Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:08pm PT
|
Mmm... my alter-ego aside (madbolterl???), it's difficult to not be wordy when I'm holding up one end of a viewpoint virtually single-handedly. I try to keep it short! Really, really I do! But I just can't. I can't, I can't, I can't. Smite me! I wish madbolterl could issue short summaries like that before all the hard work has been done (although, there are a few accuracy issues there too).... but I won't dicker over them now.
Since Russ just asked, I have no idea who madbolterl is. I found the post funny, but in seriousness I don't endorse it. "Chippy?" I think it's clear that I've been far more than "chippy" with John at times! I do think that John has been trying to get the whole picture, in all honesty. But I also think that he's had a lot of presumption and bias to overcome, and that these have caused him to be more than a bit "chippy" with us during all these posts. I'm not "turning a new page" yet, although I don't bear John any ill will. Time, more info, and more thinking/dialog can bring people closer together in their views (which is all a civilized society can hope for), and I hope to hold up my end with John, Peter, Roger, and others with integrity.
I will respond to Roger later. Many good thoughts there, I think. But I just can't get to it right at this moment.
In all sincerity, I do thank you guys for your ongoing patience with me. I do get impassioned and wordy at times. Hard to know where to draw the line, and I DO care about climbing ethics VERY much!
Edit: (Ha ha, you thought you might get a whole post with no all-caps.)
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:34pm PT
|
HAHAHA
Here we go... Nice catch, Russ.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:34am PT
|
Oh NO!
I've been outed.
But, as MY alter-ego REFUSES to ENDORSE me, I suppose I'll just fade away...
Though I don't know WHY he won't validate me! I didn't KNOW that this name would cause such problems - I just RANDOMLY chose it and then RANDOMLY decided to post on this thread. Coincidence? Synchronicity?
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 12:34pm PT
|
I am still reading over yesterday’s posts, so hopefully this still fits into the context of the conversation.
There are a couple of issues in this thread where I have to disagree is Madbolter1.
First, to be told by a Philosophy professor that the word “ethics” can not be applied to climbing feels a bit like a slap in the face. As a geomorphologist and cartographer I do not have the training to even participate in that argument. How should I know the precise definition of the word “ethics”? It just seemed like the most convenient term to use to describe a nebulous set of principles the climbing community has developed to avoid a multitude of problems which could arise from unfettered anarchy. Is there a better word? Style only seems appropriate for certain aspects of it.
How could Richard possibly expect a clear cut definition of climbing ethics? Climbing ethics (insert the more appropriate term in you know of one) is defined by a committee of thousands with local factors effecting local interpretations and is constantly changing over time as the members of the committee change. There are some core principles. One is don’t do anything which will cause the land owner not to want climber to climb there. Other principals aim at keeping things sporting, just as most anglers do not approve of fishing with dynamite (I don’t give a climbing example because the temptation to nitpick specifics tends to obscure meaning). Some are principles of aesthetic, which is contentious due to both people’s intense personal feelings on aesthetic and its subjective nature (does the fact that a French artist sold a can of his own faeces for $700,000 invalidate art by saying that people want Sh!t?). Other basic principles involve climbing safety, which is why bolts are accepted in some circumstances despite violating some other principles. Many of these principles conflict with one another and different people push different principles, so the argument is never going to end, yet it is the argument which educates climbers about the various issues and principles and allows them to make more informed decisions.
While “climbing ethics” get misused to justify inappropriate or even downright immoral behaviour, this is the nature of ethics. The Bible has often been used to justify downright immoral behaviour, but does that invalidate the Bible, or does it suggest that those Christians were conveniently ignoring important aspects of their own doctrine? What happened to Richard and Mark was a travesty and a reminder of what can happen when the community losses perspective and follows a few voices without question, but it does not invalidate the ethics themselves.
It will never be clear where to draw the line and some things can be argued both ways depending on which principles you give priority to, but it should be clear at least when something is well over the line. If someone was to put a real bolt latter up the apron would Richard and Mark think that was an OK thing to do? I don’t think so (correct me if I am wrong here). I suspect that they would think that was crossing the line, hence indicating that a line exists, however nebulous. I am sure though that R&M would NOT sh!t on the guy’s gear, for that is way over another nebulous line. It is hard to define the boundary of the sea when the tide is always changing, but when you have to swim you have probably crossed it.
