pope

I'm curious about how MattP, he who cares so much for logic, and he who constantly reminds me that I do not.....I'm curious about how he came to his original and incorrect conclusion, that Chirp was Dwayner posting as some anonymous admirer. Chirp is an experienced and articulate Tacoma and Utah climber who has worked as a park ranger and who has seen the impact of bolting (and the crowds that sport climbing attracts). Chirp got me into climbing when some of the foul-mouthed little pukes who log onto this site were still peeing in their pull-ups. If you haven't noticed, quite a number of people are stepping forward to remind us that Dwayner's contributions to this site (as well as his pub club appearances) were valued and respected. Is it possible that this many people exist in reality, or are they all just Dwayner's avatars posing as anonymous admirers? I think you guys need to step up and admit that...... (1) The thing you find to be most obnoxious about Dwayner's posts are their anti-bolting/anti-bolter content. (2) You who banned Dwayner were predisposed to find his posts obnoxious because you are advocates for bolting. (3) A number of participants on this site think this action is a mistake. (4) Your stated reasons for banning Dwayner make your decision look entirely arbitrary, in relation to the crap that survives your editing.

I had to dig out some posts that supported a cubic, shed-type structure. I had no idea that anybody ever used that much concrete in a post hole. Of the four posts, two of them had been set in concrete that was equal in volume to a sphere three feet in diameter. The structure used to have a fiberglass satelite dish on it, one of those 6-foot jobbers that catch a lot of wind. Anyway, after hours of digging I managed to get a webbing harness around the damn thing, then attached a chain to a "come-along" and a tree. Where the chain ran out of the pit, I padded the lip with an ice axe. When I finally got this thing to the surface, I couldn't roll it without levering it with a digging bar! Anybody want to buy an ice axe? I suspect it could withstand the strength test where the fat ranger leans it against a boulder and jumps on it.

Sloth Boy said:

"Let us assume rap-bolted pitches. " Once you've elected such a strategy, there's a good chance you've also top-roped the life out of the pitch, and at that point, your ability to anticipate both the physical and mental states of an on-sight leader become impaired. This is to say, your ability to really appreciate where a future leader is going to need and want a bolt is jeopardized. For this reason, you should not assume that what seems like a reasonable run-out to you will seem reasonable to a leader attempting to on-sight your route. Furthermore, the very act of rap bolting is an admission that adventure/bold leads are not for you. Why pretend you're a bold climber and create a run-out through the crux? If you had wanted a bold route, you would have bolted it on lead. You say you want to create a bold route for those who follow in your steps? Buddy, that ain't what sport climbing is all about. Sport climbing is about difficult, gymnastically demanding moves made in complete safety. Stop pretending. Just put the bolt right in the middle of the crux. You guys who are arguing about whether the bolt should be at the knees or by the hip.......well, in my opinion, there is very little real difference. Now, if you don't put the bolt by the crux, if the bolt is situated so that parties routinely wing off with the bolt below their feet there's a chance it will endure many more falls and stresses, possibly rendering it weak due to work hardening. If you intentionally engineer a route in this manner, perhaps you'd be liable in case of an accident. Maybe MattP can comment on this concern. Now, I don't give a shit whether somebody cheats and aids through the crux of a difficult free climb, using the chicken bolt. He is only cheating himself. He may spray to me about it, but I probably won't listen in the first place. On the other hand, I'd hate to face multiple parties rapping off a route just because the rap-placed bolts made for too much of a run-out.

Is that why you, like Dwayner, have been completely unwilling to engage in an honest and direct discussion of an issue without resorting to put-downs, hyperbole, and diverson? We were talking about how you believe that Dwayner was shut down because of his position on the bolting issue, rather than how he was expressing himself. Now you are either (1) putting me down by saying I don't know how to engage in logical discourse, (2) extending your argument to how all attorney's manipulate the truth, or (3) changing the subject completely (perhaps all three). I think I may be through with this discussion because, as our hero Trask noted yesterday, it is a waste of time to engage in pointless debate on this website. OK, try to follow the thread MattP. Here's where the question of logical facility first appeared: "Pope has no interest in logic or even in presenting his case. Here, as in the bolting threads, he seeks only to grandstand and cause trouble." Now, I responded to this accusation by saying that your understanding of logic was only juvenile (a balanced response). Sphinx responded by asking how I could make such a suggestion, since you MattP are an attorney. My response about the nature of your profession was not intended as an insult. I rather admire the work you guys do. I just think it might be a little outside the circle of pure logic. Yes, the discussion digressed, but not by my impetus. We still don't know how Dwayner's obnoxious contributions qualify him in any way for the extreme action taken by .......who did ban Dwayner, anyway?

Legal matters at every level are frequently decided by the collective opinions of members of a jury or legislature or whatever. Each member's opinion is subject to the limitations of his experience, his perception and his bias. Attorneys are trained not only in scientific inquiry, but also in the art of manipulating the emotions of those who collectively decide legal outcomes. There are no such "decisions by opinion" in mathematics. There is only logic.

Perhaps in my discipline the standard of logic is higher. This is a distinction that you have won through enormous effort and not a little talent.

Clarification! Please! Was Dwayner banned for "spraying his obnoxious banter " or was it merely for "spraying obnoxious banter "? I would suggest it is the former, and I would also suggest that Dwayner's obnoxious banter is many degrees less obnoxious than that to which we are routinely exposed every time we read even the most tame contributions of Sphinx and his equals. I would also suggest that you, MattyP, have only only a juvenile understanding of the word "logic". Afterall, what's so logical about applying a double standard to "obnoxious" contributors?

not local semi-tough (11a), jt. If a hand crack is not overhanging and not "too tight" or too rattly, it is probably going to go at 5.8/5.9 IMO.

You're absolutely right. There is some stuff that defines the word GARBAGE that survives your editing. And then Dwayner gets banned? For........"preventing people from expressing their opinions by intellectually intimidating and manipulating them" (I think that's the way MattP explained it)? Dwayner gets banned for being too clever? I know his opinions are less than popular with those of you who make the decisions at this site, but I think you guys should reconsider the responsibility that comes with your leadership. It is a private forum and you can suppress any opinions that you want. The question is, if you're trying to encourage healthy and meaningful discourse, why can't you tolerate a well-stated minority opinion (considering all of the crap that you DO tolerate)?

Dwayner can't post or send private messages. And trust me, there's a rather large number of little ladies out there who is just waiting to hear back from Dwayner. Let this be a lesson to you. No contrarian opinions will be tolerated! If you're not sure about what you want to say, just run it by one of the moderators first via PM. Within 24 hours, they'll let you know whether they approved it for the "open forum". Of course, it might be edited a little. That is the safe way, or you can take your chances and just post your opinion "from the hip". Of course, if you don't have any opinions, your venerable and highly esteemed moderatorial staff will GLADLY help you formulate one that is in line with acceptable thinking.

Great suggestion (Hot Petey Bendover)! Now, how about something longer than 22 feet? How about something that isn't behind a chain-link fence and off limits to climbing? Dude, you're out of the loop. Who put you in charge of the New Rock Climbing Forum (Petey's Corner)? Seems like you should have better information to pass around. Oh, I almost forgot..............

Dwayner confirmed to me that the movers, the shakers.....the keyboard wankers of cc.com have banned him from participating here. LAME. Now, we don't know whether Dwayner will be temporarily banned (a "time out" was what MattP suggested) or something more drastic. What we do know is that with this development, the chatter on this site is accelerating in an even duller direction. Gone are the days of Dwayner's rants about excessive bolting, his thoughtful essays promoting bold, low-impact climbing. No longer will Dwayner be able to "prevent others from participating in the bolting debate". In fact, it seems likely that there won't be a real debate. Instead, you guys can go back to making comments that insult religious groups, to threatening violence and trading vulgar insults, to posting little whistle-pig icons on page tops. In short, you can put an amazing amount of effort into being really dull. Then, you can try to convince one another that loading a bat cave with 400 bolts had nothing to do with getting your wilderness-trashing butts kicked out.

No, you're not. And it's apparent you're doing nothing about it.

...

Fred's placed a lot of bolts. One of his older partners told me his hammer was totally worn down to nothing on one trip. But I am sure he was using it for pitons more than bolts. There is an old summit magazine with talk about routes on the Chief. In there he somewhat critized a little (seemingly respectfully) the Grand Wall route and the amount of bolts and purity when compared with his never ?? done Northwest Passage route that didn't have half the bolts. I am not critizing the Grand Wall route or climbers that did it. Just some perspective. Meaning I think FB would rather take the natural line and preserve as much as possible. I clip all of FB bolts with glee and no shame. Even if he was using them for aid and people free climb them today without it. It's another era or 3 later now and things indeed have changed. But to keep focus on preservation is nice too. As far as loggers ledge well shit- You can scream more about the Deforest Service easily. Yes, he did a little bolting, but most of it was on the lead. He didn't have today's high-tech gear that might have allowed safe passage without all of the bolts. There's an old bolt (from the FB or MattP era no doubt) on Outerspace next to the dang 300 ft hand crack for crying out loud!

Not precisely the same, just much the same....minus a little dirt. Most of the routes have very little if any fixed protection, and what is there are seems to be artifacts of more historical interest than protective value. They were placed on lead, and that's significant. Minus the dirt, this is true. But as Fred found the rock, in most cases it is still the same: no bolts, no chipped holds, no dubious hanging belays in the middle of nowhere.

I said I had to get back to work but I couldn't resist responding to this minor point that is off topic. Wasn't "loggers ledge" logged because the trees were keeping moss and general filth on the rock? Don't even Midway and Saber have both fixed pins and bolts on them? Weren't the cracks gardened out? Do the climbs that we enjoy today resemble the state in which Beckey and Schoening and thier frieinds found them? When they are leading Midway, how many of today's climbers care whether Fred, in 1954, climbed from the ground up or not? Things evolved from the 1950's, in case you hadn't noticed. People stopped pounding pins and began slipping in nuts. Of course the climbs are cleaner than when FB first hiked up there. Did I miss your point?

Oh yeah. He knows from 4-letter words and locker-room jokes.

here is another example of why i rarely read the shit that you and mattp write: you fuckers write like you got a stick up yer ass. like wonderbread: no flavor and a doughy center. Don't compare me with that man!

Your dog or Trask?

Trask, you don't even climb. Tell me what you know about climbing. You must write one full page on anything even remotely related to mountaineering.....and you mustn't double space.

Pete and Repeat went fishing. Matt, you are duller than a butter knife.

Careful there. Diversity of opinion is not a goal of the board of control on this site. You're asking to get yourself in trouble with the thought police.

What would be truly refreshing is to see you stop commenting on things you don't understand.