chucK

I thought I was sticking strictly to the question of whether I would "rat" out a "fellow climber". I gave you my reason why I would be loathe to do so. That reason, in a nutshell, is I would be worried that going to authorities would possibly cause more trouble for us climbers than it would help.

At what point does it become worthwhile to involve the government, Federal government especially? Myself, I would think LAST RESORT! Purposefully involving the Federal Government to take care of something that will only be a problem if the Federal Government gets involved seems quite circular in an absurd way. I think Lammy's argument is that these illegal drillers will endanger all of our access once the Federal Govt. gets invovled. I'll buy that. However, when he implies the solution to this is to get the Federal Govt. involved my head begins to spin. I guess the idea is, if we come in and turn in other climbers, then the Feds. might like us as a group enough to let us continue climbing. It seems like this might be what is happening down in Inyo. However, the Feds work in strange and mysterious ways, and I wouldn't be surprised either if some Fed Govt rep just says, "screw it, this is a pain in the ass" and just closes climbing the easiest way they can, like just stop putting money into maintaining the roads that climbers use to access their crags. Anyway, ratting out climbers, besides being unmanly in a Vichy French kind of way, seems to be playing a dangerous game.

I vote the the Bogen/Off White option

Depending upon where you grease off on a slab, you often have a chance to stop sliding if you keep your sticky rubber underneath you. Think of it like skiing. You may stop if you slide into an area that's even just a little bit less steep. So anyway, pushing off or running backward may be giving up too soon. On slabs, starting to slide is not always impy you're at the point of no return. The only place I might quickly give up, and walk backward is if I was very close to an omnidirectional piece (bolt), so giving up and walking backward may save a little shoe rubber. Oh, and making sure the rope is not behind your leg is quite important on slabs. If anybody is gonna get hurt bad on a slab fall it is from the rope flipping them over and cracking their head.

Nope. If that were the case it would look like this:

Agree about the 70m ropes. I get annoyed by 60m ropes even. A 60m is probably pretty good for a skinny rope doubled while simulclimbing. Doubling up a 50 is just too short. 70m ropes are good for people who like ropedrag or those who want to able to toprope Thin Fingers from the ground.

Is it nobler to do your 60m at all costs, or is it better to pull up short at a comfy belay? I used to always try to stretch the rope (within reason) to the end. I'd do this in the interest of speed. Less belays, less changeovers, less pitches to reach objective. But then, this seemed to just bite me the ass too many times. Too many times I passed up that comfy belay ledge or bomber tree only to end up suffering at a slopey semi-hanging spot trying to keep the rope from tumbling down into a crack; or, freaking out while belaying the next two pitches wondering if the "best thing I could get" anchor would withstand the ultimate test. Too many times I grunted through 20 m of ever-increasing rope drag, making the pitch more of a chore than a fun recreation, just so I could stretch out the rope. Now, I no longer believe that maximizing pitch length is the dominating criterion for where to stop and set up the belay, even when, or especially when, speed is an important consideration. A couple of extra changeovers may not spend as much time as it would to have to fiddle and finagle setting up a complicated belay anchor. Those couple of extra changeovers may also take less time than one would waste trying to make changeovers on small awkward belay stations built for one (especially true if party is swinging leads). I was expecting to make this a "discuss" topic, but now the post is looking more like a treatise. I guess I could still ask the question, "how much rope do you go through before you start considering a belay?". Obviously, you are not going to stop and put the next belay 10 feet above the previous one without very good reason (comfy armchair station with 3 large bolts and fridge full of beer). What's your criterion for when to stop and setup the next station?

More than 10 feet up I think. Probably 10 feet up after you squirm out above the chimney/offwidth which you enter directly above the belay anchors. I made the mistake once of traversing right, just after escaping that chimney, and it was a down-angling strenous hand traverse that just got you pumped then put you right at the hard part of the yarding way. If you want to do the easier way make sure the hand traverse you take out right is a very easy one (and cool too, 5.7 hand traverse, butt over BIG air).

Not like I know anything first hand, but from what I've read (now and before this war), War is hell. GD, here and always, with your first-hand knowledge you have been reminding us of that. I guess this is an "I told you so", but even before we went into this thing, I think anyone betting the farm on a quick, clean, evisceration-of-the-brutal-Saddam-regime, Iraqis-welcoming-us-with-open-arms, end-of-story conflict had to be pretty damn naive. Unfortunately, those that took us into this war, the administration AND the sheeplike congressional "leaders" didn't end up losing their farms. They're still selling this thing like it was a great idea, and the sad thing is PEOPLE ARE BUYING IT and eating it right up. Lame. Sorry GD for maybe twisting your message. My point above is tangential to yours. To address your point, you seem to be saying that we gotta continue this thing, and when we do, use strict resolve; that is, hit them where it hurts, and hit them hard, etc. I don't reject your idea out of hand, but can your suggested tactics mesh with the goal of winning the hearts and minds? Like you said, this involves killing lots of innocents. This surely hurts the goals of a hearts and minds strategy. Do you think trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is a fruitless task? Or do you think that while we will be hurt in that department by killing of innocents, that in the long run, the end goal of a "free and stable Iraq" will be furthered? Or possibly, you may think the goal of a free and stable Iraq is just a pipedream? From some of your stuff I get this impression. The above are all genuine questions (with the exception of first paragraph which was me trumpeting my political agenda). It's easy to "I told you so" the people that wanted to do this shit in the first place. Unfortunately we are all now stuck with the more important question, "what do we do now?"

way to get out and explore!

