WoS / PTPP, part XXIV

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 161 - 180 of total 193 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bart Fay

Social climber
Redlands, CA
Aug 6, 2006 - 02:55pm PT
Good thinking Tarbuster !
That's one sure way to kill a thread.
Nefarius

Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:20pm PT
Nice post Werner! Good read.

I think a post like that might kind of summarize a part of what Richard and Mark are after. The post was honest as to Werner's thoughts and an insite into what someone, that many of us look up to, who was around at the time, thought about the event(s).

I agree that it would be good for Mark and Richard to state what they would like. They may *not* know or be able to say, succinctly, right off, however. Who knows. It could be one of those situations that a lot of us have been involved in, maybe with a significant other, where each has been arguing a point and opinion, tenaciously, for so long that when someone finally says, "OK. What is it that you want?", you're like, "Ummm..." A pretty common occurrence.

One thing I'm sure they don't want, and might just add fuel to the fire, is that while the above posts seem to be working towards a resolution, of sorts, and everyone wants closure to this (which might be somewhat unrealistic), probably moreso them than anyone else, I'm certain that the somewhat "looking down my nose at you" nature of even the "friendly" resolution posts might get to them. Some of them really carry the air of them being the problem and kind of conveys that this is their fault. There is certainly a condescending tone to them.

Maybe this is the essence of what bothers them most of all. Reality is reality, and as it has been said before, had the chopping and shitting and threats, etc. not happened this would have all faded away. Maybe if things had even stopped *there*, this might have faded away. However, acts *were* committed against them and it might not be too much to ask that they not be made to feel as if it were them who caused the uproar or that they, the "victims" should have to "(finally!) *go away*", as if to say "We're the as#@&%es. We won't bother you anymore." While it might take two to tango, and maybe R&M aren't innocent, it always takes someone to start the sh#t and fuel the fire.

The flipside of this reality, however, is for both of them to understand that you can't make everyone happy, or change everyone's opinion in any situation. More importantly, that some things just become too large to ever be resolved completly. Compromise should always be a possibility.

And I agree, Werner, too much fvcking typing!

Edit: While I understand what is being done, and think it a great gesture by all involved, I'm just thinking that with all of the heated/hard feelings already on display, that it might be difficult for them to see through what could be perceived as negative to the heart of what's being done/offered. Just my own thoughts.
Tarbuster

climber
right here, right now
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:33pm PT
Thanks Bart!

Yes Nefarius,
Everyone needs to check a condescending or escalating negative mood here, if we are going to seek some resolution.

And yes, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
Just engaging the process of coming to a clearer understanding of differences: this process can often serve a very valuable therapeutic service to the conflicted parties.

OK also a little background on how to think about interests, when considering interest based bargaining versus positional bargaining.

Think needs versus wants.
Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs or along those lines.

In positional bargaining, one might dig their heels in because they want that red truck. Two people might fight over the red truck.

In interest based bargaining, each party considers what it is they want out of the red truck.

Is a transportation?
Is it the ability to haul things around?
Is it simply the desire for things red?

When two or more disputants start looking at a conflict this way, they may find it's not about the red truck at all.
One may want to haul things around, while the other likes things red, so there is often more to the picture than meets the immediate struggle. In this way, you begin to see there are more things at play than just the obvious item over which the initial struggle is based.

For Richard and Mark, I suggest their needs really do derive from basic human needs of expression, fairness, recognition, understanding.

You know, like credit where credit is due.
The basic need to express oneself in a relatively free and unfettered manner.
A sense of justice.

We all need to think how this event has perhaps eclipsed or affected Mark and Richard and the perpetrators in a very severe way.

Consider how the perpetrators needs have been eclipsed: how are their needs expressed or not met in terms of this conflict. Tradition, accepted standards, recognition as local stewards of a resource, and etc.

This is how you expand the pie.
You try to see what components are in place.
You let the opponents do this and choose among themselves to come to a conclusion based upon an enriched and broader view of the various elements at play.
Ouch!

climber
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:36pm PT
There is an obvious solution here.

