mattp

I agree, Fern has a good idea. Another possibility might be that, for some follow up discussion or for ANY discussion that we might have which threatens to get heated over bolting issues, we might agree that personal attack and the like is not to be allowed and one of these "staunch ethicists" as Figger 8 called them, might volunteer to be a moderator.

Trask, I think you can see from my history on this board that I enjoy debate. There would be nothing wrong with Dwayner, Pope or anybody else playing "Devil's Advocate" but that is not what they choose to do. The Devil's Advocate is one who argues the other side of an issue, for rhetorical purposes, with the implicit acknowedgement that they may or may not actually believe their argument. The Devil's Advocate is not one who flings insulting rhetoric.

I have, on dozens of occasions, carefully composed what I thought was a thoughtful essay on some aspect of the bolting issue only to have you or your buddy Dwayner come back with some juvenile rhetorical snip that showed you were utterly unable or unwilling to read or consider what I wrote. I don't see much reason to try to do so, here in this thread, where the current topic is whether or not there is any point in trying to be thoughtful. Answer me this, Pope: do you really maintain that the clever quips and put-downs you and Dwayner spray all about are intended to foster any exchange of ideas?

Call me delusional, but I have this fantasy that the people who seek to be the self-appointed police force might first discuss their proposed "restoration" efforts and that the discussion could be handled in a way that would allow the parties who installed the offending routes, or those who think they are good climbs, to take part. I have this fantasy that even Dwayner might be mature enough to talk about how he decries the gridbolting at a place like Nevermind Wall, without simply throwing insults at the cowards who climb there. I have a fantasy that, even if it leads nowhere, we could discuss the future of bolting at a place like Banks Lake. I may well be fooling myself because, thus far, we have been utterly unable to have these discussions.

Pope, Being civil, I will ask you why it is that you can't see that the point here is that bolting cracks is NOT a big issue at Index. Yes, EVERYBODY ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD AGREES THAT CRACKS SHOULD NOT BE BOLTED. DAMN NEAR EVERY CLIMBER IN WASHINGTON AGREES. Do you have some kind of knee jerk feedback loop going when you seem utterly unable to recognize that just about everybody agrees with you? If you want to join Mitch so that you and he can be the self appointed police force at Castle Rock, I can't stop you. But don't try to fool people into thinking that a large number of Washington's crack climbs are in danger of being bolted -- they aren't.

I see no point in going back to clean up this thread, Cracked. I would suggest, however, that we might try to fashion some ground rules and host a reasonable discussion in some future thread. And you are right: iron fisted moderating will probably be needed, at least at first, if we are ever going to have a discussion of highly controversial and emotional issues.

I already offered my suggestions. If Pope or Dwayner or anybody else insists on continuing to deliberately sabatage every discussion of this issue (and I think they are indeed being deliberate about this), they should be kept out of at least some of these discussions. To me, it is first of all a matter of free speech - others on this site have a right to discuss bolting issues and Dwayner and Pope, for some reason, do not want this to occur. They have continually set out to interrupt almost every attempt at a reasonable discussion. Second of all, it is a matter of community organization and public relations. Does cc.com do the climbing community any favors by constantly fostering a bunch of antagonistic rhetoric that has done absolutely nothing to solve any issue, but which is likely to alarm any uninformed reader who may read this garbage and think there is a major bolt war going on that threatens to disrupt civil life or destroy the natural beauty of Leavenworth? On the other threads, everybody is saying "what's up with MattP, the "liberal" who doesn't want to hear opposing ideas. Maybe they are right. Maybe I am just tired of all of this. But the fact is, I think there ARE people on cc.com who are interested in these issues, and are interested in more than simply "stirring the pot." I am open to other suggestions, but at this point I can't think of any.

