Peter_Puget

Now just where is the proof those are man made jugs!

Left or Right Wing it shouldn’t matter. The ebb and the flow of the business cycle are not shocking new developments. A prudent government will/would have prepared for such circumstances. The sad fact is that there are strong incentives for the government not to prepare for them. Even more sadly, most of these incentives operate against the ostensible mission of government and work to the advantage of the powers that be. Look at the Parks Dept’s website and see how much money is expected to be saved by these closures? Then see how much thought has been given to outsourcing such things such as park maintenance. This small change has the potential to save lots of $$, yet it has never been seriously examined. Given the option of closing parks I think it should have been given serious thought. Currently Bellevue Parks Department outsources some services and I think all the Provincial Parks in BC do as well. Dru - is this true and how has it been working?

I agree with Pope that EBGBs is a good climb; however, I can barely remember the first moves but certainly remember the top. Like many JT routes the unique texture of the rock takes getting dialed into and the top, while not a death runout by any means, is a bit nervey. It is fairly steep friction climbing. The start is more of a bouldering traverse. A good test before this would be to try Grain Surgery first. GS is easier, has good climbing and if you find its finish to be at all intimidating the post crux section of EBGS (85% of the route) would be far more so.

Hey Cavey and I met (sort of) and I never have been to a Pub Club - our secret is climbing!

Quality. It is not a bad climb but not a zillion stars. Its diagonal nature does make it a long pitch by JT standards.

LOL Actually I rarely climb sport routes, but that has more to do with not really liking most WA sport areas than any dislike of bolts. I think someone mentioned Illusion Dweller. That climb is unbelievably overrated! BUT it can often be climbable on those cold windy days when everything else is gettign blasted. So my advice would to safe it for one of those days. A bit harder yet a very good pitch is the first pitch of Desert Song. It is just to the left of Illusion Dweller. It is 10c/d I think. [ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

I know it's trad. I was suggesting it probably seemed harder than 10a because I am usually considered a bolt pulling wussy on this site. Making a little joke! Actually without any joking around it is harder than 10a.

Damn! We must be getting old. Now I'll even venture an opinion which was that the Woo Li is somewhat burly for for a 10a. My mind seems to remember it at 10d. But I am a bolt pulling wussy. Both of the routes are very good. Definately much better than the average scruffy JT route.

Its been a few years ( my mind might be going) but one of the following climbs I think is at the grotto and the other near it. Black President and Dance of the Woo Li Masters are very good climbs.

quote: Originally posted by erik: uh oh......cleester is off the meds again...... Watch out Erik! Appearently the word "Meds" is not considered sarcasm but irresponsible mud slinging! You might suffer a series of stinging insults.

One important thing nobody emphasizes is that in good weather Mt. Rainier is an awesome place to be! That is true without regard to whether you are standing at Paradise, walking the Wonderland, turning back on an unsuccessful climb or enjoying the view from the summit. As a climbing objective Rainier means nothing too me, but as a cool place to hike around and see it is amazing! A course with lots of time on the mountain and a summit attempt, the class could be the trip of a lifetime whether or not you ever climb again. If you feel a guided situation works for you I say go for it! One note: As others have noted the RMI courses are oriented towards glacier travel and not other climbing related skills. (ie rock climbing) I note that you have been somewhat vague as to your goals.

Scottp - ???? Bug - You are right.

Quote from Scottp: “I fail to see how anyone can have quicker access to an area when they can go no further on a closed road than anybody else. Distance driving to where you park is irrelevant.” Scottp simply imagine this two: people one at point A the other at point B. One is 35 miles from a trailhead. The other 3 hours. Now further assume their goal destination (point C) is a 5 mile hike from the trailhead. Now each person at his respective starting point begins their journey towards point C. I will not waste my time further specifying the details of how they journey, I am sure we know who will arrive first. FW – Now see what you started! Actually, Pope has a history of even starting threads slamming me. One entitled Fragile Poster was a hoot. I tried to paste a link but although I found it via search I could not actually pull it up. BTW by searching on fragile poster you will find two hits the original thread and a second called something like Fruitcake Recipe for Xmas Climbers. Pope did throw in a wonderful slam on me in that thread. Check it out! I am sure the context of that post will enlighten you to the Pope. Pope – Hugs! We do need to go on that climbing trip! Quote from Pope: Peter, surely you believe that Retro would like to see untrampled meadows whether he's climbing in the Stuart Range on the weekend or whether he's visiting the Olympics on a long weekend. Why would you think we're stupid enough to believe otherwise? Of course he wants to see that. I would venture to say that virtually all cc.comers would prefer an “untrampled” meadow versus a trampled one. . Since I never suggested otherwise I am wondering why you wrote that? That, however, is not the issue; the issue is how competitive desires are managed vis-a-vis a scare resource. Another quote from Pope: Another classic Peterism is to remind us that those who favor rock without bolts and meadows without criss-cross trails are motivated only by a sense of aesthetics, and that aesthetics are always subjective. Hence, according to Peter, the position is somehow "logically flawed". Now now Pope. I have said that to “favor rock without bolts and meadows without criss-cross trails” is a value judgement not an argument. Those interested I would say go back and search our arguments. Dan’s Arch in December maybe would be a good starting point. Further research into Popes posts would show that he has repeatedly ridiculed those who hold different values from himself. Again, the trick is not in the judgements, but in managing equally valid yet often mutually exclusive goals with a scare resource. Popes strategy is to ridicule and belittle all those who have different values than himself.