I also don’t think that deuce4 started this thread as an attack on Wings Of Steel. I think that the debate he participated in on WoS raised some ethical questions which he felt needed to be examined on a more general level. Since WoS sparked this communal introspection it is bound to be used as an example in the debate, but the real debate here is what are the appropriate climbing ethics for aiding a slab? Since there are not a lot of slab climbs, or slab climbers, in the Valley, this debate has not been hashed out as much as questions of how to appropriately link cracks. I think this debate would be better served if Richard, as one of the founding fathers of hard slab climbing in the Valley, would participate in the debate rather than arguing that this debate should not take place.
Teth
[Edit] OK, I am caught up now. I implore madbolterI to stick around. He/she sets a good example for madbolter1. [/Edit]
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 02:27pm PT
|
Teth has CONVINCED me.
I am sticking around since I, AHEM, set a GOOD EXAMPLE.
I do wish to make a SERIOUS point.
I've closely read every post (I think) throughout the WOS odyssey.
Now is the first time that R & M are referred to as FOUNDING FATHERS of hard slab climbing.
This point was "hinted" at much earlier by elcapfool, who said that he could think of no route in the world quite like WOS.
This does NOT mean that the FAs become Founding Fathers, of course - that would require a sizeable number following in their footsteps. And it SEEMS to have been agreed upon that hard aid slab climbing will NOT become very popular. Choose your own adjective for why (hard/slow/scary/tedious/etc).
That doesn't mean that the TECHNICAL ASPECTS of WOS (ignore the political) do not have an important place in Valley History.
If we can AGREE that the FAs made respectable and reasonable decisions, THEN we can debate (with their "wisdom") what should be done on the future (RARE, but INEVITABLE) hard slab/aid ascents.
For it is a DYING art - SICK slabs are free climbed these days... and there are relatively FEW free climbers who climb slabs (most because they "have to" to do a route). Even fewer are interested in such a SPECIFIC type of hard slab aid.
PART of Richard and Mark's new place in the community should be as an integral part of discussions about hard hooking.
I also have a SERIOUS question for MY alter-ego:
Richard,
You and Mark are far from the "crazy-wild-men" who we think of as putting up the scariest routes. Yet I've heard you say (regarding your repeat of Intifada, for instance) that you were willing to die to see if WOS was what you thought it was (and I imagine you thought it to be a SEVERE PERSONAL TEST - though you had little idea in how many ways it would prove that...). What was your motivation for pushing the boat out so far? (as YOUR alter-ego, I have what I THINK to be PERCEPTIVE guesses. I will, however, let you answer)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 03:40pm PT
|
To reply to Roger, Teth, et al is not a trivial matter. There are some misunderstandings, but I'm sure I have contributed to those.
However I have two concerns before beginning. First, Teth seems to think that MadbolterI "sets a good example," and by that I take him to mean that MadbolterI posts in quick, sound-bite fashion. So, I'm faced with a dilemma. If I follow MadbolterI's "good example," then I cannot properly respond. However, if I properly respond, then MadbolterI will give his somewhat inaccurate summary (summaries always being easy to produce after the hard work has been done, and with nothing on the line regarding accuracy), and I will then find myself in the unenviable position of having to correct those addtional errors, while looking even more wordy than I already am. So, do you want some "quick and dirty" response (that will be either largely inaccurate or so superficial as to not really address the issues), or do you want a more lengthy, but philosophically careful, response?
Regarding MadbolterI, I have nothing to say to you until you produce your real name. I thought the whole thing was funny until I saw you posting on other threads. And you have just noted that you'll be "sticking around." So, now I worry about what messes you will get "us" into in MY name, as people don't happen to notice your carefully-constructed hoax. You ARE a troll, plain and simple, and this is the last I intend to respond to you until you come clean and put yourself PERSONALLY on the line like the rest of us. Drop the troll profile and post in honesty. Then and only then will I address you.
BTW, back on topic. I am NOT saying that there is no such thing as ethics in climbing. If you will re-read what I have said, you will see that I have only been saying that I haven't yet heard an ethical theory to account for the "principles" people keep trotting out. I have been saying that, so far, these "principles" are nothing more than "rules to the game," and that such rules cannot be elevated to the level of ethics in the utter absence of metatheory.
