mattp

OK - now you've done it. I don't think it will double the load on the upper chock because there will be considerable friction where the cords rub against each other so it won't be a perfect pulley effect. More worriesome is that it may not keep the lower one in place unless it is constantly loaded in a more or less downward direction, so if you lead past it and the rope running through the carabiner causes the anchor point to raise up and drop down a little bit, well ... or if any pull during a fall comes from varying different directions because the rope whips around a corner or if a carabiner vibrates ... or if you are using it for an anchor instead of just a piece of pro and you wiggle around scratching your butt at the belay ... it may fail althogether; whereas (if both pieces are good) it could be an omnidirectional if they were tied together. Having said that, I would set a pair of nuts this way in certain situations where I thought the upper was good for a downward but not much of an outward pull. Now let's hear how you're not wrong but I am, and then we can discuss fall factors and dynamic belay technique and we'll complete the discussion.

Don't get them started, Al.

Orbit is just as good as Outer Space, in my opinion. I'm not starting a flame war, I hope; I'm simply suggesting that if you head up there for the five star route, consider settling for the four star one.

I'm with TG - three chances is pretty generous. However, it all depends on who you are dealing with. If I don't know somebody and they stand me up or turn out to be a pain in the ass the first time we try something, I may not be in much of a hurry to go climbing with them again -- whereas I've had some friends who stood me up or otherwise proved to be a pain in the ass repeatedly and I still kept climbing with them.

TimmyFest:

Jay- I agree with you that the idea that they knowingly let 911 happen sounds like one of the wildest conspiracy theories I've ever heard of. But I can't really figure out why they didn't scramble any jets and nobody has really proposed any explanation for that as far as I can tell. In light of this, I believe it MAY in fact be true. Meanwhile, the fact that they used 911 as a pretext to execute plans that had little or nothing to do with a war against terrorism seems pretty much undeniable. And that cynical manipulation of the situation is part of why I am wondering if the former noted conspiracy theory may actually be correct.

What's your point, Veggie? Do you not believe that those guys authored the document outlining their plan to control the world or is it the idea that they may have allowed 911 to happen that you disagree with or what?

Mister Eight: If you saw a lot of bolts next to cracks up at the Pearly Gates, or if you think that particular practice is a big problem, where were you when I was asking about this in the bolting cracks thread? Maybe we should fire up that discussion again because I'm honestly still wondering just how big of a problem you or anybody else thinks that particular practice is. Meanwhile, back to the discussion of that small wall up below Chair Peak. Yes, most of us agree that there are at least some places in this State where overbolting has been a problem. Do you think it sounds like the basin below Chair Peak is one of them? Do you contend that we are likely to have an access issue because something like three or possibly four thirty foot lines have been bolted up there? If you simply want to argue that bolts are in your eyes ugly and whoever established these lines lacks class or vision or something, that is one thing. And even though I've already said that I think this climb that we are talking about is probably not a huge crime, and I might even think it is a good idea to bolt some areas for such odd activities as "new wave" mixed climbing, I might even end up agreeing with you if I went up there and looked at it, or if I studied the issue for a while. But what do you think the greater impacts may be?

Along with questioning the erosion of our civil rights that is being brought about in the name of national security, I think we need to wonder if any of it is actually going to make us more secure. Do you really think that if they can tap your phones without a court order, as opposed to having to first telephone a federal magistrate and explain why they are suspicious about a certain individual, we are really going to be much safer? What I hear them saying is that we need more personnel and equipment to monitor and sort out all the information available to us already and they really haven't tried to explain how they actually need more wiretapping authority or why they don't have time to call a judge who is on call 24 hours a day. Neither am I aware that they have cited very many, if any, examples of where they were turned down for not having "an articulable suspicion" and in retrospect they think this denied them important information. (Think about this - an "articulable suspicion" is not a demanding standard, but just means that they have some kind of valid reason, even if it is only a suspicion based upon no evidence whatever.) I'm sure it has happened that they've missed out on the info, but just how much of an issue is it - and is it worth it in terms of the cost to our liberty? Does GregW want to have his phone tapped simply because he signed up for GunNuts magazine and there is no reason whatever to think he is in any way connected with any dangerous activity? Do any of you think that the metal detectors and being forced to take your shoes off at the airport are actually making it safer to fly? I think the Patriot Acts are partly a cynical attempt on the part of law enforcement agencies to take advantage of public hysteria (they'd rather be able to operate with less oversight), and they are also partly just a con job to make us think that the new Homeland Security department is going to make us safe.

Peter: Good point about tools and crampons being likely to damage the rock. Even though I am somewhat scornful of the idea that a former railway cut next to the interstate is something that we need to fight big battles to preserve, it would be rather poor form to take my ice tools and crampons to exit 38. Perhaps this is all the more reason why I might think the bolted lines up in that basin below Chair Peak are OK - it offers a place where I could go out and thrash about without damaging somebody else's climb that was established for a different purpose. As to you point about speculation, I don't quite get it. Of course we are speculating. Whether we are discussing this line, where most of us are quite capable of going up there to look at it, or the latest 5.12 sport route at Washington Pass (where most of us are not - or at least not without some serious monkeying around), I think we still all have legitimate opinions on the matter. And the age of the route or the fact that it was or was not the route pictured may make a difference, but maybe not. I think my general comments would mostly apply either way.

