Wings of Steel

ETHICS
Actions which directly affect others in the climbing community are properly questions of ethics. Several might be considered, but we will be concerned with only one.
PRESERVATION: The primary ethical consideration involves leaving a route unchanged so others may enjoy, as nearly as possible, the creation of those who made the first ascent. Through the years there has been controversy over questions of placing and removing bolts, as well as other questions such as destroying holds or creating them with the pick end of the hammer. Those removing bolts (and holds) often think everyone should do a route in the best possible style or not at all. This is extreme. Climbing is good style is admirable, but must everyone be forced to do so? Opposing these super-purists are extremists of the opposite bent who insist all routes should be accessible to all persons. A compromise is in order, one based upon a simple point of reference.
THE FIRST ASCENT PRINCIPLE: A climb is a work of art, a creation of the men who made the first ascent. To make it more difficult by chopping bolts is to insult those who put it up and to deprive others the joy of repeating the route as the first party did it. It is like taking another's painting or poem and 'improving' it. Better to paint our own pictures and write our own poems. On the other hand, to bring a climb down to one's level by placing bolts (or pitons on an all nut climb) shows and equally lamentable lack of respect for, and degrades the accomplishments of, its creators. If we do not disturb the route done in a shoddy manner (e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts), it will do no harm, and may provide a good climb for the less capable. And as for the route done in elegant fashion - let it remain as a pinnacle of achievement to which we may aspire. Better that we raise our skills than lower the climb. So let it be.
The above definition of climbing ethics, self-limiting as it is, has the advantage of avoiding the chancy area of pre-judging the way a first ascent should be done. This is left entirely to the individual and becomes a question not of ethics but of style.

STYLE
'Style' is a slippery word, difficult to define. In rockclimbing it refers to the methods and equipment used, and the degree of 'adventure' involved in the ascent. Adventure here means the degree of uncertainty as to the outcome. Generally, methods and equipment determine the amount of adventure. Thus, by using the method of siege climbing and using as part of our equipment an unlimited number of bolts - success on any pure rock climb on earth, no matter how flawless, is virtually assured. There would be no adventure in such an endeavor, and it would be in the worst possible style. On the other hand, to assault a great wall in a direct, committing way, without fixed lines, and with a limited amount of food, water, and equipment, is to climb in good style. It is to place more trust on one's personal qualities and skill, and less reliance on equipment and laborious methods. But the style must be suited to the climb. To use good big-wall style on a little wall is to turn good style to bad. To climb in good style is to climb in the most natural way possible, to do it with the smallest number of technological aids. The first technological aid to be eliminated, if possible, is the bolt, for it can be placed anywhere. With pitons one at least needs a crack, though almost any size and shape will do. Jammed nuts are better, for with them we must adapt to the nature of the crack. We must work with the rock; we can't force it. It is more natural. Better still are runners placed on the natural belay points such as horns, trees, or chockstones. And finally, we come to climbing alone, without a rope. But that will be for the few. The trick is to suit the style to the climb and to oneself. The truly ultimate style is the perfect match - the treading of that fine edge between ambition and ability.
Granted we are free to try to climb in any style we choose as long as we don't damage the route, what about the many individuals who desire a better definition of the good game, those who aren't so much interested in getting up routes as in meeting the essential challenge of them? What is a good general goal to shoot for - one which, when achieved, will leave us with a feeling of accomplishment, of having done the route in the right way? In other words, what is the point of the game? Every climb is different. A good standard which is always applicable and yet which also allows for the individuality of each route is our first ascent principle. It can guide us in questions of style as well as ethics. If we take our general stylistic goal the way the first ascent was done, we have a ready made, always available standard for a minimum style to shoot for. The acceptance of this principle has the advantage of obviating general style controversies. A further advantage is that the style of the first ascent is a reasonable goal, for those who come after have the psychological advantage of knowing the route will go, as well as a description of the route. If we regard the style in which a route was established, we pay respect to the men who did it, and show we are aware of their values and that we consider their climb a creation, not just another climb to be knocked off and checked in our guidebook.

The above definition of climbing ethics, self-limiting as it is, has the advantage of avoiding the chancy area of pre-judging the way a first ascent should be done. This is left entirely to the individual and becomes a question not of ethics but of style.

1. The potential is for a different FA team to take less time- I believe this is a somewhat personal decision because it is really a question of style, not ethics, but they took 39 days for the FA. They didn't climb on Sundays so that leaves about 34 days climbing. The SA by one of the fastest difficult big wall aid climbers in the world took 13 days. So the SA took about 40% of the time for the FA. SAs are almost always quicker and considering this route required lots of drilled placements which take lots of time (we don't know yet how many placements had to be replaced by the SA team, versus the placement that were replaced earlier) but I would say that shows the time required for the FA was entirely reasonable.

So, what is the issue? Is it just something personal against these guys?

"Leeroy, you were just stupid as hell!"

Talk about loss of perspective, you're just one of the many delusional wankers posting jive ass bullshit here regarding an incident you know absolutely nothing about...you moron.

It’s been years and at any single point you’ve had the opportunity to lay down arms, swallow your pride, and attempt some resolution.