mattp

Hanman reported the road blocked by snow about 6 or 7 miles short of the "trailhead" for Dreamer last weekend.

If you call the Forest Service, I'd start with the Cle Elum district of the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest. The road is in their district and they are usually helpful when I call over there.

Yeah. Thanks. That causes me to engage in some reconsideration of my weekend plans.

For once, I agree with KK here.

Raindawg, whatever. You clearly and I assume deliberately misrepresented my role in the Vertical Hiker thread yesterday, and you continue to engage in such manipulation on a regular basis. Get over yourself, however, and look what I'm doing here: I'm arguing that you have a right to do so. At least in Spray as we conceive it.

To me, there isn't such a big difference, Tvash. This whole thread has had its amusing side, to be sure, but it is full of posturing and jabs and at some level I don't really think your provocation is all that different from the insane complaint about how could someone stoop so low as to insult Charlton Heston in this time of mourning, or a purposefully offensive remark about Judaism is akin to lauding the holocaust. Yes, you may be less prone to the same dramatics or deception that some more often employ, and maybe you have a better sense of humor than some, but you still play the same game of trying to one-up each other with who can be more insulting and taking delight in cleverly or not so cleverly crafting a rapid fire stream of put-downs. With this as a daily reality, how can anybody be surprised if somebody posts an image that we all of the sudden think is REALLY over the line, or if they go off on an insane tirade or whatever. My point is that Raindaw's post is no worse than many others we see on a daily basis and I think JayB's "intervention" is really not that far off either. It's ok to slam each other all day long, talk about what you did to the other guy's mother or call them a moron, but whoa: it is out of line to post a picture of the holocaust?

Isn't Raindawg's posts here really the other side of the coin from that T'vash added? Both are seeking to be be provocative just because it is fun to poke somebody in the eyes. Perhaps there is something about Dawg's post that you find manipulative or dishonest in some small way, but hey: isn't that the norm for spray postings? How is any of this any worse than the daily spew of insults and lies that we have come to expect in the Spray forum and some seem to think can rightfully spill over to other areas of the board?

It is rare that the political position of a poster enters into the discussion when I comment on what I see as derogatory stuff in route reports, newbies, or partnership forums, Fairweather, but I believe I have been equally critical of liberals and conservatives in discussions like this one, or the Mt. Hood rescue thread, or the Vertical Hiker scenario. It is not a matter of "my side of the fence." Not long ago I was critical of a certain frequent adversary of yours on just this kind of issue. You are right, though, that this was really "pretty tame stuff" on the spectrum of insult that we are used to at cc.com - at least in the Spray forum where you made all but about three in the last 100 of your posts. But the degree of rancor you seem to relish when engaging in political arguments or the daily bait and bash is not the standard by which I think we should measure posts to other forums.

Eric, That may be a fair analysis. I don't know whether or not Zoran was deliberately "inviting" feedback, and I'm not so sure he was proclaiming superiority so much as just being excited about and promoting something that he thought was a good idea. But you (unlike most others in this thread) are at least answering my question. Thanks. Anyway, I think much the same could be said about the Vertical Hiker thread: it would be fair to observe that anybody who had previously spent much time browsing cc.com should probably expect "feedback" when they post something like that. We don't much tolerate talk about God around here and anything even remotely political is going to draw a hailstorm pretty much every time. To me, that is not always a great aspect of this website. Sometimes it would be better, in my view, to let somebody else with a different approach to climbing - even one that we may find somehow distasteful - talk about what they are doing without having to put them down.

I know we like to be all rogue and "spirited" on cc.com, but do we want anybody who doesn't fit our narrow mold in the style department to be hounded by the mad dogs who belong in Spray? Whether your gig is "carbon offsets" or "climb for Christ," "light and fast" or "dirtbag and debauchery," aren't we all excited about climbing? Sure, any one of us can find something about somebody else to slam on cascade climbers, but should we always take that shot?

It is not current, not as well put together, and doesn't have Static Point, but you can find an old Index guide at Clint Cummins' site. GIF files

How did you market the Travellers Guide? Did it bring in much for your cause? I'm sure you'd get some response if you announced that all proceeds from Sky Valley Rock were going to be used to fund a new toilet there, or whatever, but isn't the real issue that there just isn't that big of a market for the book?

Look back at the thread. Then, apart from attacking me, I wonder if you have a comment on THIS thread. Do you think somebody who wants to advertise a "carbon neutral" climb should be slammed for promoting a carbon credit idea? If one wants to make a "Christian" climb, should they be slammed for being Christian? If you want to make a climb in celebration of the life of Charlton Heston and put a mention that he is your hero in your summit register entry on Gunsite Peak, should we slam you for that? Assuming you like to call people names all day long and you see nothing wrong with this, are there any limits? Are all forums and all posts to cc.com "fair game" if you think you can take a good shot at somebody?

Raindawg, thanks for trying to "keep me honest," but you ought to try to be honest about it yourself if that is in fact your goal here. You have misrepresented my position in that thread. My first entry, on about page 6, was a very clear criticism of those who had felt the need to rant and rave about Christianity in response to Vertical Hiker's original post. Check it out. page 6 And my next post in that thread, on page 12 or so and the first of two that you quote here? You carefully or not so carefully leave out where I once again state that I am critical of those who are bashing on the notion of a Christian climb. page 13 I recognized then that boys will be boys and cascadeclimbers is what it is, but I took the same position I am taking here. And if the Carbon Neutral thread morphs into twenty pages of spray just as the Vertical Hiker's request for partners, I may well participate in a discussion of whether one can truly climb McKinley in a "carbon neutral" fasion. But that is not my point.

Yup. I pretty much thought that dog pile on the Climbers for Christ sucked and I believe I said so at the time. I didn't much care for the way some of our regular posters treated the family members in that Mt. Hood thread, either, or dozens of other times when somebody seemed to just want to post about climbing and others took a chance to jump on their own personal soap box or show how superior they are. I'm not saying that anybody's point about the carbon neutral concept or Jesus or whatever is invalid, but it does seem to me that the way we get used to bashing each other in Spray all day long impacts how we post to other parts of the board in a way that makes cc.com less interesting from my point of view. Zoran may not have been offended and hell: he may have even posted in hopes of stirring the little pot here. But cc.com would be more interesting if you didn't have to fit the cc.com style mold in order to post trip reports or requests for partners without being criticized.

I believe that both Beckey and Tabor have reported that Mt. Higgins near Darrington is made of the same stone as Peshastin. I've never been up there, but from the road it looks like there are lots of vertical corners in addition to a massive tilt-up slab. --- I think part of what makes Peshastin scary is that, being so different from what we generally climb, it takes some getting used to. Most of us will go there one day when maybe we got rained out of Leavenworth but few go to Peshastin a couple days in a row or a couple days in a month. I agree with Ivan about generally not finding a lot of sandstone in the alpine areas, but runout slab climbing and poor pro is common on alpine rock climbs from the Stuart Range to the Tetons or the Bugaboos.

I have never made THAT claim Fairweather. If I did, I wouldn't waste my time rolling in the mud with you.

What's your take on that Carbon Neutral McKinley thread by Zoran? I know we like to be all rogue and "spirited" on cc.com, but do we want anybody who doesn't fit our narrow mold in the style department to be hounded by the mad dogs who belong in Spray? Whether your gig is "carbon offsets" or "climb for Christ," "light and fast" or "dirtbag and debauchery," aren't we all excited about climbing? Sure, any one of us can find something about somebody else to slam on cascade climbers, but should we always take that shot?

Thanks for posting about your climb, Zoran. It is too bad some folks around here have to put you down so they can feel superior, but I'm sure that for each snide post here there are at least ten readers who thought your trip and your web page sound pretty cool. Whether you promote "carbon offsets" or "climb for Christ," "light and fast" or "dirtbag and debauchery," we're all excited about climbing and any one of us can find something about somebody else to slam on cascade climbers. (For those who want to debate my premise that Zoran's coming climb is as valid as yours and mine, I've put a similar post in Spray.)

Another problem I see with it, RBW, is that people who are cheap or maybe genuinely cannot afford it will continue to make poor decisions and likely end up costing either themselves (if they have money) or society (if they don't) more in the long run.

You have set forth no idea that I could say is good or bad. Do you mean the abstract concept of single payor services, or managed care or whatever it is that you imagine I would recommend for the medical industry? At the most abstract level I suppose that without really thinking about it I'd guess there would probably be more benefit in "socialized" criminal defense than most of the other things that attorney's do, but I can't really talk to your straw man unless you stand him up first. As to the “second point,” you need only read my posts above to see that I agree that medical decisions are significantly distorted by considerations for liability exposure and the reimbursement mechanisms imposed by insurance companies. They are also, in my view, distorted by the drive to maximize income. Maybe you agree?

Ah. The answer to “the first” is complete dookie. You DID just offer that as a rhetorical jab. And the second point? How could I have overlooked the obvious. Everything that is wrong with medicine in America is due first and foremost to the “medical malpractice crisis” and the fact that doctor's try to see as many as possible patients in as short as possible appointments and a simple treatment for a sprained ankle is likely to result in three follow up appointments is all due to this and has nothing to do with trying to make money either. Thanks for clearing that up.

What are you talking about JayB? What is this "same mechanism" and how would you think it might be applied? (Or is this just a rhetorical jab?) It was a combination of things that drove those recommendations, I'm sure. In medicine as in the practice of law, and likely even in other professions where the issues may be less "subjective" as well, a lot of what we do is driven by a business model and concerns for "professionalism" that are quite apart from our clients' needs. Attorney's, billing by the hour, frequently seek to raise rather than resolve issues. They bill more for this and they will not later be accused of missing something. I think the same sort of dynamic lies behind doctors' proclivity to order expensive tests even when they will not affect treatment and there is little sign of any of the problems they are used to detect. In my case, muscle spasms in my upper back could have been caused by a problem in the spinal core that would be detected by two series of MRI's, but the treatment was going to consist of anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxers, and physical therapy either way -- and I was already responding to these therapies. The doctor more or less told me the MRI's weren't necessary, but she said it was a good idea to order them "just in case." As I said, I think she's a good doctor and I certainly want my doctor to be careful, but I think the manner in which insurance companies pay for certain treatment protocols and not others, and concerns for liability, and business concerns drive the industry. Order a set of tests and there will be a short follow up visit that is easy to schedule, takes little preparation, requires no expense or supplies, and for which you will never be criticized.

I think it is pretty funny that JayB and others who hate the idea of socialized medicine would seize upon an experience like that reported by CheamClimber to argue that Canadian (socialized) healthcare doesn’t work. The last time I called my doctor for an appointment I couldn’t get a same day appointment either. In fact, the last two doctors I called (one was for a foot issue and the other for back - and both were doctor's I'd seen before) couldn’t see me for a month. Even with a month's notice, the foot doctor canceled and rescheduled the appointment. And the back doctor? I actually think she's a pretty good doctor (that's why I went back), but when I first saw her she definitely ordered expensive tests that would almost certainly make no difference in what she would recommend for treatment. So I paid the deductible and my insurance company paid the big bucks for the "standard of care" when it was completely unjustified. Anyway, in this situation I bet Cheam could have gone to the emergency room, just as any of us can, had he really been scared he was going to die (or just didn't want to wait).