JayB

Good articles here on some of the limitations of the technique: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7245.0.html

I agree that this is an imaginary phenomenon, but I think that the complaints about this are just as apt as the frequent lamentations concerning the all of those guys who, seconds after passing the belay test at vertical world, sprint off to the local masonry supply store to buy the cordless-rotohammer and 8lb bucket o' bolts as part of a hell-bent quest to neuter the proud trad routes and runout face-climbs of yore. "It's time to bring indoor climbing to the outdoors, and I'm just the man to do it!!!!!. Time to meet your maker, death routes!!!!!" The other funny thing that often gets brought up is the purported shortage of death-routes to test one's mettle on. Are they really that hard to find? Even at a sport mecca like Smith a quick perusal of the guidebook will reveal scores of X-rated routes available to anyone with an interest in climbing them. Ditto for the dozens of Robbins routes at Vantage, etc, etc. Speaking of imaginary phenomema, one of my personal favorites is that of the platoon full of newbies lining up at the base hatching plots to bolt - say Remorse on SCW -into submission.... Well, these do sound like silly things to say. Can't say I've heard people saying these things, and I don't think they've been mentioned in this thread. However, it could be that your trademark flowery hyperbole is obscuring what I'm supposed to be looking for. I have heard tales of at least two NW underqualifieds armed with Bosch going at it without much restraint at Smith and Vantage. Maybe that's what you're referring to in paragraph 1. That's an interesting anecdote. Care to: 1. Name the people. 2. Name the routes. 3. Define underqualified. 4. Identify the existing routes which were damaged by their actions. 5. Explain how any of the above inhibits anyone's ability to climb bold routes anywhere? "Can't say I've heard people saying these things, and I don't think they've been mentioned in this thread." Right. No one has ever voiced such opinions in this thread, this forum, or anywhere else. I invented them. "Now climbers think that they have a right to climb anything and if it is too scary then they think they should add a bolt. Bullshit. Sack up or keep off. Pretty simple huh? Do you want your generation of climbing to take the risk away? Wow, what a proud concept, to stand up and say, "My generation of climberrs took the gym outside and wee retrobolted old routes to make them safer" Proud indeed...." With respect to prose styles obsuring one's points - what exactly is yours? I am honestly not sure why you bothered to post anything to this thread at all, but for the chance to chime in with the - cough - trademark - cough- snarky/passive agressive one-liner, usually some variant on the "strawman" standby, and to provide a vague bit rhetorical applause for anyone who articulates positions that you seem to agree with but never manage to state directly some reason. To be clear - what I am talking about is statements/arguments where the central claims are that bolts/sport-routes/sport-climbing are for pussies and/or have lead to a progressive degredation of a sport once reserved for a select few. I've always taken issue with these arguments for a variety of reasons, but at least guys like Pope and others will actually come out and say what they think instead of giggling in the backround and playing rhetorical towel-boy for those that do. I hope my flowery hyperbole in this post did not impair your ability to comprehend what I wrote.

The only trend that I've noticed in the past ten years is the rise of bouldering as something pursued intensively as an end in itself by large numbers of climbers. Not sure about the other trends - but I can't say that's anything that I've noticed at the rock - but then I think I've gone sport climbing an average of 2-3 times a year for the last 5 years or more, so who knows? I imagine you've spent even less time at sport-venues, so you must be basing your experience on the behavior of folks that you go climbing with in the mountains and at trad areas? I recall your disbelief at the numbers of people who rap off rather than finish the last few pitches of the standard route on Exfoliation Dome, but those pitches are so moderate and cool that it seems like bailing at the ledge may be more of a time/convenience issue than a consequence of the wholesale wussification of the climbing public.

Looks like it's time to tip a 40 for the passenger pigeon, the dodo, and the last of the death routes in the lower 48. RIP.

I agree that this is an imaginary phenomenon, but I think that the complaints about this are just as apt as the frequent lamentations concerning the all of those guys who, seconds after passing the belay test at vertical world, sprint off to the local masonry supply store to buy the cordless-rotohammer and 8lb bucket o' bolts as part of a hell-bent quest to neuter the proud trad routes and runout face-climbs of yore. "It's time to bring indoor climbing to the outdoors, and I'm just the man to do it!!!!!. Time to meet your maker, death routes!!!!!" The other funny thing that often gets brought up is the purported shortage of death-routes to test one's mettle on. Are they really that hard to find? Even at a sport mecca like Smith a quick perusal of the guidebook will reveal scores of X-rated routes available to anyone with an interest in climbing them. Ditto for the dozens of Robbins routes at Vantage, etc, etc. Speaking of imaginary phenomema, one of my personal favorites is that of the platoon full of newbies lining up at the base hatching plots to bolt - say Remorse on SCW -into submission....

