Peter_Puget

I believe I did read the site. Pasted below is the enitre section related to cams being blocked by debris. There is clearly only one case of a cam being blocked by debris. (Rex Pieper's) The draw event is simply not the same as the cam being blocked by debris. Cam held open by a foreign body From: Bill Yerazunis The official Petzl propaganda sheet cautions that situations where the cam is pressed open by rock or 'biner can cause the GriGri to fail to work From: Dave Buchanan The Gri-Gri slammed into the draw, with the cam taking the brunt of the impact. For whatever reason, I did not get speed-lowered. I'm not quite sure why. From: Greg Daughtry There are two reasons why you did not get speed lowered: 1) 11 feet off the ground, your belayer was suspended in air, with the climbing rope under the tension of her full body weight. Provided that your belayer still had her hand on the brake side of the rope, this presents a lot of force for the cam to lock. The device was locked prior to hitting the draw, which is a big distinction to the warning case presented on the Petzl web site about belaying with a bolt clipped just above the gri gri, on the leader side. 2) Even if the cam were completely open, the gri gri is still a pretty reasonable friction device. So long as your belayer doesn't take her hand off the brake side, you've still got a pretty good catch. This is why loading the gri gri backwards isn't the end of the world. From: Jonas Wiklund I am well aware of petzl's warnings regarding these matters, but I see no physical reasons for failure of grigri when the belayer gets yanked up to the first draw of a steep route. If the cam is slammed open, whats holding the belayer up in the air, forced againts the draw? Momentum? Magic? An antigravity belt? The grigri is open, hence the belayer start to decent down the rope. From: Rex Pieper I took a 60 footer on the Black Tower pitch on Zodiac in '97 when a fixed KB blew a few minutes after I was standing on it. The fall length wasn't caused by more gear ripping as a big alumnihead caught me. Instead, a small pebble got wedged INSIDE the GriGri, not allowing it to lock up in a fall. My partner finally got the rope under control, stopping me 10 feet above the ramp at the base of the Tower. From: Robert Fonda Always, always check the cam device BEFORE you get on the rock. Small pebbles and the like can get into the device and cause the cam to fail. I check mine constantly when I am belaying someone (especially at Josh). All it takes is for your partner to kick sand down and jam your device! PP

RBW - I found one example in your links indicating something prevented the cam from working. From your post I was expecting a bit more than one. Thanks for the links. PP

I am not a Gri-Gri fan and would be interested in showing evidence of these accidents to friends who do like Gri Gris please post some links to the supporting documentation. Thanks. PP

I agree pretty much with Mattp however suppose a climber was to become really good at reeling in - he/she would become a hazard! For instance say I am twenty feet out from the belay and slip off (w/ no pro) while I am falling my belayer "reels in" 10 feet of rope. So ignoring slack I have now fallen 30 on ten feet of rope - a fall factor of three! Ouch! PP

DFA- Check here: Menergy Now that you got rid of the Sub you can afford to buy music!

“The boys are in the back room shooting out Menergy….Menergy”

Ah Gay Discos a great way to get a headache....but anyone remember the tune Menergy? Wild times.

PP

Ok Your consistant refusal to answer my repeated requests for your evidence supporting this assertion:you [PP] dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing” And I would add you comment here as well:are you going to challenge me to a duel now? Ah the idignities I have suffered. PP

Or here J-B:: “i did not bring up clinton. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing” Again ask you to provide evidence supporting your assertions about my beliefs. From your consistent refusal to provide this evidence a simpleton would think I would have to make the choice between “lying” and “incompetence” but I say it is both! PP

Sorry J-b your insults are BS. You made clear claims that I believe something that I do not. (eg while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing ) I asked for evidence supporting your assertion and you reply with an insult. I call BS on that. I am not playing semantics [sic] games but have tried to stick close to the issue. Others, you included, have consistently confused the arguement by bringing in issues and facts outside of the discussion at hand. Fine, you can widen the argument as somekind of tactic but when I challenge one of your assertions and you respond in the manner of your last response to me, I can only view it as a childish whine. Again I ask you to show me your evidence supporting this claim - you [PP] consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing. Until you can reveal the evidence indicating I feel this way, your comment remains merely a gratuitous insult. I was a bit mocking in my response but you have assigned beliefs to me that are not only wrong but created out of thin air. That assignation and creation is certainly a greater insult to the public discourse than my gentle mocking. So come up with the supporting proof or kiss my ass and shut the fuck up. (See trask I do deserve to be part of your good guy list) PP

It varies but by now you should have figured out that I am always right.

What'cha bringin to the table, Swab? It'll be party size!

Hey you left me off the list! PP

Well let me help you become "unconfused." i did not bring up clinton. By bringing up the impeachment and "blow job" you did bring him into the discussion. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, I believe I said at least a couple times I am addressing only the quote by Ian. Once I even agreed for the sake of argument that Cheney and others lied on many occasions. If you would show me where you came to your conclusion that I have been dismissing more than one misstatement perhaps I can formulate a less confusing response. while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing. Where did you get this belief? Show me and I believe it will help us to at least reduce your confusion. I clearly said I wanted him impeached for misuse of the US military. PP

J-B – Not sure why you brought Clinton up but since you did: I wanted to impeach the man because of his contemptible use of military force to distract public attention from “Monica Gate” Truly pathetic don’t you agree.

Jim –Let’s agree to disagree. And by the way thanks for being so Russert like and ignoring the error in my last post (see highlight – Cheney’s name was used instead of Russerts.)

Cheny is a very astute political player. You present no evidence he made an error. Did the White House Press office offer a retraction of this later? No. Did Cheny change his statement? No. Did it fit in well with the fairy tale they were constructing? Yes. I agree Cheney is astute. I disagree that I provided no evidence. I provided the transcript and two examples one preceding the quote and one subsequent to the quote. I also brought up Cheney's non repsonse to the erroneous comment suggesting they had Nuc Weapons. Even more amazing: for Cheney's statement to be true they [the Iraqis] would have had to have been in possesion of Nuclear Weapons before in order to resonstitute them! That Russert would ignore this is more evidence that it was merely an error. One thing that you all seem to hold in common is a contempt for the general population's intelligence. It must be lonely living in rarified air of liberal elite. PP

J-b - That is a bit harsh but I am glad you see the goofiness of the "lie" camp. Your conclusion of incompetence is ridiculous and is part of the sad state of political discourse these days.

Jim - Since I was responding to a specific quote taken from an interview the broader perspective you offer is merely a chance to spew and does not seem germain to the point I was making. For arguments sake I am willing to agree that they were all lieing at various times, but given the context of the interview, I find it very unlikely that he was guilty of anything but a inadvertent error in the example given.

Ok I wont argue with you. Although since I never disputed the quote, merely the context, I am surprised you expanded the quote a bit but not enough to improve the context. Esp given my attempts to provide a context which you ignore completely. Do you really think your expanded quote provided a better sense of context?Again interested parties can read the entire transcript and judge for themselves. PP

What I am saying and honestly I thought it was quite clear whas that the example given was not supportive of Ians contention in any meaningful way. Many times (often while on a climbing trip) I have been in a discussion and mispoke or had a friend say something in error but given the context of our discussion we let it pass because we took the error for what it was. I believe this is the same situation. That is what I am saying. PP

LOL You crack me up. I say read the entire interview buy a video. You make assertions based on nothing. I say provide evidence. I have linked the transcript and will let others decide.

Please point out this back pedaling (what you smell). Show in specific detail and in the context of the interview.

Joshk - Excuse this idiot but are you just making a simple declaration and not specifically addressing my previous point? PP