W

PP- I didn't read your reference because I don't have time to sift through every topic on this website looking for it. Sorry. I made it up? Stating that the route went from a "solid 5.12 TR to an 11" before bolting, and a "marginal 11a" after bolting infers that the route got TR'd enough for a consensus grade to be formed and for history buffs like yourself to be able to quote it to uninformed folks like me. I understood perfectly what you were saying. I don't get the idea that you listened to a single thing I tried to convey, however. You seem to suggest that without the bolts, the rock would continue today being bashed apart by people using pitons. Are you sure? Clean climbing is the rage these days. People have the message. There are few walls at Index that anyone would consider nailing on. I'll bet the Arch hasn't taken a piton in the last decade- the guidebook even pleads to not hammer. Once again: I maintain that the Arch sans bolts would have reached the same stasis in which it exists today- beaten out enough to go clean. Yeah, "inches of rock" came off. And, bolting didn't stop that because it was a classic aid climb and continued to be, long before someone decided that it "had to go free". If your reference to Yosemite 5.10's is referring to Wheat Thin- that was a hot topic that never received a consensus blessing from the valley glitterati, and a subject that continues to be debated today. In general, I think you know what I mean in reference to valley ethics. A European free climber once asked Bridwell if the PO Wall would go free- Bridwell sensed the climber's roundabout request to place bolts if necessary and replied "it might go free...but...the protection would be very bad". The European climber understood and respected what he said. I don't know...we can debate this forever, but I think the only justifiable use of bolts on the Arch would have been if the bolter was doing the FA- and even there, with a crack that took pitons, that could be debated.

I won't apologize for those who continued to pound pins long after the crack could be done with clean gear, or especially after the bolts were placed.However, what you are saying is that what began as an aid line (read: trad, a crack system) and which frequently got TR'd no doubt by some of the same people who in order to get up there pounded pins in it, before the bolts were placed, was dumbed down because the pin scars got bigger and now it's not as aesthetic. Short of drilling the bolt ladder that exists today, it could never have been climbed in the first place, without pitons! It started as a aid climb- a trad climb- and should have been left that way, regardless of saving the grade. The original style takes precedence. I'm pretty confident that most everyone knows that nailing the Arch is not acceptable anymore, and minus the installation of the current bolt abomination the climb would likely have settled out in the same condition, without the bolts.With that in mind I don't see the point of decrying that the route's free climbing grade has been weakened. Especially, if the piton damage has resulted in a crack, that, as Dwayner points out and which I second, can be protected with clean gear, both by aid climbers and- if skilled enough- free climbers. And the facts are, in addition to piton scars damaging the rock for eternity there now are, additionally, bolts doing the same. My point is that we likely could have the same climb in the same condition, without the bolts, the only difference being that it would be a more ballsy free lead. Was it really worth the extra damage? The Dihedral Route on the Diamond at Index is a fine aid climb- when I climbed it last year we found thin cracks that would not accept cam hooks or brass nuts, and so took tied off arrows and blades, and also required us to place several small copperheads in seams. I'll bet that the route could be climbed free, right now, by someone skilled enough, and it would be a great free climb at a high standard- but as it stands right now, the hammered protection is modern A3 or so, and it would be difficult if not impossible for a free climber to place adequate protection that would prevent a ground fall. Subsequent ascents (I've heard that the route has only 4 or 5 ascents) will doubtless damage the rock and widen the crack enough until it accepts alternative gear. SO- what do we do about that? Should we "save the rock" and prevent the free grade from being downgraded and drill bolts right next to the crack? Horseshit.Not every feature, particularly a crack system, is obligated to be leadable free by anyone with a rack of draws, a drill, and too much time on their hands. In time, the route, as with Dana's Arch, will be beaten out to become a clean aid testpiece and the hammering will stop. I only hope that in the meantime the drilling will not start merely so someone can stoke their ego on their FFA. I'll be more impressed if someone leads it on gear someday. This is the way things have evolved in the valley for decades, and the ethic should (have been) be respected.And for the record- Now that Dana's Arch is bolted- I'd give a big thumbs down if someone ever decided to chop the bolts. That wouldn't change anything except to piss everyone off needlessly. [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: W ] [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: W ]

D-Dana's Arch IS easily clean with cam hooks. You make a good point. With skill it can be safely done without pins. The bolts damage things more in the long run than any pitons. Imagine if someone bolted up an El Cap nail up to "save the rock". There'd be outrage. [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: W ]

well that's exactly the point- at some point the author has to decide on a compact list of recommendable climbs; so naturally there will be at least a little bias, it was his or her choice to write the book in the first place. Otherwise you end up with another Beckey Guide. In every "selected" guide book there will be some dissension. For further analysis, consult the Dougherty Book and go see how "classic" some of those really are!

