Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
The moving target syndrome:
1) Originally WoS is called a POS because it is a "bolt ladder," and the phrase "1000 bolts to Horse Chute" is coined. This bolt-ladder aspect of the route is the sole motivation cited by the SAR "gentlemen" for their actions and for the start of the smear campaign.
2) After the initial "discussion" at the rescue cache, the theme changes slightly. Finding that we are using rivets as well as bolts, the route is then called a rivet ladder. One word change; same motivational force.
3) Matt writes, presumptively speaking for the Valley locals at that time: "drilling up a featureless slab was itself the problem, and while assumptions or rumors about rivets or enhancements may have fanned the flames to some degree, the actual fire itself was the choice of the line." Yet, our "choice of line" was NEVER the point of contention as it was cast to us. Yaniro and Vance had tried the slab before us (as had another team, the names of which I have forgotten), and at one point Yaniro told me flatly that they quit because they couldn't see hanging there for the month it would take to work something out up that slab (much the same thing that Ammon is now saying).
During the rescue cache "discussion," the only point of contention we heard was that we were "drilling our way up the last great problem on El Cap." When we tried to convince anybody to simply walk up to the base, even ascend our fixed ropes, and have a look, this was rejected with the height of disdain. Instead we were told, "Do a bunch of El Cap routes first, or just do the Sea of Dreams, and prove that you can do the slab in good style, and then we'll take you seriously." We replied, "Just look at what's there now, and you'll have enough evidence to take what we're doing seriously." But this repeated suggestion/plea fell on deaf ears. Again and again the refrain is that we are simply "drilling a ladder up the great slab." And Matt even now refers to it when he uses the phrase "drilling up featureless slab." So the issue was clearly stated even then that it was WHO we were, not WHAT our line was that had the Valley boys so angered.
4) Slater ascends our first five pitches and clarifies that the route is not the rumored bolt/rivet ladder. He states that it has the most technical hooking he has ever seen and is a bold and legitimate route. He is resoundingly ignored, although he had done enough of the routes of the era to make a fair comparison. So, clearly even a half-slab ascent by a credible climber cannot offset the weight of "overbolting" slander by this point. Still the issue remains that the route is a "ladder up the slab." What does it matter if there are a "few" hard hook moves between a sea of bolts/rivets? It's still a bolt/rivet ladder, regardless of what Slater says!
Meyers echoes this SAME refrain in his guidebook when he refers to our 145 holes in "1200" feet of climbing, when actually we had 145 holes in about 1800 feet of climbing (which, when you're doing hole-ratios, puts us at a better ratio than than the vaunted Sea itself!). And WoS is the ONLY route in the guide that was downgraded sight-unseen and that has the diminutive description, "Note: there are many rivets on this route." Even Meyers can't BEAR to let our "overdrilling" pass without "note" in the guidebook--such is the force of the original justification for the ire of the Valley boys.
5) Looking at the original threads, you will find many references to "bolting excessively" and so forth, but you will not find references to our "bad style" other than that and the time we spent (with the garbage that produced). So, "bad style" and "overbolting" go hand in hand until these threads start to develop.
6) Finally, two undeniably credible teams go up on the thing and they find no "overdrilling." Just as we had said, and as Slater had said, they find very bold and technical hooking between widely-spaced drilled placements. Suddenly, the whole house of cards that was founded on the original lie is about to be blown away.
7) With the "bolt/rivet ladder" motif now essentially gutted, those on these threads still supporting the poor, embattled Valley locals turn to the issue of "enhancements." Comparing our "enhancements" to those used on other well-known routes, they fixate on our supposed "many," while minimizing the relative "few" found on these other routes. Again, the idea of "using the drill" to get up is the issue, only now it is subtly recast to move the target from bolts/rivets to something like a "drill dependent route" in some vague sense.
The idea is floated that, "Burton and Sutton, with the Magic Mushroom, came in with their own independent experience and logged an outstanding new route, under the noses of the locals if need be said, but they did it by playing the 'accepted rules' by linking features." So, now WoS is still cast as a POS because it is drilling dependent in "some way" that Magic Mushroom was not: MM used "features," while WoS did not. In this move, the clever side effect is to minimize the "bowing down to the locals" motif that originally justified a good deal of the locals' ire, but on these threads has quickly been seen as unacceptable elitism (and the more unjustifiable since the Valley is really unlike any "local" climbing area anywhere on Earth, which makes the SAR guys no more "locals" in virtue of the mere longevity of their stay than any number of "visitors" who get away with stays longer than is allowed by law).
