sexual_chocolate

hey i think this discussion has been very fruitful, and has perhaps ended the disagreements regarding bolts and pins. Why would you want to throw that all away?

And yes, of course it's spray. Moderators!

Submission noted.

perhaps we need another thread with pics of you and your goat? or a biopic assemblage of your latest 6 foot boulder problem? in other words: no.

thread drift! thread drift!

SC link I'll leave it to readers to decide who is spewing the shit. I would note that the clean pro attainable along the base of Dana's Arch was far more marginal than the stuff along Snow White. Anyway I think I am through with this thread. Cheers, You STILL didn't state whether you climbed it, and what "it" consists of! If you didn't even free the all points off jump crux, then how can you say it was climbed before? and if it was only aided, then yes climbing it free creates a "new" route, one that hadn't been done before. Plus, on top of seemingly not having done the jump crux, and certainly not the entry from the left with the boulder start, why and how would you claim it isn't a new route? But if you or anyone else HAD done the sections in question before the addition of bolts, then certainly the claim of a new route is false, isn't it? So it's pretty simple. If you or anyone else had freed the line that is now bolted, I am wrong with the new route claim (i am not claiming it for myself since I did not have FA); If you nor anyone else had freed the now-bolted line IN ITS ENTIRETY, then it is a new route. not that i even give a shit, but you're such a wanker that i'll continue arguing this until i get a straight answer about previous ascents. will i get this answer?

no man, this cramer character needs some work too! but you'll have to hold the fort, cuz i gotta run and actually go do a little work before climbing.

WTF are you blabbing about? pull up quotes that support your contentions; i'm too lazy to fact-check, but never do i recall having claimed dwarf tosser a "never-before-climbed line". how the hell would i know if it had ever been climbed before? and like i said before, the bolting was not something i unequivocally supported. that said, i still consider it brilliant, with fantastic climbing (although a bit too much stance/climb stance/climb repetition for my tastes). and, are you telling me you climbed it, btw? you freed the initial boulder start, freed through the low offset crux, freed the jump-move crux? is this what you're telling me? and what was the point of your post anyways? seems a bit off-topic, no?

hey rudy, should city park have been bolted to protect its rock quality?

hey come on, it's kinda like whitey can't get sickle cell. check yer science.

I thought the chinese didn't get lung cancer, even though they smoke like mad.

gosh it's true. bolts have become so unreliable that we better start replacing them with pins.

too late dru; you didn't hear the news?

oh come on, you're so new skool. i always carry a hammer attached to the traditional stick up my bum.

if you think it's just a rumor, then you haven't known where to look.

hey look, a pin debate!

dude, if you are telling us that pins are as reliable and secure as bolts, then everything rudy says above is true: you are whacked.

good points rudy, but what about the climb that becomes climbable only after pin placements?

pins are more in keeping with the "traditions" of climbing, but so is hemp rope and klettern boots. in no way does this serve as a ("functional") argument in favor of pins. bolts have their place; i just don't know if next to dana's arch is one of them.

functionally they are nowhere near bolts. not for long atleast.

You go from scientist to poet with no effort. And none of that rhyming shit either. Bravo.

if i am to consider your statement above as a serious reply, free of subtle innuendo and camouflaged sarcasm(?), i would note that i am not "anti-bolt" per se, but i certainly advocate a judicious approach, perhaps erring on the side of restraint (I very much appreciate the existence of locales such as the Needles, SD, and grit in England etc. it's a different game, and damn interesting). i can imagine i know what you mean. but without knowing what you mean, it's hard to tell.

As I was ideating over a few things, the following thoughts came up: Was Dana's Arch protectable, or aidable clean before the bolts were added? It seems to me that promoting a clean aid ethic does more to protect the integrity of the rock (and route) than simply slamming bolts next to a crack. And if the crack doesn't protect well enough for a particular climber's free ascent aspirations, perhaps that climber needs to discuss his plans with the most qualified and skilled climbers to get some feedback on the climb's do-ability before simply getting the power tool out. I personally do feel that there are some climbs out there, very protectable, that could have some misguidedly placed bolts removed. Will I do it? Nah, too lazy, and generally I don't see over-bolting as a huge problem within areas in washington that matter.

well done, gary, you've held your own, and now I'M OFF TO INDEX FOOLS!!!!

hey i've been trying to figure out this math problem. like i always thought 1+1=2 and shit, but then this zen dude tells me it equals three or some shit and i got confused. any smart math guys around who can help me out?