Give Locker two days to study the evidence presented here and then agree to abide by his decision.

Everyone is surely aware of his unerring accuracy in going straight to the heart of the matter.
Nefarius

Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:40pm PT
Tarbuster-- Right on! Awesome post! Although, it might be too rational for all of posting here to deal with! Myself included! =)

I'm going to meditate...

Cheers!
'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:49pm PT
Having spent considerable time with Mark and Richard, I can tell you what they don't want, and that is retribution, revenge or restitution. They have never spoken these words to me.

What they would want more than anything would be to meet the perpetrators face to face in order to offer them an olive branch. They would like nothing more than to make amends with former detractors.

Mark and Richard believe in reconciliation and forgiveness. However the tone of some of there posts is coloured with the pain and misunderstanding they have endured all these years.

The big question is, what if the person who wronged you refuses to apologize?
Hardman Knott

Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
Aug 6, 2006 - 03:58pm PT
The big question is, what if the person who wronged you refuses to apologize?


Uh...Move on?
Mimi

Trad climber
Seattle
Aug 6, 2006 - 04:18pm PT
The more information we get from this sordid saga leads one to believe that the said victims have some sort of Freudian jones for pooh (fecay). They just can't seem to let the pooh go. It must've been a potty-training thing.

It's kind of getting me queasy.

Time to check out the Blue Angels again!
Tarbuster

climber
right here, right now
Aug 6, 2006 - 04:30pm PT
Lois,
What you're suggesting may be a straightforward path to resolution. But keep in mind that it is more along the lines of an arbitration.

This is where a disinterested third party hears both sides and comes to a conclusion, which everyone lives with.

Keep in mind that Richard and Mark may not find the people you mention to be fit to serve in a neutral capacity.

The process of a mediation places the disputants in the driver's seat such that they fashion their own agreement. In this way it has quite the potential to stick.

That said, a combination of the two may work to serve our purposes. The initial steps at a mediation which involves a process wherein each side defines its interests, this I think is very applicable here. The next step of expanding an understanding of the elements at play is also a good one.

Pete,
The point you bring to bear is a very good one. It is more like a victim/abuser reconciliation program. In this sense, we need to decide or hear from Richard and Mark if the perpetrators alone qualify. My sense of this situation back in 1982, was that the community at large constituted the opponent that Mark and Richard were facing. And has it not expanded to include the media? Food for thought. If it is limited to the vandals then that simplifies things except that they will probably not come forward. We could perhaps use a conduit or spokesperson as LEB described.

As some have suggested, if this is limited to the vandals vs Mark and Richard, then any process is going to be difficult to engage.
Nefarius

Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
Aug 6, 2006 - 04:31pm PT
-- "The big question is, what if the person who wronged you refuses to apologize?

--Uh...Move on?"

At some point, this is the obvious answer, as it is the only, answer. I think it's pretty obvious, by now, that the "perps" aren't going to come forward, let alone be open to a dialogue that could end in an apology, or a "f*#k you guys, I'd do it again". Honestly, I'd be surprised if they even (truly) came forward in secret/anonymously. I think, in light of this, a lot of people are coming forward and the community is making a effort in their absense. Basically saying, "Hey, that sucked! While we weren't involved, we sympathize and here's an offering of our sympathy or acceptance or whatever"...

When Tarbuster says, "I suggest their needs really do derive from basic human needs of expression, fairness, recognition, understanding.

You know, like credit where credit is due.
The basic need to express oneself in a relatively free and unfettered manner.
A sense of justice."

He has really hit on to some things that they *do* desire. Even the sense of justice, which was a word above that Richard used quite a bit. They've both expressed to me, numerous times, the other things as being desirable. As far as a sense of retribution, it's human nature, even if only on a subconscious level. Who can blame them?

