Cpt.Caveman Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 Your right DCramer. You also imply that people like me dont offer anything to the community. I would offer but depending on the situation. I would rather give my money than my time. Time is very valuable to me. If those dudes dont post sorry bout that but I am not going to beg for them to either. I bet I see these people all the time too.... Some people dont even own computers or have jobs. Will is a cool guy dont bash him. I imagine that if someone sent me topo of Bear Mtn that would be cool. I must admit I am the largest spray here ONe thing I can say is that I also offer as much info as anyone else on moderate routes people like to do. I am a moderate type of climber eh. So spray on and go climb stuff. Quote
DCramer Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 Caveman I did not intend to suggest that you had nothing to offer. My point was that everyone had something to offer and that the synergy resulting from lots of people posting would be amazing. I also didn't relaize I was saying anything bad about Will. I was agreeing that those posting here can and do offer good info. Quote
Dru Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 To counterpoint Darryl I will mention Jon's statistic that something like 10% of the people who visit this site get directed here by doing a web search for the words "Rachel Babkirk" You get out of this site what you put into it. Everybody seems to bag on it but so what. Over 90% of the posts on this site are either self-referential or just plain old spray but i still don't see how that diminishes the other 10% which is so-called useful knowledge of whatever sort. Frankly every climbing related bulletin board on the net has exactly the same so-called problems dating back to the bitchy original, rec.climbing. There is no website that perfectly represents the climbing community and there never will be, because discussions on a climbing website are like discussions climbers have in a bar, often only tangentially connected to climbing, more often than not, about the issues of personal importance to those having the conversation. If you want to build a site which is nothing but beta then go for the www.bivouac.com model which honestly is dull as ditchwater. Generally speaking on this site if you ask an honest question you get an honest answer (and possibly some spray along with it) and if you ask a stupid question than you get a stupid answer. Perhaps those who don't like this site should start a thread on "Spray" called "Cc.com Sucks" in order to properly vent their spleens! A final tip - if you don't want to be sprayed at as much try posting under a girly sounding name - Mr. Ray Borbon pointed this out to me and allowed me to borrow one of his many avatars to try it out and it is correct and accurate. Oh yeah, and and and and and Quote
DCramer Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 Dru - I am not against spray per se but also realize that a small percentage of the spray repells a significant portion of the climbing community. It is simply a fact. That many come to this site by accident is interesting yet hardly of relevence to my post. BB's like this have user groups. One common problem that seems to plague all BB users is extreme forms of spray. It is not something unique to climbers but rather something unique to people. One point of clarification. I feel bad that some might think that if you didn't respond to my post about a crag maint. meeting I think that you have nothing to offer. I brought that meeting up because this site was specifically discussed and spray was mentioned by all participants. The factr that someone might post a message criticalof the site not because CC.com sucks but because it is kinda cool and could be cooler seems to elude everyone here. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DCramer ] Quote
jblakley Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 I happen to think Jon and Tim have done an awesome job at assembling a site that acts as a sounding board for whomever. Is this a slice of PNW climbers? I have no fricken idea. Does it need to be? I don't know. Is that the mission statement. Does it say Cascadeclimbers.com "A guaranteed slice of PNW climbers". Horseshit! A site is the sum total of it's members and I think everyone here contributes in some ways. It would be cool I guess to see a "big name" climber whatever that is, but I don't feel like the site "needs" that validation. I haven't posted much here recently just because I haven't felt like it. No other reason. I don't get too riled up by anything anybody says because I don't take myself or anyone else that seriously. I have received some great informational tidbits almost evertime I ask which at least for me, means this site is successful and helpful. Try the site out and if you don't like it I hear Jon and Tim will quickly refund your subscription fee. Jim Blakley Quote
Dru Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 Just to keep the misguided perverts happy - Rachel Babkirk , Rachel Babkirk, Rachel Babkirk! Darryl - I too have met many PNW climbers who do not post to cc.com. In fact I have often discussed the site with them. I wonder though, if eliminating some spray would get many of these people to post anything. I actually doubt it. This site probably is more representative of the PNW climbing community than is a site like www.bivouac.com which is totally spray free and has far fewer posters despite a very high "click through" rate. Fact is about 90% of all web users like to lurk and can rarely muster the urge to post anything in any environment, spray-on or spray-off. And many people out there, especially many more "experienced" climbers, seem not to like to disseminate beta, but prefer to hide it for whatever reason. You know, the guys who after the guidebook comes out, mention that they did six routes on Peak XXXX way before the ascents listed but never reported them... and get all mad about it...????????? I can never figure that out. Admittedly, I will be the first to agree with you that flame wars can be kinda jarring. but they can be fun for the spectators! and they do seem to crop up all over the net. as for immature name calling and insults i try not to do too much of it but it happens. without it we would never have had the beauty of the Muir on Saturday thread Quote