So, to continue justifying the poor Valley boys' unendurable offense at our efforts, the fact that the MM team ALSO "thumbed their noses" at the Valley boys is minimized because, in effect, "at least they chose a great line that ANYBODY could see was legit, because it ascended 'features.'" Of course, the fact that the MM team caught flak ANYWAY, which shows the extent to which the underlying problem was, as Harding properly said, "Dogs pissing on trees," is now totally minimized in favor of the idea that our choice of "blank" line was the whole problem.
8) With the issue now firmly focused on "enhancements," the idea has been and continues to be floated that EVERY ascent team will have to make their own "enhancements" to get up the slab, which means that the route is "unrepeatable" in "good style" and will "actually be harder for the SA team than it was for the FA team." We fairly well buried the enhancement issue hundreds of posts back, but here it surfaces again. And well it should, because it is the SOLE basis upon which the claim of a "drill dependent" route up a "blank" slab can be maintained.
Of note on this point is that, again, a moving target, we were repeatedly told, "If you go up and do the Sea, then we'll know you're legit, and you'll get no more trouble from us." And, "You guys have got no soul." When asked what "soul" was and how we could get ourselves some, the Valley boys would always tout the Bird as the bearer of soul (as Long continues to do in his book), and that doing HIS routes would give us this sorely lacking soul. NOW, JM writes: "Comparisons have been made to the manufactured difficulty as practiced by one of the greatest big wall climbers of all time, namely Jim Bridwell. But notable is that many other first ascentionists of the era were purists who eschewed "enhancements" on the rock to maintain difficulty." I'm baffled by this ad hoc argument, since nothing resembling it can be found in history, so it cannot be used, as attempted, to explain the pathos of the Valley boys, and what JM is NOW in effect stating is that even though the Bird is "one of the greatest big wall climbers in history," we CAN'T look to his "greatness" as ANY sort of examplar of how to do a route "right!"
To WHOM can we look for our desperately needed soul??? It apparently CAN'T be found on Bridwell routes, as we were so confidently told lo these many years ago. But, NOW JM makes the exact same argument as the early Valley boys, except that... moving target... we SHOULDN'T look to Bridwell as our example. We should look... well, elsewhere, because, doggon it, there are certainly some unenhanced routes on the Captain (in fact, undoubtedly JM himself is just such a purveyer of purity), so, if we want soul we had better go check THEM out instead!
Problem now is that NOBODY who has "enhanced" at the microscopic level we did it will ever admit to it, because "don't tell about what can't be seen" must be the obvious working motto now! "Just look at what the Mad Bolters are going through, and none of it would have happened if they would have just kept their stupid mouths shut about what you can't see anyway!" So, how "pure" are these NOW touted routes really?
Is JM really going to float the claim that neither he nor any of the other "prophets of purity," as Harding would call them, have tapped an offending crystal off of the back of an otherwise perfect ledge (using a hammer pick or drill tip, as though that distinction matters!)? If so, I say, "My big fat horse's Greek wedding!" I simply refuse to believe such an unsustainable claim, because EVERYBODY has "cleaned" out the back of a copperhead slot before planting the head home, and we did FAR less than that when we "enhanced!" Fess up, JM, YOU have "enhanced" on your own routes to the same or greater extent than we did on WoS. The only difference is that, as Pete says, we were stupid enough to outright admit what we did! You probably won't be as stupid, but this line of argumentation certainly is!
Bottom line is that "enhancements" were a WELL-known part of the game at that time and have been long before and always since. This has never been some "developing issue" like Bachar hanging from a hook while drilling on a free route! The Bird et al was doing it from early on, and all other FA teams were also to varying degrees. Regardless of this current rendition of this "issue," this issue was NOT in play when the poor Valley boys were stumping to justify their slander, and it's a pathetic and utterly ad hoc argument now. We are being singled out for special scrutiny on this issue, and the reason goes all the way back to the original and now totally debunking idea that we were "drilling our way up the slab." Take that myth out of the picture, and you have NO more reason to get in a froth about our FEW, microscopic, invisible "enhancements than EVERY other El Cap route put up in the last 35 years.