In a word, Yes. You are clever, relentless and, more than anything else, manipulative. You have found a way to constantly push buttons and you damn near refuse to let an opportunity to ruin a thread pass you by. P.S. I believe I DO understand something about the connection between bolts and area closures and I do not think that the connection is anywhere near as simple as you state it to be. Some conservationists who are not outdoor recreational users advocate closing some public lands to climbing, but they also include hiking and fishing and hunting in their list of detrimental activities. It is not bolts that they object to. Most land managers don't even know what a bolt is, until some bolt-hating climber or an erupting bolt war brings the issue to their attention. Certainly, some sport areas have generated traffic, parking, erosion, or other impact issues, and these have lead to some area closures. However, I don't think that bolting practices have been, in themselves, directly responsible for very many area closures (maybe none).

Get a grip!!! Just yesterday, Pope complained that the moderators on this board would never permit him to have his discussion of "route restoration," (his euphamism for pulling bolts) because they don't want him to wage his campaign against rap bolting. But look at this thread, the one that was started after at least a half a day's banter back and forth about whether or not we might one day be able to have a civil discussion about bolting issues: Pope and Dwayner have once again been the main motivators in steering the discussion away from any thoughtful consideration of real issues. Pope and Dwayner find amusement in "stirring the pot" when they ridicule Cracked for his defense of sport climbing, but they really lose it when they try to say he isn't old enough to have any valid perspective, and he therefor can't tell them anything about ethics or history. Yes, Dwayner is correct to note there was an active climbing scene at Smith Rock State Park before sport climbing took hold, and it IS beautiful, but WTF? He (Dwayner) says he might support having Smith Rock State Park closed to climbing because it hasn't been developed in what he thinks is a responsible way. Is that the "perspective" that he thinks Crack lacks? One of America's most popular climbing areas should be closed because Dwayner doesn't like bolts? Pope, in response to Cracked's pointing out that in fact every young climber out of the gym does not go out and buy a drill and start putting in bolts can only offer a sneer? Is that evidence of a willingness to have his reasonable discussion of "route restoration?" After three years where the anti-bolt jihad warriors have been saying that sport climbers are pussies and rock rapists, that they are going to show up at the crags with their crowbars and if they see some punk with a drill he better run, and generally going out of their way to make these discussions as ascerbic as possible, does Pope's assertion that the most vile and threatening language in these discussions has come from the "bolti ng advocates" reflect any measure of reality? Then we get to this thing about bolted cracks. Daryl has made the point, I think, that this malignant cancer is not as bad as the anti-bolt hyperbole would have us believe, but this is a whole separate issue that I'll ignore it just now. The significant point that I wish to note is the mere fact that Mister E thought to bring it into this thread, as if there were some controversy about it. As far as I can remember, there has not been anybody on this board who has advocated bolting cracks or complained when someone wanted to removed a line of bolts that had been placed next to a crack, in three years of cc.com. Even if it is true that some rap-bolting vandal bolted a crack at Index recently, why are we arguing about bolted cracks in this thread? Once again, I would ask how it might be that we should moderate these kinds of discussions. ScottP offers a reasonable suggestion (a practice that I have tried with almost no success, but it is a good idea none-the-less), but what else might anybody suggest?

Every single time I have called for civility in a bolting debate on this bulletin board, the anti-bolt folks have said I was trying to prevent them from expressing their points of view. Might we precede any attempt to address the substantive issues with some discussion of what might be the ground rules for such a discussion?

Pope- I agree that you are right to question whether we could ever succeed in any self-regulation, and whether any discussion on c.com would even help with such an effort. However, what is your option? You can head over to Leavenworth and pull some bolts with Mitch once a year, or I suppose you can start contacting land managers to try to get places like Vantage shut down, but if you actually want to impact what other climbers do, I don't think there are very many options.