I don't deny that people care deeply, as do I (obviously). And I don't take John's creation of this thread, or the contents of this thread, as an attack on WoS. I am very comfortable using WoS just as an example, alongside, say, ZM. The contrast between these routes seems to work well to tease out the issues we are discussing.
However, perhaps I set the bar too high, in the sense that people don't seem ready to recognize that they use the term "ethics" as though the "ethical" debates we constantly have in climbing are significant at a level that they are not. I have tried to point out the reasons why this is the case, but people have simply jumped to the conclusion that I don't think there are any ethical issues in climbing. I DO think there are ethical issues in climbing. But, so far, I haven't heard ETHICAL discussions; I have only heard "rules to the game" discussions, and these are NOT the same thing (or, if they are, then a theoretical connection must be made). The problem with using the word "ethics" lightly or incorrectly, is that it gives people an undue sense of urgency, responsibility, even (oh, God!) ZEAL to enforce certain "norms" on the community. Well did Harding long ago refer to like-minded people of his day, "The Valley Christians." Nothing has changed since his day, and I merely point out that it IS the elevation of "rules of the game" to "ethics" that underlies and seems to justify such thinking.
So, if it's ETHICS we're going to talk about, then that will not be as simple as tossing out a few "principles" that we all SEEM to agree with. A CONSENSUS is not the same thing as an ETHIC. If you want the easy way, that's fine, but I will maintain that you're not doing ethics. If you're doing ethics, then I continue to ask: What's your theory? WHAT grounds your "ethical" claims?
Some have recently hotly suggested that I'm making this too complicated, that I'm intentionally overlooking the obvious. I respond that you are claiming certain things to be "obvious" that apparently are not. Just saying "there will always be shades of grey" is a punt as an explaination of the ongoing disagreements that have ever riddled the climbing community.
The problem is much deeper than you acknowledge. I can point it out this way: Some are climbing for "fun," and they believe that if they are not having fun, then something is wrong (with the route, with their beta, with themselves, etc.); others believe that climbing is a "discipline" of sorts, like martial arts, etc.; still others believe that climbing MUST have risk in order to BE climbing; while yet others believe that climbing should NOT be risky, but it should be intentionally stripped of whatever risks possible. If you can't get clear about what "climbing" is, then you have no hope of clarifying even the "rules of the game," much less any ETHICS that might apply to the activity. Yet, if you say something like, "Well, it's ALL 'climbing,'" then you have no way to distinguish between hiking and climbing.
There's much more to say, but I'm not going to be able to follow any "good example" this way.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:36pm PT
|
i don't really think it's valid, nor is it really fair IMO, to conduct a conversation/debate on bigwall climbing ethics in the valley with R&M, on the heels of 100s of posts that attack and debase them and there route.
all of that stuff is not absent because it's not all right here in this thread, and there is simply no way they can react or discuss this stuff w/out defending themselves and their route, intentionally or not, to a large degree.
ergo, this is a waste of time and bandwidth, carry on.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:46pm PT
|
THE Madbolter wrote,
"or do you want a more lengthy, but philosophically careful, response?"
Sir, we (I) expect nothing less than this from you. And, frankly, I've not considered your posts wordy. Rather, as you note (defensively), that you are "wordy" by necessity; you have a lot to respond to.
This is true.
THE Madbolter also wrote,
"Regarding MadbolterI, I have nothing to say to you until you produce your real name. I thought the whole thing was funny until I saw you posting on other threads. And you have just noted that you'll be "sticking around." So, now I worry about what messes you will get "us" into in MY name, as people don't happen to notice your carefully-constructed hoax. "
First off,
I'm sorry that you don't find me funny. No, really. Really. I'm sorry. Heartfelt apologies.
I won't be sticking around for TOO long though, so don't fret. And I also will honor your request and will not post in other threads (I already said this in your little News Bulletin thread regarding your stolen identity). I will continue to post in this one for awhile, however. (and in your News Bulletin thread as well).
Notice, however, how I've not posted anything that would truly get you into a "mess."
Second,
I'm not the "carefully constructed" hoax that you claim me to be. Our names appear different. I didn't have to make it that way. You shouldn't be so offended. If I were anti-RichardJensen (or anti-WOS.... or just a rabble-rouser), I would have approached this much differently. I've actually enjoyed the vast majority of your posts - and AGREE with most of them as well.