If JM et al can compare what we did on WoS with the literally countless "enhancements" that "linked the features" of the Sea together, then I can't find enough common ground to continue that "discussion" on any level. Unlike the few and unnoticeable microscopic "touch-ups" we did, the Sea and the P.O. wall (just as two examples) were "enhanced" bottom to top with manufactured "ledges" where nothing usable existed before, straight in holes on shallow, useless "bulges" to hold hooks (in effect uncounted bat hooks), trenched heads in blank corners, etc.
9) But this leads to the crucial current point, and this is where the target has moved to NOW: what counts as a "feature" that can be "linked up" to form a "legitimate" route. Now, keep in mind HOW far we have come from the original justification for the "threat" that the poor, poor Valley boys felt they had to defend against. Bolt ladder doesn't work. Rivet ladder doesn't work. "Drilling our way up a featureless slab" doesn't work. "Choice of line" doesn't work (remember, Valley boys tried it first, using our very tactics), and, historically, this was never an argument they employed. So, now, decades after the FACT of an utterly groundless refusal to even LOOK at the route (because we had no soul, so there was no point), NOW we finally turn to subtle stylistic issues that have to do with exactly what is legitimate to do on a slab.
I repeat, if THIS issue was in play in ANY minds at that time, it was never expressed to us, and we certainly had ample opportunity to hear the Valley boys' side of what was bugging them, because they found countless opportunities to tell us about it! But these guys simply weren't thinking in subtle terms like this at that time, and my proof of this fact is obvious: look at how long it's taken us on these threads to really get down to this very issue! And THAT is with serious attempts at discussion and understanding that were utterly lacking at that time!
Moving target, all along and until now. But, the question remains: WHAT does it take for WoS to not remain a POS in the minds of these defenders of the poor embattled Valley boys?
Well, I'm convinced at this point that some folks here cannot be convinced by any means. So attempting that is an exercise in futility. But what I think CAN happen is that the majority of reasonable people here can see that any ire at WoS now JUST IS purely stylistic, where by "stylistic" I mean something like an undefinable "ick" factor that is entirely subjective and NOT normative.
So, it has been handed to the Valley boys on a silver platter that they were defending "something that they saw as sacred," yet when you strip away all the layers of smoke screen and outright lies, what you find is that their TURF is what was sacred to them! And regarding THAT, we did not "thumb our noses" at them but instead tried to dialog at ever opportunity (as even our critics have admitted), and TRIED to explain that we really were sensitive to the issues, but that without "bowing down to them" or acknowledging them as "gatekeepers" of some sort. And in THAT response, we are part of a notable tradition going all the way back.
So, let's get to the current issue, and recognize that it IS a current issue: what counts as "features" that can be "linked together" is the issue remaining here. Most climbers clearly value a more or less "climb by the numbers" route, where they don't have to really think things through for themselves past a certain point, and where SPEED is of very high value. Now, I'm not in any way dissing that set of values, but let's at least recognize them for what they are! When you're used to having as your "decision" on a route coming down to whether or not to go with a beak or a rurp in the obvious seam there that everybody else has clearly been using, it IS a whole different ballgame to look at three flakes and say, "Which one is most likely to hold me, and which one is most likely to ship me back out of here for fifty or so feet?" Even the "hard hooking routes" don't require decisions at that level. Yet, a large part of what MAKES such hooking routes "hard" is that they start approaching that level of decision-making.
Obvious legitimacy is found in climbing a crack from the ground to the top. "Here's a one-inch crack. Ok, what one-inch gear should I use now to fill it? Rinse and repeat." Linking cracks with some drilling also has a long tradition. Linking cracks with enhanced hooks enjoys a long tradition that long predates WoS. Linking short seams with drilling and with enhanced hooks enjoys a long tradition. The Bird even joked that what made the P.O. Wall special was that the features were SO tiny that "there is nothing to hide your ass in." And that trend has only continued, as the "connectable features" have gotten smaller and smaller and more and more sparsely placed.
