How many times do I have to explain to you that respect for the past is not an all-or-nothing proposition?
I don't believe you.
Blinded by your faith, no doubt.
No... I've read your posts for quite some time now. You don't have it in you.
Dingus, the time has come for me to request that you clearly explain exactly what you mean when you say the word "respect". (Because it is becoming apparent that it is not the same as what I mean when I use that word.)
I find the anti-social (and unethical) attitude embodied in the FAVD to be deeply disrespectful to fellow climbers. If you respected them, you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship. (You don't tell someone that their vote should be worth less than yours if you respect their opinion.)
But as I also mentioned earlier, I think it is an irrefutable fact that most climbers do not respect each other. You rant and rave about respect, as if it were ever a well-established tradition in this subculture. The history of climbing is tainted with bolt wars, hanger-slashings, and fist fights. And political infighting over issues that to a non-climber are simply hilarious (refusing to lower to the ground after every fall is immoral?? Hahah!).
Not only do we not always respect each other, as I've been saying, in many cases we shouldn't. Respect should be earned. Do you really think Bachar's childish behavior regarding Peace was respectable? What about Jean-Baptist Tribout claiming a woman would never be able to flash 5.12c? What about Yabo, who allegedly threatened Lynn Hill with suicide by solo if she wouldn't date him? What about Royal Robbins on the Wall of Early Morning Light (where he even violated the FAVD, too)?
On the other hand, what about Royal Robbins admitting that his actions on WEML were a mistake? What about John Gill doing his own thing on tiny rocks, including North America's first 5.13-difficulty climbing in the late 1950's, and the first introduction of gymnastic chalk to climbing world-wide? What about Lynn Hill employing hangdog-tactics to redpoint 5.13's in the Gunks, at a time when it was very controversial (and many were telling her it was cheating)? What about Alan Watts, who was willing to demonstrate that the taboo against rap-bolting was silly and should be left in the past? Or how about Ray Jardine, who did the first roped 5.13- using an innovative new protection method which many at the time told him was cheating?
I admit I don't respect all of climbings past (or probably even most of it). But all I'm asking here is that, when conflict occurs in real world situations, we momentarily put aside our differences and settle it using democracy. If you're against that, my only available conclusion is that you have even less respect for your fellow climber than I do. And this kind of respect has nothing to do with tradition or history: it's much more basic than that.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 25, 2007, 3:47 PM)
On the other hand, what about Royal Robbins admitting that his actions on WEML were a mistake? What about John Gill doing his own thing on tiny rocks, including North America's first 5.13-difficulty climbing in the late 1950's, and the first introduction of gymnastic chalk to climbing world-wide? What about Lynn Hill employing hangdog-tactics to redpoint 5.13's in the Gunks, at a time when it was very controversial (and many were telling her it was cheating)? What about Alan Watts, who was willing to demonstrate that the taboo against rap-bolting was silly and should be left in the past? Or how about Ray Jardine, who did the first roped 5.13- using an innovative new protection method which many at the time told him was cheating?
the examples you list are not really relevant. they did change climbing, but lynn hill HDing didnt really change the route or destroyed somebodys work, jlongs bouldering did no such thing either and rap bolting is primarily used to establish new routes, not modifying existing ones (though i would guess it is the preffered method for retrobolting)...
but someone DID put some money and a lot of their time to put up a route (either by rap or lead bolting) and the least you can do is leave it alone. if you dont like it, establish a route of your own, and then you can have a bolt every 3ft if that suits you.
that being said, i agree that sport routes should be safe and the ones bolting them should make them in such a way that theyre safe. but if someone decides to run it out for some reason, its their right to do so. if you dont like it, dont climb it, and if you feel it shouldve been bolted differently, maybe you shouldve gotten there first and bolt it yourself.
the respect were talking about is the respect to the climbers who did carry all the gear for bolting (believe me, its quite heavy most of the time), took the time to establish a route and not to mention paid for the gear. the best way to do so is to enjoy the route and not try to change it because youre scared.
If you respected [fellow climbers], you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship.
You keep claiming that first-ascensionists are single-handed dictators. It's only accurate on an extremely limited scale (the routes that individual put up). Sure, some areas bear quite a heavy mark by a certain group of climbers, but no one is preventing you from going out and putting up new routes of your choice in the style you wish. There is virgin rock out there. Maybe if you referred to climbing areas a small fiefdoms I'd have gone for it, but you overstated your case.
Let me flip the argument for you. If I've understood your point, you're claiming a large enough segment of the climbing population should be able to alter climbs regardless of the FA's wishes or strong minority opposition. Let's say I get together all of the sub-5.11 climbers out there. They probably means the majority of climbers in most areas. Let's say we decide to chip all the routes between 5.12 - 5.14. We won't damage the holds already used, but we'll drill a few pockets, maybe bolt on a hold or two. Chipping isn't traditionally accepted, but we really want to get on some of those lines you guys are hogging. Selfish of you, really. There's only so much rock out there, and we should be able to climb it if we want to. It won't change your experience any; just don't use our new holds. I think that holds about as much water as your argument.
If you respected [fellow climbers], you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship.
You keep claiming that first-ascensionists are single-handed dictators. It's only accurate on an extremely limited scale (the routes that individual put up). Sure, some areas bear quite a heavy mark by a certain group of climbers, but no one is preventing you from going out and putting up new routes of your choice in the style you wish. There is virgin rock out there. Maybe if you referred to climbing areas a small fiefdoms I'd have gone for it, but you overstated your case.
Let me flip the argument for you. If I've understood your point, you're claiming a large enough segment of the climbing population should be able to alter climbs regardless of the FA's wishes or strong minority opposition. Let's say I get together all of the sub-5.11 climbers out there. They probably means the majority of climbers in most areas. Let's say we decide to chip all the routes between 5.12 - 5.14. We won't damage the holds already used, but we'll drill a few pockets, maybe bolt on a hold or two. Chipping isn't traditionally accepted, but we really want to get on some of those lines you guys are hogging. Selfish of you, really. There's only so much rock out there, and we should be able to climb it if we want to. It won't change your experience any; just don't use our new holds. I think that holds about as much water as your argument.
Well said! Now that seems to close this argument for good.
I can only suffice that retro bolters are lousy lovers. No creativity or balls!
I've been climbing (a lot) for the past 14 years. I have never placed any new bolts on established climbs.... or felt the need to! Most of my friends have the same story. Why are all these rookies so hell-bent on placing bolts. You can climb all your life, have a very full climbing career, and never place one bolt! Put your hammer drills down and GO CLIMBING!
On the other hand, what about Royal Robbins admitting that his actions on WEML were a mistake? What about John Gill doing his own thing on tiny rocks, including North America's first 5.13-difficulty climbing in the late 1950's, and the first introduction of gymnastic chalk to climbing world-wide? What about Lynn Hill employing hangdog-tactics to redpoint 5.13's in the Gunks, at a time when it was very controversial (and many were telling her it was cheating)? What about Alan Watts, who was willing to demonstrate that the taboo against rap-bolting was silly and should be left in the past? Or how about Ray Jardine, who did the first roped 5.13- using an innovative new protection method which many at the time told him was cheating?
the examples you list are not really relevant.
You seem to have gotten confused. They are relevant to the Dingus-generated subtopic of whether respect for the past is an all-or-nothing proposition, not to the broader topics (the FAVD, democracy, etc) in this thread.
In reply to:
the respect were talking about is the respect to the climbers who did carry all the gear for bolting (believe me, its quite heavy most of the time), took the time to establish a route and not to mention paid for the gear.
Yes, I know it's heavy. That's why sport RD's should get naming rights, even if they don't redpoint it first (or ever).
In reply to:
the best way to do so is to enjoy the route and not try to change it because youre scared.
Fear is a red-herring. If there is a democratic majority in favor of the change, then the specific reasons for the change are irrelevant.
If you respected [fellow climbers], you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship.
You keep claiming that first-ascensionists are single-handed dictators. It's only accurate on an extremely limited scale (the routes that individual put up). Sure, some areas bear quite a heavy mark by a certain group of climbers, but no one is preventing you from going out and putting up new routes of your choice in the style you wish. There is virgin rock out there.
Not always, there isn't. (Go to Reimer's some time. Most of the walls we have access to already have nearly possible squeeze-job installed.) Furthermore, not all rock is created equal. The highest quality stone tends to get developed first. Why should today's generation have to feed off scraps?
In areas with a very large quantity of quality stone, none of this sort of conflict is ever likely to become an issue, so it's really not relevant to this discussion.
In reply to:
Let me flip the argument for you. If I've understood your point, you're claiming a large enough segment of the climbing population should be able to alter climbs regardless of the FA's wishes or strong minority opposition. Let's say I get together all of the sub-5.11 climbers out there. They probably means the majority of climbers in most areas.