Josesph: This is not a dig at you, but a serious question - if your main focus in climbing is hitting up low-traffic, old-school trad lines - then where is it that you are running into the effette gym rats who won't touch anything with more than a 6 foot gap between bolts? This seems sort of like a bearded three-pinner in wool knickers complaining about the droves of twin-tip and baggy pant sporting resort skiiers who are only into hitting terrain parks, and couldn't dig a snow cave to save their lives. Unless they're lugging rails and soundsystems into the backcountry, its hard to imagine where he'd run into them. Another point I think is worth making is that, in the end, I think that it is the sort of climber that one aspires to be and the sort of experiences that one wishes to have as a climber, rather than the specific environment that one picks up the sport in - that ultimately determine the kind of climber that one becomes.

"Now JayB, surely you've read enough history to see that the US's antiSoviet "strategy" was far from a coherent process and often resolved around supporting any and every smuch who'd sign on the dotted line great men like Mobutu Sese-Seko, Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the esteamed members of the Mujahadeen? While the past can't be altered, the argument of folks like idotic homonym j_b that perhaps the US should be a bit more circumpsect in picking its friends is quite valid." True - but I think one has to accept the fact that the pickiness will always vary with the magnitude of the perceived threat - as the case of allying ourselves with Stalin and Co during WWII makes clear. Of course, this is reality that we are talking about rather than a utopian fantasy, so this fact will continue to prove terribly distressing for some, especially those who have never and will never find themselves or their representatives - if there are actually any in office anywhere - tasked with the responsibility for making hard choices with uncertain outcomes. As for the many lesser evils that we've associated with over time, I think it's a regrettable source of potshots for retards, "Like, if your supposed to be about freedom, man, then how come like, you supported -insert tinpot dictator X-here - and shit, man..." The answer in just about every case has been that there's been bigger fish to fry, and that one doesn't decline assistance from a skunk when being threatened by a grizzly for fear of smelling bad in the event that one survives the attack. My sense in speaking with anyone alive during, say, the Cuban Missile crisis, was that the outcome of the Cold War was hardly considered a foregone conclusion at that time. It also seems safe to conclude that those entrusted with preserving the free world felt compelled to take assistance from whomever would give it, regardless of whether they were acting on principle, naked interest, or any combination thereof.

In the case of the rhetoric in question, which you can feel free to quote rather than allude to, the blather about freedom in Western democracies constituting little more than supine fealty to the corporate state - the language is indeed similar. However, the Islamists actually have a coherent agenda and a vision of their ideal society that they can articulate without frequent recourse to the word "like" - so in that sense they have one up on the anti-globalists. In the case of supplying stinger missiles to the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan, the goal was thwarting the designs and expediting the demise of the Soviet Union. This is the same Soviet Union (gasp!) that we supplied all manner of weapons to in WWII, when Nazi Germany clearly constituted the greater threat to mankind. This is referred to as "strategy." Its quite clear that the threat that the Soviet Union presented to the civilization that literally sustains you and the rest of the world was several orders of magnitude greater than that presented by the said Islamofascists. The argument that furnishing them with the weapons needed to inflict heavy losses on the Soviets was a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude relies upon ignoring the geopolitical context it occured within, the realization of the goal that it actually succeeded in bringing about, and on indulging in the bizarre conceit that the consequences stemming from our actions there were either predictable or predetermined. Where may one find a copy your time-stamped position paper from the late 1980's with a title along the lines of "Arming the Muslims Fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan Will Guarantee Massive Terrorists Attacks Against the West by the Same, and Must Be Reconsidered in Light of this Foregone Conclusion"?