Really I think the only climb in "Selected Climbs 1" which might reflect author bias is the Eve Dearborn, and I only say that because the route has apparently not been repeated- primarily I'm sure because it so rarely forms. That said, when formed, the route probably has every reason to be recommended. But the remark about 50 Classics is noted- Hummingbird Ridge has not been repeated by the original way, and has killed many people, including the great climbers Cheesmond and Freer.There are few climbers who aspire to climb corniced ridges, and that route has one of the most bad ass off all time. But the FA was done by-you guessed it- Steck! I've always thought that 50 Classics occasionally strayed into the realm where the FA was a "classic" story, even if the route was not. That can only explain the inclusion of routes like the Wishbone Arete and the rubble strewn couloirs of Mt. Alberta. 50 Favorites is objective in a relative way due to the variety of climbing personalities selected and therefore reflects 50 different biases. And surprisingly, while many of the climbs are very hard and a few are unrepeated, few if any of the climbers chose the hardest climb they've ever done. It is odd indeed that some of Kearney's better efforts- the DNB of Bear Mtn. (the lower buttress) and Lady Godiva on Prusik to name two- weren't selected; and while Doorish did some amazing climbs, there realistically aren't many people out there who would want to or could repeat them- there's a reason the N. Norwegian and the Diamond haven't seen second ascents (i think)- they're heinous. Finally I would say that Burdo seemed to be trying to create a book that offered an alternative to Selected Climbs so he could sell it and not compete. But, not sure how anyone can call Liberty Crack a pile and actually mean it.

Thanks, Scott. From below it was hard to tell, but since I hadn't brought pins at the time either, I was wondering if it had gone/would go hammerless. Didn't know anyone who'd done it. definitely will bring the cam hooks, if nothing else they made the first pitch mellow and fast.

Scott- Did you need any pins for p2 (above Cheeto)? I got to Cheeto Ledge last winter but didn't have time for the second pitch. Looked like KB's/arrows might be needed.

Husky tailgate party: Merlot and Brie Cougar tailgate party: Buckhorn and Cheez-Whiz!

Mary- you mean THE climbing ranger Mary. Yes, she will do.

Grivel makes a great tool that could be/is used as a third tool- I can't remember the name of it, I think they still make it, it's very light, and it is red. Good luck.

How many teeth does she have? What's the status of Team Gander Mountain?

actually the apple cup really is friendly compared to some others; A few years ago some UCLA students set fire to the Trojan statue in front of the coliseum. And I liked it when the Army stole the Navy's goat and wouldn't give it back for awhile. Anyway remember the post game riot at Cal after the Big Game? The Cal student section crossed the field and charged the Stanford Band, it was fuckin' chaos!i actually haven't been to a husky game in many many years- but i'll be there tomorrow courtesy of my older brother, who hasn't let the college years die yet. it ought to be some fun in any case... here;s to you hikerwa [ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: W ]

yeah, I know the type. i'm not complaining, mind you, cause most of them are on our side! I will concede that Cougar fans are pretty loyal. You'd have to be with one pac 10 title in 63 years. Btw, W is my last initial...it wasn't until shortly after I did that when I realized that I had assumed the moniker of a certain public official who I don't like much. But let's not go there. still if you live here and like football don't you think watching the huskies is more fun than rooting for the City University 7 man touch team?

Dr. E- BSCE 1992. You're right on one thing- why would anyone who didn't live for years in social exile in Pullman choose to align themselves with that place? I thought all the pot smoking central grads who couldn't get into huskiville WERE Cougars...?

I'll remember that if UW ends up on top tomorrow Oh look- the wazzu offensive line, training hard:

quote: Originally posted by hikerwa:[QB] I spent 6 or 7 of the best years of my life as a Coug, and I'm pretty sure that I had a good time there. QB] Yeah with that WSU diploma your life is pretty much in the toilet, then, huh? Wow. Seven years is a long time, Bluto! better enjoy this season, it'll be another four years or so before Price's recruits get their 1.4 grade average up to standards so they can transfer in from central Wyoming junior college A+T and play their obligatory one year of Cougar football before moving on to that managerial job at Burger King- and THAT's when the BIG bucks start rollin' in! Just remember, you're only as good as your last Apple Cup. 51-3 baby.

Fairweather, you're right- the rest of the world shares an equal responsibility, the onus is not all upon the USA. I at least am not even pretending to blame all of the worlds problems on the USA; in fact, it is not a matter of placing "blame" on anyone. Rather, we're inquiring into our problems, which I think requires suspending all judgement- at least for the moment- to be able to determine what is true and what is false. If you're looking at something from an assumption or a platform, you're examination is doomed to be prejudiced. Sounds like hesitation, you say, but it's actually an instantaneous action- and either you see it, or you don't. If you don't see it, then throw it away! If it seems that my message is "picking on" the US, try to consider it this way- while the rest of the world shares an equal responsibility, the fact that someone else is misbehaving does not absolve us of our own responsibilities.It seems to me that if we really love our country and our way of life, we will be wholly concerned with changing ourselves as individuals to ensure that we are not contributing to furthering our problems- irregardless of what the other person is doing. I believe 100 percent in the ability of our actions to expand outward to the rest of the world. If you say that this will invite enemies to attack us-I say that is not a problem. We will know the difference between defending ourselves and defending our beliefs. That doesn't mean we sit back and let people invade and shoot at us, and it doesn't mean we go have a hug-in with terrorists. Terrorists, antagonists, enemies of humanity will be destroyed when the ideological battles we fight, not on the battlefield, but in our heads, come to an end. It's a tired cliche, but it starts with yourself. But only if you see it. No one can or should "convince" you. And you're right, Fairweather- I think the world has come a long way. But I'm suggesting, take it leave it, that discontent is not a state of negativity, rather it is a state in which the capacity to discover something new is fully enabled, if we do not try to kill that discontent, the urge to question, that is in every one of us at birth, and instead live right with it. The urge to be content and satisfied, to "arrive" in heaven or nirvana or whatever, might we what is killing us all. But that's just an assertion. That's all it is. alright enough already. Halling! Get your beer mug out! Have you found us some good company? I want a full report.

Fairweather- FYI, I haven't taken part in a protest of any kind, including at the UW during the Gulf War when I had plenty of chances-were I so inclined. And Commie? Give me a break. Is everything you hear that confuses you a communist viewpoint? For the record, communism is a backwards-ass religion that replaces a deity with the State as God, and the "revolution" that the freaky types in such local organizations as the RCP promote merely proposes to throw out those in power and replace them with another group (them) who are disenchanted with their own plight and at the same time equally hungry for power...which explains why communism has always resulted in totalitarianism. So get off that trip. And unlike the liberal, I don't have an agenda or the desire to enforce my values upon you. That's part of what makes liberals intolerable to so many people, myself included. It's not my concern what you think or do. I've only posted here because it is an open forum and therefore everyone's thoughts are invited. And, I am not only not personally (important distinction) content with the assertion that war every few years is inevitable, no matter how hopeless or "idealist" that sounds, but I feel that much of the world-myself included- is living under false values and illusions that have created the conflict ridden mess we have now. I'm not proposing or giving or forcing on you any "plan" to fix it; that's what you want to hear-but even if I had one it would have no value to you if you didn't see what I was seeing. I'm merely suggesting that it might be useful to question the values we all take for granted. That questioning is purely an individual matter, yet as our actions as individuals have an expanding affect upon the world, it is something that I feel is vital to happen if the world is ever to move away from the violence and war to which we currently have and know no alternatives. But hey, if you like the world just the way it is, then live in it with all of it's atrocities as well as it's beauty. Just don't act so horrified and surprised and angry when death and destruction cycle themselves through again, because doing what we are doing now as humans, it will happen again. We make the world what it is, but what is made can be unmade. Not according to any pattern, but I think through total perception and sensitivity towards ourselves and each other. But that's just my truth and it's shit to you. So be it. As far as I'm concerned, if I can live that truth, then you and I won't antagonize one another and that is the start of something greater. And I couldn't care less if you think that's impossible or idealist. An ideal is only an ideal if you refuse to live by it. As for your choice of climbing partners, just who have you been climbing with anyway? Have you been trolling the old Blue Moon Tavern or the UW HUB offices for climbing partners? And why would you or they be wasting energy talking politics while trying to pull down or stay alive in the mountains? Tell them to save this crap for the chat boards. That's why we're getting our shit talking done now, eh? And that's all it is, anyway- don't take it too seriously. Over and out.

It's a deal. you me and homey. Tell Halling to bring some good crack ho's from the hood.

no, quah (aka- the world capitol of bad traffic and over californicator-ized strip shopping mall hell) is my dad's/occasional bivi/mailing address. Got a rental basement in Sea town. Now, I could get on board with knocking the shit outta some ice. Wheres that arctic front when we need it?

P-You're probably quite right. Nothing personal was/is implied. Most of what I've been talking about in here was meant to be removed from the particular current crisis and treated as an abstract discussion about the problems facing humanity.Nonetheless, emotions are so high with everyone right now, it was an unproductive effort on my part anyway.Perhaps we should resume climbing and leave the political battles for msn and yahoo. In that arena we all still see some things the same at least...

RE:A year ago no gave a rat's ass about all the people who: are freezing their asses off in some far off country, missing their families on a 6 month deployment, getting shot at, and even dying for YOUR protection. Personally, I've never had a negative opinion of the military. If I have any issue it is with governments not being able to get along with each other, therefore the safety of the public, and more tangibly the military, gets put into jeopardy. Sometimes we have to do what we have to do- right now we're doing it. But independent of this current conflict, don't you think that there may be something for both you and the entire public to gain from the citizens of this country giving critical thought to improving our relations with the world? What's so fucked up about it? Obviously you don't enjoy war, no one does, so is it possible to be able to defend ourselves while also seeking to extinguish the antagonism between ourselves and potential enemies? That seems like it would be in the best interest for all. RE:I, and hundreds of other men and women, work my ass off for YOU. I don't want to be treated as a hero, I just want respect.[/QB] You have respect, and you do work your ass off and you do put your life on the line. But why do you need and demand respect for doing a job you volunteered to do? If I might ask, with all due respect,- did you volunteer for the service because you cared about me and your fellow citizens, wanted to work for us and protect us (which, indeed, are all part of the job), or because you wanted to be respected?

Bronco, I see your point; but while I won't speak for everyone, I think this is the central issue behind our demand to "do something about it": in trying to "understand why the terrorists are mad at us"- no one is trying to justify the attacks on 9/11- at least, I'm not. There can never ever be anything to justify that. The terrorists may be bloodthirsty murderers, but that is beside the point- we're merely dismissing them as some abstract evil entities that have been sent here from hell to ruin our lives; I'd like to go further into it than that;I want to know and understand the psychological processes that make people do horrible things like this. This has nothing whatsoever to do with feeling "compassion" for the terrorists; rather, perhaps through an understanding of what makes people do evil things, we can gain insight into a more effective and lasting response to these "evil" actions that will not be merely the same type of psychological reaction, albeit for a "noble" cause, that will not only eliminate their further threats, but also bring about a new relationship and order in the world that is not one of endless conflict and antagonism, but one of cooperation and mutual existence. While I think we are doing what needs to be done right now, it is also very important to ensure that our actions are not merely RE-actions to the terrorists. Using military action might be the right thing to do- in this case I think it is- all I'm saying is that let's not so righteously assume that force is always the best course of action. The above post mentions that the terrorists felt they were defending themselves...well obviously you and I know that killing people at their desks is far from that. But right or wrong- that is apparently what the terrorists FELT THEY WERE DOING. It's messed up, yes! But if you go into the matter further to see how people's actions have been warped by the illusions under which they live and have been conditioned, perhaps we can avoid falling into the same psychological traps, and see where we might already be caught. No matter how righteous our cause, the mark of true righteousness and humility begins with a constant awareness and inquiry into our actions and motives. Only then will a true "justice", or whatever we want to call it, be served.

CC- What is the "goal" then? Is it actually "payback" then? Does that have any lasting value if it might actually breed further retaliation and more deaths of your own people, maybe someone you know and love? Are you suggesting, then, that your personal gratification in the form of "payback" is worth the deaths of innocent people? Is that really satisfactory to you? If so, then would you also say that the potential deaths of your own children, or your neighbor's children, would be worth it to achieve the end goal of retaliation? Or are you truly interested in making the terrorists answer to their actions, and truly interested in not seeing any further violence and killing? Which is it?

Caveman, I see your point- however, as I also understand where SC is coming from, I ask you this- In terms of "after the fact"- how do we short circuit the chain of retaliation in which the world is caught? Do you have any ideas? "Eradicating evil" sounds great, but is obviously as impractical as doing nothing and hoping we don't get run over by our enemies. The terrorists, however twisted their ideology, honestly thought they were retaliating for something we did to them or their people. We can retaliate forever- look at Israel and Palestine. Neither of them are interested in peace, obviously, though they continually talk about the "peace process". I think everyone agrees that war is a bad thing- if we are really serious about that, if we don't want our children to be killed in a future war, then I think we will think critically and seriously about how to bring about a world in which there is real security and peace- I think SC is trying to suggest that our relationships in the world are not right and need to be reexamined. This doesn't mean we blame or condemn ourselves, only that we recognize false values and destructive actions and work to correct those. And I don't anyone can make a legitimate case that military action is the wrong thing to do right now given the way the world is. But I do think all the things we have branded inevitable can be changed. But you have to start by realizing there is no blueprint for making this happen. thoughts?