Being that they *are* religious men, it think the things LEB stated above may be their only option, as far as any reconciliation of feelings with/over the perps goes. I think the response and offering of the community will go a long ways towards helping them see this, as it gives them a lot of the other thigns they are seeking. As well, I think it provides some healing for them.
Tarbuster

climber
right here, right now
Aug 6, 2006 - 05:03pm PT
To my mind Lois, Nefarius, Pete, et al, here is what were seeing here and here is what we can likely expect:

I have more or less offered this up thread, so excuse me if I seem to be repeating myself.

The truth of the route has more or less been brought to light.
The historical context of its original reception is pretty well understood.
We know that it's negative reception had a lot to do with the fallacious reportage and propagation of the route as being a bolt ladder, rivet ladder, with holes and such.
I suspect it still would have had a hard time being accepted, even with the run outs, because of the blankness and the accepted aid climbing context of the day.

As times have changed, it appears most of the general community at large now doesn't see any problem with several pitches of very difficult hooking which is sparsely protected with bolts.

So the names of Mark and Richard have been more or less cleared in terms of their technical achievement. I vaguely recall now as I dig back deep in my memory that Rob Slater said these guys were way ahead of their time in terms of the hooking they did and that they were unnecessarily ostracized in light of this. I can try to talk to some good friends here in Boulder, who were very close to Rob and may remember some such specific sentiments or statements from Rob.

I think the reconciliation with the vandals can be brought about in terms of the defecation, through a spokesperson and perhaps privately by some of the vandals themselves, but not the chopping.

This would make a very interesting written piece of history and it could be published as has been suggested. This should serve some primary interests held by Mark and Richard.

I submit that the earnest analytical effort forwarded by many of the Super Topo posters can be received by Mark and Richard as a vast effort at contrition by the community in as much as it shows a genuine interest in clarifying the matter.


Ammon

Big Wall climber
El Cap
Aug 6, 2006 - 05:21pm PT


OMG, this whole WOS thing is still going? I don't have the time to read all the posts. I did climb the first two variation pitches to the left, what Pete likes to call the "bogus start". I got busy with work and had to put the project on hold.

I couldn't help but check out the original start while rapping down. It looked easier (to me) than the left start. Elcapfool might be right, Im probably not a good candidate for seconding the route. From what I have seen, the climbing is very challenging, BUT, it is very boring as well (to me). It took me a couple of hours to figure out where to go on the second pitch. I was standing in my aiders for twenty-five minutes trying to figure out what to do. To me, that is boring. From what I did see on the first two pitches was: It is NOT a bolt ladder like I previously thought. They used every possible features to climb the slab. No lack of balls, either. I took some pretty good rides and was impressed with how far they made their run-outs.

The one thing that still puzzles me about Pete is why he top-roped the first couple of pitches. Were you trying to get it dialed on top-rope so you can go back for the red-point? It's just a VERY strange method of figuring out an aid pitch. In aid, you either climb it or you don't. If you have to top-rope it, you have no business on that route. Just my opinion.

Just thought I would comment on this. Gotta go, ready, jump, relax, PULL!!! OH YEAH, got my AFF and going for my first solo.

Cheers, Ammon
Mimi

Trad climber
Seattle
Aug 6, 2006 - 05:44pm PT
Welcome back, Ammon! I trust you've had an awesome summer so far. Congrats on the AFF.

Pete is a very loyal subman and that explains his whimpy effort on the first couple pitches.

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a little TR today!
elcapfool

Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
Aug 6, 2006 - 06:37pm PT
Ammon,
I didn't mean you couldn't do it, just that is wasn't your bag.
I am glad you concur and didn't take offense.

As for Pete, we have a cease fire in place. And I'm reluctant to fire the first shot. It just gets my blood pressure up for nothing.


Christian
'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
Aug 6, 2006 - 10:26pm PT
Ammon writes,

"The one thing that still puzzles me about Pete is why he top-roped the first couple of pitches. Were you trying to get it dialed on top-rope so you can go back for the red-point?"

