mattp

I don't want to kick off or feed more argument about what is appropriate here but I would like to say that I don't fully agree with Batso that only locals or only "real climbers" have a right to speculate about what may have happened or discuss decisions made on the ground or that they inherently have more right to do so. In fact, some of the comments from those proclaming to have expertise have probably been the most insulting of all. Carry on, and let's use this thread to try to help share information, news, and support here. As we've stated several times, there are other ares of this bulletin board for debating the team's preparedness, or the competence of the rescuers, or wehther the activity of mountain climbing should be more heavily regulated.

ICan’tClimb: You list a variety of things that have been said “unacceptable.” In fact, each and every one of those things might be just fine for a thread such as this one. However, it is all a matter of taste and balance – which are clearly un-definable to at least a certain extent. Take, for example: second guessing the decisions that the climbing party or the searchers made – especially when nobody knows much about what factors into any decisions actually made. When you enter that kind of speculation or critique into a discussion that is primarily devoted to the sharing of information about what is going on, and which is being visited by friends, family, and would be rescuers, you are likely to have someone criticize you for speculation if you start such a line of discussion. And the moderators are likely to see it as a distraction or worse. But there has been plenty of this along the way, and in the context of the discussion that has taken place over the last few days and some posts have seemed to be “improper” whereas others not so much. I’m sorry, it is just a fact that when it comes to taste and balance we will not all agree and one poster may disagree with another, as well one moderator may disagree with another. For another example: “synopses of the news.” I have not read every post in the thread but I did see where some were complaining that somebody was merely retyping what was said on the news. Some see it as a rehash of information otherwise available with the click of a mouse and a waste of bandwidth; I myself actually appreciated it because I do not have high speed Internet or cable TV at home. But that is just me. We are all doing the best that we can. I hope this bulletin board has proven helpful for some and that, on balance, our positive contribution has outweighed any distress caused by a lack of clarity in “the rules,” or any confusion or annoyance or insult that somebody may find in some of the discussion. --- And, I will say that the poster who said he just wants all of you to go away when this is over doesn't speak for all of us. In my own opinion, this is a public bulletin board that should be available for use by those who want to utilize it as such. For my part, anyway, you are welcome to post here as long as you want to.

Yesterday, I received several requests that I intervene as a moderator in this thread and last night I deleted a few posts and asked some of the participants to post elsewhere on this board when they feel the need to argue about matters tangential to the topic of this thread: things related to the ongoing search and rescue operation, the details of the climb, and the climbers directly involved. This has been a compelling story and many of us are watching closely. The discussion may at some points have aided family members or searchers, and it may also have proven a distraction or annoyance as well. For many who are involved or simply just interested in the saga - especially those without cable TV or high speed Internet access - this has provided information unavailable elsewhere. Many may want to debate whether mountain climbing is a responsible activity or whether it should be regulated or just what gear is appropriate on a winter climb or whether a certain poster is genuine or not -- all kinds of things. Please do so in other threads elsewhere on this board or through private messages or e-mail. Please understand that the moderators on this bulletin board are all volunteers, and we cannot monitor every post. We have done what we can to try to keep this discussion at least somewhat on track and generally supportive of a somewhat rational and at least generally polite discussion of the search and rescue operation, the details of the climb, and information about the climbers directly involved.

Nope, Mike is definitely not all bad. He's a heck of a good climber and we like him around here. Lambone is OK, too. What I saw was a thread that we have been trying to maintain as an information-sharing discussion (with some disctractions here and there) rapidly accelerating toward off-topic banter and quip. I cut out a handful of posts and suggested that elsewhere on the board we maintain opportunities for any and just about all of the comments somebody would want to post. But here we've been talking about the incident, the search and rescue effot, reporting news, and speculating about events. If you want to argue about the ten essentials or call each other idiots there are indeed other discussions on this very website for that purpose.

Lambone, Shini, and Layton: we have been trying for the last few days to keep this thread relatively free of the tit-fot-tat and similar distractions. One climber was found dead today. We are all saddened by this turn of events. Please, if you feel the need to debate somebody about MRE's or something, go to another thread.

How's it to be home for a bit?

If you liked that one, try "Bush screws America," on YouTube. Don't try it at work, though.

Fairweather: Do you really think there was no atrocity committed at Abu Ghraib? Seriously? Don't you think our application of these tactics reduces our credibility as the promoters of human rights around the world? Are you advocating that we continue to conduct the "war on terror" in the same fashion, make changes without acknowledging any past mistakes, or what?

Hey guys; Do you still think any media reports that Gates said we are not winning the warin Iraq were biased?

1. Castle Rock, Leavenworth 2. Snow Creek wall, leavenworth 3. Upper Town Wall, Index 4. Blueberry Hill, Darrington 5. Snag Buttress, Mt. Erie 6. Little Si, North Bend (a string of different outcrops on the same escarpment - one destination and kind of one cliff) 7. Sunshine Wall, Vantage ("cliff" includes several areas with different names, left and right) 8. Lava Point, Tieton 9. PeekaBoo Tower or some other cliff nearby in Icicle Creek, Leavenworth 10. Static Point (it is all one cliff without need to specify one "area" or "subarea")

Hidden Lakes Peak is pretty cool. So too Sahale. Both are in the heart of the North Cascades, offer fantastic views of the main part of the range, and require relatively little in the way of special skills or navigation ability. You could very well enjoy either of these.

One particular Christmas season a long time ago, Santa was getting ready for his annual trip ... but there were problems everywhere. Four of his elves got sick, and the trainee elves did not produce the toys as fast as the regular ones so Santa was beginning to feel the pressure of being behind schedule. Then Mrs. Claus told Santa that her mother was coming to visit. This stressed Santa even more. When he went to harness the reindeer, he found that three of them were about to give birth and two had jumped the fence and were out, heaven knows where. More stress. Then when he began to load the sleigh one of the boards cracked and the toy bag fell to the ground and scattered the toys. So, frustrated, Santa went into the house for a cup of coffee and a shot of whiskey. When he went to the cupboard, he discovered that the elves had hidden the liquor and there was nothing to drink. In his frustration, he accidentally dropped the coffee pot and it broke into hundreds of little pieces all over the kitchen floor. He went to get the broom and found that mice had eaten the straw it was made from. Just then the doorbell rang and Santa cursed on his way to the door. He opened the door and there was a little angel with a great big Christmas tree. All radiant and smiling; the angel said, very cheerfully, "Merry Christmas Santa. Isn't it just a lovely day? I have a beautiful tree for you. Isn't it just a lovely tree? Where would you like me to stick it?" Thus began the tradition of the little angel on top of the Christmas tree. --- Bring hats.

I think Concrete may now be less of a problem. I heard from a local that they lost their cop there after some kind of political issue or something.

True there, but there may be other ways to "help the situation" other than avoiding any visit just as there may be other ways to promote an eventual change from our oil-based or coal-fired transportation and power generation besides refusing to drive or use electricity.

Hypocritical might be to develop a new sport climb or to operate a climbing gym while decrying the existence of sport climbing and gyms, but not necessarily the mere visit to such a place.

I don't think it is hypocritical to complain about the extent of development or even the existence of sport climbing in general and still go to Smith Rock. Some people complain that cars pollute too much yet they still drive, others complain that the suburbs are ugly yet they still live there, etc.

There was a low trace poster from the Access Fund on the bulletin board at the Snow Lakes trailhead once, but it was really a rather generic notice and didn't suggest that bolting should not be undertaken in the Enchantments or whatever. The rangers there are among those who have specifically said they don't want to get into the business of regulating bolts unless they have to and they are presently more concerned with erosion caused by climbers trails and with vegetation removal more generally associated with crack climbing than they are with bolts per se.

I don't think you're going to find many rangers interested in adding bolt policing to their list of law enforcement duties, Roboboy, though I am sure there are a few who might take an interest in such a program. As climbers, however, we have somewhat accomplished the same thing on our own. While Pope and Raindog complain that we are seeing a slow but ongoing slide toward greater acceptance of bolts where they were not used much in the past, and perhaps rightfully so at least in some cases, all of us recognize that there is a different standard or ethic in place at Exit 38 as opposed to Castle Rock. At the former, closely spaced bolts are expected, and most climbers who go there would actually complain if any were removed, whereas there are few bolts on most of the routes at Castle Rock and most climbers who go there are happy with it in that state. And, at the far end of the spectrum at, say, Forbidden Peak or Mount Stuart, entire peaks have almost none of them. We will continue to discuss whether Vantage is over developed or whether bolted rappel stations really are needed in a place like the Bugaboos or Darrington, or whether Washington Pass should be viewed as a wilderness climbing area or a roadside crag, but RainDog would be overstating his case if he argued that nobody is talking about these issues anymore. I'm not sure if he actually suggested that, but I'd say that really there are fewer people taking the stance that Chouinard and Doug Robinson urged thirty years ago, but there are certainly plenty of climbers out there who think about what they are doing. Here's a history piece I wrote: http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/05/051_Ethics.html Note: I agree with Off White that this has been one of our best discussions of these points in a long time around here. My hat is off to the participants for keeping it more or less on track.

Tvash, are you kidding? What possible good could come from having a tree in your yard? It blocks the sun, drops leaves, might fall on your house, blocks your neighbor's view, and makes moss grow on the roof. Birds perch in it and shit on your car. The Norski's in Ballard had the right idea.

Really, Fairweather, I AM actually interested in your opinion. If I was interested in simply promoting my own, an engagement with you on this website would be the last method I would choose to pursue that objective. You, however, seem in almost every political thread to be very interested in scoffing at terrorist sympathizer liberals such as myself, and attacking me personally. What do you mean with your statement that you believe that Rumsfeld and Cheney should be held accountable "in some way that won't damage future leaders' ability to conduct war?" Are you suggesting that the means justify the ends when it comes to torturing prisoners? If so, I heartily disagree. I have yet to read where we have gotten a lot of good information through the use of torture - though I suspect we probably did at least in some instances - but I think the clear evidence that we have and continue to torture prisoners, and the general failure to hold anybody accountable or even to acknowledge that this is really a problem - actually erodes our credibility and damages our future leaders ability to conduct war much more than would a public acknowledgement, apology, application of punishment toward more than just an obvious scapegoat like Linde, and clear change in policy. I think it is important not only to take this propaganda point away from our enemies but to state to our allies or potential allies that we will actually apply our rhetoric about freedom and human rights. I feel the same way about their lying to take us into the war: as a direct result of that and our subsequent failure to hold them accountable, how can anybody believe us when we next go before the UN or anywhere else to report a "gathering" or "immiment" threat? And what do you mean the torture revealed at Abu Ghraib doesn't rise to the level of atrocity? You could say that only one or two prisoners were murdered and worse things have happened elsewhere but it was an atrocity by any standard.

I agree with you that it is more important to change practices than it is to punish any one man, Tvash, but in the case of a torture policy I think I recall that they explicity said that the CIA interrogators, at least, are exempt from any enforcement should they violate the stated policy. And in the case of years worth of ongoing atrocities at famous and not so famous prisons in places like Iraq and Cuba, let alone all the "secret" prisons we are not told about, only two or three people have ever been punished. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said, numerous times I think, that we are not going to change a thing because we weren't doing anything wrong in the first place. His clear message all along has been that this is a domestic political problem only and we have to torture the terrorists because we have to take the gloves off after 911. With leadership that clearly says we are not going to change anything and with little provision for accountability at any level, I don't think our on the ground practices or our reputation as a nation that respects human rights are going to improve as much as I'd like.

There are at least a couple of ideas at play here. "Leave no trace" is a completely different concept from that of "boldness" or "adventure." And the "rules of the game" can be something else entirely. Lastly, in the case of bolts, many of us care a great deal about whether or not they are in the "right" location, which combines consideration for where you stand to clip them, how they make the rope run, or how close they are to a crux move. My own experience has been that most climbers tend to care more about how a route "turns out" than they do about whether the guys who made the first ascent climbed from ground up or not. And a "ground up" ethic is usually urged by those who are concerned with the total number of bolts and are assuming that an area will be less heavily developed if rap bolting is disallowed. You won't get Pope or anybody else to be completely consistent on all of these various factors but certainly "sport climbing" in the Dihedrals is a different experence than climbing Zebra-Zion.

Assuming that you believe we as a nation should adhere to 60 year old standards established in the Geneva Conventions, and standards of human decency that are at least as old as Christianity (if you believe in that stuff), and that our government officials are bound to adhere to these standards or even simply to tell the truth about what they are doing in this regard, I think he is most likely guilty. But you are right: we don't really know exactly what he knew and when he knew it. But that leaves aside the question: how should we conduct such an inquiry? or even whether we should?

I specifically asked what YOU thought and you avoided or declined to answer the question. Were you in favor of holding Clinton administration officials accountable for their crimes? Are you in favor of holding Bush administration officials accountable for theirs (if they committed any)? How should it be done?