Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 99 of total 99 in this topic |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 9, 2006 - 02:33pm PT
|
From: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=235868&f=0&b=0
Mimi writes:
While I acknowledge that I've been in-your-faces, I don't think anyone owes you guys an apology. Are we supposed to simply forget what you guys did and let it slide because it was 25 years ago and climbers have again confirmed that two of the pitches on your route are difficult?
Are we supposed to just shrug off what your vertical circus represented to climbing then and still does today? Yes, we're a community alright. And we wouldn't get so fired up about these issues if we didn't care so much about the very resource that brings us together.
As I said in XXIV, this is still about honesty on your part, nevermind the details about the sky-camping you engaged in for 39 days.
Entering this thread as late as I did, I never saw where you specifically responded to the text below. As I stated earlier:
Just one question to clarify this whole thing in terms of what the second ascent party should hope to find on the route in its entirety. In your original article, WOS: Living in the Sky (Climbing, 1983) you reported that the route required 145 drilled placements including 75 rivets and 39 anchor bolts.
If you consider every hook placement touched by a drill, does this whole count still hold up or exactly where are things at this point?
Peace and love,
Mimi
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 02:35pm PT
|
Since you seem determined to keep "it" flying, I will respond to you here rather than in the other thread where such a discussion is obviously inappropriate. My response follows in the next post.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
mb1 - Why not just give mimi your approval to repeat the route adding any fixed gear that he feels is necessary, and skipping anything that he does not feel is necessary? Then he can report back his results. While there he can count up everything that they find.
|
|
atchafalaya
Trad climber
California
|
|
2 steps backward, and you had been making progress.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 02:49pm PT
|
The numbers that appear in my book as well as in the article you quote are correct. No, those numbers do not reflect "every time the drill touched the rock." If that somehow torques you, then I don't take it seriously until THIS challenge has been met:
JM has admitted that it is common practice (even by himself) to knock flakes off to make room for placements. He seems to suggest that this is infrequent. I want an ACCURATE tally (along with some reason to think that he has any clue)!
You have accused me of "insulting" JM, so I want the quote where I supposedly "insult" him. And YOU tout him as your own prophet of purism. So, to you I say: unless you can produce for me an ACCURATE tally of "every time the drill touched the rock" AND every time the pick of a hammer touched the rock "to remove a flake" for any reason on, say, his last two routes, then it becomes PAINFULLY obvious that you are attempting to hold Mark and I to a higher standard of honesty, memory, AND "purity" than you demand of your own heroes.
Do YOU ever climb, much less put up FA's? IF so, then I want that tally from you as well, and I want to know what route this tally represents.
If you're not ready to produce a NAME for yourself, what routes you have EVER done (especially FA's), AND the modification tally (remember: EVERY time you moved ANY bit of rock, however TINY, in order to help or make a placement happen!) for yourself and for your hero's routes, then you are just spewing and not worth any further response.
|
|
nvrws
climber
|
|
Ouch, Rich. But.. ya know sometimes ya just call a spray a spray.
Mimi, I/we are waiting....
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
re: No, those numbers do not reflect "every time the drill touched the rock." If that somehow torques you, then I don't take it seriously until THIS challenge has been met...
it would seem to be a better fit your own personal model of integrity and forthrightness, to be honest and open about your own route and your own tactics, despite what JM, bridwell, zippy the pinhead, or anyone else does or has done on lead.
i do understand that you feel attacked, but i'd still ask you to reconsider the "tit for tat" approach.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 03:45pm PT
|
Matt, we have already been more "honest and open" about every minute detail of our ascent than anybody ever has, and we have already responded carefully and forthrightly to more scrutiny than has ever been leveled at another FA.
We simply cannot remember in more detail than we have expressed the FEW and tiny modifications we made. I continue to call this a "tempest in a teapot" because EVERYBODY does far more than we did on EVERY FA in history, yet nobody takes seriously the constant rock modification that goes on... except in our case.
So, this is no "tit for tat" mentality I have. I am honestly asking for our critics to step up to the exact same plate they have asked from us. WE have honestly attempted to provide answers, but my exchange with JM makes clear that this whole "plate" is moveable and bogus. We simply did NOT "drill our way up the slab" as has been suggested, despite the FEW times we knocked a crystal off of a ledge.
There are routes that are "heavily modified," with trenched heads, bathooks, manufactured ledges, and so forth; and of such routes it can justly be said that they are "manufactured routes" and that "heavy-handed use of the drill" was employed. WoS is simply (and obviously, if you go there and look at it) not such a route. Trying to count up a few tiny, invisible, and utterly insignificant "modifications" in an attempt to MAKE the route seem like a "modified route" still does not make it into a "manufactured route," and my point has always been that our very forthrightness on this issue has made it seem like more of an issue than it is.
I'm still waiting for those tallies....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 05:30pm PT
|
Ok, John, in the apology thread you saw fit to sort of respond to my "inquisition on [your] style and routes." First, there is no "inquisition," and it is highly ironic that you refer to my request for you to stand at your own plate to be an "inquisition," when you have been one of the primary ones (and certainly the most credible one) calling us out about our modifications. Now, I simply ASK for you to accomplish the exact same thing with the same level of forthrightness, accuracy, and detail as you have repeatedly DEMANDED, and it's an "inquisition???" Too funny.
I know others here think of you as a hero or god, but your own post reveals YOU don't think of yourself that way, and so I don't offer you any special homage either. I have never insulted you, but neither have I treated you with "bowing and scraping." If you want to call me out about modifications, I will simply ask you to play the same game.
And GAME it is! This whole "issue" is the stupidest part of the whole WoS debacle. But, people like you seem unable to let this aspect of the ascent slip into the insignificance it is justly entitled to, so let me remind you of some history you seem to have forgotten in your statement: "Bridwell was of the 70's era in Yosemite. In the 80's, with folks like Walt Shipley and Steve Grossman, there was a bona fide, deep philosophical search for a higher form." Although, even you admit that things went to hell in a handbasket in the 90's. So, on your model, there was this little window of purity, right in the 80's, and we came RIGHT THEN and peed on it. Problem is, there was no such nice little window.
Bridwell a 70's climber???
How about Zenyatta Mondatta? Put up in 81, less than a year before WoS. Many ADMITTED modifications (modification TOUTED as better than drilling!).
How about The Big Chill? Put up in 87. I can't say for sure, but I've heard (and, given the above, have every reason to expect), using similar tactics.
And I think you're drawing a pretty arbitrary line to say that the Sea was a 70's route, as though that 70-80 decade line made some amazing new paradigm emerge out of nowhere. The (very modified) Sea was put up a mere four years before WoS. Certainly NOT a "sea change" (no pun intended) there!
So, let's move on to Shipley (not to speak ill of the dead, because I am not 'speaking ill' of him; I am not the one who thinks that drilling is the great evil that some do.) Native Son was done in 87. Hmmm... the Machine Headwall??? Two straight pitches of rivets??? Over 100 holes in 15 new pitches??? Doesn't strike me as a clear-cut example of the 80's quest for a new standard of purity you are espousing!
I honestly could go on and on. You say: "I hope that someone, someday remembers the 80's era for what it was. Despite your best efforts to convince people on this forum that everyone on the big stones were all up there doing the same thing, bashing and chipping and chisselling our way up the big stone where ever convienient, it is simply not true." As though I am the one who is trying to paint this totally distorted picture of how the 80's REALLY were.
Well, I don't know what "everybody" was doing, but I do know that there are many, many evidences that the 80's were a "window of purity" only in your own mind.
I will be the first to admit that we all see things through our own filters, but YOU need to come clean with the same thing, John. YOUR sanitized perspective of the 80's is not somehow special because YOU are the (whoa) JM! You've been around, that is true. But your perspective of the fabulous purity of the 80's is not refected in the many historical FACTS of the totallity of what was actually done then! You might single out a few guys like yourself, Grossman, and Shipley as especially "pure," but to call the Bird a 70's climber, just to get him out of your target window is pretty distorted in its own right, and even Shipley was not as "pure" as you are making him out to be.
