RRC Archives

Spragwa wrote:

512OW wrote:

Jill wrote:Grrrrrrrr....Alzheimer's? Do ya remember the past?
I think you do. You are just bored on a Saturday so here you are posting some look at me...I'm the philosophical rebel...I'll do what is right even if it is illegal, but not before I tell my fan club and the FS about it first.

Have restraint. Some things are better left unposted.

Haha. Yes, I remember, and I'm sorry you let it affect you.

Change doesn't occur because people sit around and follow the rules, OR break them in silence.

Have fun being a proponent of stale and sterile climbing. Sorry I can't comply.

wow look it's Odub, a legend in his own mind. boldly going where hundreds before him have gone.

You drinkin your girlfriends whiskey again?

Jealousy manifests itself in ugly ways. It sure as hell didn't come out pretty with you....

I know, I bow to the master of self-absorption.

Spragwa wrote:I know, I bow to the master of self-absorption.

Wow...you should have posted that under a different thread....you know...one where I wasn't at all being concerned with other peoples safety or pleasure.

Either that or stop using the thesaurus.

Actually, the route is on FS property and in Clifty Wilderness. Here I am at a loss. The rational part of me says: If the route will get someone killed just because it doesn't have anchors, then it should have anchors. But it is in a wilderness area, though to me its not really as wilderness as a lot of other routes I've done that are not technically wilderness.

Can the route be made safe without placing anchors? Trundling some stuff?

512OW wrote:...one where I wasn't at all being concerned with other peoples safety or pleasure.

Near as I can tell, safety isn't always the primary issue with climbs. There are a lot of R- and X-rated climbs that could be made a lot safer with a bolt or two or three, but the added protection is almost universally rejected. You've heard the reasons.

ZSpider

wow, boys and girls..here is a novel thought for all of you self abosorbed (sprag's definition) climbers. How about, just for a second, considering that the climb should not be climbed? Considering the illegality of bolting there and the danger factor in its current state, will the globe stop turning if it never gets anchors? Or, for that matter, if it is never climbed again?

I would go along with Zspider except that R and X routes aren't made safe out of respect for the way the route was sent by the FA.

Zspider wrote:

512OW wrote:...one where I wasn't at all being concerned with other peoples safety or pleasure.

Near as I can tell, safety isn't always the primary issue with climbs. There are a lot of R- and X-rated climbs that could be made a lot safer with a bolt or two or three, but the added protection is almost universally rejected. You've heard the reasons.

ZSpider

Huh?

ynot wrote:I would go along with Zspider except that R and X routes aren't made safe out of respect for the way the route was sent by the FA.

So the changes that are being discussed are by the first ascent party? Or are you saying that the establishment of anchors at the top are outside an impact on the style of the first ascent, and that the discussed anchors maintains respect for the stype of first ascent?

ZSpider

If its in the clifty wilderness, I would rather it not have bolted anchors, but only for the purpose of following the rules.
Absent those rules, I would rather have anchors on it.
Did you like the crawl over to the tree? Or did you find another way down?