This post reminded me of many predecessors in which various posters have bemoaned the arrival of the post-90's climbers, which in turn reminded me of a section that I read in the last "Ascent" a few years ago. "The Era of mechanically assisted rock climbs in the Eastern Alps was not without competition. Incredibly bold vertical routes were climbed without any mechanical protection at all - what we would call 'free-solo' today. Georg Winkler, a pioneer in such climbing, made a number or impressive climbs, including the first ascent in 1887 of the eastern Vajolet Tower, a year before his death at the age of 18 during a solo attempt of the Weisshorn. Many climbers in later years were to emulate Winkler and reject the use of ropes and aid, even though he himself used a grappling hook on occaision. Footwear evolved from heavy spiked boots to ligher felt-soled shoes developed by the Simond Firm, opening a new era of free climbing with leaders who morally opposed reliance on gear. Paul Preuss, a vocal and influential Austrian, vigorously denounced the use of pitons and rope manuevers as a lower standard. He wrote six climbing rules: 'First, one shoud not only be equal to any climb that one undertakes, but be more than equal to it. Second, the standard of difficultly which a climber can conquer with safety when descending, and for which he can consider himself competent with an easy conscience, should represent the limit of what he should attempt on his ascent. Third, hence the use of artificial aids only becomes justifiable in the case of sudden threatening danger. Fourth, the piton is an emergency aid and not the basis of a system of mountaineering. Fifth, the rope may be used to facillitate the matters, but never as the sole means to make a climb possible. Finally, the principle of safety is one of the highest principles. Not the spasmodic correction of one's own want of safety, obtained by the use of artificial aids, but that true safety which should result, with every climber, from a just estimate of what he is able to, and what he desires to do." I think there's little doubt about what they would think of the hard-core 80s trad climber who substituted sticky rubber, nylon ropes, cams, chalk, et al for the courage and skill necessary to tackle the routes free-solo in mountaineering boots. Which reminds me of another quote from an old timer, in this case one of the guys who managed the first winter-ascent of Mt. Ranier in the 1920's. Reflecting on his feat several decades later he wrote, "I read with amazement about the "6th Class Stuff" and other doings of the present generation of climbers. The limits of the possible have been pushed so far beyond where we thought they were during my time that I hardly recognize myself as a climber. However, I have no regrets; the challenges are greater today, but to a great extent, this is owing to the improvements in techniques and equipment. The relation of challenge against capability has probably remained constant and so has, therefore, the moral reward of the climber's experience." These are clearly the sentiments of a man who needn't derrogate the accomplishments of succeeding generations to reinforce the significance, or remind them of the importance of his own. I doubt Albert Ellingwood, were he alive today, would feel it necessary to remind anyone climbing the standard route on Lizard Head with modern gear that what they are doing is less impressive than his ascent with 3 soft pitons, hobnail boots, and hemp-rope, followed by a down-solo descent. In the end I think that the longstanding tradition of bemoaning the inadequacies of those that are following in one's footsteps, in whatever field is under consideration "Sure - you can find the cube root of Pi with a calculator, but let's see you try it with a slide rule!" are seldom justified unless one limits oneself to fixating on the worst and ignoring the best of those who came after oneself. I'm personally not aware of a rash of bold routes retrobolted into submission since the early 90's, and the notion that anyone who tied in before then was steely-eyed, nail-eating motherfucker who would sooner end up dead or disabled than hang on a piece seems just a tad far-fetched as well, unless there's been a fundamental shift in human nature that hasn't been evident elsewhere.

Damn dude - way to get after it with the linkup. Are you sure those weren't chocolate covered methampetibeans?

True enough. There are plenty of folks garrisoning themselves away from society in JesusLand, though I think that they are less preoccupied with physical threats to themselves and their loved ones and rather more concerned with what they perceive as moral threats. Seems like both camps feel threatened by different elements of modernity. I do think that class has a fair amount to do with the extent to which people preoccupy themselves with threats to their well being that have a relatively low probability of affecting them, though. Maybe that comes with being part of the "other" leisure class....

I'm personally just thankful that at least we haven't become paranoid and prone to constructing conspiracy theories to justify our political beliefs as a result of the epidemic of fear that's afflicting our national psyche.

I think that some of this is regional and specific to certain locales and socio-economic brackets. While this mentality may be endemic to the Volvo-driving, latte-swilling, bed-bath-and beyond flocking, "OHHHHMYGODLITTLEJOEYLEFTTHEHOUSEWITHOUTTHEGPSIMPLANT!!!!!!!!!" folks in the Seattle, I suspect that it's rather less common amongst the crowd that's cracking a PBR while driving the '86 F-150 to the Skynyrd Reunion Concert. I just spent a couple of weeks driving from the Gulf Coast to central Illinois, and excessive anxiety or nervous energy about anything, much less everyday hazards, still less terrorism - didn't seem to be exerting a significant influence on their lives.

Tim Hortons is owned by Wendy's.

Wow - nice photos.

Killer. Is your line the left-most couloir in the photo? Looks like it validated bringing the ice-tools to Africa!

Coleman glacier in the summertime. Possibly some stuff on Blackcomb in the winter? The skiing's always been too good for me to even think about climbing while I'm there, but supposedly there's an area with some farmed lines that's readily accessed via skis in the winter. I'm sure that other folks can fill you in with more info.

Killer report and photos. Thanks for taking the time to post them here.

Sweet. Post some photos if you get a chance....

Damn guys - quite a summer you're having. The most significant objective hazard that I've faced this far has been from the pile of crack-vials and soiled pampers at the base of an "urban boulder" that I was checking out in a vacant lot near Roxbury. The descent sounds like a classic example of an element in climbing that reminds me of the plot in "Carlito's Way." You have made it through the worst of the dangers, it looks like all may be clear and you're on your way to some hard-earned peace and serenity away from all of the hazards you've navigated your way through - but then the alpine equivalent of Billy Blanco emerges and tries to bust a cap in yo' ass. Nice effort, best regards, and consider dedicating the rest of your summer to crochet and bouldering. Seriously. I'd write more, but I've developed quite the hankering for a luna bar all of a sudden....