Whatever happened to the old imitation/flattery thing?
p.s. My next trick will be a WBraun imitation. Posts will consist of nothing but Zen Koans. Or maybe nothing at all.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:56pm PT
|
THE Madbolter wrote-
"You ARE a troll, plain and simple, and this is the last I intend to respond to you until you come clean and put yourself PERSONALLY on the line like the rest of us. Drop the troll profile and post in honesty. Then and only then will I address you."
Ah, I almost forgot.
My name.
last name...
bolter
first name...
mad
I know, it is lamentable. And quite a coincidence. What can I say, my Mom was a bit on the odd side. She did date WHarding, after all.
|
|
madboIter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 05:17pm PT
|
I'm intentionally confusing nothing. An example may help:
RTL (Right to Lifer): Abortion is WRONG!
PC (Pro-Choicer): No it's not. A woman has the right to choose!
RTL: Nobody has the right to choose murder!
PC: It's not murder. It's removing a clump of cells!
RTL: It's a LIFE! You're killing an innocent life! Of course it's murder!
PC: "Murder" isn't about killing just any old thing. Just because something is alive doesn't mean you "muder" it when you kill it!
RTL: It's a HUMAN BEING! Hello! ANY way you want to try to make this issue MORE COMPLICATED, the FACT remains that you are killing a human BEING!!!
PC: Are cells scraped from my finger a "human being?" Does the existence of human DNA make something a "human being?" NO! I'm not "murdering" to scrape off some cells from my fingertip!
RTL: You try and try to make the simple obscure! It's SO obvious! Why can't everybody just admit to the obvious??? A FETUS is a human being in a way that cells from your finger are NOT!
PC: Really? In what way are they different?
RTL: OBVIOUSLY, because left alone the cells from your finger will NEVER become a person, while a fetus left alone WILL!
PC: Oh, now you've smuggled in the word "person." What do you mean by that??? I think you realize that human DNA isn't sufficient to make your case, so now you want to add something in! And your "potential" argument doesn't fly. Just because a fetus is a potential person (or potential human being), as a clump of cells, they are NOT! I'm a potential president of the United States; so you had better start treating me NOW with all the rights and privileges of the President RIGHT NOW!
RTL: No, YOU have to add things over and above your mere existence to become a President, while a fetus will just naturally become a human being. (Forget I said anything about "person." I don't want to go there.)
PC: Noooo, I'm not going to forget, and I well know why you don't want to go there! What matters here isn't human DNA. What matters here is the distinction between PEOPLE and other living things we DON'T think we're "murdering" when we kill them! WHAT are the attributes of PEOPLE that make them different? That's the real issue here! And, BTW, you have simply punted on the "potential" argument.
RTL: No, you are throwing in a red herring when you start emphasizing "persons." The ONLY attribute that matters is HUMAN BEING! Can't you get that through your thick skull?
On and on. And my point is the NEITHER of these people are engaged in ETHICS. They haven't even gotten that far yet. They THINK they are doing ethics, but really they are just debating semantics and talking past each other regarding what the issues even are. Such "discussions" are ever the bane of those who want to "debate" without any clarity or agreement about basic terms or underlying ethical theory. We are at this same point in our discussion:
EA (et al): "Enhancing" placements is wrong (or at least bad, or at least "not as pure").
MB1: Really? Wrong? Bad? "Not pure?" What do you mean by those terms?
EA: Come on. Don't be intentionally dense. We all have a basic consensus about what we mean.
MB1: Really? I don't see it. What's the basis of this "consensus?" When you use a term like "pure," that's a relative term. Pure, relative to what?
EA: Pure, relative to NOT "enhancing."
MB1: Uhhh... I'm not trying to be dense, but that seems to beg the question. What I want to know is WHY this sort of, let's call it, "purity" matters. Why SHOULD we care about or strive toward such "purity?"
EA: It's less impact on the rock! It's obviously more natural.
MB1: And why should we care about "more natural?"
EA: Because, obviously, "climbing" is about USING the natural features of the rock.
MB1: Well, in that event, hiking does less impact to the rock, is more "natural" by any measure, and also gets you to the summit.
