|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 8:32 PM
Post #1 of 88
(11245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Remarkable, as in worthy of remark.
(this is not a trad post, or a sport post, or a community post. Please leave it here, thanks)
One of the recurring 'friction points' between sport and trad is the FA Precedence that many trad climbers espouse and try to follow. You knoow, the whole retrobolt thing. No need to get into that tired discussion with all its variations though, not my intent.
But one of the points made in defense of retrobolting is an FA party climbing at levels well below their limits 'running it out' and thereby taking the route out of the realm of mere mortals to climb.
A lot of folks demean such climbs and the 'massive egos' of the climbers who open these sorts of climbs. It is usually stated in a way to make the FA party seem petty or to cast a shadow over their motives.
Quoting John Bachar from a different forum:
"bachar' wrote: I have on sight soloed a number of FA's in various places (especially Tuolumne) that may come close to being in those categories. I have mixed feelings about them. One in particular is "Solitary Confinement" on Fairview Dome. It is 5.9 (maybe 10a), four pitches (don't know really - didn't use a rope). I'm fairly proud of this accomplishment and it is one of the hardest things I've ever done. Even though it is relatively easy climbing it was very difficult and committing to walk up to this 300 foot black streak and "go for it" on the free solo. I didn't know how hard it was going to be and to this day I would have a hard time seeing bolts placed on it.
I found that statement remarkable, considering the achievements of this man. I must admit to having thought poorly of this very route, for that reason mentioned above....
But then I see that more than 2 decades after it was done the man what did it, undoubtedly among the best climbers of his or any generation, world over, considers it among the hardest things he ever did!
It puts that aspect of the retrobolt argument in an entirely new light for me.
Anyway, I thought the sentiment bachar expressed about a 'lowly' 5.9 to be remarkable, in the literal sense.
What say you about all this?
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Sep 12, 2007, 8:41 PM
Post #2 of 88
(11218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
dingus, I appreciate the tone with which you started this thread and so to encourage conversation I'd love to better understand your change in thinking. Can you describe a bit more about how this comment put it in a new light? What changed?
Thanks!
side
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 12, 2007, 8:42 PM
Post #3 of 88
(11217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I saw that too. I thought it was pretty rad. But you know what? You can still solo something that has bolts on it.
like hedge says, 'that way, normal climbers can climb it and the soloist still gets to die if he falls, it's a win win.'
hah!
I also thought KS's comment about how burning down the house has yet to see a second was interesting... it's a point of pride! A quality but deadly route on one of the most popular formations in Tuolumne, and it doesn't get done, or even attempted. The BY still gets done at least.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Sep 12, 2007, 8:42 PM
Post #4 of 88
(11217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
I can't even begin to fathom the amount of "sack" required to walk up to the bottom of a 300 ft face with only shoes and a chalk bag, not knowing if it'll even go. For myself I'm quite content to pick and choose my routes based on what I think will go given my climbing abilities and headspace.
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 12, 2007, 8:46 PM
Post #5 of 88
(11189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
i'm sure it was an amazing accomplishment. but it's a 5.9 route in a public climbing area. why should it be preserved unprotected as a monument to bachar?
if bachar had free-soloed the first ascent of every route 5.9 and below in tuolumne, would that mean we'd all have to free solo them if we wanted to climb them? that's obviously absurd.
sure it's worth keeping some sparsely protected or non-protected routes around for the thrill some people get in risking their necks. and it's worth respecting landmark ascents. but first-ascent fetishism is way overblown. routes are resources, and respect to the first ascent is just one consideration among many that have to be weighed is making a reasonable judgment about whether the thing would be better off left alone or bolted more (or less) than the first one up it decided to do.
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Sep 12, 2007, 8:48 PM
Post #6 of 88
(11177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
Clearly, there are times when retrobolting can be justified. On the other hand, I like the idea of having things around that are impossible, or at least require a very high degree of commitment, even if it means I can't climb them.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 8:57 PM
Post #7 of 88
(11156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
sidepull wrote: dingus, I appreciate the tone with which you started this thread and so to encourage conversation I'd love to better understand your change in thinking. Can you describe a bit more about how this comment put it in a new light? What changed? Thanks! side
Hard for me to say really. I know for many it seems as though my mind is set in concrete on a lot if not most climbing (and political) topics, but that isn't the case.
But the subject of Tuolume Meadows runnouts has been an endless debate for my entire decade of internet climbing board discussions. We had some heated debates on the old rec.climbing about it.