vegetablebelay Posted January 4, 2002 Posted January 4, 2002 True, true. It seems everyone that posts here usually gets what they want out of the site. Dan Larson asks about wand sizes and got a lot of good info; Stefan asked about guide books for the Alps and got a lot of good info, David Parker just asked about an obscure road near Cashmere Mt - I could go on and on. Sure, many times a little spray thrown in but if you're too sensitive to skip over a few non-productive(but oh, so entertaining)responses, you are using the wrong medium to throw out you're inquiry. Quote
Dru Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 The thread about Wand Sizes did acquire a lot of silliness too. Thank God for that! Quote
allthumbs Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 True, and since you mention it. I have a question. My girl is 5'6', 38-24-35, with a sweet tight ass. I'd like to get her some edible underwear but am not sure of the size or color. Since most of you climber-studs are always bragging about your nightly conquests, I wonder if you might give me some tips in this matter. Thanking you in advance, trask Quote
philfort Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: I'd like to get her some edible underwear but am not sure of the size or color. I'd like to help you out. Feel free to have her contact me for a personal appointment in edible underwear fitting. Quote
DCramer Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 You're right Jon and Tim have done a great job in designing this site. Quote
mattp Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 The discussion of "to spray or not to spray" is a great topic for debate, but I think that it in part misses the mark. It is true that the ease of posting messages back and forth and, yes, the spray, add to the interest of this site and I would agree with Dru that cascadeclimbers.com is more interesting than bivouac.com (though I must confess that I often find the latter to be more helpful when I am scoping a particular climb for next weekend because I can more easily locate a pertinent route report or a photograph there). However, it is also true that the banter - when it degenerates into hostility and insult - can be unsavory and it does in fact drive people away. However, in my view, we may be better served by thinking about how this site might support everyone, whether a sprayer, gear freak, naive beginner, badass, crusty old fart, or whatever. How might Jon and Tim maintain a site where it is OK for BillyBadass to tell BonnieBigWall to suck his weaser while at the same site BobbieTheBolt-Chopper might be able to say, "yes, it was me who stole all the anchors from Vantage and here is why I did so?" and BennieTheBeginner might ask for the gear list for Mount Si? Aren't they all climbers who we run into from time to time and who may have either some information for us or may have some impact (good or bad) on our climbing experience? Don't most of us believe that a site like this has its greatest value if it is a place where we may correspond with the widest possible selection of those who are interested in Cascade climbing? Quote
mattp Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 Oh yes--I don't mean to imply that it is all up to Jon and Tim. A simple rule of thumb, something like "don't be a jerk," might be all that is needed. Quote
pope Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 On the other hand, the site is defined by the attitudes and accumulated contributions of its users. Spread the word that it's a fun place to chat and occasionally get some great information, and then let the people come and find out whether it's for them useful and entertaining. How should Jon/Tim moderate to attract a wider variety or larger number of climbers? If it is truly "snotty" attitudes which repel all of these potential posters, then changes would, I assume, take the form of monitoring and perhaps censoring those who already contribute....is that what we really want? If I can't be free to bitch about bolts and those who place them indiscriminately, even at the expense of stepping on a few toes, then I say, "Adios." This argument is almost as tired as the bolting one. How many times have we discussed whether spray and its derivatives negatively impact this site? How many times have we argued over whether "cleaning up our acts" would attract a wider variety of climbers, and maybe some classier acts? Also, MattP, let's not confuse "snooty" with "snotty". When I expressed concern over the retro-bolting of a Leavenworth climb, a number of guys responded by suggesting, "Come on, Pope. The reason you're so cranky is that you're just an old has-been. You're upset 'cause the kids on the sport routes are pulling down numbers that you can't. It's not the rock that's been damaged, it's your ego." (an obvious paraphrase) A snooty response..and I considered it...would have been to defend myself by saying, "I climbed this, and I soloed that." I'm occasionally guilty of projecting a snotty attitude, but never a snooty one. MattP, relax my friend. Again, I enjoyed your Lane Peak report. And Daryl, sorry I didn't participate in your trail project. I can count the number of times I've made it out of the house this year on the fingers of one hand. I appreciate reading your perspectives on this BB, and your SKY VALLEY ROCK guide is superb. Have a nice day. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: pope ] Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 ON to that Sky Valley Book- DCramer you should get gear sizes instead of climbing styles. It helps the bumblies like me understand what to take. Vague description of climbing style I find misleading. Like - I did no liebacking on Roger's Corner Spray it don't say it! Quote