As this is thte "restoration" thread, I should add a comment to your report that you recently spent a day helping Mitch restore (erase) a couple of bolted climbs. I hope you chose the target climbs well. I would see it as a sign of great progress if we were able to have an open discussion of the climbs, and of yours and Mitch's goals in erasing them, without having to engage in personal attack. I may be dreaming, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

How do we seek to limit bolting in sensitive areas? I don't know. First of all, I suppose, we have to find some general agreement on just what areas ARE sensitive. If you try to tell a whole generation of climbers that the entire state of Washington is an inappriate place for sport climbing, they are going to blow you off and go about their way. If you then start pulling bolts out of their favorite climbs at Little Si or Vantage, you are just going to generate a bolt war and even if you succeed in getting them to stop installing bolts at those particular areas, they are still going to move on and start in on other crags. So I think part of the answer to your question lies in trying to figure out a way to identify where sport climbing should be allowed and where it should not be. Once you have identified crags where sport climbing is OK, or for that matter others where it is not, there will probably be greater difficulty in figuring out how to limit the proliferation of bolts. There have been some efforts to set up climbing oversite groups at various crags around the country and I think they have, at best, achieved mixed results. On balance, I think they have probably been more effective at chanelling climbing development than have land-manager shut downs and bolt-wars, though, because when a given area gets too contentious or it is closed, for whatever reason, the climbers just move on to somewhere else and resume "business as usual." Whatever may be the answer, I believe that changes in attitude and behavior are probably best sought through the respectful exchange of ideas and information. You don't make progress by ridiculing climbers who, as you say, expect a bolt in the middle of every hard move. If you aren't interested in trying to bring climbers together for reasonable discussions, I think you are left with two choices: chop bolts or promote area closures. In my view, bolt wars and climbing area shut-downs have brought attention to the issue but have utterly failed to solve anything. The proliferation of bolts and the frequency with which crags are developed without much thought for environmental impact or other related issues is, if anything, increasing rather than diminishing. THE NEW ROCK CLIMBING FORUM could be a very useful place to exchange information and discuss how we might come together as a user group to address these important issues. However, most people (on all sides of this issue) think I am naive to think anything good could come from any discussion on cc.com. What do you think? Might it ever be possible to have an on-line discussion where we could discuss these issues without having to resort to insulting rhetoric and personal attack?

Pope, I agree that good routes can and have been put up from the ground up. California does not have a monopoly on the good climbs, and most of the "classics" in this state were put up from the ground up, too. However, for bolt-dependent climbing, I do not advocate ground up installation of crag routes. And as to the use of hooks for installing bolts, I continue to think that there is rarely going to be (and rarely has been) a situation where the bolt ends up in the best place for someone who is going to follow, leading that same pitch, without the hook. Yes, you will get a bolt at a stance where there is at least enough of a purchase to grab a hook from your rack (or maybe from your teeth), but the far more comfortable stance shortly above or below, where there is no good hook move, will be ignored by the leader using hooks to place their bolts. I agree with what you are saying about how modern climbers expect there to be a bolt at every crux move. I'd venture to say that most modern climbers agree with you, too. That is largely why they are generally carefull to distinguish what level they can lead and say "I can lead 5.12 sport; 5.10 trad." Yes, people who only climb closely bolted sport climbs are missing a lot of what climbing has to offer. Those who refuse to climb such climbs are missing out as well.

Tex- You misunderstand me. I think it is cool what folks are doing these days. Fast and light is a great way to go. I think the obsession with it, however, and the promotion of fast and light as the ideal to which every young climber should aspire to, is misguided. If you want to go do big climbs without taking a first aid kit or bivouac gear, that is great. If you suggest that somebody who doesn't know what they are doing should try to do the same or they are not as good as you (I don't know whether you have done this or not), I think you are egotistical and irresponsible. Who benefits from the fact that the cover of climbing magazine screams "fast and light" and that everybody is more interested in talking about how fast they climbed Mount Stuart, car to car, than they are in talking about which might be the most fun variation on the route? Those who are fit and fast and who take personal satisfaction in being so don't need to have their great accomplishments glorified in the magazines or on this website. I am vastly oversimplifying, and one might even say I am being needlessly offesive, but I think the big momentum for all of this "fast and light" discussion comes from climbers who seek recognition or sponsorship, and vendors who want to sell gear and gu.