Batten witnessed a fatal fall off some runnout climb, DAFF dome I think. Some kid really, same sort of age as a lot of folks on this board. Augered in, broke his head open and died right there. Batten expressed outrage at the needlessness of it all... the death, the lost potential, and more importantly, the ethic that places boldness and FA Precedence ahead of safety.
And in the light of that lost potential the argument is strong, especially if you've ever personally heard the sound of a human cranium impacting granite.
But the "Dresden' reputation of the Meadows, going clear back to Kamps and TM Herbert, in other words, from the INCEPTION of all climbing there, is both well earned and well defended. So on the subject of retrobolting it is a kind of ground zero in terms of evaluating the soundness of arguments.
The thing that changed I guess, is understanding that in this specific case (bachar's routes were specifically called out on that old rec.climbing thread, karlbaba you remember that???) this specific route holds huge significance for the FAer.
Bachar Yerian gets the same treatment periodically.
Yet here is one of the greatest rock climbers to ever pull down on the stone steep grade telling us this is one of the hardest routes he ever did.
Do we just pave over that effort? If this is not worthy of preservation... WHAT IS?????
I'm becoming ever more convinced that for trad climbing the FA Precedence is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ethic we have.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #8 of 88
(11135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
whoa wrote: iwhy should it be preserved unprotected as a monument to bachar?
Because that's how the sport was and is practiced there and most of us want it that way of course. Why preserve the original Constitution? Its hard to read and falling apart, wtf? I mean its just a monument to the rich white slave holders who wrote it, dig? (see, disrespect is EASY!)
Why? Because the ideal represented by that style of ascent is important to many of us and we feel it is worthy of a few monuments. And I'm trying to help foster that attitude in the next generation. I know its hard to fathom when you're young, but respect is valuable and worth something not just to the object of the respect but to those who possess it as well.
The goal is to prevent the wholesale paving over of our history before that respect sufficiently grows.
This wasn't 'just an egomaniac' romping up some easy free solo.
How'd you like it if the hardest thing you ever did was just wiped out before your very eyes, like you didn't matter at all? If this route is worthy of retrobolting, ALL routes are. And that cannot be right.
That's why my friend!
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 12, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #9 of 88
(11131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Definitely a remarkable statement. Here are my thoughts:
Dingus, I've always been strongly in favor of preserving the vision of the FA party.
Three reasons:
1 - As a sign of respect to the party with the vision to see that line.
2 - As a practical matter - as a means of achieving consensus to avoid a free-for-all of bolting and chopping.
3 - To preserve that style of climbing. Each area is unique, and has its own ethics. I like that, and wouldn't want it to change.
Now I have to admit that that statement by Bachar is so extreme as to make me wonder if there should be exceptions at times for routes such as that one. 5.9. Unprotectable. Done without a rope. Yes, it's visionary. But it's so extraordinarily out of the norm - "one of the hardest things he's ever done". Think about that. So far from the norm, that I cannot see how it serves the good of anyone but him.
I'm certainly not looking to bolt it, but it makes me wonder.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #10 of 88
(11121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
whoa wrote: if bachar had free-soloed the first ascent of every route 5.9 and below in tuolumne, would that mean we'd all have to free solo them if we wanted to climb them? that's obviously absurd.
Yes your point IS absurd so please don't strawman me. The very reason I posted bachar's sentiment is that it is the exact OPPOSITE of what you stated. Its ONE 5.9, not all of them.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 12, 2007, 9:12 PM
Post #11 of 88
(11111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
dingus wrote: Because the ideal represented by that style of ascent is important to many of us and we feel it is worthy of a few monuments.
sure, some. that's exactly what i said. but which? that can't be decided by quick slogans. it's a balance among important considerations about what climbers want routes to be. the mere fact that the fa-ist didn't put in bolts and doesn't want bolts simply does not decide the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 12, 2007, 9:13 PM
Post #12 of 88
(11105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
hey dingus, does it make a difference to you how that opinion was presented by the FA?
I give you the words of Kurt Smith, regarding burning down the house, .11c X:
We spent the first day getting through the first big arch and wanting to follow in the footsteps of Kamps, Clevenger and Bachar and try to use bolts only as a last resort...I lead the first pitch through the arch and get us established on the face. Steve leads the next pitch across the face and onto the white streak and we rap off and call it a day. This is where it get good..
Vern and Claude find out what we were up to and come by camp to have a chat.. It gets heated when they tell us Fairview is their domain, all the best routes have been done already and that we are not ready to play on the big rocks yet...
Well we are young, brash and not wanting to hear any of it so we end the conversation with a wait and see..
the next day we return with a mission. BOLTS ONLY WHEN needed, and then "maybe" at that...We are motivated by the challenge of our peers and decide to make a statement...
Instead of fixing pitches we rapped that first day and when returning decide to lead each others pitches and get a feel for the team and vision of the line. I take the lead @ the high point and start up the white streak... 75'and a nut or cam later i get a stance and bring up Steve. He has the next arch and punches it with 2 bolts up the face above. He brings me up and i have a traverse right onto a steep face and overlapping arches.. i place a bolt begrudgingly and it turns out to be a spinner.. i punch it higher as it looks easy and end up 45' above the spinner looking at a greasy mantle (.10+)into a slick scoop... I quiver (really gripped) and manage to keep going to the belay..... Steve follows and we are on easy ground and top out in the dark....
There you go. Totally bad ass? Yep! Driven by ego and the desire to go bigger and badder runout wise than the previous generation? Yep! Does KS want a retro? Nope!
All I can say is thank god the trend did not continue. What if every generation of meadows climber was driven to push the runout further?
And here is something else to consider... the presentation. Kurt's tale rings pretty true to me. But what about Bachars? I don't doubt his statement about the personal difficulty of that climb. But do you think it is possible that he might have been more cavalier about the telling of the story back when he did it, instead of now, 20 years later? Does that influence how you think about it?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:15 PM
Post #13 of 88
(11099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
cracklover wrote: But it's so extraordinarily out of the norm - "one of the hardest things he's ever done". Think about that. So far from the norm, that I cannot see how it serves the good of anyone but him.
The route 'serves' those who climb it. It will serve them EXACTLY what it served Bachar too.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Sep 12, 2007, 9:16 PM
Post #14 of 88
(11093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
I actually am not too surprised about the statement Dingus. The ability and mental place that one must be in to perform with the risks being so high is a skill that is not recognized by the majority of rockclimbers today.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:19 PM
Post #15 of 88
(11085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
caughtinside wrote: All I can say is thank god the trend did not continue. What if every generation of meadows climber was driven to push the runout further?
I think the Kid said it best himself... he realized he was going to die if he continued to climb that way.
I fail to see how that changes anything?
In reply to: And here is something else to consider... the presentation. Kurt's tale rings pretty true to me. But what about Bachars? I don't doubt his statement about the personal difficulty of that climb. But do you think it is possible that he might have been more cavalier about the telling of the story back when he did it, instead of now, 20 years later? Does that influence how you think about it?
I'm not sure. Why should I presume he's lying about it???
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:24 PM
Post #16 of 88
(11064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
whoa wrote: dingus wrote: Because the ideal represented by that style of ascent is important to many of us and we feel it is worthy of a few monuments. sure, some. that's exactly what i said. but which? that can't be decided by quick slogans. it's a balance among important considerations about what climbers want routes to be. the mere fact that the fa-ist didn't put in bolts and doesn't want bolts simply does not decide the issue.
Oh but in the Meadows I assure you, it DOES. It STILL DOES. This isn't some sport crag choss pile, this is the American Desden we're talking about. It was bold from the very first climb.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 12, 2007, 9:35 PM
Post #17 of 88
(11036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
dingus wrote: whoa wrote: dingus wrote: Because the ideal represented by that style of ascent is important to many of us and we feel it is worthy of a few monuments. sure, some. that's exactly what i said. but which? that can't be decided by quick slogans. it's a balance among important considerations about what climbers want routes to be. the mere fact that the fa-ist didn't put in bolts and doesn't want bolts simply does not decide the issue. Oh but in the Meadows I assure you, it DOES. It STILL DOES. This isn't some sport crag choss pile, this is the American Desden we're talking about. It was bold from the very first climb. DMT
if i (a solid 5.5 climber) put up a runout 5.2 in the meadows, and i stamp my little feet and insist that i don't want anyone to add bolts, guess what? people would ignore me. and rightly so. it would not be a significant, cutting-edge ascent, and the rock does not belong to me, and so other considerations take precedence. i think you actually agree with this given that you agreed above that, had bachar free-soloe-fa'ed all of the meadows that would not mean we'd have to keep the whole place bolt-free.
so, clearly the mere fact that the fa-ist protected it one way and wants it frozen does not automatically eliminate the relevance of other considerations.
how i'd like to read your original post is like this: you might have thought that a 5.9 solo for bachar is clearly like the runout 5.2 for me and hence not especially deserving of any respect; but really the headiness of that particular ascent was something very special and cutting-edge and might well deserve to outweigh the interest that lots and lots of 5.9 climbers have in having another well-protected route in the area. read like that, your argument makes sense. whether it should or shouldn't be frozen in time depends on precisely that kind of weighing of considerations.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 12, 2007, 9:38 PM
Post #18 of 88
(11025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
dingus wrote: caughtinside wrote: All I can say is thank god the trend did not continue. What if every generation of meadows climber was driven to push the runout further? I think the Kid said it best himself... he realized he was going to die if he continued to climb that way. I fail to see how that changes anything? In reply to: And here is something else to consider... the presentation. Kurt's tale rings pretty true to me. But what about Bachars? I don't doubt his statement about the personal difficulty of that climb. But do you think it is possible that he might have been more cavalier about the telling of the story back when he did it, instead of now, 20 years later? Does that influence how you think about it? I'm not sure. Why should I presume he's lying about it??? DMT
hmm, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that bachar was lying.
From bachar's post, I saw a balanced mind making a heartfelt case to not retro a route.
from smiths, I got 'Fuck yeah! those old dudes gave us some shit and we showed them who was bad ass!!'
I guess I will admit I am influenced by the ego and spray, and I wonder if bachar had been more like smith when talking about the route 20 years ago.
But, at least it is the meadows, and not everywhere has the same tradition as the meadows. I think it's amusing how new news is really old news, like when Southern Belle got repeated... on rusty 1/4ers. A 2nd ascent 25 years after the FA. That's where we are.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:43 PM
Post #19 of 88
(11010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
whoa wrote: so, clearly the mere fact that the fa-ist protected it one way and wants it frozen does not automatically eliminate the relevance of other considerations.
I know you believe that's true. There are many cold chisels between you and that ultimate fate however. The Meadows are defended and it isn't ONE Ken Nichols prepared to clean up.
As to your example, I think you are absolutely wrong. If you did establish a runnout 5.2 and it made it to the guide book it would be defended as well. Besides there are LOTS of runnout 5.2s in the meadows, we call them 'approaches.'
In reply to: how i'd like to read your original post is like this: you might have thought that a 5.9 solo for bachar is clearly like the runout 5.2 for me and hence not especially deserving of any respect;
I think an onsite free solo of a 5.2 300 foot black water streak sprinkled with knobs would definitely be worthy of respect. BIG respect.
In reply to: read like that, your argument makes sense.
If you contine to strawman me by pretending I said something I never said I'll return the favor.
In reply to: whether it should or shouldn't be frozen in time depends on precisely that kind of weighing of considerations.
And the over riding CONSIDERATION in the Meadows is the FA Precedence. Some dude in Des Moines or Austin or Baton Rouge or Bolulder Colorado, doesn't really have much of a voice in it really. Its a local matter for the most part, as are the chisels.
No more strawmanning now! Please????
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 9:50 PM
Post #20 of 88
(10992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
caughtinside wrote: I guess I will admit I am influenced by the ego and spray, and I wonder if bachar had been more like smith when talking about the route 20 years ago.
Ah, I see.
I wasn't there, but I doubt it. Doesn't seem to be his style eh? He wasn't very approachable 20 years ago trust me. Didn't seem prone to spray at all.
In reply to: A 2nd ascent 25 years after the FA. That's where we are.
Why is this a problem? Its the thing I don't get. WHY does every route on Fairview or Half Dome deserve a route queue? WHY is popularity the most important measuring stick, for every route.
Say no one EVER repeats a given climb, why is that a problem.
Should the runnout pitches of South Crack be retrobolted too?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 12, 2007, 10:02 PM
Post #21 of 88
(10953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Re: south crack. Don't know, haven't done it. But I would hazard a guess that a fall up there would be survivable. Not the case on the other climbs we've been discussing. Besides, I think it gets onsighted daily.
Yes, the traffic argument is a good one. Surely, there are plenty of routes out there destined to never be repeated. Some, for the fact that they stink! But what if a party does a moderate route, it's an X route, and they say it's one of the best they've ever done? And it doesn't get done? (Although I hear solitary has seen repeats. But it isnt' exactly the same, since any repeaters know the approximate grade now...)
is that something we want to respect? A guy comes down, says his climb is top quality, but if you fall you'll be killed? Sounds a lot like ego fluffing to me. Impressive.
I don't know, there's other things that I think are more impressive. Like the FA party retrobolting snake dike so it could be done by climbers at the grade.
i did a route on Medicott a while back, called Goldmember. it notes in the guide description that it had been onsight freesoloed, unbeknownst to the party who bolted it (barnes.) They asked the FA if he wanted the bolts removed, and he gave permission for them to stay. Now THAT impressed me. It's jut 150' of 5.9 polished gold slab, but the dude let it stay. And it was a cool climb! And believe me, I was thinking the entire 150' 'holy hell, I can't believe some dude soloed up this, not knowing where it would go or if he'd end up in .11 slab city."
the short answer to this longwindedness is that there is room for new traditions and ethics. I think there's room for testpieces and PG climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 12, 2007, 10:06 PM
Post #22 of 88
(10939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
dingus wrote: If you contine to strawman me by pretending I said something I never said I'll return the favor. In reply to: whether it should or shouldn't be frozen in time depends on precisely that kind of weighing of considerations. And the over riding CONSIDERATION in the Meadows is the FA Precedence. Some dude in Des Moines or Austin or Baton Rouge or Bolulder Colorado, doesn't really have much of a voice in it really. Its a local matter for the most part, as are the chisels. No more strawmanning now! Please???? DMT
inasmuch as it is very difficult to figure out what you are claiming, if anything, i have not attributed any particular opinion to you about anything, so i can hardly have strawmanned you.
here is what *i* am claiming:
- if i put bolts on bachar's 5.9, would they in fact be chopped? sure, yes, in fact they would.
- if i did that, *should* they be chopped? that depends on a balance of considerations about the best use of resources, the respect-worthiness of the lack of protection in bachar's fa, the interests of future soloists in having something bolt-free (rather than just not bringing anything to clip into bolts), the interests of future 5.9 climbers in having a better-protected route, the interest of future climbers in being able to share something (partly) like the fa experience, whether i'd followed the appropriate procedures in getting community discussion about it, etc., etc., etc. how does the balance come out in this case? my guess is on the side of not adding bolts, but my point is that the question requires discussion because it is a question about how weighty each of a bunch of relevant considerations is in this particular case.
- aren't ALL fa's sufficiently worthy of respect that, if the fa-ist says not to change the protection, we *should* not change the protection? no, definitely not. some fa's are lamely overbolted, some are pointlessly underprotected, sometimes resource considerations can justify adding bolts even to a route that had a respectable fa (that would have been the case, for instance, if bachar had solo-fa'ed all of tuolumne). hopefully, the fa-ist is reasonable enough to consent when this is the case, but if not, too bad, it's not his rock.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 10:12 PM
Post #23 of 88
(10929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
caughtinside wrote: I don't know, there's other things that I think are more impressive. Like the FA party retrobolting snake dike so it could be done by climbers at the grade.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT???? Dude, think about that for a minute...
In reply to: They asked the FA if he wanted the bolts removed, and he gave permission for them to stay. Now THAT impressed me.
I concur. 'with FA permission.'
In reply to: the short answer to this longwindedness is that there is room for new traditions and ethics. I think there's room for testpieces and PG climbs.
Newsflash caught... the new traditions and ethics are already here. This isn't an all or nothing discussion and nothing frustrates me more than those who paint it so.
But the best place for those new traditions and ethics is NEW ROUTES. Like up SPH way. I know several black water streaks with knobs that I or you could feasibly practice bachar's craft. I'm not interested personally. I'd rather a few WELL PROTECTED sport routes along side some ground up stuff with the secure knowledge that there is respect enough to go around.
That is exactly what goes on there too.
Some of the climbs I've done up there haven't seen a 2nd, not because they're hard but because I haven't told anyone where they are. I'm becoming less inclined over time, to spill the beans too.
Anyway, we're on the same page dude, you and I both know it. This fake arguing is tiring.
Cheers Dave
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Sep 12, 2007, 10:15 PM
Post #24 of 88
(10913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
It seems that Bachar's biggest linchpin in his argument for the route is that it was an on-sight free solo first ascent. It was unknown. Now it isn't. It has fundamentally changed the character of the route without having done anything physical to it. To most people, and society is about most people, it will never again be unknown. So why not bolt it? Isn't it, effectively, just another 5.10 now?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 12, 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #25 of 88
(10905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
whoa wrote: inasmuch as it is very difficult to figure out what you are claiming, if anything, i have not attributed any particular opinion to you about anything, so i can hardly have strawmanned you.
How I'd like to read your reply is "Dingus, you're right." Read like that your post makes perfect sense.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
