ashw_justin

Why haven't we switched over to the metric system? It is one of many manifestations of our supreme arrogance, a sign of our isolation, and betrays our blind love of the illogical. There is something more evil than simple stupidity at work here. I can only assume that there is some argument involving economic exclusivism to explain why we cling to an outdated Anglo-Saxon incapability to divide by ten.

OMG, I can't believe you're responding with such earnest obendience to this blatant attempt at guerrilla market research! Someone get this person an Adbusters and a yerba mate immediately.

Perhaps that's why it was especially important to demonize him, in order to pretend that they didn't agree. Sounds like you can get all the culture you want and more in NYC. 8D

"The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country? It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark, looking like you're riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids." Now that's culcha.

I crashed there too the first time I rode out that way, as did a friend of mine on his first time through. Caught us both by surprise while moving fast on road bikes. It's ridiculous that they haven't gotten around to fixing that section, considering that there are major bike paths leading to it in both directions.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States [of America] and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Whether it seems ironic or not, the military oath, with it's direct mention of the U.S. Constitution, protects the very rights that Sheehan exercises in protest to the war. So technically it would be a higher dishonor to her son's sacrifice if she were to suppress her beliefs, forfeiting her rights to free speech, assembly, and peaceful protest. But I guess I'm off topic, since we're just talking about not liking her.

When you think about it, pro climbers' accomplishments are like baseball cards. They aren't actually worth anything (except maybe to the climber), but they sell for millions as long as the consumers are willing to believe otherwise. Honestly, why should we care about whether others are cheating? At best they're just having a good time; at worst, they're just cheating themselves to entertain you (breadwinning). That is, as long as the cheating being done leaves no physical trace.

Yau06yz1SxQ

excuse me, but where exactly is this codified into law/morals/ethics?? This is simply YOUR opinion. So, what is your opinion on chipping then (aside from that my opinion on it doesn't matter to you)?

Very much ego to say they were not nessasary. And to prove to someone else that they were not nessasary buy chopping them is all about your ego. " I dont need this bolt. I can run it out". Is all ego bro. Anyway you slice it. I simply define "not necessary" as the case when there natural protection is available at the same place where you would place a bolt. You seem to be describing cases where bolts that were necessary for the reasonable safety of the leader were chopped. But this is neither about runouts, nor ego. Putting holes in the rock is inherently wrong, but a necessary evil. This is about not drilling holes in the rock unless 1) you have no other choice, 2) you have the support of the climbing community, and 3) it is legal. The chopping I would support is the recognotion of a mistake on one or more of these counts, which is different from the toughguy ego chop that you are talking about.

How about those new bolts on the summit of SEWS, the S Arete of SEWS, and the WF NEWS? Who put those there and why did they think it was okay? True or False: the widespread modern paradigm of bolted sport climbing has encouraged people to put up alpine sport climbs by illegally installing hundreds of bolts in protected areas?

Beginner is a relative term. How about beginners in ethics.

:LMAO: assworked just got worked... Why do I have to waste my time explaining posts that you didn't even read. I never said that I knew of bolted cracks in Washington. I said that if there were any, then newbs would eventually bolt the rest of them because they wouldn't know any better.

But installing even a single unethical bolt is already on the road to La Via a Ferrata!

Well then what are we arguing about if there is no problem. Apparently bolting ethics are known well enough that nothing has to get chopped. As a relatively young climber I appreciate that those climbing before me have tried to limit their impact on the rock, and this is a legacy worth passing on. If I'd found bolts on all of my first climbs, then I would have been denied even the opportunity to realize what clean climbing is about.

I'm not the first one to have said it, and I won't be the last. I think you are underestimating the power of youthful ignorance. Hypothetically, one man's selfish desire to bolt cracks could turn into a legion of newbs who assume that all climbs are supposed to be bolted, despite the unnecessary permanent damage. Before you know it everyone has an alpine power drill on the rack instead of clean pro.

Define ego. Unless by ego you mean "doing something that you think is right." What makes chopping a bolt any more egotistical than placing one? Again- chopping unneeded bolts has the effect of making people realize that they were not necessary. This realization leads to less bolting of other pristine rock in the future. For example if you allow even a single protectable crack to remain bolted, climbers who don't know any better will assume that all cracks like it should be bolted. Eventually there is a bolt ladder all the way up Outer Space, or the Nose, or -insert your favorite rock climb here-.

It's too bad it had to be a power-drunk asshole like Chavez. Wasn't he supposed to give the country back to its people by now?

#1: Leave no trace. #2: There are (almost) no bolts on alpine routes, nor should there be. Particularly at certain crags in the NW where many people climb to prepare for alpine routes, the practice routes should not be bolted except where unanimously deemed necessary (anchors, runout face). #3: YES, bolts can get in the way of climbing, even if you are not using them. #4: Last weekend I led a well-protectable crack at Red Wing, MN that looks to have been been retrobolted and chopped more than once. Because climbers must lead it on gear, they will realize that bolts are not necessary on any climb like it, and will not be tempted to bolt (or support the bolting of) any climb like it. That is a clear virtue of chopping where appropriate (as defined by reasonably safe to lead cleanly).

Stupid publicity stunt. Little Sister is listening, a-hole. Pay your share for the Holy War or we take away your toys.

The analogy to feudalism (the system under which serfdom existed) I take it is the situation in which a government grants the monopoly over an isolated market to a single provider, perhaps a government-controlled one, instead of allowing organic mechanisms of competition to prevail. If you're drawing some other parallel to feudalism then please forgive me and explain. But I don't see why such a provider necessarily needs to be an official entity of the government--any government-sanctioned monopoly would be sufficient to impose serfdom. In fact a private monopoly is further removed from non-monetary public scrutiny than a public one. So while I think we would agree that monopoly would be the cause of serfdom, I'd argue that under our current system, the greater and more present threat of monopoly is feudal privatization sold falsely as economic liberalism. That is, exclusive, politically-connected government support for particular providers of essential services over others. I don't know enough about the oil industry to know if that kind of thing has happened. Then again, when I look who's in the White House, I wonder if that's not a coincidence.

If there should be no government control over the oil market, then likewise no tax revenue should be spent to subsidize or otherwise offer support to it either. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that this has not been the case.

Hey Sheaf, how many people are dead because of Chavez?

I'd like to head out to Index early tomorrow morning (5-6 am, pre-rush hour), climb for a few hours, and be back in Seattle early in the day (say before noon). I can probably lead .10-/.10 and follow .10+/.11- (and I say 'probably' b/c I haven't been there yet this year). Any takers? send pm.

No Mr. Spotter, our political warlords do not need to use violence against us. That kind of barbarism is not necessary. We are easily subjugated by honey-coated nationalistic dogma, especially when we can call all of its victims terrorists. But that's not what this thread is about, hijacker!