Pope- This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. You deliberately offer an insulting provocation about how bolt clippers feel so guilty, and the discussion degenerates further. I've called Sphinx and others childish or worse when they respond that way, but you knowingly tried to stir the pot with your rediculous retort. Do you think that Dwayner's post - several pages ago - helped promote any useful discussion? I think not.

Touche, Pope! You turn my rhetoric right back at me. I actually have been to Castle Rock this summer, and I walked right past that line, but I did not look at it. Since your "goal" is for there to be fewer new routes and less bolting, let's emphasize that issue and not use the "ground up" ethic as a smokescreen. The practice of hanging on hooks in order to install a bolt is precisely one of those techniques I think should be entirely discontinued. The result - just about every single time this is done, is for there to be a bolt left near an ideal hook move; very rarely is the result that a bolt is left where it can convenientliy be clipped on the lead and efficiently protects a crux move. In the context of crag climbing, I believe it is very selfish to focus on the pleasure and satisfaction of the first ascentionist- I don't think this ethic that you promote is something to be aspired to or promoted.

I agree with Pope that "excommunication" would be a harsh remedy for someone who is merely abrasive. However, Dwayner is not only "merely abrasive" but, whether he admits it or not, he knows by this point that his repeated interruption of every discussion that has any tangential relationship to his issue is purely that: interruption. Folks have been banned from this site for less. I don't think there is a single poster on this site who has been as disruptive of other's attempts to carry on a thoughtful discussion as has Dwayner. If somebody interrupts a bolting discussion to say that they went to bed with your mother last night, it is probably going to be deleted or somebody will fire back a one-line retort or even a half a page, and the discussion can then continue. Dwayner's intentional interruption is just about always expanded into several pages of pointless diatribe in a debate about who is the greater jerk. There are probably not more than a couple of times in the entire history of this board where he has sprayed his garbage into a bolting discussion and the discussion was thereafter brought back on track so that a variety of other people could state their views on the original topic. In this arena (discussions of climbing ethics) I do in some measure hold Dwayner to a higher standard than those who so often resort to threats of violence or stupid potty jokes. This is largely because I think Dwayner has more to say than that. Figger Eight entirely mischaracterizes my position when suggesting that I would require staunch ethicists to "play nicey nicey" in bolting discussions. They don't. But look back at the history of this board. These "stanch ethicists" that he may rightfully revere have greatly discouraged, and in large measure they have prevented serious and thoughtfull discussion -- for THREE YEARS!! IT IS NOT JUST DWAYNER, though, but in this arena (bolting ethics) the personal attacks and hostile rhetoric almost always start with some deliberate provocation from one of these heroes of the staunchly ethical climber's union. I'm not sure, but it may even be true to say that every single time the bolting debate has ever gone south, and it just about always DOES go south, the descent into hell started with some purposefully insulting bit of anti-bolt rhetoric. The "free speech" argument is just plain silly. Dwayner is the one who is not allowing others to make their points and, on balance, "free speech rights" would be promoted by keeping him out of these discussions unless he can find a different approach to the subject. Look back at my post that started this current debate. I did not advocate that he be permanently banned but I said I MIGHT advocate a temporary suspension. If you believe that we have a right to discuss bolting ethics without having the discussion flushed down the toilet every time it is brought up, what would you have Jon and Timmy do here? Another alternative that has been suggested is that somebody just start editting the hell out of Dwayner's posts. I think the "free speech" advocates on the site would probably find that a lot MORE offensive.

