pope

Maybe. On the other hand, Jim has a certain charisma that might better explain his celebrity status. When I was I high school punk, just getting curious about the freedom of the hills, I saw Doweewee's slide show at the local college in which he reviewed his Patagonia triumph. He was competing with an Everest guy who was the first American to climb Big E w/o O2. (F.A.C.M.E.W.O., not to be confused with Jim Whitaker: F.A.C.M.E.). Anyway, Doweewee put on a superior, highly entertaining show and subsequently had a multitude of babes seeking his autograph (I think your mom was there), while the Everest dude stood in his shadow. It's the magic of Big Jim Doweewee. I can't explain it, but I've witnessed it.

Exactly. He's going to say whatever it takes to make the little shits who read these magazines happy so that he can continue to make a living off the cesspool that our great sport has become.

Pretty soon, the old RC column will consist of Petey composing posts to which only he will bother to reply. Now and again he'll have to perform his moderatorial duties and remind himself he's off topic. Maybe he'll even send himself a PM in which he admonishes himself for spraying in the RC forum. Maybe he will even ban himself! You'll notice that Pope's question in the recent Jim Doweewee thread survived. Old Petey P has better sense than to mess with me.

There's probably a few Ph.D.'s on this site but so what. It seems to matter more to those without than to those with. Bust your butt and get your own if it's an issue to you. Lord Bosco, Ph.D. Lord B, don't get too bent out of shape. The jabs about Dwayner's education level are coming from somebody who once boasted something to the effect, "I have as a friend a Harvard grad who insists I'm smarter than she."

Isn't he still making a living through climbing?

OK, quiz time for Peter. How many front points are on a mono-point crampon?

I'm nearly certain that a misunderstanding over the "Jumping the Shark" thread got him banned. In this thread, Dwayner criticized some of the truly inane chatter one too frequently finds on cc.com, and I suspect that a couple of powerful characters interpreted this as an attack on their creation, on the website itself. But if you go back and read that crap, that clearly wasn't Dwayner's intent. And Will, Minx, etc. may note that this I didn't start a "bring Dwayner back" thread. Instead, based on what I'm reading, a number of cc.commies have decided to hijack this thread and voice their opinions on the subject.

Will the coward who banned Dwayner please step forward!

Here's something that Dwayner sent me that I'm sure he wouldn't mind me passing along: Dude: Another article from High Country News. This one is about those bolted caves in Oregon. Complaining vociferously about this matter is what got me finally banned. Check it out: HOTLINE - April 1, 2002 Forest Service gives climbers the slip by Ted Katauskas OREGON Rock climbers are clinging a bit more tenaciously to crags on federal lands now that the U.S. Forest Service has all but outlawed climbing at a network of caves outside of Bend, Ore. To protect dwindling populations of bats and to preserve the caves, which are sacred to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, in late February the Deschutes National Forest banned the installation and use of climbing bolts. It also created a $200 fine if climbers are found using, or even possessing, magnesium carbonate, a chalk-like hand-drying agent that permanently stains the dark porous volcanic rock. "Not only is this outrageous, its unconstitutional," says Shawn Tierney, a spokesperson for the Boulder, Colo.-based Access Fund, which unsuccessfully appealed the decision. "One of our primary objections is that this arbitrary ban could be used to justify similar actions around the country. Its a very dangerous precedent." Others say climbers dont deserve to use the area: They bolted 160 climbing anchors over one 400-square-foot area of rock near the mouth of the most popular cave, and coated parts of the caves ceiling and walls with layers of magnesium carbonate, covering prehistoric Native American pictographs. "When I first saw what these guys had done, I was so upset that I couldnt sleep for a week," says Portland cave conservationist Larry King, who removed the last of the bolts days after the ban was enacted. "They went in there without asking permission, without doing any environmental or archaeological assessments, and turned these caves into their own personal climbing gyms." Here's the funny part from above: "Not only is this outrageous, its unconstitutional," says Shawn Tierney, a spokesperson for the Boulder, Colo.-based Access Fund, which unsuccessfully appealed the decision. "One of our primary objections is that this ARBITRARY BAN could be used to justify similar actions around the country. Its a very dangerous precedent." Ain't that funny. Dwayner (and archaeologist AND climber was arbitrarily banned by cc.com for complaining about climbers abusing that cave and the Access Fund is complaining about being arbitrarily banned. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, etc. Perhaps, worthy of bringing to public attention, eh velvet roadhog? - Dwayner

So, should I infer that high-impact recreational use is acceptable provided that we can find an example of even greater negative impact? Will that be how Pete Rose makes it into the Hall of Fame? It's OK 'casue everybody's doing it?

Your kind of humor provides one of the only remaining reasons I continue to dignify these boards with my presence.

Yeah buddy. The Colts just picked apart a great team today. They're going all the way. The play-off games have been pretty dramatic this year, really fun to watch. And I don't watch a lot of football.

Several years ago, I found a place that sold T-nuts by the box for $6. They are tedious to install because they're held in place with three tiny screws, but they'll never fall out behind the wall.

Here's a link to an article with which a member of the editorial staff of R&I seems to disagree. Seems right on to me: Clean Up Your Act

First Dwayner, now Pope is gone. I looked up "arbitary" in the dictionary last night. This is what I read: The turning of an ice condition report into an anti-bolt thread last week was a bit like the cc.com of a couple years ago. Please do not continue to turn threads into antibolt arguments. Since becoming a moderator I have not suggested banning anyone. I had nothing to do with the banning of Dwayner and do not wish to press for the banning of "pope" or some related avatar; however, if you continue to force threads into an anti-bolt discourses I will do so. You can always start a new thread in the general board or in spray if you need to chat about bolts. Cheers, PP I reminded Peter that Pope was only one participant in a recent 29-page thread that evolved into a bolting discussion. I reminded him that the discussion started when a number of climbers decided to pick just one point from the five points I had outlined about how our sport had been impacted by larger numbers. Apparently, climbers here wanted to talk about bolts more than I did. Our moderators aren't going to allow this sort of discussion any more, and I think we know why. LAME! And then, about two hours after I read my formal warning from Peter, Pope is banned from contributing and sending private messages. Welcome, oh Dark Ages.

Grounds for banning? That would cut the cc.com traffic by a healthy fraction.

Your mystery man/woman is asking a question that is common to many of us. Just WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS FOR BANNING? When we study the behavior of those who are banned and those who are not, the logic applied in these considerations is imperceptible. Take for example an all-too-typical offering from one of our finest: Insults, threats, vulgarity, poor sentence structure.....and this wasn't even posted in "SPRAY". I'm very curious to know, have standards been established for guiding the banning decisions, or is it as political as it seems? An associated question is also appropriate. When we register to use the features of this site and to contribute to the discussions, each of us agrees to conditions for participation. Is it possible to point to violations of this code which would seem to justify some of the recent bannings?

Do fish swim?

Hey Gang! Who wants to join me at the Rap Wall?

Hey! Turn down the high beams!

Oooooh weeeee!

Forget the grandpa...who's the bird? Yowsa!