Matp, Pope I'll start it off!

[mattp]

I already offered my suggestions. If Pope or Dwayner or anybody else insists on continuing to deliberately sabatage every discussion of this issue (and I think they are indeed being deliberate about this), they should be kept out of at least some of these discussions.

 

To me, it is first of all a matter of free speech - others on this site have a right to discuss bolting issues and Dwayner and Pope, for some reason, do not want this to occur. They have continually set out to interrupt almost every attempt at a reasonable discussion.

 

Second of all, it is a matter of community organization and public relations. Does cc.com do the climbing community any favors by constantly fostering a bunch of antagonistic rhetoric that has done absolutely nothing to solve any issue, but which is likely to alarm any uninformed reader who may read this garbage and think there is a major bolt war going on that threatens to disrupt civil life or destroy the natural beauty of Leavenworth?

 

On the other threads, everybody is saying "what's up with MattP, the "liberal" who doesn't want to hear opposing ideas. Maybe they are right. Maybe I am just tired of all of this. But the fact is, I think there ARE people on cc.com who are interested in these issues, and are interested in more than simply "stirring the pot."

 

I am open to other suggestions, but at this point I can't think of any.

 

[cracked]

If we want a civil discussion on cc.com that thread will need some iron-handed moderation. It is simply due to the nature of this crowd. I suggest that Peter_Puget delete the posts made by Pope, Dwayner, and me, as they serve no purpose other than waste bandwidth.

[pope]

DCramer said:

That’s at most 16%(2/1,250) of the routes at Index.

 

Well, as we all know, statistics and ratios can be formed to support almost any argument. Hell, you can find a positive relation between shoe size and beer consumption. But for a more interesting computation, why not compare (divide) the number of free climbs which feature bolted cracks to the number of remaining clean aid pitches?

 

Also, what point could you possibly be trying to make, by suggesting (not demonstrating) that bolting of clean aid cracks happens only on a small scale? Is it acceptable? No? Can something be done about it?

 

Just tryin' to be civil!

[mattp]

I see no point in going back to clean up this thread, Cracked. I would suggest, however, that we might try to fashion some ground rules and host a reasonable discussion in some future thread. And you are right: iron fisted moderating will probably be needed, at least at first, if we are ever going to have a discussion of highly controversial and emotional issues.

[Dwayner]

mattp said:

I already offered my suggestions. If Pope or Dwayner or anybody else insists on continuing to deliberately sabatage every discussion of this issue (and I think they are indeed being deliberate about this), they should be kept out of at least some of these discussions."

 

To me, it is first of all a matter of free speech - others on this site have a right to discuss bolting issues and Dwayner and Pope, for some reason, do not want this to occur. They have continually set out to interrupt almost every attempt at a reasonable discussion.

 

You are absolutely WRONG. There is no plan, nor intention, nor conspiracy to sabotage any discussion. I welcome and encourage all discussions on the subject and insist on my right to contribute my viewpoints, whether YOU and your pals like them or not.

 

Second of all, it is a matter of community organization and public relations. Does cc.com do the climbing community any favors by constantly fostering a bunch of antagonistic rhetoric that has done absolutely nothing to solve any issue, but which is likely to alarm any uninformed reader who may read this garbage and think there is a major bolt war going on that threatens to disrupt civil life or destroy the natural beauty of Leavenworth?

 

Does cc.com do any climbing "community" public relations favors with its constant vulgarity and threatening and inane posts?

 

On the other threads, everybody is saying "what's up with MattP, the "liberal" who doesn't want to hear opposing ideas. Maybe they are right. Maybe I am just tired of all of this. But the fact is, I think there ARE people on cc.com who are interested in these issues, and are interested in more than simply "stirring the pot."

 

It's a fact, eh? Read my comments above. If you fancy yourself a mind-reader or a psychoanalyst, keep your day job.

 

- Dwayner

 

[mattp]

Pope,

 

Being civil, I will ask you why it is that you can't see that the point here is that bolting cracks is NOT a big issue at Index. Yes, EVERYBODY ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD AGREES THAT CRACKS SHOULD NOT BE BOLTED. DAMN NEAR EVERY CLIMBER IN WASHINGTON AGREES. Do you have some kind of knee jerk feedback loop going when you seem utterly unable to recognize that just about everybody agrees with you?

 

If you want to join Mitch so that you and he can be the self appointed police force at Castle Rock, I can't stop you. But don't try to fool people into thinking that a large number of Washington's crack climbs are in danger of being bolted -- they aren't.