I agree with you about that thing, Pope, but I believe you have just shown how little you get out. That aesthetic masterpiece has been there for several years, if I am not mistaken. You are right to argue that, just because your proposed rules of ethical bolting are old does not mean that they are no longer relevant. However, the "ground up" ethic is not only outdated, but it is just plain nonsense. And I suspect that you and others who advocate this approach are using it as a cloak for the real point that you hope such a rule would mean fewer routes being put up. A thoughtful and responsible routesetter can do a much better, safer, and cleaner job of putting up a route on rappel than they can on lead. They can also take the time to think about setting a route that will serve other people, instead of merely trying not to break their own neck and making their own accomplishment. If, on a given crag, there were going to be a certain number of new routes with a certain number of bolts, I'd much rather see them developed on rappel than on lead. If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style.

Pope- I have no interest in stifling conflicting points of view, nor in stifling Dwayner. I enjoy the debate, whether it is about saving grams in your pack, the Iraq war, or bolting practices. Not only do I enjoy it, but my views on these topics have changed after I've been able to exchange some thoughtful discussion with other members of this site who hold viewpoints I wouldn't encounter elsewhere, except perhaps on some bumper sticker or something. However, all of our ability to interact is compromised when someone seeks nothing more than to disrupt the discussion and draw attention to themselves. Puget is right on the money when he notes that Dwayner has some robotic obsession so that every time the word "bolt" is mentioned, he fires up the same antagonistic response that may or may not have anything to do with the discussion, and which he cannot defent when questioned on the logic or what he is stating. Are you, too, on Dwayner's "Team Robitic Nonsense," or do you simply have a temporary reading comprehension problem? I have stated, every time we have this discussion, that I believe Dwayner has a point - but it is his method of delivery that I find totally inane. He's a college professor, for god's sake. He must know how to forumlate and present an idea without being antagonistic about it, and how to participate in a discussion in a manner that is intended to promote the exchange and consideration of new information. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask and expect him to be able to make his points without being a complete jerk.

What would you do without your evil homonym? Maybe I should get one of those.

Jay- I actually DO believe that Bush and his buddies are making national policy decisions for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and that big money interests carry an inordinate amount of interest in this administration's White House. I also believe that Rumsfeld et all show a maniacal desire to exercise world domination, and that this is a serious threat to world peace. In short, I DO believe all that stuff so Maybe I should sign up for the New Federalist. I'm sorry, but its been a long week and I cannot muster up the energy to go into your economic analsis. Maybe next time, or maybe somebody else will take you up on that.

Fairweather, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your Dalai Lama thing. I didn't know you expected a response from me on that particular post. Am I supposed to tell you whether I agree with the Dalai Lama or whether his reported statements impact my sense of whether or not our invasions were justified? The answer is no. I don't think we set out to liberate Afghanistan and unless we change course pretty quick, I don't think we will be seen to have done so when historians look back on it. Yes, Taliban is out - for now - and some As queda training camps are gone, and some bad guys have been killed.... Iraq? I still think we should not have gone in when we did but I agree it is not over yet. About the UN- We thumb our nose at the UN whenever it suits our purposes, ignore it most of the rest of the time, and occasionally ask everybody ELSE in the world to go along with it. I haven't studied UN history all that much, but even when we support some UN policy, I think we usually don't lend all that much military support to their objectives. You tell me if I am wrong. About Al queda - Is Fox news or wherever you get your information really that distorted? As queda continues to carry out bombings around the world, and I think that even Bush's people pretty much acknowledge that they are as much of a threat now as they were before 911, while they do at the same time try to say we've made progress. And lots of people are saying that we've given them a big boost with our war on terrorism that they can characterize as a war on Islam. So you respond to a couple of my points. Thanks. But don't take up Mountain Goat's style: his responses were exhausting, many didn't make any sense at all, and he often completely failed to address the main points made by his adversaries.

Active posters on this site climb at all levls of technical difficulty. Some of those with the biggest mouths rarely climb anything that most of us would recognize as technical at all, and there are plenty of folks interested in moderate peak-bagging and easy rock climbs.

Fairweather, did you or did you not say that you thought that I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to. You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise?