Dechristo

dohhhhnnn'tuh fffuhhhhkuh wwwihhhhhtheh muhhhaiii turrrreeeeezzzeh!

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU STARTED?!?! ever bump into Chaps out there?

yes, I too am happy for the two of them. but, think of the ridicule their children will be subject to.

I liked some of the shots in this T3 Teaser: http://tetongravity.com/viewer/Clip_TYPICALTEASER.aspx

So, other than belay/haul anchors and some toprope anchors, all bolted sport lines, mixed lines, and bolts in general are "garbage", "a mess", spoil the climbing experience for subsequent climbers, and of considerable negative environmental impact? Nah, I don't buy it. In any popular activity there will always be a few bad apples that threaten to spoil the whole barrel; in this case, with bolts placed on trad lines, over-bolted routes, and grid-bolting of entire faces. I'm glad for the advent of bolted sport routes and, now, the solid presence of "sport climbing" as an identifiable activity and industry. "Sport climbing", with its bolts, has introduced tens of thousands of participants to climbing which, subsequently, has channelled millions of dollars to industries accelerating the innovation and development of gear/clothing and empowering organizations as the Access Fund. Peripherally, charitable organizations like the Mountain Fund have appeared whose mission is to funnel dollars and humanitarian efforts to benefit indigenous people groups in mountainous areas around the world. Groups such as this have made profound contributions to climbing and the public perception of climbing not solely through humanitarian efforts, but by the clean-up of decades worth of trash at popular climbing destinations. Without the advent and establishment of sport climbing, the dollars and commensurate political power would not have arrived in time to save many climbing areas from residential and commercial development. We have all benefited from the presence and popularity of sport climbing. You guys hold an ethos at odds with that of many. I think I understand it, having once been in that camp myself. I'm glad you're there and that you hold fast to your commitment as there's more benefit than liability in the practice of diverse methods. I believe the climbing community as a whole benefits from the presence of your beliefs. But, I wonder if you recognize and/or aknowledge the benefit you derive in this world, as part of the climbing community, due to the positive ramifications of the placement of small stainless steel bolts and hangers in obscure and remote rock faces that 99.9% of the world will never know of or see. The new ship we're on has already set sail - there's no turning back. As seasoned hands, are you gonna find how your old ways can be of benefit on a new vessel and help educate the crew or alienate the crew due to an attitude over a ship you can't have?

mebbee he's of East Indian descent and is already stretchin' the truth

There was a time I was upset by the violation of a "from ground up" ascent. It was precipitated, initially, on hearing of some who placed passive pro on rappell in order to ascend a difficult line. "Chicken shits! If they can't place it on ascent they shouldn't do it at all!" Now, I view it as an ingenuity that was required for those particular climbers to climb the route. I don't differentiate for the placement of bolts. There are many hard lines that would never have seen an ascent without rap-bolting nor the numerous repeats enjoyed by many. The placement of bolts on rappell on more moderate routes may be the meat of your objection - disallowing a more skilled party to place bolts while on ascent. You can shake your head in disgust and howl to the heavens for justice, but there it is; the dirty deed has been done. Short of another bolt-chopping Bolt War there's nothing to be done but rage while shoveling sand against the tide. Time didn't wait for the elite climbers. My take on the difference between "ethics" and "style" in this discussion: ethics requires a determination of what is good and bad and the resultant moral obligations; style is simply personal preference without judging/labeling manifest in the comment "I wouldn't do it that way". What bugs me are poorly positioned bolts, not necessarily how they got there.

will there be picketing? smashing of Starbucks windows? jack-booted stormtroopers with gas masks? Can I get arrested? I've got no problems with bolted sport lines. IMO, the bigger problems stem from managing the masses of people: erosion from helter-skelter foot trails, tons of shit (garbage and the literal sort), unruly pets (God, I hate barking dogs at crags), inevitable lawsuits, etc., ad nauseum. The footprint on the environment of all the bolts at Smith wouldn't amount to a pimple on an elephant's ass compared to one shopping mall - and, I'd sure rather see folks exercising outdoors than milling about wondering how much garbage they can consume and take home in their cars and gullets. So, the conflict is in the style of climbing. I agree the height of climbing style is clean trad, and for me, it's in the alpine. But, I've had a lot of fun clipping bolts on sunny afternoons with assemblages of friends, improving skills that allowed me to push harder on subsequent trad climbs. Anyone who looks down their nose at a style they don't approve of has a festering insecurity of approval of themself by others: "those stupid bastards don't know the complexity and greatness of what I do compared to their simplistic ways" or "who will appreciate the nobility of my position on ethics". There are endless manifestations: rock vs. classical music, burgers vs. haute cuisine, KathyLeeGifford vs. Versace, paper vs. plastic, blah, etc. Get over it and yourself. And it IS hypocritical to both take a vehement stance against bolted sport routes and climb them. It's akin to doing business with hookers on the weekend and working to outlaw 'em during business hours - just another Ted Haggard.

yeah, butt, the gerbil's spillin' it all

If he's guilty, best not give him a chance to mount, well... anything

Grand Teton Climber's Ranch

it's ok. you, like all at times, have trouble admitting when you're wrong

hey man, I can't help it if I was born with a schlong (I call it Man O' Love, Not War) that can only be accomodated by the genitalia of a female horse! Wait 'till I find that bitch Flicka that spilled the beans to cj. I'm gonna put a tweak on her nose. I'm still trying to figure out how she types with them big damn hooves

Wow, an homemade cross made of pipes illegally erected in a public reserve. Certainly the defining issue of our day. Loser pays winner's attorney fees is pretty standard in many kinds of cases. They had their day in court. They lost. Sounds like whining to me. It also sounds like the democratic process at work. I would guess that most Americans would not appreciate coming around a switchback in a publicly owned natural reserve and seeing a cheesy homemade islamic flag flying from a used piece of cyclone fencing. Same rules apply. Equal protection, MOFO. You want a cross? Put one up on your own lawn. If someone burns it, the ACLU will be the first ones to come to your aid. of course, you wouldn't let the facts of the case get in the way of your opinion

What? ...and ban divorce?

were you socked by a gay person? phonetic interpretation permissible

you can have my ACLU when you pry my cold, dead, :pagetop:s from it

unless he grinds he teeth

There'll be a storage fee to pay

the "quote" totally, like, fucked-up the wave

whoa... I'm seeing, like, waves in the text. Is "the way of the future", like, also, like, the wave of the future?

I was told the soundtrack for the future would be provided by Wyld Stallions

I'm sure part of the dislike for the ACLU is the perception shared by many (including myself) that their actions and agenda are not apolitical. Also, the argument of altruistic pro bono work is tainted by the profits gleaned from all taxpayers in pursuit of this perceived agenda. Here's an article found explaining, in part, this objection: Legion defends Boy Scouts, fights ACLU By Rees Lloyd American Legion National Commander Thomas Cadmus recently called on government officials to “stand up to the ACLU,” fueling a firestorm of protest against fanatical in terrorem litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Boy Scouts, the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial and every public expression of America’s religious history and heritage. The call from the Legion’s top official came in a blistering public denunciation of the Defense Department announcement that it would order military units worldwide not to sponsor Boy Scout troops, a partial surrender to an ACLU lawsuit filed in Illinois in 1999. Cadmus asked publicly, “What are the courts doing? ... Where is the outrage?” The public generally does not know the ACLU is profiting in such cases by millions of dollars in taxpayer-paid “attorney fee awards” authorized under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1988. While the law was paved with good intentions – to ensure legitimate victims of civil-rights violations could obtain representation – it has been exploited by the ACLU in First Amendment “establishment of religion clause” cases in which there are, in fact, no attorney fees incurred by the ACLU or its plaintiffs, who appear to be “mascot plaintiffs” with de minimis claims, like “Ohmigod – I saw a cross!” Elected and appointed officials at the local, state, and federal levels have been literally terrorized from standing up to the ACLU in fear of enormous attorney fees being imposed by unelected judges not answerable to the taxpayers. As far as is known, not a single American judge has had the courage to exercise discretion to deny attorney fees to the ACLU under 42 U.S. Code 1988, which is the sole authority for awarding attorney fees. Delegates at the National Convention 2004 unanimously adopted Resolution 326, “Preservation of the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial,” which calls on Congress to amend the law and end judges’ authority to award attorney fees in cases brought “to remove or destroy religious symbols.” The Department of California sponsored Resolution 326 after a federal court in Riverside, Calif., for the first time allowed the ACLU to pursue a precedent-setting lawsuit to remove a solitary cross at what is now the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. That case, Buono v. Norton, illustrates the ACLU’s fanaticism, disrespect for veterans, and exposes the threat of further legal attacks on veterans’ memorials by the ACLU or others. In 1934, a private citizen strapped two pipes together to form a cross and mounted it on a rock outcrop in a remote, privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees. Veterans protested, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who represents the area, achieved legislation officially establishing the site as the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. The legislation authorized an exchange of the 1-acre site for five acres from a private owner, placing the memorial on private land. However, that did not satisfy the fanatical ACLU. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the case was “not moot” because the land exchange, although legislatively authorized, was not complete. Further, the court found the lead plaintiff – the first and sole remaining plaintiff – had legal standing to complain of civil-rights injury. The lead plaintiff, Fank Buono, is a retired Forest Service employee who later moved to Oregon, but claims civil-rights violation and injury because he sees the cross when driving back on visits. ACLU’s attorney fee award for representing him was increased to $63,000. Upon such de minimis dross as this is constitutional law being made by judges, and the ACLU is profiting financially, at taxpayer expense. They’re still at it. The ACLU filed a motion in District Court in December to declare the land exchange unconstitutional, claiming it doesn’t comply with the spirit of the injunction. Other examples of ACLU abuse are multiple, nationwide, and glaring:  The ACLU reaped some $940,000 in settlement from the City of San Diego when it surrendered in ACLU’s litigation to kick the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. The Boy Scouts are appealing. The American Legion has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Scouts.  The ACLU received some $500,000 to drive the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse of Alabama Judge Roy Moore, notwithstanding the fact that the same Ten Commandments are on the massive doors and the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.  Portland Public Schools were ordered to pay the ACLU $108,000 in a case brought for an atheist who objected to the Boy Scouts being allowed to recruit during non-class time. At the time of this writing, Portland is considering a complete ban.  The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, over the vigorous objection of Supervisor Michael Antonovich joined by Supervisor Don Knabe, surrendered on a 3- 2 vote to the ACLU’s demands that it change the county seal because of a tiny cross in one small panel representing the mission period of its history. The ACLU, exposing its hypocrisy as well as fanaticism, did not demand removal of the central religious figure dominating the seal -- “Pomona,”the “Italo-Roman goddess of poma, i.e. fruits. A citizens’ initiative petition is ongoing to place the issue on the ballot and overturn the surrender to the ACLU.  The city council of Redlands, Calif., reluctantly surrendered to the ACLU’s demand that it change its city seal to remove a cross, for fear of court-ordered attorney fees to the ACLU. Simply put, it is clear the ACLU has gone too far, exploiting the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code 1988, to enrich itself and carry out in terrorem litigation to compel surrender to its demands from elected and appointed officials who fear judge-awarded attorney fees. Claims by ACLU’s defenders that the organization once did public good in defending free speech, are vitiated by its fanaticism in self-enriching terroristic litigation and self-appointed social engineering in the present. American Legion National Resolution 326 calls for Congress to reform 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1988 to take the profit out of such terroristic litigation. This can be a powerful weapon in the effort to stop such abuses. It will take a united, determined effort of the American Legion Family, other veterans, an aroused citizenry and courageous elected officials. The legal principles used by the ACLU to sue against the single cross at the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial are applicable to the 9,000 crosses and Stars of David at Normandy, along with those in every national cemetery. If Congress does not act, nothing in the law will prevent Islamist terrorists in the United States, or their sympathizers, from using the ACLU precedent to sue veterans’ memorials or the Boy Scouts, or anyone else over expressions of America’s religious history and heritage. And nothing stops the ACLU from collecting millions of taxpayer dollars as attorney-fee awards. Commander Cadmus has sounded the tocsin. “We are determined to stand up to the ACLU and, as first step, to demand that Congress end the appalling practice of awarding attorney fees in the millions of dollars to the ACLU at taxpayer expense so they can use the courts to destroy American values.” Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil-rights attorney, is past commander of American Legion San Gorgonio Pass Post 428 in Banning, Calif., and the author of Resolution 326. He was an ACLU of Southern California staff attorney for two years after graduating from law school in 1979. edit: gotta have the civil libertarian