The whole point here is that YOU have singled out our VERY FEW and invisible "modifications" for special condemnation, yet you are utterly inconsistent to do so! You yourself have modified, and there was a LOT of drilling and chipping going on both before and after WoS. I maintain that we did FAR less of it on WoS than on MOST routes that were going up in the 80's, your filtered version of the 80's notwithstanding.
I DO, honestly, respect the purity you and a few others were striving for, and I grant you that this was in fact your quest. I also grant you that we did APPEAR to be "drilling our way up the slab," and so I grant that there was a genuine foundation for the ire you and others immediately felt against us.
What I do NOT grant, and NEVER will grant, is that you or anybody else had the RIGHT (or responsibility) to treat us as we were treated, or that it was right or correct for the SAR guys of that time to UTTERLY refuse to engage in reasonable dialog, refuse to go up and LOOK at the route, and then begin a multi-decade slander campaign. Regardless of how you (speaking collectively) PERCEIVED us at that time, it was your responsibility as reasonable human beings to DISCUSS with us (as we so often tried to initiate) and come to see the obvious truth that was there to be seen.
So, John, I understand your perspective of how we were perceived, but what gets minimized in these discussions is that we TRIED to get communication going, and we were SHUT DOWN in all attempts. No amount of historical filtering or revising is going to change the fact that WoS WAS put up in the "standard of the times" in fact in better style than many other routes), and a whole generation of well-known climbers simply chose (in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary) to believe a lie and then foist it off on others.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
well, I tired.....
(sigh)
Maybe you are right, Madbolter, we all were just a bunch of asswipes, f*#king everything up. Quite possibly more true in the big scheme of things than I care to remember.
Sure was fun back then, though.
Signing off from this nonsense for a while.
C-ya! (wouldn't want to be ya!)
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
deuce4 wrote:
"...Maybe you are right, Madbolter, we all were just a bunch of asswipes, f*#king everything up. Quite possibly more true in the big scheme of things than I care to remember..."
You finally nailed it!
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
John,
Perhaps since we key off of what we disagree on it leaves the impression that we regard the other side to be completely without merit. You make broad points on the other thread (see link above) that are well-taken in that they are based on a concept under which you climb/climbed. I do understand the notion that one of the aspects of the 80’s was a deliberate attempt to find ethical purity and that many of the key figures of the time were searching for a higher standard. That was noble and I’m sure that had I been a part of the inner group at the time of WoS, I would have raised my eyebrows too. On that we can find some common ground and perhaps a foothold toward reconciliation. The problem, I think, is that Richard and I were uniquely and unreasonably singled out for criticism on our deviation from your higher ethical standard. (That last sentence is very key to this post.) It seems to me that the higher standard was unintentionally hypocritical, though, and therefore shaky if not outright bogus, as those on the inside were allowed to (seemingly) stray away as needed. Perhaps the best example is Native Son in which an insider saw a great line that ended in space. What to do? Answer: Set the ideal standard aside and drill a two pitch rivet ladder so the climb could rim-out. The rivet ladder was given a name, showing it was noble or something, and all is well. No published criticism. Btw, this pattern of holding a higher standard only when convenient is not new, as Robbins did the very same thing when he climbed Tis-sa-ack (“a route worth drilling for”).
My conclusions: 1) I truly applaud and respect the higher standard that you and others were committed to. 2) The insiders were not held accountable to the standard. 3) Pugnaciously and almost uniquely holding WoS alone to standard is not reasonable.
If your position is that WoS is a bad route that would have been better left unclimbed, we could still find a real measure of reconciliation. If your position is that WoS failed your standard of the day and should strongly be held accountable to that standard, then probably the best we can do is to try to deescalate the rhetoric and go our separate ways.
--Mark
PS Sorry that I've been so maxed this last month that I've not had the time to keep up your posts.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
"The problem, I think, is that Richard and I were uniquely and unreasonably singled out for criticism on our deviation from your higher ethical standard."
with all this lovey dovey internet stuff going on all of a sudden (mimi aside), do you guys ever look back and wonder how it could/would have all been different (for you) if you had agreed to do SS before, instead of after, WoS?
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
I know that this belongs in the apology thread, but I wanted to say that I was sorry I didn't eat more corn before I sh#t on your gear.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Still at it?
I've been around here the whole time up until today. I'm sorry to say that I've never heard any smear campaign from so called Sar guys. The smear campaign was done by climbers! This fiasco happenened back then. There's many sar guys for the last 18 years or so who've never even heard of this bullsh#t. Some of them now havn't even been born yet back then.
Richard you need to drop the Sar guys smear campaign. Sar personal are Sar when on a actual rescue. Some of these so called sar guys back then have been gone for over 15 years and longer, especially the shitter himself. He's been gone off of Sar for over 20 years. I highly doubt that anyone here has ever heard of him. When on free time these guys are climbers and not SAR! Don't lump me into your "SAR Guys" smear campaign.
I myself have never even known there was a smear campaign going on until I read about it here. I don't read those dumb ass climbing magazines either.
Then there is this:
"You reported that the route required 145 drilled placements including 75 rivets and 39 anchor bolts."
That translates into 249 whatever. That will surely flip out some people who are so passionately into climbing regardless of the glossed over accepted whatever style & ethics or what have you. Some people will surely start saying sh#t about it no matter what. Do something controversal and you'll get negetive responses no matter what. Some people will just say some sh#t to get a rouse out of ya .... you already know that.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
Hi, Werner.
Do me a favor and punch Jon in the eye next time you see him.
Thanks.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
WB, there goes the target again!! everybody who reads these threads is aware that we're talking about the SAR guys of THE TIME, so, why try to spin this once again?
Offwhite, very mature, it gives a very good idea of the level of people you were and still are....and your name is?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Darod
Just so you can waste your time thinking about it.
Blowboarder
Hahahaha I got it. good joke
Guess what, he came out of the shower a couple of days ago and his towel got jammed in his bike spokes and took a gnarly header.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 07:30pm PT
|
Matt, I assume you mean SoD rather than SS. Well, it's sort of "received wisdom" that there would have been nooo problem if we would have just gone up and done the Sea first before doing WoS, instead of the other way around.
Perhaps that would have been the case. However, I do have some reason to question that speculation, which I will get to in a moment. First, though, I want to say that I don't think it would have been "wise" or "necessary" for Mark and I to do so. Unlike what is commonly thought, I had been climbing in the Valley for many years prior to WoS. My focus was primarily on free climbing, but I had soloed Washington Column in two days and had later gone up to solo the NW face of Half Dome, where a bear attacked me, virtually took the pack right off my back, and shredded everything! (That bear was tracked down and killed. Yea!)Furthermore, I had been aid climbing for many years prior to meeting Mark, and we had then climbed for approaching two years at the Riverside Quarry, putting up routes that Yaniro and others have said were "absurdly dangerous," as we learned the ins and outs of dealing with tiny features, loose blacks, and detached flakes. So, we simply didn't see ourselves as rank novices or as having anything to prove when we got to the Valley.
Maybe that was an incredibly naive view, and I can certainly understand how people would think that way. However, if there's anything I've been trying to fight in these threads, it is the idea that a few SAR guys, just in virtue of their special stay-status, had any right to think of themselves as "locals" in anything like the traditional sense, and thus that we had some (even tacit) responsibility to prove anything to THEM. As Harding told me personally shortly after the ascent (and he knew many of the then SAR guys personally as well), "They are as#@&%es--I'M the 'Valley local,' if there is any!" So, while these guys had an inflated view of their special status, I think that most of the people outside the Valley would be very disinclined to agree that they had any right to act as "gatekeepers," and I have been (and will remain) vehemently opposed to that idea.
Now, that said, perhaps we would have minimized conflict by doing the Sea first, but I doubt it (and I question if that would have been "better") for several reasons:
1) At that time, the Sea had had two ascents. Even when we did the fifth, the awe the route enjoyed was palpable! There was NO OTHER when it came to hushed whispers about the Sea. Had we shown up as absolute unknowns to do the third ascent of the Sea at that time, I have every reason to think that we would have gotten similar sorts of crap about it. It would have been assumed that we would "drill it down to our level." Had a drill even been found among our gear, we would have been beaten over the head with it. There is no doubt, and we were told this in no uncertain terms when we started the fifth ascent, "defiling the Sea" would be a FAR worse offense than anything we might have done on WoS!
2) When we got up on it, we found TONS of drilling and very overt modifications. Imagine the crap we would have gotten as future teams found all that. It would naturally have been "KNOWN" that we did all that! And we would have had zero credibility to deny that we did. Unlike WoS, there would have been effectively no way for us to clear ourselves of THAT mess! Look at Intifada now; there are a few (fortunately only a few) who think to this day that we drilled Intifada down to our level. So, knowing what I now know, I am OVERJOYED that we did the Sea after WoS and enjoyed such close scrutiny that nobody can begin to claim that we added any drilling or mods to the route. (whew!)
3) Because we didn't know the sorts of things being done on many of the hard routes of the times, we simply didn't know that we could have made WoS MUCH easier on ourselves, while rating it much harder, by employing the same tactics. We honestly tried our best to make the minimum impact on that slab that we could, and we were holding ourselves to a really high standard in that regard, contrary to what some have tried to emphasize. We tried to free climb sections that even LOOKED like they might go. I well remember wasting an entire afternoon at the top of the fifth pitch, waiting for the water to dry up, so I could try to free climb the last fifteen feet to where we would set up the anchor. After half a day wasted, I still couldn't do it. That sort of thing happened over and over (part of the 39 days), and we just wouldn't have had the same attitude if we would have done something like the Sea first. We would have drilled far fewer "holes" (as counted) and modded orders of magnitude more (as I did on WoC). We were unsullied when we did WoS.
Well, it's getting long, yet again. But, the bottom line is that I in no way regret having done the Sea after WoS, and I have many reasons to think that it actually was best that it happened in the order it did.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 07:38pm PT
|
Werner, you say: "That translates into 249 whatever." Lost on me because the quote you derive this from says: "145 drilled placements including 75 rivets and 39 anchor bolts." Whenever I write or read the term "including," I intend or take it to mean "what follows is a part of what came before." A little arithmetic (and this is about my limit of ability to do it!) reveals a total of 114. Now, let's subtract that number from 145, and we should have the number of protection bolts in the thirteen pitches. Yup, there it is: 31. So, to be totally inclusive, the passage should read, "There are 145 holes in WoS, including 75 rivets, 39 anchor bolts, and 31 bolts in pitches."
Yet again, a higher order of scrutiny than enjoyed by any other route in the whole world... makes me so proud (sniff, sniff).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Thanks Richard for making it clear.
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
RJ,
Maybe it is just me seeing it through better eyes, but that was the best post you've made yet.
You clearly state the WoS/SoD order issue. And while I have always seen it the other way, I now see your side of it, and I think you might be right. The Sea was exaulted, so would not have been a good choice. Maybe the PO... Splitting blonde hairs now, I know.
I really get what you're saying about the sea, hmmm...
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Mimi,
heartfelt opinions to be sure. Perhaps you could shed some light on the subject by telling us what the basis for your opinion is? The heart felt vitriol comes across as something different without understanding how you got there.
Off white,
Stepping up like a man huh? Like you guys did at night by jugging fixed lines? Just curious, was the route so beneath you that you did not feel the need to climb it? Did you really do that? I am just curious since I think you are a moderator on cascadeclimbers.com (at least same screen name) and sometimes you really come across as trying to control some infamatory discussions. I would have thought a gear shitter would allow more expressive freedom.
Please advise...
EDIT
I am just a curious bystander who is amazed at some of the comments made after all of these years....And the route still has not been climbed.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 07:54pm PT
|
Thanks Christian. Actually the issue was raised before, and I should have responded to it long ago, I think, seeing how the ebb and flow of the debate has gone over time. Maybe it would have been more helpful earlier.
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
the ville, colorado
|
|
This is starting to sound fishy.Were you involved with a nursing student at the time of the WOS attempt??????????rg
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 08:06pm PT
|
Nope. Why do you ask?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2006 - 08:07pm PT
|
Wow! ALERT! I just realized that the foregoing is my shortest post ever! Just calling your attention to it. I CAN post short.
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
the ville, colorado
|
|
You can't be LEB your last post was wayyyyyyyyyyy too short.rg
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
golsen
Off white, is not the guy .........
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Hard to detect any sarcasm or such from text...Thanks
offwhite - LOL (not really)
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
Yeah, it wasn't that funny but I promised Mimi I'd do the "I am Spartacus" thing, and really, who doesn't love a good corn stool? When I say I'm an El Cap climber, I mean that I've done Moby Dick Center, La Cosita and most of the East Buttress, and I've never qualified as a Valley local. This topic is not my obsession, but sometimes one just has to stick their paddle into the pot, give it a stir, and see what rises to the top.
And yup, I'm the same Off White everywhere you go. I get mail that way, cash checks, and it's what friends and family call me. It only seems like an anonymous avatar. When I get out of hand here odds are Werner will chide me and I'll straighten up, it's a relief to not have to behave like a moderator everywhere.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:00am PT
|
"This topic is not my obsession, but sometimes one just has to stick their paddle into the pot, give it a stir, and see what rises to the top."
Corn I suspect...
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:13am PT
|
"I heard a long while back that the head of SAR (John Dail) was in on the chopping"
TradHog, My paradigm of reality is a 3 legged stool and you just knocked the last leg out from under it. First I find out that we never landed on the moon, then that the government took down the World Trade Center, and now that John Dill orchestrated chopping WoS.
Hey, something to add to our SoD ascent story, when we began our effort amazingly we were called before SAR a second time to describe our ethics and intentions before being given a grudging "ok" to proceed.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:44am PT
|
Would someone be so kind as to provide a link to the backstory on this thread.
Seriously, I'm lost.
And it involves poop, so now I have to read it all.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:46am PT
|
WTF?
My previous post is cut short, I went in and edited it and it's still short?
Someone got something against poop and the Nodder?
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 05:15am PT
|
Thanks, I think I'll just ignore that one, too many words, too few pictures.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 09:30am PT
|
Mimi is just another coward - a nameless, faceless and dickless detractor. [A guy most likely, doesn't write like a girl] Ergo Mimi's opinion is worthless because she has no credibility.
To be credible on an internet forum, you need to be real, to have the courage to stand behind your identity.
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 09:56am PT
|
"Mimi is just another coward - a nameless, faceless and dickless detractor. [A guy most likely, doesn't write like a girl] Ergo Mimi's opinion is worthless because she has no credibility.
To be credible on an internet forum, you need to be real, to have the courage to stand behind your identity." - PtPP
Hmm, maybe you missed her photo and Tarbuster's statement that he has known her for years, and her name is........Mimi.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 10:07am PT
|
Did it sting that much when she outed you as a subman? It's not really a dishonorable job description you know, and at least you've got a rack caddy.
Mimi's the real deal, I've known her for 20 years, climbed with her on Monday.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 11:34am PT
|
Pete
You now have your foot deeply buried in your mouth hahahahah.
Guess what! Mimi is the real Mimi and that is her real name. I've known and climbed with her. Check the Tarbuster woman climber threads with the photos of her.
Oh oh .............
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:25pm PT
|
Ha Ha Ha.
Did somebody step on their DICK?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
Christian, in the Apologies thread you wrote:
As I see it the possible contention points are:
1 WoS is a variation.
2 The batheads should have been cleaned.
3 You or Richard shouldn't be punished for each others actions.
4 The use of Z-Macs, even on replacement.
5 You guys have a different approach than everyone else.
6 WoS as a negative example to teach proper valley ettiquet(sp).
I can't see much of an issue with 1-3.
***
Then there is, of course, "4a," which is the issue of why we did WoS as our first EC route. This is a reasonable summary of some of the debated points, and I certainly think that 4 through 6 are worthy of more consideration. I'll address them in order, in individual posts, with 4a at the end (likely to be most debated).
It will take a bit of time for each post, but I'll blast these in here one after another as quickly as I reasonably can.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
The fact still remains that Mimi keeps bashing the route, however it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is not what people were wrongly lead to believe, it's not a rivet ladder or anything even close.
She keeps saying the WoS crew raped the Rock, however she has no real arguments to defend her position. It would actually be interesting to know what really was in the shitter's minds and I think they could actually have a contribution to this end, maybe even a point of view?...then again, she shits on other people's property to show her stand on issues.
Totally classless.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 01:00pm PT
|
INCOMING!
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 01:16pm PT
|
Off White, exactly my point....
You should be ashamed, maybe that's why you don't have any real arguments either?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 02:05pm PT
|
4 The use of Z-Macs, even on replacement.
**
The point to a rivet rather than a bolt has been, since its inception, in the words of Bridwell, "to keep the commitment level high" when drilling is used to connect features. Bat hooking (whatever someone thinks about its legitimacy) is another step in the direction of keeping the commitment level high.
By "commitment level" Bridwell was obviously referring to the fall potential, the risk level, the sense of being run out.
Rivets serve two other immediately obvious roles: 1) they are in a shallow hole and "protrude" from the rock less than a bolt, which means they have traditionally been seen as making less of an impact on the landscape; 2) being in a shallow hole, they are much quicker and easier to drill.
Of course, the most significant point, though, has always been that a rivet can be viewed as not for holding falls, while a bolt is obviously intended for holding falls. Thus, the higher "commitment level" of rivets.
Now, the criticism you have raised seems to suggest that we had a responsibility to use "good" rivets, that are not "death" rivets, where "good" here seems to mean at least two things. First, "good" seems to mean that they should be expected to hold falls (which would make them not "death" rivets). Second, "good" seems to mean something like "long lastingly reliable," where that means that after some time has passed the climber can reasonably expect them to be about as "good" as they were when placed. Let us take these points up one at a time.
The first notion of "good" seems to fly in the face of the whole point to using a rivet in the first place. We intentionally chose a type of rivet that we well-knew was not "good" in this sense. WoS is a harder route (in terms of "commitment level") because of the rivets than it would be if we had pounded in the typical machine bolts. A grade-8 machine bolt cannot even begin to bend (much less sheer) in the force of any climbing fall, and bending over is the necessary start of a bolt pulling out. Even in a shallow hole, the rock on El Cap is so excellent in most places that the 1/4 or 3/8-inch (or more) of rock under the bottom surface of a machine bolt will not fracture away. These two points combined make it extremely unlikely that a properly placed, grade-8 machine bolt will fail in the event of any climbing fall. Thus, these so-called "rivets" are actually much closer to bolts in terms of "commitment level," despite the fact that they "protrude less" than a typical bolt.
The rivets we chose have a maximum sheer and pull-out strenth of about 800 pounds (when new). This means that, regardless of the quality of El Cap rock, the ACTUAL value of these rivets is a KNOWN QUANTITY (when new), and that knowledge definitely keeps the commitment level high. That was our purpose regarding commitment level.
The second point, however, seems to directly attack the "when new" part of the equation. "Sure," it is suggested, "YOU guys knew what you were facing, but over the years nobody else can!"
I have two responses to this point. First, if we could have found a type of rivet that was guaranteed to not hold ANY fall (the lure of a bat hook, but these have met with only limited acceptance), we would have used that instead of what we did use. Our GOAL was to have the most unreliable, yet fixed, piece of gear in those spots. Adding to the implications of this point, you state that Beyer is the only other person you know who intentionally puts up routes with bad anchors, and the idea here is that we don't want to be seen as anything like HIM!
I don't have any sympathy for intentional sabotage (a tactic that Beyer seems widely known for, and which we have observed ourselves), but I do have sympathy for the notion of making a route just as risky as the FA team thinks they are up for. After all, "hard" big wall climbing is ABOUT risk. Right? So, as long as the sort of risk you are faced with in the fixed gear is known in advance (rather than intentionally distorted by sabotage), every subsequent team knows the game they are going to play when they go up.
On WoS, you know going into the game that the rivets were never intended to hold falls; so you go up simply not counting on them to do so. The route's fixed gear is designed so that the risks are reasonable (not, likely, "death) should this assumption prove true in a particular fall, and a particular rivet does fail. We weren't entirely crazy, and there are on average 3.? full-on bolts per slab pitch (and in the first two pitches, these are now 3/8-inch!!! Wow, you guys have got it good now!). So, just go up believing that the rivets will not hold falls, and you still probably won't die, and you will probably be happily surprised when they do.
Second, the issue might seem to be one of "fairness," where we had it "better" than subsequent parties will have it, since at least we knew that there was some chance of the things holding (as indeed they did).
This point suggests that there is rapid and unknown degradation of these rivets over time. However, even when Tom pulled these rivets after 24 years, here is what we observed. The outer, zinc "sleeve" was entirely intact; the only "fracturing" was a result of removal and was minimal. That sleeve had apparently become more brittle than when new, but all of the material seemed to be in place around the expansion nail. Because the expansion nail is stainless steel, little zinc is used to slow/halt the corrosion process. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, very little zinc is used over time to halt corrosion in objects like construction nails. Such nails, pulled out of wood many, many decades latter show almost all of the original material intact, with the steel nail still strong and well preserved. Since the expansion nails in our rivets are stainless, it will be many, many, many decades before substantial zinc ions migrate out of the sleeves, and this is what appeared to be the case with the removed rivets.
The apparent brittleness of the zinc sleeves is a matter of slight degree, and appears to be insignificant to the overall structural integrity of the placement. After all, the expansion nail is the primary strength of these rivets, and that nail was in perfect condition and remained firmly seated in the zinc material surrounding it. I saw no reason to think that the removed rivets were significantly worse than they had been when new.
That being said, of course a subsequent ascent party is going to be thinking, "'Slight degree?' The things aren't good for MUCH when new! Are they HALF as strong now?" And that is a legitimate concern. It's impossible to be sure how strong those rivets are going to be after 20, then 30, then... years.
Let's say they ARE only half as strong after 20 years. Their use is still "fair" because modern climbers are deploying scream-aids all over everything now! A 400 pound-holding rivet with a scream-aid on it is FAR better than a brand new rivet without a scream-aid. WE did not have or use SHOCK ABSORBERS on our aid placements! So, which is MORE fair? (It's a whole huge can of worms whether or not use of shock absorbers in aid climbing is legit, when the whole GAME is based upon the supposed falls you can take!)
Our experiences at the Riverside Quarry, spanning decades now, has convinced us that our rivets remain "reliable" over long stretches of time. And, it is trivial to replace one if a particular fall blows it out. The zinc sleeve easily drills out, leaving a pristine hole. Subsequent ascent teams can put whatever they choose in such holes.
On that note, subsequent ascent teams can do whatever they want to the route. Of course, traditionally, the FA-intended "commitment level" of pitches has been cherished by subsequent teams (you would not, for example, replace failed rivets with bolts on classic hard climbs). But it's not our call how the route turns out.
Certainly, on WoS, the rivets in the crux two first pitches are brand new and should be "good" for a long time now. Falls may cause them to fail (unlikely with the ready use of scream-aids), but in that event the ascent team can do whatever they want with the holes. WE tried to put the first two pitches back into their earlier condition, duplicating the "commitment level" we tried to achieve at that time. That commitment level is as much a "known quantity" as it is on any other route: What you KNOW is that the rivets were never intended to hold falls. If that seems like "artificial difficulty," then I respond that ALL rivet-use is artificial difficulty in exactly the same way, and scream-aids change the whole equation anyway! I simply don't see how this in any way equates with Beyer's tactics.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 02:24pm PT
|
how can you guys have so much to say about this?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 02:24pm PT
|
5 You guys have a different approach than everyone else.
***
I'm not sure what this point refers to. That we spent a long time up there? That we took Sabbaths off? That we hauled a lot of food and water (the other gear we took was no more than other typical FA teams)? That we were willing to hang around for days to watch water dry up so we could attempt free climbing? That we were willing to take falls to figure out where and how to go?
I really don't know what the issue is here, so I will await further clarification. In past threads we have addressed the "long time" argument, but perhaps it bears repeating at some point. The quantity of food and water was a function of that issue.
The ONE point that does seem clear from your earlier post, Christian, is that nobody else takes Sabbaths off, which seems at least weird.
Ok, so we're weird on that point. Next question?
Ok, I won't be THAT dismissive, since I know you raised that issue in all sincerity.
We ARE rabid, right-wing, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist whackos who don't realize that "we're under grace now, so the law was done away with at the cross!" Uhhh... ok... not really that either!
In all seriousness now, we are practicing Seventh-day Adventist Christians, and we take our beliefs on those points of doctrine seriously. The notion of a "Sabbath rest" as a requirement of God goes back many thousands of years, and the Bible does have lots to say about God's intent for the Sabbath. We try to comply, and doing hard climbing on the Sabbath doesn't seem to us consistent with that intent.
So, on the Sabbath, we hang around, talk, read, listen to music, pray, and turn our minds toward God.
Yes, that adds time to our ascents, and it might seem strange to just be hanging around like that on perfectly good climbing days, but that is the nature of our commitment.
For the many on these threads who are not religious, this practice might seem utterly incomprehensible. Maybe thinking about it in terms of any other strongly-held ethic you have will help. Would you commit murder over and over to get up your chosen line? Not likely! Why not? Because you believe something like, "That's just not right, and the context of climbing doesn't make it right!" We have a similar perspective about the Sabbath: "The context of climbing doesn't make it right to violate the Sabbath commandment." While the ground of our ethical principles might be different, we are all committed to various ethical principles, and the context of climbing doesn't seem to make our core ethics fluctuate wildly.
I await further clarification on other things this point might be addressing.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 02:29pm PT
|
You crack me up Darod. It's a wonder that you can ever part with a turd when you visit the bowl. (just trying to keep the poop quotient up so Blowboarder pays attention). Has it ever occurred to you that climbing is not actually all that important in the scheme of things? Twenty some year old incivility to two individuals does not a crisis make.
My last quip was just a reference to Mark's voluminous posts, something he himself is quite aware of. His self deprecating admission ("hey, it's my shortest post ever!") almost made me spray coffee out my nose. I'm sure he's a fine guy, and I'll wager I'd have a great time chatting him up over a beer (assuming he drinks), but a brazillion thread babblefest over an old 7 pitch El Cap variation just cries out for a little levity, in my book if not in yours.
I suppose it's entirely possible I wouldn't enjoy a beer with you, your two messages to me paint you as a brittle prick, and I much prefer a silicone dildo.
|
|
Bilbo
Trad climber
Truckee
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 02:37pm PT
|
SO.........
Whats the rating of WOS?
Where is the supertopo?
What is the gear list?
Any free climbing?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 02:48pm PT
|
6 WoS as a negative example to teach proper valley ettiquet(sp).
*
Christian, you suggest that the WoS debacle might have the opposite effect we have hoped at this point. You state the issue very well, so I'll just quote you here: "I hope you see the need to teach restraint to the next generation. It puts you in a tough spot, but if WoS suddenly becomes openly accepted, the great risk is that the new guys will misunderstand why. By that I mean, they could still hear and/or believe a lot of the old party line (rivet-bolt ladder, drilled/chipped into submission, vertical circus) and couple it with the "is now accepted". The resource pressure is tremendous, and only going to get worse. The NPS would have no choice but to shut down all new routes."
I think that is a very well articulated point, and I see it as a very legitimate concern.
There are MANY aspects to this concern, however, that are subtext to it, and teasing those out isn't trivial.
First, we have always denied that WoS WAS a "rivet-bolt ladder, drilled/chipped into submission, vertical circus." IF WoS ever enjoys any broad acceptance, it will be, just as we are seeing in these threads, BECAUSE that party line gets debunked! So, future generations of climbers are NOT likely to think that WoS is an exemplar route demonstrating that such tactics are acceptable! The debate has been ABOUT that very issue, and even WE have never acted as though such tactics would be acceptable in a general or widespread way (although, as we earlier argued, all of these tactics are employed in small-scale ways on almost all FAs). So, WoS simply isn't a reason anybody would have to think that the climbing community is now accepting of the heavy-handed use of such tactics.
It is true that the resource pressure is tremendous, but so far the fear of the NPS stepping in seems to be offset by our ability as a community to educate the "wayward youth," so to speak. The NPS argument was commonly floated during the earliest attacks on us, yet since that time, LOTS of routes (many much more drilled than WoS) have gone up. Eventually, every minute feature on El Cap will have been touched, and then "new" route activity will cease on El Cap, regardless of NPS involvement. So far, I haven't seen the argument that connects the notion of a limited resource with the notion of NPS intervention. The ONLY arguments that have really been floated from the notion of limited resources go toward making the claim that the "locals" ought to have more rights in accessing the limited resources. And that connection I vehemently deny, particularly in Yosemite.
BTW, it is of interest to note HOW many routes are on El Cap now, and then look at how FEW of them are obvious botch jobs. Regardless of what a few paranoid "locals" have feared over many decades, people who aspire to FAs on El Cap have not proved to be idiots, and they HAVE been people at least reasonably aware of El Cap history and traditions and have largely put up new routes consistent with these.
So, the real question comes down to what sort of "educational campaign" the climbing community should undertake to (as well as possible) ensure that the young upstarts recognize the "need for restraint."
This could itself become a new thread (and maybe should), but I'll try to keep this response narrowly focused upon the context of WoS. "Education" is one thing, but what we hope people will take from the whole debacle is that how WE were treated bears ZERO resemblance to "education!" However the climbing community wants to "educate" the young upstarts, what was done to us is NOT going to be fruitful, nor is it right. I don't see how any general acceptance of WoS is going to threaten THAT point coming across. Indeed, I hope that THAT point is one of the main points that becomes glaringly obvious in any general acceptance of WoS.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
4a " I would say that if you had done the PO you wouldn't have beat yourselves up so bad on WoS."
**
Again, there's a lot of subtext here, and much of it has been argued before. This is certainly the most troublesome point, with the highest potential to evoke strong reactions. But I will do my best to be forthright, without being intentionally provocative.
First, we didn't "beat ourselves up so bad," unless by that you mean taking all the falls we did. However, if we would have heavy-handedly "enhanced" (as we would have learned to do on a route like P.O. Wall) to reduce our risks, then, as it apparent now, we would hear NO end of that today. So, as already stated, it's actually better for us and the route that we did just "beat ourselves up" as we did.
The other way I can think to take that phrase has to do with the controversy itself. To that I would say that we certainly didn't beat OURSELVES up, and I don't like the focus to be shifted away from the responsible parties in this way. In all my present attempts at dialog and reconciliation, this is one point upon which I will not budge: What was done to us was wrong and outrageous. Whatever might have been the motivations for it, however it might APPEAR we gave reason for people to be angry, the MANY other reasonable alternative make the response chosen by some of the "locals" at that time inexcusable.
As we are doing now, REASONED dialog should have happened, and we repeatedly attempted to engage in such dialog. It would have been trivial for the "locals" to go to the base of the route and LOOK, and we often invited the guys to come to the base and WATCH us working on it, even ascend our ropes. We could not have been more open and forthright about our willingness to be scrutinized, yet the "locals" insisted upon BLIND rage in utter refusal to address the facts.
If your only point, Christian, is that we COULD have made it easier on ourselves to have "climbed the acceptance ladder" like others before us, you are likely right. But, nothing NORMATIVE can be drawn from that fact. It's not like we SHOULD have "climbed the ladder of acceptance" first. It's not like we had some obligation to prove ourselves FIRST, when we were openly willing to prove ourselves (and made every attempt to do so) AS the route was going up!
Furthermore, there HAS been a history of people coming into the Valley and doing good things without FIRST proving themselves. We were aware of that history, we were aware of the relatively minor controversies that ensued, and we believed that should any controversy ensue on our case it would be possible to dialog with people and demonstrate our commitment to local ethics. The breakdown happened RIGHT at the point of the dialog, and we take no responsibility for that fact.
The issue here seems to be how tolerant the climbing community is (and what methods it will employ in its evaluations) of people climbing "outside the hierarchy." It is ironic, and has seemed so for many years, to me that climbers in general pride themselves in being a SUB-culture, a sort of radical anti-establishment group that "questions authority;" yet it is so often the case that "authority" doesn't fall far from the tree after all. We INVENT it even in our supposed sub-culture. And we justify it by appeal to such arguments as "self-policing" and avoiding higher authorities, like the NPS "stepping in."
In general our traditions alone have worked to "educate" the young upstarts, but it's a SAD day for climbing when the young upstarts are PRECLUDED from doing cutting-edge things because we are so threatened that we "bash on them from above" to maintain some sort of contrived hierarchy of authority. I say again, the "locals" in Yosemite are NOT gatekeepers, and, while I know this sounds provocative, I don't intend it to be so: We had every right to do what we did, and the "locals" had NO right to do what they did. We violated nobody's rights, yet our basic human rights were violated (unless, among other things, you think that people have a right to literally bomb other people with sh|t-bags).
So, yes, by "climbing the ladder of acceptance" we COULD have made things easier on ourselves. But that is just a sort of interesting, practical, side-note in this discussion. The REAL issues are WHY that even is the case, how legitimate that little ladder is anyway, and, most importantly, whether we want those at the "top of the ladder" to be treating those on "lower rungs" the way we were treated.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 03:20pm PT
|
Off_White wrote:
"...I suppose it's entirely possible I wouldn't enjoy a beer with you..."
Dude, there's no way in hell i'll let you get any close to my pint, who knows, you might feel the need to piss in it when i'm looking the other way!!!!!!!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 03:20pm PT
|
Thank you, Christian, for your thoughtful dialog!
|
|
Kitten Crusher
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 03:29pm PT
|
Is this a witch hunt? Hell yes it is.
Is this a crucifixion? It should be. Not in the sense that it was first intended, as though the men on trial are innocent, but as it was intended by humanity, a public execution of crimes so opposed to everything decent about humanity, that no words can harshly denunciate them enough.
By claiming this is a witch hunt, the guilty have tried to trivialize their actions as misunderstood pranks blown out of proportion. Yet these actions are so vile, so despicable, that whoever and whatever motivations churned these up from the cesspool of human depravity need to be cleansed, or they will forever infest the climbing community with a taint of corruption that will rot its core, disintegrating its integrity to the point of public infamy.
There are two battles here, one for justice, to save the image of climbing and the nobility that a rock once had. The other is to come to a reconciliation of relationships, sharing perspectives to promote growth, healing, and understanding that may prevent future atrocities and help in the mutual crucifixion of the evil that has been done. A distinction between these two needs to be made; it is not necessarily the people now that need to be crucified, the old men who hopefully have grown and learned from a misguided youth, it is the personas of those that committed these crimes that should be drug out into the town square, tried, and hung for all the public to see the utter rejection of this horrid depravity.
Those that committed the crimes, if they have any humanity left in them, should be the first to light the cleansing flames of public renunciation. Insofar as they defend these personas, giving excuses instead of reasons, giving justifications instead of explanations, and most of all deeming these actions with careless innocence instead of rabid ignorance fueled by pride corrupted beliefs, they are once again taking the personas upon themselves. It is at this point that they have nothing to blame but their own stubborn self-aggrandized solipsistic egotistical pride for what should be continual public persecution.
Those that are most embarrassed, most shamed and humiliated, those that cannot bear their own inadequacies will want this to end quickly. They will want it shoved into the dark closet of climbing history, hidden from the public. They cry out for “letting go” and giving up this overzealous trial. Yet history will not forget, and the climbing community will not forget, lest they are doomed to let this vile treachery repeat itself.
These cries should only fuel the rage against their guilt, a rage that will burn for an eternity. Why do we revile the villains of our past? Why do we remember them, telling stories of their wickedness throughout the generations, never forgetting what they have done? Is it because we “just can’t let go”? Is it because we don’t have a “forgiving spirit”? When we expose this villainy, are we holding “witch hunts,” and “crucifixions”? No, because these people were not innocent. These personas deserve the hatred of all humanity.
The treacherous actions of these despicable villains have festered in the belly of this beast for more than 20 years, boiling and churning with such disease, filth, hypocrisy, and rot, that the beast has become a putrid decayed deformation of the noble greatness it once had. It is time to spew out the filth, to identify this viral infection and purge it from our system, showing to all that we will not allow such heinous corruptions of our beliefs, integrity, and decency ever again.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 06:49pm PT
|
Did anyone save a sh#t sample from the ropes? You could send it to Lois for some DNA analysis. Of course, there is the chain of custody business and if it turned out to be from old #46, that would be a pile of a different color and suggest evidence tampering. A whole new can of worms.
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 09:06pm PT
|
Yep, that's what I wanted to hear.
For clarity, though, the bulletpoints were potential problems Mark may have had with the original apology. I put a lot of thought into it, and wanted it to be fair to both sides, but at the same time, brief.
Not really meant to be taken as the stick points for the whole situation.
The sabbath issue, is your deal, and I respect that. REALLY! I can't stress enough that I am not defaming religious belief.
It is with the uttmost sincerity I say I have no issue with that. God rocks, no matter what name you give him.
6 was meant to say it is not personal. Not everyone is even capable of absorbing all this debate. A favorite saying of mine is "Half the population is below average intelligence", and yeah, I know the difference between Mean, Median, and Mode. Route legacy outlasts all FAists, and 'if' WoS's legacy is to keep people from abusing the resource, there is great significance to it. Second only to the Nose in terms of meaning for future generations that will walk the Earth long after we all return to ashes and dust.
And 4a wasn't about the PO specifically, but any El Cap route. Or even any other Valley aid route of significant difficulty.
The 4-4a correlation goes to intent. I think by the Zmac commentary it would seem you agree with what I felt: you had a plan for what kind of route you wanted to put up. And this is "The Heart of the Matter":
1 You wanted to put up a very hard route (A5). Yet, you had nothing to gauge that against in terms of real experience on other EC testpieces.
2 You had a formula of hooks to rivet to hooks to bolt to make it happen. And that could only happen on a Tabula Rasa like the great slab.
3 You wanted it to be a FA 1st EC.
I think that's where the problem started, and where you broke from the community. Specifically, that you wanted something specific to result from your interaction with the rock, and they were letting the rock dictate the experience.
That's what I meant by #5.
Does that help explain the scrutiny and ire? Fundamental differences in approach.
Was the defecation/ slander campaign wrong? Sure it was. But it wasn't openly sanctioned by the community. The zealot always goes too far, that is the nature of his place in the grand design.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2006 - 09:19pm PT
|
Yes, Christian, I understand what you're saying. I don't think I've had a problem with understanding the scrutiny and ire (except to the extent that it has proved inconsistent over the years--e.g.: the "enhancement" issue). My problem has always been with HOW that ire got expressed. To me, the ire itself was never the great surprise; the great surprise was how immune to attempted dialog and objective evidence our critics proved to be.
In our supposedly rational age (oops, there's my naive idealism showing again), my expectation was, and is, that we can dialog about our differences and thereby come to understand each other, rather than blindly "herding" forward in a mindless and destructive rush to judgment opposed to the evidence.
I really appreciated what you had to say about our religion, and, thanks to your efforts, I think that at least the two of us have come to a much better understanding of each other, and I have certainly come to respect you very much as a person. I see our personal dialog as a model of what COULD have happened in general many years ago, and I really do thank you for your end of making it happen for us in particular now.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 10:51pm PT
|
Er, uh, yeah, that's my dick lying flattened on the ground there.....
My sincere and heartfelt apologies to the very real, far-from-cowardly and said-to-have-been-quite-a-hottie Mimi "Forty Grit" deGravelle.