EA: Ahhh, but hiking is NOT climbing.
MB1: Ohhh, so something about "climbing" justifies doing SOME rock damage! So explain to me what this "climbing" is all about.
There are many paths to the same sorts of discussions, but none of them have gotten to the point of doing ETHICS yet. We still aren't even clear about our terms! And, regardless of what some have floated here recently, it is not the case that you can do "applied ethics" in an utter vacuum relative to metaethics. You can beat all around various bushes, but you can't actually make any progress. I thought this thread had some interest in making actual progress. Maybe I was incorrect about that.
Now, many of you seem to be quite content with this state of affairs, and who am I to introduce discontent? But, I heard scandalous rumors that this was an ETHICS thread, and I haven't heard any ETHICS yet. (And, BTW, whenever a student quotes Webster or some website definition to me in a paper, I shred it.)
So far, there's been lots of heat, yet virtually no light. I'm not trying to say that I am the ONLY ethical (or even educated) person here. ALL I'm saying is that we are not even clear enough about our TERMS yet to HAVE an ethics discussion.
Of course, perhaps clarity doesn't matter to most here, or most despair of ever getting the level of clarity I suggest. But they STILL want to be able to state the "obvious" that "enhancing" is wrong/bad/less pure. Sorry, but that's not obvious to me, and I haven't yet heard anything APPROACHING a case to make it so.
So, to answer Roger directly: In light of all I've heard so far, I say: Yes! Anything goes! The most people can RIGHTLY do is wring their hands and moan how they don't LIKE it (although, I suggest they really don't even know WHY they don't like it). If anybody wants to make an actual ETHICAL case about "enhancing," I'm all for hearing it, and I'd love for us to get clear about some of our basic terms, like "climbing," for instance. I do care about this, and I would love to see some clarity emerge (and I mean clarity, NOT just my own opinions; I have some opinions about what "climbing" means, but they are just my own opinions). If we can get to agree about some basic terms, and then some sort of overarching ethical theory, then we might actually start doing some productive ethics.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 06:09pm PT
|
Okay, so I have Richard’s answer to my question: ‘anything goes.’
So here is what I think. John started this post using the standard Yosemite term for ethics and then stated the changes in definition of acceptable use of drilling that occurred in his time in the Valley.
It was interesting and it made sense to me, a reasonable balance of competing issues.
As best as I can tell using 'ethics' as a term to describe these sorts of trade offs is pretty well understood by Valley climbers. One point of evidence is that I fully understand the points of ethics that Peter and John were making and they are from slightly different times and I am from a different world. I cannot even fathom the difficulty of what they climbed, but I understand why they care about the distinctions they are making. I feel the same way about the distinctions that Mark and Richard have made.
However, terms mean different things to different people. It is easy to get off on the wrong foot. I live with this issue everyday of my working life since many of people I interact with speak English as a second language. Over the years I have trained myself to 'hear' English spoken in constructions and word definitions that are based on many different languages. I am grateful that I do not have to switch among German, French, Swedish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and Spanish to get anything done. Apparently, English is very flexibly understood by many people.
I have learned to ask questions in such a way that I can understand the issues and points of view without insisting that the other person speak in my brand of English. If someone asks me how to say something correctly in English, I switch to professor mode and we talk about English—preferably over drinks and dinner. I don’t allow the two conversations to get mixed since that erodes to level playing field that is conducive to trust and understanding—if we disagree it has to be clearly understood what we are disagreeing on, and I am not in the business of evaluating anyone’s English skills.
Now about Yosemite climbing rules. I find the study of how Yosemite climbing rules change over time and why interesting. It is also clear that lots of climbers don’t. That’s okay as long as they follow them. These rules mean a lot to climbers who add risk to their climbs to abide by them—hell some folks even stand on tiny hooks rather than drill holes and then when they do drill holes they fill them with dinky rivets to maintain commitment. These climbers also show restraint in their climbing to abide by them, reducing coveted A5 ratings to protect the erosion of the climb. Also interestingly, when climbers from outside the area climb in Yosemite they seem to easily grasp the distinctions that are acceptable, which says a lot about how transparent they are. Complicated but somehow transparent.
And for sure these rules are important enough that people will aggressively push back on folks who don’t follow them, sometimes inappropriately so.