[allthumbs]

It's all the same old shit, day after day, month after month. The arguments are passé. There's nothing new or refreshing to bring to the table other than Spray. Same as the gun threads, or boat threads, et al... This sounds like an attempt to have a "good old boy" forum, with the exclusion of anyone like Dwayner or Pope who disagree. Dumb.

[MysticNacho]

If people want to have a civil bolting discussion, its not going to happen over the internet. People are a lot more civil over a pitcher of beer.

[pope]

mattp said:

Pope,

 

Being civil, I will ask you why it is that you can't see that the point here is that bolting cracks is NOT a big issue at Index. Yes, EVERYBODY ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD AGREES THAT CRACKS SHOULD NOT BE BOLTED. DAMN NEAR EVERY CLIMBER IN WASHINGTON AGREES. Do you have some kind of knee jerk feedback loop going when you seem utterly unable to recognize that just about everybody agrees with you?

 

If you want to join Mitch so that you and he can be the self appointed police force at Castle Rock, I can't stop you. But don't try to fool people into thinking that a large number of Washington's crack climbs are in danger of being bolted -- they aren't.

 

Disagree. It is a problem when "virtually everybody" is against it and it happens anyway, front and center stage on the lower wall.

 

Mentioning broken records, how many times are we going to hear that Pope and Dwayner are interrupting the conversation? If you ain't noticed, my friend, you're interrupting the conversation by continually shouting (robotically and nonresponsively) instead of joing in. Come on, Matt, I know you have more to say.

[mattp]

trask said:

This sounds like an attempt to have a "good old boy" forum, with the exclusion of anyone like Dwayner or Pope who disagree. Dumb.

 

Call me delusional, but I have this fantasy that the people who seek to be the self-appointed police force might first discuss their proposed "restoration" efforts and that the discussion could be handled in a way that would allow the parties who installed the offending routes, or those who think they are good climbs, to take part. I have this fantasy that even Dwayner might be mature enough to talk about how he decries the gridbolting at a place like Nevermind Wall, without simply throwing insults at the cowards who climb there. I have a fantasy that, even if it leads nowhere, we could discuss the future of bolting at a place like Banks Lake. I may well be fooling myself because, thus far, we have been utterly unable to have these discussions.

 

[JayB]

I think the chances of generating a concensus on moderation are slim, so my suggestion to the mods is to moderate this little corner of cc.com as you see fit, and let it be known in that manner what's kosher and what isn't...

[ScottP]

Smith Rocks is not "choss". Neither is/was Vantage. These are beautiful areas that have been desecrated by people for their own entertainment with little respect for its natural beauty or the notion that one should leave as little trace of one's visit as possible.

 

 

Add Little Si to that list.

 

[Sphinx]

mattp said:

trask said:

This sounds like an attempt to have a "good old boy" forum, with the exclusion of anyone like Dwayner or Pope who disagree. Dumb.

 

Call me delusional, but I have this fantasy that the people who seek to be the self-appointed police force might first discuss their proposed "restoration" efforts and that the discussion could be handled in a way that would allow the parties who installed the offending routes, or those who think they are good climbs, to take part. I have this fantasy that even Dwayner might be mature enough to talk about how he decries the gridbolting at a place like Nevermind Wall, without simply throwing insults at the cowards who climb there. I have a fantasy that, even if it leads nowhere, we could discuss the future of bolting at a place like Banks Lake. I may well be fooling myself because, thus far, we have been utterly unable to have these discussions.

I have a dream....that in fifty years.....

 

It won't happen. Sorry.

[allthumbs]

mattp said:

trask said:

This sounds like an attempt to have a "good old boy" forum, with the exclusion of anyone like Dwayner or Pope who disagree. Dumb.

 

Call me delusional, but I have this fantasy that the people who seek to be the self-appointed police force might first discuss their proposed "restoration" efforts and that the discussion could be handled in a way that would allow the parties who installed the offending routes, or those who think they are good climbs, to take part. I have this fantasy that even Dwayner might be mature enough to talk about how he decries the gridbolting at a place like Nevermind Wall, without simply throwing insults at the cowards who climb there. I have a fantasy that, even if it leads nowhere, we could discuss the future of bolting at a place like Banks Lake. I may well be fooling myself because, thus far, we have been utterly unable to have these discussions.

I doubt you'll ever have your "nirvana" forum Matt. Too many assholes and opinions. Too many chiefs.

