clean aid climbs bolted to create sport climbs

[pope]

Hey......is it just my imagination or did my post get yanked today? Who's the spray cop with the heavy hand? Is there some rationale for this? Is MattP just tired of the 1st Amendment? Is the moderatorial board camped out on one side of the bolting issue? What's the justification for pulling the post? I asked some serious questions in a most civil manner.

 

Again, I'd like to hear from those who have opinions on the issue of bolting clean aid routes. I've produced a list of Index climbs which fall into this category, altough I must admit that this list is not exhaustive. MattP's survey reveals that more than half of the respondents think there exists a serious problem with crack bolting. Why then must a post in which this issue is discussed be pulled?

[Sphinx]

This is going to be pulled, but here goes nothing. STFU. Have you nothing better to do with your inane, pathetic existance? Ever considered doing something worthwhile with your time? You should.

[pope]

Sphinx said:

This is going to be pulled, but here goes nothing. STFU. Have you nothing better to do with your inane, pathetic existance? Ever considered doing something worthwhile with your time? You should.

 

Matt....Peter......help! Sphinx is attempting to get this serious and civil post pulled by interjecting his routine four-letter, two-cent comments. This is just the kind of garbage that is going to get us in trouble with land managers. Please DELETE SPHINX'S RESPONSE NOW!

[glacierdog]

Oh, hey guys? Help, guys. Help me, please. Oh gawd, it's awful.

[Sphinx]

Since I'm in a shitty mood, I'll create some more posts to be yanked.

 

Here's one for Pope:

 

And one for his buddy Dwhiner:

 

And one for the rest of you chuffers who waste you day saying lots and doing nothing:

 

Why not do something instead of spray? You suck.

[glacierdog]

Uh, sphincter? I registered 6 months before you, and I have a third of the posts you do. Something about a pot maligning a kettle comes to mind...

[Sphinx]

Yeah, fuck you too, douchebag. Oh, wait, you don't count. You spend all your time in German strip clubs and desert sandstorms. You rock. But everybody else blows dogs for quarters because they momma turned them down.

[glacierdog]

'preciate that.

[Sphinx]

Anytime. You've got my respect.

[glacierdog]

Another thread falls victim to spray....

[lummox]

pope said:

Again, I'd like to hear from those who have opinions on the issue of bolting clean aid routes.

it is fucked up. that is my opinion. pan am in mexico is an example of that and paul piana an his wife did it then published an account in a climbing rag. thats even more fucked up.

[mattp]

Pope-

 

I responded to your post before it got pulled. Here is what I said: I generally agree with you on the bolting of aid lines to make them go free. I don't know the climbs in question but, knowing your tendency to distort and misrepresent, I am willing to believe that, as Darryl pointed out yesterday, that half of the climbs you listed do not belong on a list of "clean A2 cracks." As to your question, however, I would have to go out an look at Numba Ten and learn more about it before I could say that I believe that a particular bolt that may happen to be next to a crappy rp placement is all-in-all a bad thing.

 

As to you first amendement rights, I noted in my response that even after all the discussion yesterday you were still finding the need to post in a deliberately annoying manner. I said "that is your style and your right, but don't be surprised if somebody, including a moderator, takes offense." I believe that you knowingly mischaracterized Darryl's participation in the earlier discussions of the day, and you also distorted what had been told you you by the evil perpetrator of DDD. You included a slap at me that was out of context in the paragraph where it was included, and your autosig, while quite funny, was also an intentional jab.

 

I don't moderate that forum, and I didn't suggest that your post be pulled. However, for two or three years, you have been carrying on like an ass instead of trying to make your (valid) point. If somebody agrees with me that enough is enough and you should tone it down, I welcome the day. Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by.

[allthumbs]

anything I've read by pope has been smartassed

guy must think he's trask

[Off_White]

lummox said:pan am in mexico is an example of that and paul piana an his wife did it then published an account in a climbing rag. thats even more fucked up.

 

Yeah, I was thinking about that route this morning, I think the big issue was what was done to the Brown Dihedral, turning a great aid pitch into a bolt ladder. For me the question is somewhat academic, as I neither climb 5.12 nor am I much taken with aid climbing, but I find the question of whether free climbing is more "valuable" than aid climbing an interesting one, and a very current one with the freeing of various classic wall routes on El Cap. What about the Grand Wall, an enormously popular free (mostly free for most) climb. I'm sure it doesn't much resemble the aid climb it used to be, but I haven't heard anyone advocate for returning it to it's first ascent condition.

[Dwayner]

MattP says:

 

"Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by."

 

What constitution from what country are you reading, pal????

 

The same one that allows people to go on a PUBLIC forum and spew like this (just a few posts above), courtesy of "Sphinx", which makes pope's smart-alecky and often clever commentary look like a Sunday sermon:

 

"Yeah, fuck you too, douchebag. Oh, wait, you don't count. You spend all your time in German strip clubs and desert sandstorms. You rock. But everybody else blows dogs for quarters because they momma turned them down."

 

 

[Sphinx]

I spew in Spray, which is where it belongs. You, Dwhiner, and your good buddy Poper, spray where it doesn't belong. So STFU.

[lummox]

Off_White said:

lummox said:pan am in mexico is an example of that and paul piana an his wife did it then published an account in a climbing rag. thats even more fucked up.