WoS didn't make some quantum leap down this road, as some are suggesting. There are actually LOTS of features on the route that are neither hooking or drilling dependent. The slab is FAR from "blank" as this latest argument tries to sustain. We merely took an existing trend and extended it onto even smaller features. Instead of it being obvious which flakes to hook, you have to really think it through, and your choices actually are really likely to have consequences. The drilling DOES link "features" exactly as has been done on many other routes. The features are just much, much smaller than what had been called a "feature" before.
And this point has been argued before, by clearly bears repeating, WoS is not just a matter of using the same Leeper narrow over and over again until something pulls. Mark and I, and Ammon, can attest (and Slater could) that you can FIGURE OUT what will work best. It is a long, slow (perhaps "tedious") process, but you CAN get good at it, and as you develop skill in choosing flakes on that slab, you will take fewer falls. But this will still never be the same sort of choice as whether to go with a one-inch TCU or a one-inch tri-cam in that one-inch crack (and where even that decision is often made for you by what gear is left on your rack).
So, the current argument suggest the WoS is STILL a POS (for VERY different reasons than has been floated in years past), but it is now a POS because it's a "tedious" or "contrived" line, which just means that it is not a climb by the numbers line. But, it IS a line, nevertheless. We did NOT just head up there willy-nilly tossing hooks up to see what if anything would catch and drilling if nothing did. We had line drawings of a scoped-out line, much of the slab follows entirely traditional features, and even our choice of which lines of flakes to employ was done to minimize drilling in EXACTLY the same way such choices have ever been made. The fact that our choices were less obvious and more micro than macro is a ridiculous basis upon which to claim that the route is illegitimate.
And regardless of who this point convinces or fails to convince, at the very least let's not rewrite history and try to claim that the "dogs pissing on trees" were anywhere CLOSE to this sophisticated in their thinking. The endless refrain of "bolt ladder," Grossman's own published assertion that the route was overbolted, and the very development of these threads themselves prove that no such thinking was taking place back then!
Harding, with his penetrating wit, got it right way back years ago, and his insight sums up the issue then and now. For the die-hards that are just determined to bash the route even now, all I can say is, "Just keep moving that target," but at least be honest and admit that it's getting more and more ad hoc as time goes by.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
LEB, God I am sympathetic (and unsuccessful at duplicating your success) regarding the wordiness issue!
I REALLY appreciate your suggestions. At this point, I don't believe that the perps will ever "have the sac" to come forward, but I do believe that MUCH has been accomplished in these threads, with many thanks (genuinely heartfelt) to the honest participants!
While I would still love to see the ideal done, I am aware that we live in a less than ideal world. So, I'll keep hoping in the back of my mind for some "sac," but it's not going to affect me going forward it it doesn't materialize.
Just the genuine, honest efforts of people like you have gone FAR toward removing my angst about the whole thing, and for that I am grateful!
I'm sure that there will continue to be discussions going forward, but for my part I honestly believe that these discussions will be productive and fruitful, rather than merely (at least apparently) vindictive and defensive. I believe that a fair and balanced article is in the works, and I think that its very publication will indicate a sea-change on the part of the mags. In short, I am sensing a level of closure to the whole affair that I didn't think possible even a matter of weeks ago.
For that I sincerely thank you and the many others like you.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
Madbolter writes:
"JM, YOU have "enhanced" on your own routes to the same or greater extent than we did on WoS."
Pretty bold accusation towards someone you have never met, or climbed any of my routes.
If you think my ethics on the big stones were the same as yours, you are clearly wrong. It was a point of honor among myself and my peers never to create manufactured difficulty, as you appear to have done.
As I once heard on El Cap from a retreating party, "Off belay, ASSHOLE!"
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
No, not bold, JM, just being an obvious realist. YOUR version of what counts as "manufactured" will clearly filter out whatever you have done, but will just happen to capture what we did on WoS. But I assert that there is no difference in principle between you taking the pick of your hammer (even once) to the back of a copperhead placement before placing it (or any of countless other ways you can move a tiny bit of rock around) and the FEW tiny bits of rock we moved on WoS. Ever scraped away a loose, dangling bit of flake from the side of a seam??? At the microscopic level we're talking about, it is (I'm sorry) impossible for me to believe that you have never, ever, not even ONCE moved a SINGLE bit of rock out of the way for a placement. I don't have to know you or your routes to know that such is a simply outrageous assertion to try to sustain. You may get a few or many to believe it, but I won't be among them. At least I have been blatantly honest.