[mattp]

pope said:

If you ain't noticed, my friend, you're interrupting the conversation by continually shouting (robotically and nonresponsively) instead of joing in. Come on, Matt, I know you have more to say.

 

I have, on dozens of occasions, carefully composed what I thought was a thoughtful essay on some aspect of the bolting issue only to have you or your buddy Dwayner come back with some juvenile rhetorical snip that showed you were utterly unable or unwilling to read or consider what I wrote. I don't see much reason to try to do so, here in this thread, where the current topic is whether or not there is any point in trying to be thoughtful.

 

Answer me this, Pope: do you really maintain that the clever quips and put-downs you and Dwayner spray all about are intended to foster any exchange of ideas?

 

[allthumbs]

If you ask me Matt (which you never do) you're the one bitching when the discussions don't go your way. What's wrong with D & P playing the devil's advocates? If it weren't for them, the discussions would be about as interesting as reading Freedom of the Hills.

[jon]

Trask this conversation doesn't concern you.

[lancegranite]

DC-

just paging thru the index guide...man,you really did a lot

of climbing! what was equally surprising was that I grew up on your routes..racer x, gorilla, newest industry...

classics all.

thanks, DC.

hey,I enjoy your thoughtful commentary...any chance of your own website?prehaps A.m. radio...this forum is just too..confining.

[mattp]

Trask, I think you can see from my history on this board that I enjoy debate. There would be nothing wrong with Dwayner, Pope or anybody else playing "Devil's Advocate" but that is not what they choose to do. The Devil's Advocate is one who argues the other side of an issue, for rhetorical purposes, with the implicit acknowedgement that they may or may not actually believe their argument. The Devil's Advocate is not one who flings insulting rhetoric.

[allthumbs]

jon said:

Trask this conversation doesn't concern you.

Why doesn't it concern me? Because I don't talk shop I'm excluded from all things other than Spray? That's fucked.

[Sphinx]

trask said:

jon said:

Trask this conversation doesn't concern you.

Why doesn't it concern me? Because I don't talk shop I'm excluded from all things other than Spray? That's fucked.

Aye, matey, that it is. Argh!

[Cpt.Caveman]

Dwayner said:

mattp said:

I already offered my suggestions. If Pope or Dwayner or anybody else insists on continuing to deliberately sabatage every discussion of this issue (and I think they are indeed being deliberate about this), they should be kept out of at least some of these discussions."

 

To me, it is first of all a matter of free speech - others on this site have a right to discuss bolting issues and Dwayner and Pope, for some reason, do not want this to occur. They have continually set out to interrupt almost every attempt at a reasonable discussion.

 

You are absolutely WRONG. There is no plan, nor intention, nor conspiracy to sabotage any discussion. I welcome and encourage all discussions on the subject and insist on my right to contribute my viewpoints, whether YOU and your pals like them or not.

 

Second of all, it is a matter of community organization and public relations. Does cc.com do the climbing community any favors by constantly fostering a bunch of antagonistic rhetoric that has done absolutely nothing to solve any issue, but which is likely to alarm any uninformed reader who may read this garbage and think there is a major bolt war going on that threatens to disrupt civil life or destroy the natural beauty of Leavenworth?

 

Does cc.com do any climbing "community" public relations favors with its constant vulgarity and threatening and inane posts?

 

On the other threads, everybody is saying "what's up with MattP, the "liberal" who doesn't want to hear opposing ideas. Maybe they are right. Maybe I am just tired of all of this. But the fact is, I think there ARE people on cc.com who are interested in these issues, and are interested in more than simply "stirring the pot."

 

It's a fact, eh? Read my comments above. If you fancy yourself a mind-reader or a psychoanalyst, keep your day job.

 

- Dwayner

 

Teehee- Man I actually think your comments Mattp are a little overboard sabotage and all.

[fern]

I think it would be interesting if the Dwayner/Pope/like-minded

contigenent composed an article explaining their bolting

concerns, their understanding of the history of route

development, 'spirit-of-the age', etc. Use examples,

anecdotes, pictures of Tom Stoppard so on. Take as long as

you like to describe your perspective in a complete coherent

way absent of the back and forth jibing that comes out of

a so-called 'discussion board'.

 

And of course the other side who might include RuMR, cracked,

Sphinx, (well, I am not sure who to put in the category but

I supposed you can identify yourselves as being

pro-whatever-Dwayner-is-anti), can do the same. Write

about your ideas of bolting, of climbing, vision for the

'future of the sport', what traditions of the past do you think

are outdated etc.