Conclusion off all this? It is not “any thing goes.”
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 08:07pm PT
|
Roger, I couldn't agree more! In the context you have just outlined, you are absolutely right: not just anything goes.
Of course, this isn't ethics, but probably most people will think I'm just playing semantical games to say that. I do think there are deeper issues (actual ethical ones) that underlie the rules to which we have been referring, and that real clarity is there to be had, but those issues seem not to really interest people here. So, I'll stop trying to address issues that people clearly don't care about.
The flip side of my capitulation, though, is that I remain utterly defiant about any fine-grained, supposed distinction between tiny chipping (using hammer and drill--gasp!--together) and bashing big hunks of rock loose with (just) a hammer. That distinction is not clear to me, but what is clear is that nobody is going to step up to the plate to actually attempt to make that distinction clear. Future "discussion" from me will take the form of questions (some of which will seem intentionally dense, but are indeed honest). I will laugh at "answers" of the form: "It's obvious that..." or, "We are all basically in agreement with...."
Carry on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 08:34pm PT
|
ok madbolter1, you win:
"(And, BTW, whenever a student quotes Webster or some website definition to me in a paper, I shred it.) "
I'm not your student, but you obviously do not feel I am contributing anything but crap to this conversation... I'm out.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 09:43pm PT
|
Tiny chipping and bashing big hunks of rock is the same.
Steal a piece of gum from the candy store and steal millions from people is the same. Both are thieves.
Now go write a 2000 word essay .............. madmanbolter1
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:20pm PT
|
This will be short and to the point.
As a practical matter, I think that you will get further in understanding Yosemite rock climbing rules if you think of them from a legal perspective rather than a philosophical perspective. I think the concept of rules based on precedent is a closer model. (The fact that the rules are not written down and the police don’t wear uniforms is irrelevant.)
You have had lots of space to in this thread to state something about what you view as the ‘ethical’ issues. Not having done so and then claiming no one is interested is bullsh#t.
Page 24 of Roper’s original guide has a short section discussing climbing ethics. It was published in 1964. Get off your high horse, Richard.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:24pm PT
|
Yeah you tell him, Roger.
He thinks he's GOD.
And don't write me a stupid 5000 word response nor a short one madmanbolter1, I don't care what you say.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:36pm PT
|
looks like you fell onto the tallus again...
richard,
regarding th difference between this and that-
do you ever wonder if this "defiant" side of you that chooses to define the differences, rather than seek to understand the definitions others have accepted for or attached to the differences, has in any way contributed to where we all are with all of this?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:05pm PT
|
Fell to the talus? Hmmm... What do you mean by that, Matt? Do you think that this little poorly-attended, kangaroo court of "public opinion," with its moment-by-moment vagaries of "opinion" has me freaking out on a moment-by-moment basis? Do you think that the discussion to this point has been such a waste that I have personally flamed out?
Werner, so, are you saying that the Bird is a really, really big "thief?"
Roger, so because I would like to see more clarity on this subject than the climbing community has heretofore attained (having been the brunt of some of its more ridiculous "obvious ethics"), I'm on a "high horse?" Please explain.
Ed, have I ever said you have contributed only "crap?" Does my asking for a more defined discussion count as treating the foregoing discussion as MERE crap?
Who is being defensive now, guys?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:10pm PT
|
BTW, Werner, it is of note that this is just another one of multiple times you have accused me of being "twisted" or "mad" or a "madman" or "thinking I'm God" or some other ridiculous thing. You seem to wait silently in the wings until you sense that "public" opinion (for a brief moment) had (again) turned against me, so you can take that opportunity to lash out with venom. Are epithets really the best you have to offer?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:35pm PT
|
Listen bub.
I got off work at 6:30 pm. I put in 10 hour days doing full vehicle installs. If you want to speculate on what I'm doing then fine.
People chisel, people enhance, people do all kinds of things, whatever man. If they say what they did then fine. If they don't say what they did then fine too. We all know what we did.
Bridwell does what he does and that is he climbs. He will climb till he drops. If you want to waste your time thinking how and what he does then be my guest. He could care less what you think about what he did.
He'll just keep on climbing, while you're still scratching your head trying to figure out your ethics.
Pioneers just do what it takes, the rest follow along and scratch their balls wondering .........
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!