Far better to just admit the reality that aid climbing IS intentional "modification" on so many levels that the game of deciding what is "legit" and what is not is a very personal sliding scale that has little objective going for it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Sorry, Kofi. Actually I am FAR from bitter or old. In charity, how about looking at the volumes I must respond to. I think there's a few more than 31 paragraphs of responses to me before I respond again. So, I do what I can to keep things as short as possible, while addressing the issues, AND attempt to at least write well enough to keep a person engaged. If the "engaged" part is lost on you, again I'm sorry.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
LEB, I think you make a good point about physical publication. The problem now is the matter of "choosing the jury," so to speak.
You mention Werner, Tarbuster, Walling, Sir Bird, Karl Baba, Breedlove, and Ed H with Jaybro serving as the alternative. With all respect, and I mean that, I do not agree that this represents "no finer panel of judges to hear the evidence and render a fair 'verdict.'"
Bridwell, may, for example be really pissed that I refer to modifications on his routes, missing the point I have tried to make that his routes are GREAT regardless of what a consistent "prophet of purism" would be forced to say. I think most people would clearly sense the reasons I would have for not being comfortable with having people who insist to this very day that the route is a POS (namely, Werner and Russ) be on the supposedly objective panel. I have no reason in particular to distrust the others, but neither have I any special reason to trust them. Tarbuster has seemed generally very reasonable to me, but I simply don't know him. The very fact that you (I'm sure very unintentionally) load the "court" with some people that I have obvious reason to be concerned about makes me (and I hope makes you) realize that "choosing the jury" will be a monumental task in itself.
I must also ask why people like Randy, Tom, and Pete (who have actually BEEN on the route, unlike all the others you suggest) are absent from the "jury." How fair and unbiased will this be? It seems obvious to me that people who have actually been on the route should weigh in with some actual weight on the panel you suggest.
I'm sure you see the problem.
I remain very grateful for your continued efforts, and, seriously, your point about the transitory nature of these threads is very well taken!
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
This is so exciting. You've met Lois!
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
Lois, just as an observation, picking folks that you know in ST land to 'judge' may or may not have anything to do with the folks that really matter in getting closure on this issue. In my case, I am not a good candidate because I was not a Big Wall aid climber, this happened after I left the Valley, and it involves folks that I have only heard of but do not know. I don't have any of the credentials to judge any of this.
Also, I think that your suggestion for a panel to ‘judge’ all the issues is not really likely. I think Russ just made the same point.
I haven't followed any of these debates and have only read Russ' summary, but generally the wounds that remain open are associated with the issue of respect--not the physical actions. In the climber's world there are no law books to consult to define crimes and punishments. I think Werner said recently that we are on an 'honor system.'
I am sure that I am repeating points already made--I'll make amends and read the posts (if there has been a change in attitude towards WoS because of posting on ST, I am definitely interested in the effect of the Forum on a live climbing issue)--but the only thing that will work is to focus on the route itself: if it is a proud route that was ahead of its time, everyone one will move on. If it written up by a good writer with a good historical voice that everyone can listen to, the wrongs will be righted.
This sounds exactly the opposite from what we all say when we talk about first principals of style, but in climbing, historically, the ends justify the means.
So, if I read the following posts will I know what this is about?
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=72849#msg113855
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=234030&f=35&b=0
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=114602#msg116278
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=231718&f=0&b=0
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=234216&f=0&b=0
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 01:35pm PT
|
WoS guy, LEB, etc....
Don't get caught up in this "jury" fantasy. It just ain't gonna happen. Best you can hope for is some mag will publish a piece and it will include snippets from these hundreds of posts.
Locker style edit:
LEB.... you have found your way here... keep it short. There are already too many words in this one.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Ok, SueV, that's just not fair! I almost died laughing!
LEB, I can no longer say anything complimentary to you. Are we clear on this? (BTW, what's the "EB" stand for?)
I will think on it. Russ may be right, but it is a fun fantasy, and I'll try to think on it like it might be reality.
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
This story is such a classic example of revisionist history. No amount of whining and chestbeating will change the fact that what you did and how you did it was wrong.