Pre-cisely! It was way too hard for me - I couldn't do it. I emailed Mark and Richard to tell them not to come, but they had already left. When they arrived, I told them of my decision, but they said, "you can do it, Pete - we'll show you some tricks."

So I went back up more or less to keep them happy. I thought maybe if I practised the moves and got them dialled, I might maybe just maybe be able to lead it. I told them I would practise to make the "headpoint" like the Brit climbers did for some of the hard gritstone routes - practise on toprope first, then go for the "headpoint" lead.

While I was up there - on toprope - I got so scared at the thought of being so run-out on such miniscule sick hook placements, I was almost sick to my stomach. I felt pretty pukey. I knew that if I tried to lead it, I would have been so scared I would have puked. NO THANKS!

Get this - thirty feet above the last bolt, and still four or five feet short of the belay anchors, I put a hook on a decent-looking edge. It held about five or ten seconds, then suddenly blew - a pop-tart-sized flake and a total timebomb! Thirty feet out, with a screamer on the bolt - you do the math. A seventy-footer, the Fall Of A Lifetime it would have been, bouncing off little ankle-breaker ledges. Forget that, man, we bailed for Cosmos. Only A4- or so, much more sensible.

I was simply unprepared to take the multiple fifty-foot-plus falls it will certainly take to make the second ascent. They took 'em on the first ascent, and it'll happen on the second. It will take Balls Of Steel, and I ain't got 'em. That pop-tart flake pretty much convinced me to get the heck off.

I only toproped the first pitch, after cheat-sticking my way up. I have not set foot on the second pitch. Tom jugged your fixed rope on the second pitch, after securing permission from your brother Gabe, to replace the anchors.

"It's just a VERY strange method of figuring out an aid pitch."

It's not strange, it's cheating.

"In aid, you either climb it or you don't. If you have to top-rope it, you have no business on that route. Just my opinion."

And that is why I bailed. I only went up as a sporting gesture to Mark and Richard.

Right, Ammon - YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!

We need you to get up there, suck it up, get psyched for those 50-foot falls that you will, not might, take, and give 'er! You've got 96 beers offered so far, and I'll throw in a 2-4 fer ya. So that's five cases, dude, for the SA of Wings of Steel.

Let's hear it for Ammon: Go Ammon Go!

It is Mark and Richard, not me, who refer to the left start as the Bogus Start. They climbed it after they climbed the right start [Legit Start] only becuause the perpetrators chopped the original Legit Start, and they didn't want to repeat it. So they climbed the Bogus Start with the sole intention of replacing the bolts and rivets on the Legit Start.

The first two pitches of the Legit Start [Legit joins Bogus halfway up the second pitch] have had the rivets and bolts replaced by Tom. So you're good to go.

Here is the beta:

NTB up to the first bolt and rivets. Traverse L was supposedly free climbed at 5.10, but it looks way way harder. I was able to hook L then down then up to the next bolt.

Virtually every hook placement is as marginal as you could [n]ever hope to use. Truly sick stuff! Wicked scary, barely able to support you. The tiniest miscalculation will send you on a big-time ride. You must be prepared to take long falls, because YOU WILL. It's that hard to figure out. I would consider some kind of "body armour" or something, but then you've taken a few fifty-footers already, so you know what to expect.

Continuing more or less straight up, you pass only two places on the entire pitch where you could leave a taped-down Chouinard Skyhook for pro. I sure as heck would. With the exception of the two hook moves very close to the ground before the head I placed, these are the only two normal hooks on the entire pitch.

The final runout to the anchors is truly desperate. 70-footer is not merely possible, but probable. Scared the piss out of me, and I was on a freakin' toprope. [I have a good imagination]

Crux of the route according to Mark and Richard is the beginning of the second pitch on the Legit [Right] start. Rivet at 10', rivet at 20', bolt at 40'.

