethics of outdoor sports enthusiasts.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 10, 2003, 9:05 PM
Post #45 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Fascinating to see the members of the - the other board, that shall remain nameless - hop onto rc.com. Doesn't raise the discourse level of the other posters, but makes for good reading! So all you folks who argue either 1 - ethics are absolute, or 2 - you must not alter the crag in any way, but let nature take its course - I have one question for you. Have any of you ever sport climbed? Do you understand what sport climbing is? Have you noticed that there are bolts (semi-)permanently embedded in the rock? Have you noticed that the vegetation at the base of the cliff is absent? Have you noticed that the ethic of the people around you (though surely not you yourself) is just to be there to have fun climbing, and that the integrity of the rock comes second? Okay, so maybe you are all traddies like RG who believe in the ethic - climb it as it is, if you can't climb it, don't. (RG - if you're reading this, I'm not suggesting you're stupid enough not to understand local ethics). Fine, so maybe none of you have ever clipped a bolt. Perhaps that's the case, and you would never do such a thing because it goes against your personal ethics. For those folks, I ask you this: how can you argue that the flake should be allowed to fall off "naturally" as the climbers climb it. That's ridiculous! If you think the rock shouldn't be altered, then don't advocate climbing it. In fact one person even mentioned pulling off holds on a boulder route, but justified it by saying it was going to happen eventually. That's like the mugger who stands before the judge and says "Yer honour, that old lady was walking down that dark alley at ll pm. I happen to know five other guys that hang out there, and if I hadn't hit 'er over the head to take her purse, one of them would. So why shouldn't I get her money instead of them?" Mind you, I do not like chipping. It doesn't agree with my personal preferences. I even feel strongly enough about it that I'm willing to go out on a limb and say I would not climb on a route that had been purposefully chipped. But like DMT said, it's just rock, and those are just my choices. GO
|
|
|
|
|
therealbovine
Jan 10, 2003, 9:18 PM
Post #46 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 270
|
NO way is that cool. I don't know how long you all have been around the climbing universe, but that has never been o.k. by the climbers I hang with. Plain and simple...you are altering the rock. The bolt is ot natural, the glue is not natural. The only natural occurance that should have happened is that the boulder problem would have been climbed as is. If the flake broke off during an ascent, then so be it. With a little work, a metolius hold could be glued on and made to look natural. Ask Verm, Wilford, Kauk, anyone whos been around. Not good! Not traditional by any means! Gluing and chipping are the purest form of altering a rock and bringing it down to your level. If you can't climb it as is, then let someone who can, or just let it be! Holds break, its just a part of climbing, glueing is'nt!
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jan 10, 2003, 9:33 PM
Post #47 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
You people read way too f'ing deep into this sh!#. It's gotta be pure man! It's gotta be like this, like that!! Like it's some f'ing religion. With that frame of mind, you could say climbing on the rock is not natural, and that the flake would not fall off, or have fallen off if people weren't climbing on it. LAME!!! So they "fixed" it, and covered their tracks. Is it that big of a f'ing deal. Does it change your life. Get a grip. Go write a bible, or start a cult or something. It's soooo f'ing amazing how fractured the climbing community is.......sad!! Things could be so simple with so little effort. peace!! ....or maybe not!
|
|
|
|
|
dekenstructor1
Jan 10, 2003, 9:40 PM
Post #48 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 115
|
perhaps you are correct about me taking a philosophy class, ts5.... (p.s., you may find me here, if you are a member: http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/membership/lookup.asp drop me a line at the listed address and we can continue this chat)
|
|
|
|
|
dekenstructor1
Jan 10, 2003, 9:43 PM
Post #49 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 115
|
Also, ts5, if killing were a universal wrong, as you claim ("So Ken, stealing is wrong and it does go against the ethics of the world. Stealing and killing are two classic forms of wrongs that are against the ethics of all cultures. So this wouldn’t just be your belief that you want to make universal."), then how could there be cultures of head-hunters? How could there be cultures that condone the death penalty? Do you condone the death penalty? Killing is not universally viewed as wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 10, 2003, 9:51 PM
Post #50 of 127
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
dingus--valiant effort, but i fail to see a contradiction in my post which you so atly quoted. anchoring a flake in place using several bolts, some glue and a file to "clean it up" is altering the rock. placing a bolt in the rock (which would have been done regardless of the stability of the boulder) and wrapping a sling around it does not in any way alter the rock face, or change the course of nature. the block is still loose, it will still come out (in fact, i believe it DID come out last summer...). it has not been added to or altered, and the course of nature has not been prevented or changed. if im wrong, and this particular block has not yet fallen, im sure the YOSAR team will deem it necessary to "be removed" at a time when injury to climbers and tourists will be minimized. but the fact is the rock itself has not been altered as is the case with the gluing bolting and filing of this flake...nice try though... as for the sportclimbing thing...hmm...not quite the conundrum youve tried to expose. placing a bolt in a piece of un-protectable rock is vastly different than chipping a hold, gluing on a hold, and anchoring a flake through the use of bolts and glue. in fact, a bolt does not necessarily alter the face of the rock. granted, in several thousand years, the micro-fissures caused by the drilling of said bolt MAY alter or change the course of nature...in a few millenia. with that said, local positions on drilling and placing of bolts should take precedence. a global ethic of no chipping/gluing/altering/comfortizing should be adopted. oh yea, dingus...as for the happy boulders--do you really NOT see a difference between chipping and using chalk? youre duller than i thought. i guess i gave you too much credit. just go away now, and save yourself some embarrassment...you dont know what the %@#$ you are talking about, and it plainly shows...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|