If you geeks showed up in the Valley today with that ridiculous amount of gear, your bonehead attitude, and lack of previous wall experience, I believe you'd be run out on a rail by many of the same guys who are sympathetic to your whining now.
You have written so much in your defense and I've tried keeping up with it. Have you ever had the depth of character to acknowledge that what you did was a colossal mistake?!
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 01:53pm PT
|
LEB: too many words already.
Reading the posts and having a panel all sounds fine and dandy.... but....
The panel can only read the words. They have not done the route. They were probably not there at the time. The WoS guys have had their say, the "poor Valley Boys" have had their say (at least the 4 or so that are actually here) and then what is the panel to do? Decide the merits of a 25 year old problem from a he said she said manifesto?
"ladies and gentlemen... the panel has reached a verdict...... The WoS guys are the baddest asss wall climbers ever and their route is the hardest in the world." Satisfied WoS guys? Didn't think so. We still have no apologies, we still have no shitters tied to a stake with fire under their heels, and some opinions have still not changed.
Carry on with your fantasy..... this thing ain't going anywhere.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
wow, this is unbelieveable.
regarding JM, you haven't climbed any of his routes, and yet you profess to be certain of his tactics? maybe you are out of line there, just maybe. and since you are by all accounts unhappy w/ the judgement of the community in the 80's, you may have to put up w/ continued inquiry from people who weren't there at the time.
first of all, i'm not trying to attack you here, honestly, but you seem to have this tunnel vision (from my perspective anyway) where you see yourself in this place of vindication, and everyone else is just making excuses for not being there with you. at the same time, you brush by certain things or dismiss them as resolved in one way or another. in the eyes of many, that hurts your credibility. maybe you need to make each of these points one time, very very clearly and completely (i.e. not ranting or otherwise being what can fairly be described as bitter or defensive). in that way, you would be able to refer back to that specific instance as having addressed said point. when you do that now, all you can point back to is one rant or another, which quicly becomes a pettern for someone looking back at your previous posts. just a thought, not sure if i've made it well enough.
back to the unbelieveable- this whole concept of "microscopic" modofocation bothers me. what the f*#k is that? i'll tell you what it looks like from here- that is very clearly the intentional use of descriptive language to minimize the impact of or diminish the signifigance of the subject at hand. it's microscopic, so you can't see it, and therefore it is of no importance, it cannot be verified or quantified in any way, and the point is moot, move on.
perhaps more honestly stated, you aren't aware when you are looking at "it" that "it" is not natural.
drawing upon your massive reserve of academic integrity, if i cannot visually identify something, is that the same thing as being microscopic? or is that the intentional masking of an issue w/ language?
tell us this much- did you have a f*#king microscope out?
were you able to visually verify, without any sort of magnification, that whatever modification you had made was complete, and satisfactory to your goal or intent? i think you get my point (although i'd expect that you are likely to dismiss it via either the now familiar "moving target" or "vast conspiracy/smear campaign" complaint).
now then, moving up from what we are agreed is not really any sort of "microscopic" manufactured enhancement-
did you use a sewing needle?
or a high grade stainless steel surgical impliment?
or a tooth brush?
or a wire brush?
or the tip of a drill?
or a chisel?
or a hammer?
or a hammer and a chisel?
nobody knows.
how would we know?
we have to take your word for it (if you are ever clear about it), and given your choice of language, perhaps we can surmise that you might be inclined to continue to unintentionally minimize, w/ language, it extent of said impacts. one thing is clear, that without said impacts, you felt that you couldn't do it, thus the modification, isn't that right?
so, do you expect that said modifications still exist today, in an equally acceptable state, wrt enabling the move to "go"?
if not, do you expect/accept that the 2nd ascent (per JMs comment above) will be done also w/ some amount of modification on the part of the leader?
if you remove yourself from you deep rooted emotional involvement in all of this, simply as an exercise in logic, can you not see my point at all? or are you just being unfairly attacked again?
you have written pages and pages about how you have been the victim, but only briefly described, and generally described in a fully dismissive manner, your intentional modifications to the rock. you accept them as "part of the game" and claim that "everybody does it". yet JM just stated quite clearly that is not always the case, it was just what you accepted as the norm.
did you ask yaniro if he was leading w/ a chisel in his pocket?