 

Yeah, I was thinking about that route this morning, I think the big issue was what was done to the Brown Dihedral, turning a great aid pitch into a bolt ladder. For me the question is somewhat academic, as I neither climb 5.12 nor am I much taken with aid climbing, but I find the question of whether free climbing is more "valuable" than aid climbing an interesting one, and a very current one with the freeing of various classic wall routes on El Cap. What about the Grand Wall, an enormously popular free (mostly free for most) climb. I'm sure it doesn't much resemble the aid climb it used to be, but I haven't heard anyone advocate for returning it to it's first ascent condition.

i done pan am. lead the brown dihedral. i thought it was a2 at most. piana put in bolts just to make the clips easier imo. sandy eggo local fukin chopped them bolts afore the season turned from what i heard.

and fuck the retrobolting jiveass euro huber brothers.

[rbw1966]

Dwayner said:

MattP says:

 

"Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by."

 

What constitution from what country are you reading, pal????

 

 

Just so we're clear, First Amendment rights do not extend to a private forum--and as much as you may think this is a public forum, its not. Its privately owned, privately maintained and privately funded. Therefore, the owners of this forum are welcome to censor whatever speach they desire--regardless of your perceived freedoms. An analogy might be if you walk into WalMart and start spewing epithets. They'll jack yer ass out of there just like the moderators here can do.

[mattp]

Dwayner said:

What constitution from what country are you reading, pal????

 

Where did you grow up, Dwayner? If you stand on the corner in the Hilltop area and loudly call passeres by "niggers" you are going to get arrested for disturbing the peace or something like that. Since you want to take this to the next level of namecalling, I'll ablige you: go back to Kindergarten if you can't figure out that the first amendment does not completely trump civility.

[Sphinx]

mattp said:

Dwayner said:

What constitution from what country are you reading, pal????

 

Where did you grow up, Dwayner? If you stand on the corner in the Hilltop area and loudly call passeres by "niggers" you are going to get arrested for disturbing the peace or something like that. Since you want to take this to the next level of namecalling, I'll ablige you: go back to Kindergarten if you can't figure out that the first amendment does not completely trump civility.

Right back atcha, Dwhiner!

[lummox]

mattp said:

[foul offensive word]

that shits uncalled for. yuppie white men cant use that word. ever.

[Off_White]

Dwayner, Sphinx is just more blunt and crude about it, but he's not any more insulting than the "clever" put downs, which are simply more effective ways to to needle people. Besides, I think what you quoted was actually intended as a compliment, and Glacierdog took it as one.

 

[Dwayner]

MattP says:

"you are going to get arrested for disturbing the peace or something like that."

 

Is that "legaleze"?

[Sphinx]

Off_White said:

Dwayner, Sphinx is just more blunt and crude about it, but he's not any more insulting than the "clever" put downs, which are simply more effective ways to to needle people. Besides, I think what you quoted was actually intended as a compliment, and Glacierdog took it as one.

I don't have to be crude and insulting. I can be just as nice as Dwayner.

[pope]

rbw1966 said:

Dwayner said:

MattP says:

 

"Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by."

 

What constitution from what country are you reading, pal????

 

 

Just so we're clear, First Amendment rights do not extend to a private forum--and as much as you may think this is a public forum, its not. Its privately owned, privately maintained and privately funded. Therefore, the owners of this forum are welcome to censor whatever speach they desire--regardless of your perceived freedoms. An analogy might be if you walk into WalMart and start spewing epithets. They'll jack yer ass out of there just like the moderators here can do.

 

That the board is privately controlled is entirely obvious; that the free exchange of ideas is a goal of this site is increasingly less obvious.

 

'..... knowing your tendency to distort and misrepresent, I am willing to believe that, as Darryl pointed out yesterday, that half of the climbs you listed do not belong on a list of "clean A2 cracks."'

 

In fact most of them do aid cleanly and were previously aid climbs.

 

"As to you first amendement rights, I noted in my response that even after all the discussion yesterday you were still finding the need to post in a deliberately annoying manner."

 

We all get annoyed with other contributors. I have no monopoly here. The question is, since you were able to read the post that got pulled, what was so offensive and annoying about it? Ask Peter to resurrect it and please pick it apart for me. I'd like to learn how to be more civil.

 

"I believe that you knowingly mischaracterized Darryl's participation in the earlier discussions of the day, and you also distorted what had been told you you by the evil perpetrator of DDD."

 

Absolutely false. Please elaborate on your accusations. I didn't distort or misrepresent anything (except when I carelessly used the word "countless" to describe the number of bolted former aid routes at Index). I simply asked Daryl where he stands on this issue (or anybody else who cares to comment). I can read a guidebook. I know Daryl didn't have anything to do with some of the climbs I mentioned. He, however, suggested I was "aiding with a hammer" (simply not true, I never even touched it) and that he heard "tap tap tap", which is a recent addition to his rendering of the facts. He claims that I stated he had physically threatened me, which I never stated. I said that in the gym, Daryl revealed that he had been very close to punching Dwayner previously. My story ain't changing....he's trying to change my story.

 

And what do you know about the conversation I had with a DDD bolter? He argued that bolting the route would increase traffic and "rescue it", help to clean it up. I agreed that this would happen but still thought it was a poor idea. My conversation with him was infinitely more civil than what I have to endure every time you log on, Matt. How did I misrepresent or distort the conversation THAT YOU NEVER HEARD? I'm getting really confused here, sir.

 

"You included a slap at me that was out of context in the paragraph where it was included, and your autosig, while quite funny, was also an intentional jab."

 

Guilty. Sorry dad.