 

And then TADA! You can publish these articles together at

the same time on this very website. And your audience can

read what you have to say in a clean (like spray-free) way.

And then you will have a foundation for your ongoing battles

about THE ROCK, rather than who is a old and who is cowardly etc.

 

I know that you are all such very-busy people who are long

past the age of doing homework (well maybe not cracked ).

But maybe if you integrate the time you have spent making quick

quips that failed to get the point across you will see that

you have already spent a lot of time 'discussing' things

without having much understanding to show for it.

[DCramer]

Pope what we have is fact going against your constantly shifting argument. Let me be clear you simply make stuff up. There was no admonishment in my first post. You flat out said there was. You say : Implicit in your discussion is the idea that a new free climb with bolts is somehow better than an old aid climb that can be aided on nuts. Again you are making things up. My list made no such argument it was merely a response to one of your exaggerations. You said there are “countless” bolted A2 cracks, yet there are not. Let’s examine your list

 

#10

I say people should go try to lead it before they take your word as to how good the pro is. See my comments above.

 

10 Percent

Hey I did bolt the slab pitch on this. Didn’t place many bolts near a crack. As for the top of the first pitch I did not bolt it. I will leave it to others to decide how good the pro is. I would add again virtually the same comment I made with regard to Dana’s Arch. Someone started chipping the bottom section and I argued against that even stated that I’d remove any bolts placed. I have sent several people including couple who post on the site encouragement to free that part. It will be one of the greatest leads in WA.

 

Wipe

News to me. When it was first climbed the only fixed gear on it was a fixed pin sticking half way out. Are you making this up or is it real? What’s the scoop. Would this really qualify as a C2 crack?

 

Cunning Stunt

Bolts have been removed for quite some time. By the way the guy who bolted it thought I chopped it at first. Would this really qualify as a C2 crack?

 

A belay in the middle of pitch 1 of Japanese Gardens

That actually is a replacement/upgrade from an combination of an old pin and a bolt. Again I had nothing to do with it. I did advice Clint not to show it as a belay anchor but he did and someone upgraded it. An upgrade hardly counts beside the crack is too big for RPS here.

 

Let’s further examine the rock police comment.

 

This is a total crack up. Trask, stay close, you once asked me for my version of the events here it is. A long time ago. I am thinking early 90s (‘92?) the parks department held a series of meeting with climbers. After several meeting were held we took the some officials on a tour of Index. Other climbers on this tour included Access Fund Officials, Greg Child, Steve Swenson, Greg Collum. While walking along the base of the Lower Wall I heard a ‘tick” “tick”. I look up and see some guy aiding a clean (and I think free too) route with a hammer. I let the crowd pass and mentioned to the belayer ( I was sure not confrontational with the parks service guys a just down the wall) that the route was clean! (ie no hammer required) The climber (Dwayner) yelled down and asked what I was saying. Well low and behold he started spew an incredible amount of venom. Not wanting a big scene with the parks dept 30 yards away I beat a retreat. The next week I see our boy pope at the Vertical Club. So I saunter up to him and say “Your friend is an asshole and I bet you are too.” The normally feisty Pope was stammering. He admited that his friend was a bit offbase but justified it by saying he was a famous archaeologist! As if that mattered! He then came back with “he use to work for Jim Donini.” I explained to pope the about the tour. So off I go to Jim who was also in the gym and by merely describing Dwayner’s actions he could name the man!

 

Fast forward to CC.com

Dwayner posts a thread entitled “Rock Police” with a completely fictitious story line purportedly describing the above “confrontation”. It was pulled. I encourage Jon to bring it back to life so that we can see these two in action and after hearing my version of event let the readers decide which is more plausible. Why is that important? Well if I remember correctly Dwayner claims to have chased me out of CC.com and asserts that I won’t be coming back. This is germane to this argument because it shows yet another example of their poor behavior and the end goal of their debating style. After posting my reply to the Rock Police thread I received a PM form Dwayner asking me not to use his name in the thread. His stated clearly that he would say things under the name Dwayner that he wouldn’t say if posting under his real name. Of course now the cover is blown but I do think the PM was informative about the man.

 

At first reading post on cc.com I had no idea ho these two were but while driving a friend of mine said “you do know who pope is”. It turns out pope tells the story that I almost beat him up at the Vertical Club. Let me assure you physical violence was never on my mind.

 

[jon]

Fern