Mark took a very bad Factor-2 fall here on the FA, yanking Richard in his hammock up into bolts. The Factor-2 destroyed the end of the rope, and they had to turn the rope around. Apparently it was all kinked from the force of the fall! So then Mark [or maybe Richard by this time] went back up, and took ANOTHER Factor-2, this time wrecking the other end of the rope.

The only [somewhat, not really] safe way to lead the second pitch, I think, would be to have a belayer hanging from a separate rope thirty feet or so below the anchor bolts. If you fell early on in the pitch, then the fall factor would be so much lower.

Use Fall Arresters on every piece! Use Yates Zippers on the bolts down low, use Yates Screamers on the bolts higher up the pitch, and use Yates Scream-Aids on all the rivets anywhere.

Note: As per Mark's and Richard's request, Tom replaced same with same - they are the Z-Mac rivets [the kind with the little nail you pound in the centre] and the box said they are rated for 375 pounds. Yates Scream-Aids deploy at 275 pounds consistently, and are now made with four passes instead of two. John Yates and I discussed this at length, and this is the way to go.

Incidentally, every aid climber climbing A3 and harder should own a bunch of Yates Fall Arresters, especially Screamers and Scream-Aids. They really do work, they make things safer because you will not fall as far because marginal gear will hold you, and you will feel safer and have a lot more fun!

You're the guy for the job, Ammon - if you don't do it, who the heck will, anyway? Please - for the sake of everyone with so much interest in this, for Mark and Richard, for me and for Tom who replaced the bolts, and mostly for the [so far] five cases of beer - GO CLIMB WINGS OF STEEL!

GO AMMON GO!

P.S. Great heckling from you and Bill Russell that night through the radio....
Gene

climber
Aug 6, 2006 - 11:55pm PT
The WOS saga, by Dr. John.

I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong time
I'd of said the right thing
But I must have used the wrong line
I been in the right trip
But I must have used the wrong car
My head was in a bad place
And I'm wondering what it's good for

I been the right place
But it must have been the wrong time
My head was in a place
But I'm having such a good time
I been running trying to get hung up in my mind
Got to give myself a little talking to this time

Just need a little brain salad surgery
Got to cure this insecurity
I been in the wrong place
But it must have been the right time
I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong song
I been in the right vein
But it seems like the wrong arm
I been in the right world
But it seems wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Slipping, dodging ,sneaking
Creeping hiding out down the street
See me life shaking with every who I meet
Refried confusion is making itself clear
Wonder which way do I go to get on out of here

I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong time
I'd have said the right thing
But I must have used the wrong line
I'd a took the right road
But I must have took a wrong turn
Would have made the right move
But I made it at the wrong time
I been on the right road
But I must have used the wrong car
My head was in a good place
And I wonder what it's bad for
MSmith

Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 6, 2006 - 11:59pm PT
Pete says: "Mark and Richard - Lois states the bottom line perfectly above. Please answer that question!"

Pete, Lois, Russ, Deuce, et al. Sorry for dropping out; just got back from a 3+ day trip with no Internet connection. Just reading the last 50 posts won't happen tonight. See you tomorrow night.

Cheers,
Mark
bringmedeath

climber
la la land
Aug 7, 2006 - 12:05am PT
F*#k climbing, you all just f*#king hate eachother for stupid sh#t. WHat the f*#k happened to climbing for fun? Don't add bolts but jsut climb for kicks? Is that lost? Stuff that happened before I was born is still this important? God sends death and misery for sure...
'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
Aug 7, 2006 - 12:28am PT
Hey - at least *I* climbed a couple walls this spring. And where were *you*??
bringmedeath

climber
la la land
Aug 7, 2006 - 12:46am PT
I was there in spirt! I now just climb it in my mind like a spirtuial experiance. I ascend upward in mind body and soul. My mind becomes one with the great captian and i just move upward and upard. You retired from free... i just flat out retired and still manage to climb all!
Messages 161 - 180 of total 193 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta