RRC Archives

tbwilsonky wrote:while i find fidelity to logic totally adorable, it's important we understand why this whole smurf chalk fiasco is 'bad'.

blue chalk is obviously not morally problematic, nor is it more 'unnatural' than white chalk. what it is, however, is outside of the marking norm. and therein lies the problem: it adds yet another layer of visibility to a practice (in a place) which doesn't need it. countering this both here and in the field is simply political pragmatism on our parts... not a foil for a high school philosophy lecture.

you're welcome,
tommy

That's what I was looking for. I'm against Blue chalk, just like I'm against fixed gear(couldn't help myself). But if I'm actually going to stand up to someone and tell them on behalf of all of us that colored chalk is bad, I don't think it's too much to ask for to have a legit argument against smurf chalk. And this makes sense. Thanks.

RRO wrote: anyone want to spray paint the names on the wall ?

We do have nifty little name tags in Muir...

Thank you Tommy & Matt...perfectly stated. It's not that I inherently dislike blue, it's just that blue+white=2, which happens to be greater than 1. The fewer ticks the better in my book, but since we're stuck with white chalk (minus a pressure washer and a sudden industry shift), let's keep at that... We need to minimize our impact, not compound it--especially, as Matt pointed out, in the eyes of landowners and managers. Should we start dumping our garbage at the crag too because a few asswipe clowns leave tape, cigarette butts, and energy bar wrappers there? No, we have to pick up their trash for them & maybe bitch a little bit about it.

Bottom line: Brush egregious ticks off, don't put your own little douchey flourish on top of them.

since this really is a serious issue, let me be clear....matt said it how I was 'trying" to say it....and why I asked Dustonian waht was the "logic" behind the confrontation.

it is the mixing of colors we are against, merely for the fact that white got there first.I too am opposed to two color schemes. but if blue got there first, then blue itd be.

white is not a superior way to deface the rock, merely our insulated groups justified manner to do so..does that make sense?

and as such, if the larger community says it is "wrong", then the dude should take a chill pill on the maneuver.

(boy did sport bolting also go thru a similar backlash, fwiw)

Tick marks are lame period - be it white or blue. It's aid climbing because you surely can't do it by yourself if you need tick marks.

TradMike wrote:Tick marks are lame period - be it white or blue. It's aid climbing because you surely can't do it by yourself if you need tick marks.

I'll save the crowds the the pain and say it first...same thing could be said about chalk, sticky rubber, dynamic ropes, and SLCDs....surely you can't do it yourself if you need these aid climbing tools...

That is a great idea!

Wait, I had that backwards, scratch that.

and the chalkboard chalk does seem to be harder to brush away. I spent a while trying to get rid of some of the ticks on far from god last year, and yes I thought it was annoying. I assumed it was some kid with a gimmick to get attention.

This guy needs to be stopped. Someone please spray paint him blue so we can find him.

Just curious- how old was the offending douche?