mattp

Last time I saw him my acupuncture guy hooked up wires with alligator clips to transmit energy. It was kind of like the pictures from Abu Ghraib. It didn't do much for that particular condition, but then again neither did six months of drugs that had bad side effects, doctor prescribed physical therapy (made it worse) and three diagnostic scans that each cost over $1,000.

Nice one!!!!!

This is where you do that repeat thing you're so fond of, right? No matter how many times your question is answered, you just keep assssking? Look, I'm glad it works for you--but it has no scientific roots. So I take it the answer is "no." You could save a few keystrokes.

Huh?

Seriously, Fairweather. Do you know ANYTHING about acupuncture?

I have no idea what you are commenting on, Fairweather but, yes, I do have some outrage over Obama's lack of integrity. Unfortunately, he's mired in American politics and I will cut him some slack for selling out to the Defense industry, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other institutions that it appears you support over your own interest. In my analysis, he is better than just about any president I can remember.

I repeat my question. Do you know anything about it?

What? Now you're bashing acupuncture? I once had a beginning student (she was near the end of her first year in acupuncture school) relieve my pain from a torn elbow tendon sustained while rock climbing. I've had other less dramatic and in some cases not even noticeable results -- but over the years my acupuncture experiences have been comparable in effectiveness to my doctor visits, expensive scans, and medicines with side effects when it comes to pain issues. And the cost has been less than 1/10th as much for the same results. Do you know anything about Acupuncture? --- By the way: Joe is a liar. What did he say this time?

Is it more of a cesspool than cc.com over there at craigslist? Maybe. The basic dynamics are the same. Somebody who may or may no know what they are talking about replies to the material that is posted for all to see, and then everyone else sees it. I've seen some crazy stuff at both sites.

I think he's going to be missed here on cc.com, too. I think he was someone who posted some great stuff here and, after reading that great stuff, I feel like a friend.

Coming back from a year of disability, I enjoyed some great days in my home turf at Darrington, climbed a couple of classics elsewhere with some old friends, and spent a couple of days out climbing with partners I met on cc.com. More than that, though, I TALKED about climbing. I'm the Washington Climbers Coalition secretary, and I've done a lot of organizational work in support of a fund-raising effort that is going to preserve the Index Town Wall as a climbing destination. I aided some 5.11. Does that count?

Anybody looked at the ice accross the river from that boy scout camp on highway 410 between Greenwater and the turnoff for Crystal? 3 good pitches, and right there in plain sight but you gotta wade the river (not necessarily that big of a deal but it is a river). I could dig up some old pictures of it but this place has been regularly visited for 30 years and I think it is fairly well documented. There is an old newspaper article about recovering a body after the ice fell down on a climber if anybody wants to look for it. One of the rescuers was quoted as saying that the ongoing falling ice reminded him of heavy fire in Vietnam.

I have one of those tents too. It is good for backpacking in mosquito season and really nice for car camping when I want to set something up without screwing around. I don't think I'd take it on Mt. Rainier, though, and certainly not if windy conditions were predicted. For that you better shell out the $ or dig a snow cave. I've been up there in winter without a tent and I think the snow cave is not a bad option but you do have to know a little about what you're doing (though I guess tent camping in high winds presents parallel, if different, challenges).

Now we are seriously hijacking this thread. But for alpine, dude, I would say that I don't have much use for the bivvy sack unless you are on a grade V or VI technical climb without a good bivvy site. And then I'd prefer a two-person glad bag to the (now) standard individual bivvy bags. If you are camping at the base of a route or at a remotely comfortable campsite in the middle of one, I believe a tent is more efficient and more comfortable than the bivvy bag. For "alpine" climbing (whatever that is) I do use something a little more sophisticated than the salvation army pants. We could talk about situations and scenarios for a long time, I'm sure.

As a matter of fact, I have. For a tarp I generally carry something a little more upscale but not really functionally much different than a piece of tyvek (and I have in fact carried Tyvek). For ski-camping below timberline it is vastly preferable to a tent. As to pants? I do in fact find salvation army dress slacks or just plain jeans more practical for rock climbing than softshell pants that cost 10x - no 25x - as much. Let's get back to science.

Yup. And I kind of agree, too. There is a lot of overpriced crap sold to willing buyers based on marketing. A piece of Tyvek with pebbles in the corners and strings tied around the pebbles is in certain applications better than the $600 North Face tent, and the Salvation Army pants can perform just as well for rock climbing as the Metolious threads (I'll stop short of buying my climbing ropes at Home Depot, though). But we're talking science here. Clearly it must mean that all atmospheric and climatological scientists are wrong if somebody e-mailed somebody else about dumping data from one particular collection.