seriously.
you were drawing that parallel, was it really parallel?
i'm just asking.
why don't you draw on all of that rigid academic principle (as described in the other thread) and be very clear about what you used to chip or chisel, how you used it, and exactly how often it was used? i think people would like to know.
now then, when and if that particular point is ever clear, asking you about something else won't necessarily be a moving target, it will simply be asking you about something else...
oh one last thing- sorry- but you mentioned that some sort of concensus was building, regarding your route? are you basing that on a dozen or so posts on some internet forum somewhere that say "gee, i didn't know that, sounds like they got a raw deal"? let me tell you about what happens once these posts drop off the page for a week or two...
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
"We still have no apologies, we still have no shitters tied to a stake with fire under their heels, and some opinions have still not changed.
Carry on with your fantasy..... this thing ain't going anywhere."
Truer words were never spoken.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 02:14pm PT
|
LEB: don't troll this thread.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
in a past post i commented that you guys refuse to take any resopnsibility at all for whatever part you played, and that in many ways you chose your own path.
mimi notes that all this is nothing more than revisionist history, and russ predicts that none of this will ever go anywhere (i agree).
so here's my question for ya:
ever wish you had just run up sea of dreams 1st?
i mean, it seems pretty ironic that these "valley boys" you refer to wanted you to do that 1st in good style, but you refused, and then you just did it afterward.
go back in time and switch the order, and how does that change your lives?
wasn't it your own unwillingness to budge on that demand that paved the way for all of this? you complain about moving targets and the like, you say you asked them to inspect your route, etc., but you also say they told you what they wanted to see, and you were unwilling. hindsight? (what's another week when you are spending a month and a half already)
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
Lois, with all due respect, involving yourself in this thread when you should be studying is really not a good idea although it is a wonderful thing that you've met Richard.
Your SuperTaco addiction is nearing intervention threshold. Log out, go get a smoothie and hit the books. Someday soon, like after grades are in, you're going to regret the time you're wasting here.
Time to get back to work, I'm out!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"It was a point of honor among myself and my peers never to create manufactured difficulty, as you appear to have done."
John, this pains me more than a bit, but I have to take exception to this statement. Aside from the use of the innuendo-laden "appear to have done" (given what we now know of the route) and simply sidestepping answering whether you "micro-enhanced" routes (relative to the scope of the route) on any regular basis, I have to say that "manufactured difficulty" smacks of just the "moving target" Richard is talking about. Big stone or small, I believe there are times when the choice of route alone largely dictates the mode of travel - and WOS appears to me to be just such a route. Are you really attempting to say someone (say you or Ammon) could travel up that apron anywhere in the vicinity of WOS and somehow employ a significantly different mode of travel or a significantly different style of aid? I have a very hard time believing that based on everything I've read in these threads.
What it sounds like and comes across as is you are essentially saying then, from my admittedly remote perspective, is the apron shouldn't have been climbed at all, or shouldn't have been climbed by Richard and Mark. I personally see no other alternative interpretation for the quote above as there is nothing about the difficulty of the climb that was "manufactured" by anything but the choice of route from what I can see. If there is some other way to climb the apron in the vicinity of WOS with unmanufactured difficulty I'd very much like to hear exactly how that would be done.
[LEB: Again, you have some interesting things to say here and there, but regardless of who invited you here you should consider slowly backing up towards the door. Russ is right - it isn't going to happen and you have no idea what you're involved with here...]
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
mimi-- I realize that no one else has given the time of day to any of your posts, in this thread or the others, and that mine is only going to fan the flames, but hey, fvck it. I just came out of a meeting with the rest of management and am in a bad mood now. So the self control I've been exercising is gone, and I do tend to speak what a lot of others are only thinking.
You're a sarcastic beaver, aren't you? Just makes me wonder who enhanced your route to make you so bitter...
And before you chime in DMT, yes, I realize its another troll... remember the office thing I mentioned... =)
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 02:37pm PT
|
LEB: You missed madbolters point (he was joking and *can* talk to you) and you are continually regurgitating your position. Let me put this another way.... STFU for while. Don't like me telling you to STFU? Start another thread, tell me how I should not tell anyone to STFU in 50,000 word or less, but keep it out of here.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!