It would appear, like, I owe you a few beers, eh? Look me up next time you're in the Valley to collect.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 09:23am PT
|
I nominate Kitten Crusher for "Best Use of Adjectives". I assume this is a Troll, otherwise Crusher may need some medication. I enjoyed the writing skill, although I had to read carefully to determine which group needed crucifying. This would definitely qualify as the recking ball swinging the other way, so I hope it is a Troll. It is certainly not what Richard and Mark would want.
Teth
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 12:21pm PT
|
Yes, Teth, that was most certainly a wrecking ball. Hopefully a troll. Sad to think of somebody foaming at the mouth that much, even with command of language.
Of course, on the other hand, now that I think about it, maybe Mark and I can start to gather our own band of bad-boys now! Crusher as our OWN mad dog! Can he/she fight as well as write??? Wow, the possibilities are endless! Bwahahahaha!
Or not.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
wow.
I am out of the loop at this point, but still kinda' interested.
Just as reading goes,
That Kitten Crusher piece was a dazzler.
(No comment whatsoever on my part in terms of applicability).
And for levity's sake and to add a little flavor text,
and not at all to diminish anyone's serious regard for the topic:
We didn't call her "Mimi Dude" fer nothin'.
Carry on.
I'm back to my other forum based goodies.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 04:17pm PT
|
We're still waiting for Mimi's response to the fifth post.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2007 - 07:55pm PT
|
And waiting...
For all its demands that Mark and I answer the same questions again and again, mimisoft doesn't seem willing to step up to a simple, obviously fair, and apropos question. Maybe the question hasn't been input yet in a fashion that the AI can grasp.
The whole "enhancement" issue does come down to a matter of scale, and I am confident that all of our WoS "enhancements" (falsely so called) "damaged" or removed less rock than just a couple of typical copperhead placements. We're talking about a microscopic amount of rock here, much less for the entire route than the "enhancement" caused by placing and removing just one piton.
Mimisoft, if "you" are going to continue to take us to task about this issue, please hold "yourself" to the same standard and answer the same question. Unless "your" paragons of purity have always climbed hammerless and have never wiggled a cam back and forth to "seat" it among some crumbling crystals, then "you" have nothing but hypocrisy to contribute to the discussion.
Still waiting....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 09:55pm PT
|
Why you guys so worried about Mimi?
You guys did your WOS to the best of your ability, you did Sea of Dreams in good style and best of your abilities.
You did intifada in good style. You did everything right.
So a few people are not happy? But you are happy? You should be.
Rest your case and,
Let the rest fall away ......
P.S. Merry Christmas Richard and Mark, and hope you have a nice wonderful New Year.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2007 - 10:28pm PT
|
Merry Christmas to you too. And thank you.
I do wonder, though, why is it that if Mark or I engage in the ongoing discussion that continues, your immediate reaction is to assume that we are "worried" or have some other psychological problem? Would you prefer that as the discussion continues we simply keep silent? Neither of us started or even continued the latest round of discussions. So, are we not entitled to raise the same questions of mimisoft that it raises of us?
I wonder why as mimisoft continued to stir the turd that nobody is telling it to "get over it." I wonder why the presumption is that we are "defensive" or have some other psychological problem whenever we engage in discussion. It has actually become downright funny to me over these last few years to see how concerned a few people are with Mark's and my psychological states, especially when there are other, very rabid posters on this site that clearly merit such concern and don't get it. lol
No, far from being "worried" at this point, I am actually very, very happy. The facts are pretty much beyond dispute at this point, and finally the discussion has moved out of the realm of lies and into the realm of facts. Now, finally, after decades, the discussion can moving into something worthwhile and productive. Finally, we can start talking about WHAT features of a route make it worthwhile. And here, at this very junction, you are urging us to "let it go?"
It is no "worry" that causes me to care to see the likes of mimisoft hoist on their own petard. Let mimisoft rise to the same challenge it has laid down for us. Why? Because if mimisoft actually does have something substantive to say in answer to that challenge (highly unlikely), that will actually further a discussion that I think is important to all of us: the question of what makes a route worthwhile/legitimate. This question is actually closely related to what climbing is all about, and that certainly matters to all of us. So, yes, let mimisoft answer. I will do my best to find anything worthwhile there might be in that answer and respond to it, and that response will not be a function of "worry" or any other psychological defect.
Again, thank you for the compliments, and I do hope you had a great holiday season.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 10:42pm PT
|
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007 - 06:41pm PT
|
Still waiting, Mimi.
|
|
Wrathchild
Big Wall climber
Satan's testicles
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007 - 07:40pm PT
|
I just can't help myself... must type something...
Look Richard, this whole thing had been laid to rest a year ago, but someone you know dredged it back up, perhaps at your urging, perhaps not. And the absurdity that someone is "still waiting" for a response is truly pathetic.
But what really undermines your position is that you diminuate her by calling her mimisoft, not even capitalizing a proper noun.
You get what you give in this life, and what I see you giving right now is a lack of respect. Quell surpriz! You didn't respect local ethics back then, and I have seen a regression back to that point.
You have lost the moral high ground you think you are preaching from. Ghandi never dissed anyone.
My opinions on the route have nothing to do with how I feel about you now. You are grasping at the noteriety of infamy from deeds a quarter century past.
It's not a suggestion, it is a PLEA - GET OVER IT.
It is a freakin' AID climb... You weren't that rad or you would have freed it.
I can't believe this came back, and I feel dirty for even adding to the post count.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 30, 2007 - 08:11pm PT
|
Wrathchild, I find your posting fairly amazing on many levels. First, the person starting the posts again was somebody known to Mark, not me, and I still have no idea who it is. Neither Mark nor I had anything to do with that posting. Furthermore, neither of us responded until mimisoft had had its inevitable spew and many others had jumped into the discussion.
For you to insist that we keep quiet in the face of renewed slanders is utterly ridiculous on the face of it. Our willingness to FIGHT on these threads, to once and for all defend ourselves, is the only reason people have found out the truth! And we have determined that as far as we reasonably can, we will continue to fight to clear our names and our reputations against the lies that CONTINUE to keep spewing forth from a few rabid die-hards.
If you think that such a fight should be given up, then I simply don't agree with you. We've tried soooo many tactics over the decades, and we are now determined to engage with people at whatever level they find for themselves.
How is is "truly pathetic" to be "waiting for a response" when it is mimisoft that continues to press us for answers to questions we have answered again and again over the years? WE have asked VERY few questions! And the question that emerges in THIS thread is a critical question to be answered because it speaks to the double-standard that has EVER been employed to justify the outrageous treatment we have experienced over the decades. Mimisoft started this latest round of questions... thus it is FITTING, not absurd, to expect mimisoft to answer a long-standing question as well!
If you have a problem with me using the term "mimisoft," then I use your own words: GET OVER IT! If you can find ANY comparison between my employing my "mimisoft" gig and mimisoft's ENDLESS calling of grotesque names and continual lies in the face of evidence, then YOU, my friend, have a serious problem and no sense of humor. Mimisoft CONTINUALLY acts less intelligent on these threads than AI programs I myself could write, and I merely point out that simple fact. And mimisoft itself has the power to bring this discussion up a level by treating Mark and I as human beings with simple civility. Any PERSON on these threads that can't muster at least THAT at this point gets no sympathy from me. At least MY "name" for mimisoft is grounded in a legitimate POINT and is not a function of childish name-calling. Perhaps you missed the point, but there it is.
You say that we didn't respect local ethics back then, and that tells me that you have apparently felt so "dirty" that you couldn't even follow the discussion over the years. We did NOT ignore local ethics back then. Our ethic was higher than that employed on the Sea of Dreams and on most routes since! Regarding the ethic of treating people as people and engaging in reasonable dialog, WE were not the ones ignoring THAT ethic back then. So, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Your cluelessness is made most clear by your claim: "It is a freakin' AID climb... You weren't that rad or you would have freed it." The absurdity of that claim doesn't warrant a response.
Mimisoft continues to slander us and continues, along with Grossman, to accuse us of not being willing to answer "pressing" questions. In this very thread mimisoft presses us about "enhancements," and it is in this very thread that I ask mimisoft to answer its own question. That is NOT too much to ask, and I will not "get over it."
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007 - 08:34pm PT
|
Wrathchild: "Look Richard, this whole thing had been laid to rest a year ago, but someone you know dredged it back up, perhaps at your urging, perhaps not."
Look, Liz, I restarted this thread and I do not know Richard or Mark. I never met them, I never spoke to them and I never exchanged emails with them. Neither Richard or Mark asked me to restart it. I restarted it because Mimi restarted http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=237614&tn=120
and continues to question Richard and Mark without having answered Richard's questions for her.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007 - 08:36pm PT
|
"It is a freakin' AID climb... You weren't that rad or you would have freed it."
That is one of the funniest things ever posted!!
Hahahaha!
All of you big wall "First Ascenters" apparently suck!
I guess Klaus ain't that rad?
Edit: I'm with Werner on this.
Until someone comes back with first hand knowledge and proof of a contrived, manufactured route, I see no evidence to support the detractors claims.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007 - 08:59pm PT
|
Oh for frig's sake, Dr. Jensen - do you knott know the difference between "libel" and "slander"?
And you're a professor? Lawsy lawsy lawsy, no wonder the kids of this world are turning out so badly. You guys are not only the ruination of the Great Slab, you're just doing so much worse! "Worse?" you ask. Hell, yeah.
How do you explain THIS:
"...by treating Mark and I ..."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 30, 2007 - 09:43pm PT
|
I guess I jest haf ta spent mo tyme editting fo ah posts.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2011 - 11:41pm PT
|
Since we're on the subject, I think this deserves a bump. No judgment, just putting it on the table.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2011 - 11:51pm PT
|
No judgment, just putting it on the table.
BwaHaHaHa! You troublemaker, you! :-)
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2011 - 11:56pm PT
|
Werner says it all in the above, final answer.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 09:41am PT
|
The parochialism of ST has become abundantly clear with the number of threads/replies concerning this obscure, probably tainted, climb. I wish there were a forum I could go to that approaches climbing in a broader, more International, way.
|
|
mcreel
climber
Barcelona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 10:24am PT
|
Pretty soon you'd have some old climber from Dresden giving John Gill a hard time for using chalk.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 10:35am PT
|
now that was funny!
|
|
SGropp
Mountain climber
Eastsound, Wa
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 01:05pm PT
|
Jim, your are absolutely right!
Part of the reason this thread keeps going is that beneath all the drama, slander, outright lies and general crap , there is an ongoing and absolutely essential discussion on both how we treat the rock, but even more importantly, how we treat each other. That discussion is not tied to any one climb or any one locale, but is truly international in scope.
Let us know when you get the new forum up and running.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 02:41pm PT
|
supergeezer.com?
Looking forward to see how this one categorizes it's forum.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 03:19pm PT
|
The public has developed a ravenous appetite for dumbed down forms of media such as tabloid journalism and reality shows. The current iteration of ST is just another manifestation of that fact.
edit: Back from 6 weeks in Iran and Tajikistan. I thought that an enforced layoff might let me see ST in a new light. Not so, I thing a voluntary "vacation" is in order. Ciao.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 07:00pm PT
|
He'll be back.
He needs this place as a resource pool for future sandbag victims.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 07:41pm PT
|
Oh, its very simple, you don't have to clip that, err, I mean read that thread! I steer away from the political ones because that's not why I come here, but who doesn't like to gawp at a trainwreck every now and then?
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 08:13pm PT
|
Jet lag must have really wacked me this time. Thanks for the wake up call Stinkeye, I'll post a nice little TR next week (need technical assistance from my wife who is out of town) Don't recall you ever giving kudos to TR's, maybe you'll step up to the plate and help encourage climbing content.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 08:59pm PT
|
C'mon guys - this isn't about fundamentalists nor parochialism.
This is about two guys who have been libelled and slandered for the last twenty-nine years, and who tried to defend themselves.
Yes - they were incredibly defensive, and they tended to rant more than a little. But they stuck to their guns, and didn't cave in.
And it now appears that what they said was indeed true.
|
|
SGropp
Mountain climber
Eastsound, Wa
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 09:30pm PT
|
Good for you, Donini, for acknowledging you were being a bit harsh.
You can choose to be the old crank that jets in and heckles the rest of us from the back of the hall or else have something really vital to add to the free for all. Most of us here, because of life choices and circumstances can only get out occasionally and then only into our own back yards.
I [we[ ]really value both the depth and breadth of your experience and hope you will share both your own adventures and to draw in others that have a much broader view, both past and present.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 11:09pm PT
|
Yeah, what Sgropp and Tami said. Thanks for saving me the hunt and peck. Still waiting for that TR Jim.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 12:28am PT
|
Jim contributes - thanks Jim.
Mimi contributes -thanks Mimi.
Marty Karabin contributes -Thanks Marty!
Etc, etc, etc - thanks everyone!
Do I agree with them? Hell no. But I thank them for their contributions, wisdom, and flawed thinking at the same time. Looking forward to the trip report JD.
Regards to all, please remember that your words here, like your life and personal communications, are your legacy. Too many leave us all too soon, Bean Bowers was the most recent, so consider what you wish to have remain when you too are gone. And all too soon, all of our times will be up and it will be game over. Let us hug our kids and treat each other with the respect we ourselves would benefit from giving.
....sh#t...is that all I got....f*ck all, now I'm depressed...
later brobams!
|
|
SGropp
Mountain climber
Eastsound, Wa
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 09:29pm PT
|
In any civilized debate , after both sides have had their chance to make their best arguments and make their rebuttals, there's a point where it is appropriate to ''call for the question. ''
So how about it ?
This is mostly directed, with all due respect to Steve Grossman and Mimi. Just what was it about this climb and these climbers that was so profoundly offensive to certain segments of the Valley climbing community to warrant this unflinching bitterness and contempt for all these years ?
A brief and to the point answer would really be appreciated.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011 - 02:52pm PT
|
Five years later, we're still waiting for Ms. "Peace and Love" Mimi's response to the fifth post.
This is one of the funniest threads on Supertopo, with real gems like the post calling Mimi a "dickless detracter" -- not as insulting as intended and a lot more factually accurate than intended. LOL.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011 - 10:01pm PT
|
I'm raising funds for another WOS film. It's called "Waiting on Mimi" and its going to be really boring.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011 - 10:05pm PT
|
Just like you Gnome Boy...boring.
Keep trying...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011 - 10:12pm PT
|
The questions that Mimi cannot answer.
The numbers that appear in my book as well as in the article you quote are correct. No, those numbers do not reflect "every time the drill touched the rock." If that somehow torques you, then I don't take it seriously until THIS challenge has been met:
JM has admitted that it is common practice (even by himself) to knock flakes off to make room for placements. He seems to suggest that this is infrequent. I want an ACCURATE tally (along with some reason to think that he has any clue)!
You have accused me of "insulting" JM, so I want the quote where I supposedly "insult" him. And YOU tout him as your own prophet of purism. So, to you I say: unless you can produce for me an ACCURATE tally of "every time the drill touched the rock" AND every time the pick of a hammer touched the rock "to remove a flake" for any reason on, say, his last two routes, then it becomes PAINFULLY obvious that you are attempting to hold Mark and I to a higher standard of honesty, memory, AND "purity" than you demand of your own heroes.
Do YOU ever climb, much less put up FA's? IF so, then I want that tally from you as well, and I want to know what route this tally represents.
If you're not ready to produce a NAME for yourself, what routes you have EVER done (especially FA's), AND the modification tally (remember: EVERY time you moved ANY bit of rock, however TINY, in order to help or make a placement happen!) for yourself and for your hero's routes, then you are just spewing and not worth any further response.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2011 - 01:55am PT
|
Coming in 2011
Waiting for Mimi, the Motion Picture.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 99 of total 99 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!