Why argue whether desert climbing is more high adventure? As the AAJ reply makes clear, reporting low grade (as in short, not bad) ascents in the desert is an artifact of the journal's history. Time was, the desert towers were unquestionably the sites of remarkable, pioneering climbing from any number of perspectives, particularly the poor "rock" (really just towers of...what? Igneous mud? Baked clay? Metamorphic dino poodoo?) quality, as you've noted, and the challenges related to that. But also for being American climbs that favorably compared to what was being done around the world in terms of topographical uniqueness and heightened standards of commitment. Not that new climbs aren't still being done there, but it's simply not as fresh. So it's not just "any chosspile," it's the place in history. (And really, I'm a jingo for the Cascades and all, but you've got to see that there's bad Cascade rock and then there's that stuff in the Southwest. I wouldn't go ten feet off the deck on that crap.)
Anyway, the best reply of all to the AAJ is to put up new Cascade routes that satisfy their reinvigorated criteria. Onward! Upward! And all that stuff.