Scottp – No redirection here. Retro clearly did not answer my points and responded by ridiculous hyperbole and then called a cocksucker. These classy and erudite responses received the responses they deserved. I am assuming your post was sincere and not and attempt at being a smart ass or the result of a mordant personality. To restate via direct quotes from my original post: 1. His main motivation seems to reduce “others” ability to easily access an area that he has quick and easy access to. [True I stand by this.] 2. If each choice is always analyzed by how it impacts me directly and in isolation, we will all wake up someday in some place we’d never imagined. Then when we say “how did we get here” it’ll too late. [i stand by this too.] As long as climbers keep viewing access issues as Retro does (i.e. in isolation and with a selfish “how does it affect me” attitude) climbers will be screwed by the system or at best end up with something far less than they could have had.

I was considering laser surgery a few years ago. I was at a party with someone who worked in a eye surgery center at a hospital I asked him about laser surgery and he was generally positive about it. The I asked how many Drs. has he seen have it. He answered a bunch. I then asked how many ophthalmologits. He said zero. I thought epiphany.

quote: Originally posted by Retrosaurus: Peter,Are you a politician? Sure talk like one. Just whose dick are you sucking? [ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Retrosaurus ] Wow! You edited and ended up with that? What a genius. Don't worry your CC buddies understand how difficult it is to find the correct lithium level! Hang in there and remember even tho you feel better you must still take your meds or else those voices will come back.

Glad I could get you to see the error of your ways. Although I think I have created a monster! What is missing from your discourse is common sense. Did you forget your meds?

I agree there might be a hidden agenda. But even so, Retro’s thoughts strike me as nothing than his usual selfish thoughts. His main motivation seems to reduce “others” ability to easily access an area that he has quick and easy access to. Let’s say you drove from Bremerton, Portland or BC - a few miles can easily change the viability of a weekend trip dramatically. Retro of course agrees with this. Hopefully whatever the NPS’ motivations they will not be nearly as self serving as Retro’s. If each choice is always analyzed by how it impacts me directly and in isolation, we will all wake up someday in some place we’d never imagined. Then when we say “how did we get here” it’ll too late..

Fred - I'll second the recomend for Northoverhang. I would use the Overhang Bypass start and then join Northoverhang for its final crack. It is if I remember correctly an 5.9 handcrack with lots of exposure. PP

Erik - I am not trying to use "big" words. I think biggest enemy is my lack of typing skills. Rereading my big word post is see that I left out some important ones by mistake!

Yeow! Erik be nice!

I agree Gregm. My thought is that for the manufacturer the marginal cost of the additonal rope is approaching the inconsequential but since they can charge more than an inconsequential amount fo rthe additinal rope its merely a way to increase their bottom line. Stop the insanity is right!

Back to the original subject matter. If the west side access is not replaced/repaired, I think that in the spirit of its undeveloped status that all guiding should be prohibited as well in that area. [ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

Given: Mt Rainier is a unique and fragile environment. That is to say there are no substitute goods available.Given: Constant funding crisis in NP system Given: Several “developed” options for exploring Mt. Rainier exist.Given: A significant group of people enjoy exploring/experiencing undeveloped areas. By not developing the westside road people who wish can experience a semi wild area that otherwise would not be available to anyone. (at least a s asemi wild area) While this undeveloped status would in fact make it unlikely to impossible for many to enjoy the area, they have several other options for exploring the Park. Many of these options may be enhanced due to resources previously spent on the West Side access being redirected to the remaining developed areas. Additionally, the undeveloped westside will serve as a wildlife “incubator” whose spillover effect will enhance visitor’s experience throughout the park. For climbing, Mt Rainier will still offer weekend climbs but also offer the exclusive (at least in the contiguous states) opportunity of mini-expeditions where climbers can have week long trip in relative solitude in a heavily glaciated eniviroment. Try doing that in CA or Colorado! I should say that climbing Rainier is of almost zero interest to me.

W- Your earlier comments now strike me as a veneer of civility betrayed by your attack on FW. An attack extended to the point of goofiness that you brought in the West Bank conflict. So much for mutual respect. I say just come out and attack; the pretense of civility is wearing poorly. Honestly I think that a west side isn’t such a bad idea but I am willing to say “hey why not leave one sector of the park relatively undeveloped.” The fact that you value such a outcome is important to me only in so far as you hold it. I completely disagree with much of your thought process yet the fact of my disagreement does not enter into my calculation with regard to west side road. The fact that I believe you honestly highly value the effects of “no road” is enough. Whether you value it because of some sense of spirituality or because of some malignant misanthropy matters not. I say if you want to ruminate over a fuzzy subject think about what number of people must hold an opinion before those holding a different one must compromise. For example let say there were two groups one development the other antidevelopment. If the ratio between the two was 50-50 we’d all agree compromise was fair what if the relative positions change At what point do compromise not have to be made. I say providing heartfelt guidance on this question rather than making references to a spiritual plane will prove far more helpful in the long run.