LUCKY Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 I love this site, it has it all Crack climbers, sport climbers, mountaineers, boulders, rock cops, Plastic mechanics, blackbelt internet spraymasters, makes for a good pool of beta. I'm glued to the screen for those flameing discusions on style(it's all in fun ).this site keeps me up on Access issues. The spray and banter is what sets this board apart from the other dull boards on the net.I like to mention that I noticed that vertical world (not that I would crank on plastic in the winter to stay honed)has a bouldering guide for Leavenworth by Damian Potty (way cool and funny guy and sets great routes at the gym) I get Elvisleg on 5.7 sport caveman is SPRAYGOD [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: LUCKY ] Quote
allthumbs Posted January 5, 2002 Posted January 5, 2002 where can I find some .005 condoms sized Gorrilla? I'll be needing some next week for my trip to Smith. Quote
pope Posted January 6, 2002 Posted January 6, 2002 Take your pick, but I'd go with snotty. Look, I'm not really proud of the way I've degraded myself by joining in the mud fight that evolved out of bolting discussions. I'm not sure how it got to be so nasty, but I became agitated with sport-climbing advocates who suggested that those who want to see a restrained approach to bolting are narrow minded, that they are opposed to any new stylistic or technological approach to climbing, that they are conservative, that they are technically incompetent, and so on.I'm pretty sure my nastiest comments (and you've managed to unearth one of them) were responses to the unfair assertions I just mentioned. One characteristic of this BB that I do appreciate is that although competent climbers do contribute to the discussions, most of them avoid "show-boating" their accomplishments. When novice climbers ask for advice, I almost never hear experienced climbers trivializing easy climbs by saying, "Oh, I climbed it with a broken arm," or "We cut the guide-book's suggested time in half." This kind of attitude would qualify as "snooty", the way I interpret it. I've heard plenty of it over the years, but fortunately not here. Quote
mattp Posted January 6, 2002 Posted January 6, 2002 Pope - I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating common courtesy and I think that perhaps you are too. Rhetorically speaking, I don't understand the distinction between "snooty" and "snotty." Which was it when you wrote that [sport climbers are conservative. Sport climbers have removed sport from climbing. Sport climbers are neither. Yes, let's dispense with the current designations. Let's call sport climbers "rock rapers", and let's call tradsters "rock climbers"]? Either way it was perhaps a clever and entertaining remark, and I'm not arguing that you were a bad person to make it, but if you make such statements you can't really be surprised if someone else posts something that you find personally offensive, can you? Your post acknowledges that there is a point beyond which the banter becomes offensive or unacceptable for some other reason. We all have a different opinion of where the line lies, and exactly where it lies will vary from day to day, and I would draw the line a little more cautioiusly than you might. By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed Pope's Confessional and the Donna TopStep story. Spray on. -Matt [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: mattp ] Quote
mattp Posted January 6, 2002 Posted January 6, 2002 Right you are, Pope. I think that in general, the attitudes expressed here are pretty cool. In extracting one of your more strident posts as an example, I intended to suggest only that if you express disdain for others (and I mean not just you but anyone who posts with such rancor), you have to be willing to become the target of someone else's attack. Hell, all you have to do is open your mouth and you may be painting a target on your side -- after I first came out in favor of peace and love by saying that negativity was bad for our sport, they called me "the old man who is trying to be cool." I actually enjoyed that bolting discussion because, while it may have been tedious to some and it did at times go "over the edge," I think the debate is an important one and I agree with those who say that it is what makes this site the real deal. In the context of that particular discussion, a "spirited" debate, your remarks were entertaining and not necessarily uncalled for, but they certainly were provocative. Its all in the context, of course, and the same retort might not be appropriate if posted in response to a question about where might somoeone find a good sport crag close to Seattle. Quote
pope Posted January 6, 2002 Posted January 6, 2002 I'd just like to add that anybody who called MattP "the old man who is just trying to be cool".....that person doesn't know from MattP. I've met the man. He is cool. He is effortlessly cool. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 7, 2002 Posted January 7, 2002 Route Report: Saturday Night I reached base camp of a sweaty love muffin I met at the bar. I was initially going to camp and loiter in Taint-valley but it was so stinky and overgrown with slide alder I had to abort. Maybe next week. Quote
DCramer Posted January 7, 2002 Posted January 7, 2002 Trask – The SLM’s summit is well worth the fight. Go back next week and try again. The summit register is a hoot to read. Pope, Dru et al – My mention of the maint. group meeting was merely to provide a concrete example of people who quite probably would contribute here but choose not to because of some of the attitudes often expressed here. Spray is not all bad but I do think that “one bad apple” does give the whole genre of expression a bad name. I do not think that a significant portion of Cascade Climbers will ever be consistent posters here. This is probably a good thing. I do think that increasing the pool of posters from 20 to 100 would be of great benefit to the site and to Cascade climbing in general. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.