Sno Mtn. trail to Cave Ridge, up through the meadow valley, then popping over the crest into the basin south of Lundin is defintely easier than the Red Mtn trail way. The meadow is usually quite nice, but it's a little touch and go to find where to pop over the left crest. Robert's suggestion to climb all the way to top of Sno Mtn is more sure, but a bit longer. You can also get to the col east of Lundin by taking the Commonwealth Basin trail all the way up and then find a fairly devious patch over and around the crags between Red and Lundin. Don't count on trying to find that way back (if you've never done it) in the dark. Once you're at the col east of Lundin though, probably the easiest way to get to the West Ridge is to summit Lundin then downclimb the West Ridge to it's base.

Guess I didn't notice the tongue in cheek part. My apologies. I liked the part where you guys did all that funky stuff tieing and untieing at the top of the Fin too!

Vantage would be a poor choice of places to bring kids, especially smaller ones. Too much rockfall.

I agree with your assessment of the FC choice. But I don't think it's cool to say "I told you so" after the fact. I'm sure he understood that he'd made a mistake as soon as he was retreating back down the mountain with his tail between his legs. No need to rub it in, especially after the guy had the balls to post a trip report where has was basically volunteering to eat crow. The fact that the Sulphide may well have been a worse choice is just sort of ironic and goes to show you that "you never know".

As I remember it, this guy wanted to do the Fisher Chimneys, and a bunch of people said he was too gumby to do that, go do that boring-ass Sulphide Glacier slog. Then, he went and did the Fishers anyway. Which is sort of annoying, because if you were one of the many people who gave him advice to do the Sulphide, you probably just felt like he asked you advice, you took time out of your day to give him some advice, then he just said, "oh well nevermind, I'm just going to do what I orginally wanted to do anyway." If he wasn't even going to consider what you had to say, why did he fucking ask it! Lambone used to do that shit all the time Anyway.... he ended up heading up the Fishers, made a judgement call that the weather was too shitty and they bailed. A bunch of jerks posted "I told you so". And the amusing punchline is that this was quickly followed by a report of some group who had attempted the Sulphide that day and got caught in the storm and had to be rescued!! Made the I-told-you-so guys look pretty stupid in my opinion. I-told-you-soers are so SUCK!!!

Gravity is harsh, and people need to understand that. Maybe by being a total dickhead to the stupid you can prevent someone else from getting in a bad situation. But then again, how stupid do you think we are? Mr. Spliffy, do you think anyone read that trip report and thought, "Oh cool! I wanna do something just like that! Sensitivity of the toes is overrated."? Do you think the self-admitted bumbling climbers need to be brought down another notch? For their own good and the good of others? I don't think so. I think the message gets across without raking the guys over the coals. If we raked everyone who anybody thought was a dumbass over the coals, pretty soon we'd have very few trip reports to discuss. I think it should be OK to say climbers screwed up once in a while. But only if it serves an important purpose. If it's obvious that the climbers did dumb shit, but they paint it as being smart and the way to go, then I think it's reasonable to criticize. As I remember, the SA TR was pretty self-deprecating. I think that guy understood he made many bad choices. He presented them as such, and any newbie who read that report is gonna be thinking twice now about hitting the SA at 9AM in September. Even without Mr. Spliffy's abrasive commentary! Only the most thickheaded idiot would think of that report as a grand tale of accomplishment or a good how-to example. Raking that guy over the coals: doesn't help anybody, makes the TR writer feel even more like shit, and discourages further trip reports. On the other hand, that Mr. Radon report about the Fin seems to me more like one that should be open for criticism. They appeared to make some bad choices, but the report read like they were fucking smart guys who did everything right. But still on that one, if you want to help anyone, it's probably best to be somewhat constructive and as polite as possible in your criticism. In the hope that you won't discourage others from telling their stories. That's my view on this thing.

Coke 1.25 what about beer?!! I went to the supermarket the other night and every goddamned beer was on sale for $7 a six. But I'm sure you all know this already

Painting those rings would be dangerous and irresponsible as the paint would hide how rusty those things are. Those rings are timebombs! Accidents waiting to happen. I'm amazed noone's died yet.

Alpine climbing often involves climbing with a pack. Go to the gym and climb with a pack filled with a bunch of books or something (and make sure to hook an ice-axe on the outside). Make sure to be wearing your helmet too. See how much fun that is? Alpine climbing sucks. All that stuff about learning how to hike and scramble is a very good idea if you haven't done any of that yet. Hiking and scrambling with a whole bunch of heavy climbing ropes and gear in your pack wouldn't hurt either. See how much fun that is? Alpine climbing sucks.

Link? But you would get to deduct that $5,000 for purposes of Taxable income at the Federal Level You are indeed voting in your own fiscal best interest, with which there is nothing wrong I say! It amazes me though how many lower to middle-income people vote Republican even though it's going to cost them a ton of money (in order to fund the high income people). True believers I guess!

Though difficult, I will give a reply more worthless than Lammy's: slkfhjs

Don't you know that capital punishment is not effective as a deterrent? Get with the damn talking points!

Maybe you could manufacture documents that state Iran and Iraq bought Uranium from you too!

Pope, perhaps they could find a toproping cliff, but for some reason, these guys/gals prefer leading using bolts. Though their desire to do so may seem dumb to you or I, they still want to do it. I don't see how one can justify prohibiting them using a reasonable chunk of land in the National Forest for an activity that is fairly benign. With respect to your question to Rudy, I think in some respects the use of the Nat forest is a privilege and if one's impact exceeds reasonable levels then it would be reasonable to cut off their access. I don't think the current situation merits this. Hopefully it never will. Because the snow-mo's already have their chunk of land over on the slopes of Mt. Baker as well as a bunch of other places, I don't think prohibiting them in the Alpental Valley would contradict my logic here.