Kiss- Yourn post that was deleted suggested that you have some argument with what I wrote, but I'm not quite sure what it is. I didn't (and don't) question the idea that it might be legitimate to bolt climbs specifically so that somebody can practice using their tools and crampons on rock, and indeed I have wondered about taking my axe and crampons for a spin on some sport climb sometime precisely because I believe it might help me to get better at mixed climbing. I also did not (and don not) question that there may be awesome mixed or ice climbs that can be facilitated by bolt pro, though it sounds as if that line at Snoqualmie Pass may not be one of them. I am not a big-time anti-bolt moralist, but I DO think that there are places where folks go way overboard with bolts and although I don't think this will happen, I would not want the current M-9 phenomenon to lead to the bolting of rock routes throughout the Cascades. As to that particular line, I would say that if it is an out-of-the way place that will not attract attention/spur controversy, and if it is actually thought by those who are into this kind of thing to be a good climb, I am probably OK with it. Maybe I am just an old dog that can't learn new tricks, but I think the fascination with using ice tools and crampons to climb rock - as an end in itself rather than a link between actual snow and ice-covered terrain - is kind of odd.

Obviously, 666, we do not need ANY routes anywhere but it is a cost/benefit kind of analysis that matters here. I take it from your comment that you think the equation tips way toward the negative. Paco thought this would be a poor choice of a location for a new sport climbing crag and I'm curious: in thinking about whether or not this particular masterpiece is worthy or not, does it change your thinking at all if you know that it may have been intended for winter mixed climbing as opposed to summer sport climbing? I haven't seen the crag in question, and all I know about it is what appears in this thread, but I'd be inclined toward being critical if it was just another summer sport-crag whereas I am thinking it may be kind of cool if it is some mixed climbing "testpiece." And I say this even though it represents a style of climbing I am not all that interested in and I still think it is kind of an odd contrivance. At the risk of suffering the wrath of the M-9 contingent, I'll say that in my mind it is kind of silly to bolt crags so that somebody can go rock climbing with crampons on ... but that's just me. At least it sounds as if this thing was not imposed on some long-standing classic of the Snoqualmie Alps.

Thomas Friedman says he hopes that we will in the next election select a president who is willing to offer some vision. I'm not sure that any of the Democratic candidates are really doing that - at least at this stage. In that sense, I guess I agree with the entire premise of this thread.

Absolutely correct, David, but I think this year's ropeup may offer a little more in the way of daytime activities than past years and as long as he isn't committed to hanging out at the main campfire on Friday and Saturday night, he could probably bring his kids along, camp elsewhere, meet cc.com sprayers, hang out at the "beginner's crag" or whatever it is going to be, and maybe show his kids what is going on at the service project or eat pancackes with us on Sunday morning.

Exactly, Peter. We could make all kind of arguments and speculate and whatever, and who knows - maybe this will turn into a big scandal - but Winter is right, I think, to view this as just a minor matter in the larger context of what is going on and it is a matter that can be spun lots of different ways. Whether you agree with Winter or not about the import of Bush's lie about why we went to war, this argument over Bush Admin tactics may turn out to be quite significant but it is just as likely to turn out to be little more than a distraction.

Bug, remind me never to go into the woods with you.

I have a partly destroyed tent you could set up just to occupy more space in the cc.com land grab.

Good Point, Mr. P. The cynic could counter that the CIA may be more reliable in this instance precisely BECAUSE we know they always lie in support of secrecy and in support of the powers that be who want to manipulate world affairs for American money interests, so if they are countering something from the Bush administration it MUST be true, but that argument actually makes your point rather than contradicts it. Many of those in the mainstream anti-Bush movement are probably just as narrow-minded and petty in their approach to these matters as the people they seek to dethrone (and it is in my view rather mainstream and not some extreme leftist agenda as some here would have us think).

Fairweather - I didn't miss your point at all. The fact that Willi Unsoeld signed his students up for a project didn't mean he endorsed it. Every year for approximately ten years in a row he signed his students up for stupid projects, just so that that they would get all fired up and try to make some big controversy over it. He was interested in having his students get all strident and stuff, but in most if not all of these cases I highly doubt he thought there would be any net affect on Park Service policies. This kind of manipulation caused him to be lauded by some and reviled by others. But that is a big sidetrack in this discussion. Most folks here would probably support your position (if that is your position) that the Park Service has been less than enlightened in their management of the Park. I'm chill.

Fairweather, he was somewhat friendly with some of the rangers up there but I don't think he was trying to be "part of the program." He was just trying to be provocative, taking a bunch of granola head college kids up there to kill trees in a mountain meadow. Kind of like modern day troll fishermen on this website.

This reminds me of a work party removing little trees around Paradise twenty-five years ago. Apparently, the Park Service was at the time worried that the meadows there were being encroached upon by trees so that the tourists' flower-gazing was threatened. Willi Unsoeld was teaching a class on wilderness management ethics, and volunteered his students to go up there and help the rangers remove the offending saplings! While some may note that the area around Paradise visitor center is not wilderness, the project spawned some good ethics debates.

Saber has a huge pre-set anchor at the first belay, and I don't know exactly where the next belay will end up because I can't remember when I even climbed that pitch, but I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of very secure belay ledges up there - so much so that even if your anchor failed you aren't going to get the chop. Saber or Midway are both excellent choices.

This kind of sucks if we all agree with each other. How's about we take it to the next level: I think we should make a significant cut in our aid to Israel and demand that they comply with "the deal" before we are going to revise that cut; further I think we should say that if they aren't really on their way - in a very clear, concrete and convincing manner by, say, the end of one year's time, we're going to cut our aid further.

I pretty much agree with you there RobBob. It seems to me that just about everybody knows that the deal was made a long time ago and Isreal is going to have to pull out many if not most of those settlements and allow a real Palestinian state -- and we're not doing ourselves any favors by allowing them to postpone it. I believe that Isreal receives more American economic assistance than the next several nations put together, and our allignment with their policies with respect to Palestine is not only wrong, but a serious cause of trouble for us.