It's no secret where the state gets its money - not to me, at least. One of the primary benefits of private enterprise is that the accumulation of material wealth it produces generates the tax revenues necessary for funding for activities that, while sustained by profits elsewhere, could never be profitable in their own right. Three cheers for the Laffer Curve.

With the exception of the "must be silenced" bit, I'd have to agree with you if it weren't for the fundamental distortion of the actual positions that we are talking about. Yes, the Islamists, bless their hearts, are indeed terribly upset about the commodification of women's bodies - as evinced by the honor killings, the stoning of pregnant women to death, the forced circumcission, the handy "I divorce thee" x3 precedent in the sharia that leaves women destitute and pennyless, the absence of the right to vote, to drive, etc - so it is completely natural and sensible for those who are horrified by the commodification of women's bodies here in the West to simultaneously hold their tongues with respect to the condition of women in the Muslim world, blather on about the moral equivalence of the two civilizations and the condition of women within them, and redirect their focus to the equally dreadful outcomes that ensue when women who choose to make their living by taking their clothes off are free to do so. It's just a shame that England's cultural sensitivities weren't refined by these fine sentiments in the days of the suttee. Sadly that gem of cultural diversity is already all but lost to the world. Ditto for the "degradations of mind, body, and spirit, the environment wreaked by the globalization of capitalism," which are certainly in striking contrast to the splendid condition of all of the above under the various totalitarianisms or squalid paleosocialist kleptocracies that adorn or have adorned the globe at one time or another. Many things are uncertain in this world, but I am absolutely convinced that all of the citizens of the aforementioned countries take a profound measure of solace in the fact that their illiteracy, poverty, subjugation, and starvation are at least keeping the menace of being a slave to corporate interests at bay. That certainly explains the patterns of immigration we've witnessed for the past 100 years, the condition of the environment in England relative to anywhere in an equally populous region of China or the Soviet Union, and the fact that it has generally required nothing short of turning every socialist wonderland into a literal penitentiary in order to prevent the entire population from fleeing en masse. Anyhow - back to me. I regret to admit that I actually don't even own a functioning TV, and will spend the next three years working on ways to rapidly identify and characterize compounds that disable a recently characterized protein that's critical for the progression of a disease that's killing off several million people a year. What is it that you do with your time? And finally, you mentioned something about being serious, and on that note I have a serious senior/thesis project for you: Demonstrate that both economic calculation and the coordination of supply and demand are possible in the absence of market prices. Once you have demonstrated that those who presented this as an insurmountable difficulty confronting anyone looking to actually implement socialism, were in fact incorrect, I will gladly join you in your quest to jettison the present social, poltical, and economic order in favor of a superior alternative. Ta,

I think that the Islamists would get a much more favorable reception if they were to couch all of their arguments in "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho" chants. Of course, they've already won over a signficant fraction of the West's self-annointed "Progressives" to their cause in Iraq, so perhaps they should stick to the bombings, beheadings, and fatwas that have served their cause so well thus far. What I like best about the evolution of this situation is observing the process whereby the more vigorous the assault that the Islamists launch on both Western civilization and its values, the more ready certain elements - who could literally only exist within the political, moral, and legal framework that evolved in the West - are inclined not only to agree with them, but to one-up their critiques and restate them in more strident terms. I hope I live long enough to see this process arrive at its ironic climax, and get to personally witness scores of women in Berkely demonstrating on behalf of making the Bhurka compulsory dress for all women in public, activists so laden with self-loathing and guilt that they begin to travel to predominanty Muslim countries and clamour loudly for their own beheadings, etc, etc, etc.

"I don't see it as a Japanese versus American or German versus British thing. I see it as governments run by older men who send young men to war. Industrialists often support the war effort, too." True. If only we could have eliminated the industrialists and their products, replaced all three branches of government with 18-23 year olds, and faced the Germans, the Japanese, and the Soviets with old-men and home-made weaponry the free world would have been in much better shape. Seriously though, I think your point was actually that most wars are far from just and necessary. My only objection would be to assuming that the converse is always true - clearly there are exceptions, foremost amongst them being the conflict in question.

"Yet, is your security enhanced by your government’s policies of maintaining 10,000 nuclear weapons?" The citizens of Nanking certainly would have been. What I like best about these statements is the complete absence of context, both concerning the actions of Japan prior to the said bombing, and the remainder of the free world for the duration of the Cold War. In hindsight it's clear that what we really should have done is kick back and let the totalitarian societies develop a vastly superior nuclear arsenal. Imagine the progressive utopia that would have ensued. It's really a shame that we had lightweights like Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, et all making decisions during these critical times. The world would have been in much better shape if there had only been a gaggle of activists running the show. Seriously.