Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!