Dick, I think you are right: there are a whole lot of reasons why it was wrong to bring the old bolting bait and bash into this discussion but the fact is that somebody else actually INVITED Pope and Dwayner to this thread and several others have been unable to do anything but argue tit for tat. The mods for this forum could moderate the discussion in a different fashion but, too, you could ignore those guys and talk about something beside them. I've tried to steer this conversation toward a more reflective discussion of questions like where do we stand as a group at this point in history and what impact on our sport is brought about by bolt wars and etc. Matt

To the extent that there is any chance for meaningful discussion, let's retain the original subject headline.

Bill, I agree that we've had some of this "discussion" many times before, with the same result. I've been trying to bring other aspects of the issue into this thread. Matt

Here's a Klenke photo:

Bill: I have no clue what you mean here. But I suspect my early-on post about how I wish people could someday engage in real discussion, and that I think a discussion where everybody actually takes personal ownership of their positions (like maybe posting in their real name) would be refreshing, might be appropriate. Are you suggesting that somebody here is a clown? Are you suggesting the whole idea of discussion is a joke? I don't know. I'm interested in some discussion, and this might include whether bolts are "good" or "bad" as some are discussing here or the questions I asked, like where do we think the general "debate" of sport v. trad stands, or "don't you think that bolt wars are a bad idea?" Perhaps you think we are all a bunch of clowns. I cannot argue against that particular point. For sure, cc.com is at times nothing more than a circus. Matt

Nice one. Big Four is Big Fun, eh? I don't know whether it'd be preferable or not but I think one can also avoid the lower North Face by making an end-run around the lower cliffs into steep and decidedly unfriendly woods right of the lower cliff bands - though I've only been down this way and not up. A short bit of nastiness should lead the climber into an open bowl below the Big Four - Hall Peak saddle, and a rising traverse left would put you back on the upper North Face. Where's that shot from across the way?

That's a good point, bird dog. Particularly at or even below the top of some of the popular crack climbs at Vantage, the piles of loose rock are a nightmare and present a serious hazard. A careful belayer has a difficult time not beaning their follower and a pre-set top rope is even more dangerous quite often. Also, Fish and Wildlife has asked climbers to consolidate trails and encourage limited traffic on top out of concern for impact. I don't know if they specifically requested it but having good rappel stations at the top of the routes does well to address these concerns. Once, several years ago, I was told that a local anti-bolt activist climber was seen removing trail signs placed by an Access Fund work party that were addressing this issue of trying to control/direct traffic up on top. I was also told that this person had a beef with the Access Fund or the notion of climbers organizing out at Vantage because he equated that with sport climbing. If that is true, it is an example of how the politics of these situations can work to our disadvantage. Whether you think bolts are good or bad, the heated nature of this issue has hampered climbers' ability to work with land managers and climbing areas have even been threatened by bolt wars.

Jefe may be right. We saw front cover articles about the great ethics debate in climbing magazines just a couple of years ago but the fact is that when I talk to climbers at climbing areas, even at "so called" trad areas like Index or the 'Gunks, I don't find any climbers who say that sport-climbing-is-the-root-of-all-evil. None. I meet plenty of people who laugh at "sporto's" or who have no interest in going to name-the-local-sport-crag and I fully understand that point of view but most climbers today don't seem to share Pope and Dwayner's venom. It does not answer the ultimate question of "right or wrong" but what do you guys think: how many climbers today are staunchly and avowedly "anti-sport" in the sense that we are talking about here: that "sport climbing is evil?" What is the status of "the debate?"

Cynnicism aside, I for one am happy to see someone like Alan come forward and say "hey: this is me you're talking about." I know it is against cc.com tradition but Alan here seems to suggest there could be some value in attempting an actual discussion and I for one think that it would help these discussions if more of the participants were to post under their real name and be prepared to give and take. I'm not trying to stir the pot with Pope or anybody else around here and, no, I'm not suggesting that anybody police this or any other particular discussion. However, it'd be refreshing if we saw some folks attempt thoughtful discussion more often. Thanks, Alan, for taking the time to post. You make a good point that there is nothing inherent in sport climbing that attacks or degrades trad. Clearly, there can be conflict and it gets highlighted where trad climbers take a jihad approach toward bolt wars or sport climbers set about retrobolting classic crack climbs but all the different approaches toward climbing are mostly complimentary and offer greater deapth to the sport, not less, in my view. That was the conclusion I reached in an article I wrote on this topic a few years back: Rock climbing ethics: an historical perspective