Not sport areas. (5.11 is a warmup grade.)
In reply to:
Let's say we decide to chip all the routes between 5.12 - 5.14. We won't damage the holds already used, but we'll drill a few pockets, maybe bolt on a hold or two. Chipping isn't traditionally accepted, but we really want to get on some of those lines you guys are hogging.
No, you're completely wrong. Chipping is traditionally accepted in sport climbing (have you ever been to a sport crag?). In sport climbing, anything goes: what matters is the result. If a drilled pocket or a reinforced hold make a higher quality route, they are just other tools at the route developer's disposal.
In reply to:
Selfish of you, really. There's only so much rock out there, and we should be able to climb it if we want to. It won't change your experience any; just don't use our new holds. I think that holds about as much water as your argument.
Yes it does. And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
Fortunately, most sport climbers do not only climb 5.11, or if they do, they usually at least have a desire to get better and someday do some of those 12's and 13's. If they had no desire to climb well, they'd probably be trad climbers instead.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 26, 2007, 1:59 AM)
That was a pretty direct jab at trad climbers there man.
I think E-rock is a pretty good argument against dogmatically following an old ethic too far into the future. However, its also a pretty good argument against rap bolting on granite slabs, too. The few ground up routes there wouldn't, by themselves, be a problem if future developers had either put in all other routes ground up, or had bolted with future climbers in mind.
See, nobody is forcing anyone else to put up new routes in line with the old ethic. But not changing what's already there seems like a pretty good idea too, of course within reason. Even if all of Rome decided it would be awesome to paint over Michaelangelo's ceiling at the Sistine Chapel, it'd still be a bad idea. Bolting is obviously not so clear cut nor so high minded as that, but the core argument is the same.
I still think intentionally under-bolting a particular route just so people think you're awesome is utter bullshit. But that could just be me.
...And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
Well, your premise of 'democracy' is utterly corrupted by the fact that somewhere between about 75-85% of today's 'climbers are wholly bolt-enabled, low-skilled, and risk-averse shadows of what being a 'climber' once meant. You're proposing a 'tyranny of democracy' simply because you understand these numbers. It's a lot like asking 5th graders to 'democratically' select a proper diet.
The distinction, in today's world of commercially-driven climbing pumped in each city by the annual tidal flows of gyms, is that supplying and refreshing the outdoor 'media' for sport climber requires the relentless and endless bolting of rock. The act of bolting rock is a clear act of consumer consumption. All in all, the dominant trend in climbing of over the past 25 years has resulted in a broad majority of low-skill 'climbers' who's average life expectancy in the sport is probably somewhere between 6 tp 36 months. Democracy? That type of democracy simply propogates ignorance and clueless consumerism. It already generates remarkable levels of overcrowding, access problems, and a wholesale degradation of rock.
As I've said before, surfing respects their elders principally because you can't bolt waves - a kid today has to sack up to ride the same big breaks his grandmother rode generations before.
If you respected [fellow climbers], you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship.
You keep claiming that first-ascensionists are single-handed dictators. It's only accurate on an extremely limited scale (the routes that individual put up). Sure, some areas bear quite a heavy mark by a certain group of climbers, but no one is preventing you from going out and putting up new routes of your choice in the style you wish. There is virgin rock out there.
Not always, there isn't. (Go to Reimer's some time. Most of the walls we have access to already have nearly possible squeeze-job installed.) Furthermore, not all rock is created equal. The highest quality stone tends to get developed first. Why should today's generation have to feed off scraps?
Where you live or choose to climb isn't my fault. If you don't like the climbing, move or live with your choice. You keep casting modern climbers in this sad light, disenfranchised and helpless, with nowhere to play. Both bold, ground-up, old-school routes and those that wish to climb them are in the minority. You don't need to take over the world, you already have it.
If you want to bitch about the era you were born into, you'll have to take that up with a power greater than me. If you were born into the hard days of climbing, I bet you would have been into some other 'hobby' like croquet. The sort of work and risk old school climbing demanded wouldn't have appealed to you.
fracture wrote:
In areas with a very large quantity of quality stone, none of this sort of conflict is ever likely to become an issue, so it's really not relevant to this discussion.
When did you become the master of relevance? Don't assume you can dictate what's fair game in a larger discussion. I don't give a damn if this was posted in the Sport Climbing forum or if your discussion is based on a Texas sport-climbing perspective. When your attitude has the ability to impact old-school ground-up routes, you don't get to define scope.
fracture wrote:
In reply to:
Let me flip the argument for you. If I've understood your point, you're claiming a large enough segment of the climbing population should be able to alter climbs regardless of the FA's wishes or strong minority opposition. Let's say I get together all of the sub-5.11 climbers out there. They probably means the majority of climbers in most areas.
Not sport areas. (5.11 is a warmup grade.)
Let me fill you in on a secret since you inappropriately slapped your e-penis on the table. The grade is irrelevant in my example.
fracture wrote:
In reply to:
Let's say we decide to chip all the routes between 5.12 - 5.14. We won't damage the holds already used, but we'll drill a few pockets, maybe bolt on a hold or two. Chipping isn't traditionally accepted, but we really want to get on some of those lines you guys are hogging.
No, you're completely wrong. Chipping is traditionally accepted in sport climbing (have you ever been to a sport crag?). In sport climbing, anything goes: what matters is the result. If a drilled pocket or a reinforced hold make a higher quality route, they are just other tools at the route developer's disposal.
Thankfully those folks I know developing sport routes don't support your opinion. In my world of climbing ethics, bringing the route down to a lower level isn't respected. Everything does not 'go'. Of course, you seem pretty good at convincing yourself yours is the only rational perspective.
fracture wrote:
In reply to:
Selfish of you, really. There's only so much rock out there, and we should be able to climb it if we want to. It won't change your experience any; just don't use our new holds. I think that holds about as much water as your argument.
Yes it does. And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
You'd gladly follow your flawed logic through the gates of ruin rather than admit you're wrong? God, man, I hope you're not representative of this climbing consortium deciding the fate of routes in your area. This may come as news to you, but the will of the people is fickle.
Your latest post confirmed my building suspision. There is no soul of an artist in you, and no respect for the medium. I think that's at the core of this, not the issue of managing a limited resource. That's just the flag you're waving about, shouting grand terms of politics and progress. You'd happily tear anything down so long as it resulted in your short-term benefit. I honestly don't understand why you don't stay in the gym. You can set and modify all the routes you want. The possibilities are endless, and its very design supports your preference for disregarding the past. The clips are nice and safe, and you and your buddies can be masters of your own world. Get thee to the gym.
...And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
Well, your premise of 'democracy' is utterly corrupted by the fact that somewhere between about 75-85% of today's 'climbers are wholly bolt-enabled, low-skilled, and risk-averse shadows of what being a 'climber' once meant. You're proposing a 'tyranny of democracy' simply because you understand these numbers. It's a lot like asking 5th graders to 'democratically' select a proper diet.
Or asking Americans to elect a president?
(Thanks for admitting you are against Democracy. I can ignore you now, since I am considering that topic out of scope in order to preserve my own sanity.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 26, 2007, 4:53 AM)
I think E-rock is a pretty good argument against dogmatically following an old ethic too far into the future. However, its also a pretty good argument against rap bolting on granite slabs, too. The few ground up routes there wouldn't, by themselves, be a problem if future developers had either put in all other routes ground up, or had bolted with future climbers in mind.
I don't think so (and I don't understand what makes you say that).
Also, FYI, several of the initial E-Rock retros (on the backside and elsewhere) were done by some of the main players in early ground up development (such as James Crump).
In reply to:
See, nobody is forcing anyone else to put up new routes in line with the old ethic. But not changing what's already there seems like a pretty good idea too, of course within reason.
Out of curiousity, have you been there? The steep (read: good) section of the wall is not very long, and many of the earlier routes zig zag all over it (ostensibly based on the FA's desire to deliberately claim more wall real estate).
In reply to:
Even if all of Rome decided it would be awesome to paint over Michaelangelo's ceiling at the Sistine Chapel, it'd still be a bad idea. Bolting is obviously not so clear cut nor so high minded as that, but the core argument is the same.
I don't think bolting is even remotely like that. (And while it may be a "bad idea" to paint over the Chapel, that doesn't mean that some authority should step in and stop them. Certainly you aren't suggesting that war would be the proper response from the international community? If you aren't, then I don't think you're really saying anything except that you would disagree with their votes, which is certainly your right.)
A better analogy might be: the locals at a popular hiking area want to change the direction of an old trail (for whatever reason).
In reply to:
I still think intentionally under-bolting a particular route just so people think you're awesome is utter bullshit. But that could just be me.
We can agree on that. (And I think it is far from just you; the vast majority of climbers I have discussed it with agree.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 26, 2007, 5:33 AM)
Not always, there isn't. (Go to Reimer's some time. Most of the walls we have access to already have nearly possible squeeze-job installed.) Furthermore, not all rock is created equal. The highest quality stone tends to get developed first. Why should today's generation have to feed off scraps?
Where you live or choose to climb isn't my fault. If you don't like the climbing, move or live with your choice.
Why the hell would we move? Because a single person (who often has moved!) is telling us what to do?
Wtf?
In reply to:
Both bold, ground-up, old-school routes and those that wish to climb them are in the minority. You don't need to take over the world, you already have it.
As I have repeatedly argued, at sport crags, the FAVD is regularly violated. I fully agree with you that my side is winning this debate when it comes to real world actions (at least, at the sport crags where I know enough to comment), despite the fact that many people still pay lip-service to these antiquated rules.
In reply to:
If you were born into the hard days of climbing, I bet you would have been into some other 'hobby' like croquet. The sort of work and risk old school climbing demanded wouldn't have appealed to you.
Correct. Old school climbing is not an activity that I find even remotely interesting.
(And I do have other hobbies. Several.)
In reply to:
fracture wrote:
No, you're completely wrong. Chipping is traditionally accepted in sport climbing (have you ever been to a sport crag?). In sport climbing, anything goes: what matters is the result. If a drilled pocket or a reinforced hold make a higher quality route, they are just other tools at the route developer's disposal.
Thankfully those folks I know developing sport routes don't support your opinion. In my world of climbing ethics, bringing the route down to a lower level isn't respected. Everything does not 'go'. Of course, you seem pretty good at convincing yourself yours is the only rational perspective.
Manufacturing holds is not necessarily (and not in the form I support) about bringing routes down to your level. It's about designing quality areas, with good routes in a variety of grades (and available warmups, etc). Or it's about climbing really hard on choss crimpers that would simply break without some reinforcement. Or it's about turning a blank wall into a quality area for outdoor recreation. Chipping is as good (or as bad) as the result. And if the result is bad, I have no problem with the common practice of retro-filling stupid pockets with glue (regardless of whether the FA supports it or not).
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. And I suspect that the "folks you know" don't develop difficult sport routes on very chossy rock. Believe it or not, at many areas, the line between "chipping" and "cleaning" is not even remotely clear-cut, and believe it or not, at many areas, the climbing would simply not exist without the skilled use of glue.
In reply to:
fracture wrote:
In reply to:
Selfish of you, really. There's only so much rock out there, and we should be able to climb it if we want to. It won't change your experience any; just don't use our new holds. I think that holds about as much water as your argument.
Yes it does. And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
You'd gladly follow your flawed logic through the gates of ruin rather than admit you're wrong?
It's only the "gates of ruin" if we already agree with you.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 26, 2007, 5:31 AM)
And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
You'd gladly follow your flawed logic through the gates of ruin rather than admit you're wrong?
It's only the "gates of ruin" if we already agree with you.
Right up there, you said you would disagree with a really bad decision, but that you'd tuck your tail between your legs and go with 'the will of the people'. Going along with the wrong thing because it's the popular position is what I was referring to as going through the gates of ruin.
I said you should move because you keep bitching about the climbing in your area. "The routes are too tight for a FA. There isn't any virgin rock here. I'm so repressed in my choices, so retrobolting is my only recourse."
Our opinion on chipping is obviously as at odds with those on retrobolting. Just because I don't subscribe to popular practice or your point of view doesn't mean that I'm ill-informed. You'd better sharpen your barbs if you'd like to actually draw blood. I think I'm doing more harm to myself smacking my head into this brick wall of a debate.
You've ducked at least two of my direct questions. Given your inclinations, why don't you stick with the gym where you can't do any harm? Given their small quantity compared to all the perfectly fine sport routes out there, why do you have to lay claim to old-school, heady routes?
highest quality stone tends to get developed first. Why should today's generation have to feed off scraps?
Feeding - you've got the operative word right.
In reply to:
Correct. Old school climbing is not an activity that I find even remotely interesting.
It's actually climbing you wouldn't be remotely interested in or capable of given your obvious inability to deal with fear and your need for risk-free 'climbing'. Again, it doesn't matter whether 99% of 'climbers' share your aversion to and inability to deal effectively with risk and fear - gridbolting every rock in America would still be as criminal as much of it is today.
In reply to:
Manufacturing holds is not necessarily (and not in the form I support) about bringing routes down to your level. It's about designing quality areas, with good routes in a variety of grades (and available warmups, etc).
I always appreciate it when people flaunt the corrupt and bankrupt principles they hold deeply. Your ego so shines through in all your posts relative to the [mass] production of routes. Let me guess - you're also a 'god put it all here for us to exploit' christian as well. F#ck. Democracy? Your whole approach to the sport-formally-known-as-climbing is a democracy of disease at best and only democratic in the same way Ebola is.
In fact, I normally can go out and still have a good time with most folks I have extreme disagreements with relative to climbing - but in your case, after listening to your bullshit for several years, I have to say I'm going to make an exception. So, f#ck you - you are a pox on climbing - escaping folks with your mentality is one of the reasons climbing had so much appeal to begin with. It's hard to imagine three decades later it would be dumbed down to the point it could appeal to a person like you. It's clear when Harding wrote his prescient 'Downward Bound' even he had no idea just how far down it could go.
[ Edited in a failed attempt to make this post even harsher, vitriolic, and intolerant... ]
(This post was edited by healyje on May 26, 2007, 8:52 AM)
Manufacturing holds is not necessarily (and not in the form I support) about bringing routes down to your level. It's about designing quality areas, with good routes in a variety of grades (and available warmups, etc). Or it's about climbing really hard on choss crimpers that would simply break without some reinforcement. Or it's about turning a blank wall into a quality area for outdoor recreation. Chipping is as good (or as bad) as the result. And if the result is bad, I have no problem with the common practice of retro-filling stupid pockets with glue (regardless of whether the FA supports it or not).
MANUFACTURING holds is never acceptable. by manufacturing i mean making holds where there were none beforehand. reinforcing stuff a bit (sometimes necessary) and cleaning dont fall into manufacturing category.
if i want MANUFACTURED holds ill go to a gym.
and i have seen quite a lot of routes screwed up by adding holds and i have yet to find a good manufactured route. manufactured routes tend to be, well, manufactured to suit the maker and are thus usually a bit less enjoyable for everybody else. and THAT is a form of FA veto.
reinforcing stuff a bit (sometimes necessary) and cleaning dont fall into manufacturing category.
Yet another opinion offered as fact.
well, cleaning is essential when theres stuff that migh fall off if someone tried to grab it (read: choss, you dont want someone to pull of a flake and kill the belayer), and sometimes you can discreetly reinforce a hold that you just dont want to pull off.
and, offcorse, that is my opinion
(This post was edited by overlord on May 26, 2007, 4:32 PM)
And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
You'd gladly follow your flawed logic through the gates of ruin rather than admit you're wrong?
It's only the "gates of ruin" if we already agree with you.
Right up there, you said you would disagree with a really bad decision, but that you'd tuck your tail between your legs and go with 'the will of the people'. Going along with the wrong thing because it's the popular position is what I was referring to as going through the gates of ruin.
Well, what do you suggest? Pull out the nine, start shootin' people?
In reply to:
I said you should move because you keep bitching about the climbing in your area.
Or we could just invest some time and money and improve it? Much of the sport climbing here is really quite fun, by the way; it's just that there's not very much of it. And moving simply isn't an option for everyone, anyway, so this is really a non sequitur.
In reply to:
You've ducked at least two of my direct questions.
Sorry, I didn't realize you actually meant them seriously.
In reply to:
Given your inclinations, why don't you stick with the gym where you can't do any harm?
a) This is a loaded question. (I disagree with the presupposition that having quality-developed outdoor recreational areas is harmful.) b) Because, overall, I like limestone better than plastic. Limestone (but not granite!) consistently offers a wider range of interesting moves and hold-types than the indoor gyms I've been to. c) It doesn't matter anyway. The motives we have for climbing (or retroing) really have no bearing on how we should deal with conflict when it arises. Does it matter why birders enjoy birding, or hunters enjoy hunting, or equestrians enjoy ... riding, if they are in competition with your user-group for access at a particular public area?
In reply to:
Given their small quantity compared to all the perfectly fine sport routes out there, why do you have to lay claim to old-school, heady routes?
Because we want to use that rock to play our game and no one can give us a good reason not to.
(But for the record: in this thread I have already twice advocated some sort of proportional representation in cases where there are significant distinct climbing user-groups. (And FYI, this is not the case at Reimer's.))
19 /
16%
