Cochise route chopped, take 2

Jon Ruland wrote: mine are like grapes...tiny, seedless grapes. that have been out in the sun a while. so like, raisins. or something.

Did you hone this line of argument on a date or something...after the drug store was closed?

EDIT: Mike, Ruland's with ya, or at least in that anatomical vicinity.

Just got back from the Sierras... can we just go back to talking about weiners?

Eric Rhicard wrote:it would be nice if you guys would answer the questions because in the end it isn't about me and Scott Ayers. In the end it is about what is acceptable practice in our climbing community.

right on. anyone reading the two threads regarding this can see that the majority of people who voiced an opinion regarding chopping was against it. if someone has a problem with a particular route, they can voice their concerns to the community and let them weigh in. rogue chopping only leads to more of the same.

nobody is exempt from this, even if he has put up a lot of routes in the stronghold as scott has. if his actions are out of line with the local ethic he's going to be called on it.

as it appears that scott isn't going to fix what he's done, i will personally help repair the hardware unless the community decides otherwise.

Mike Diesen wrote:We piss them off bad enough they may decide there efforts here aren't appreciated and go somewhere else taking the thousands of dollars worth of their hardware with them.

this is not the first time that i have heard this. i think it would be pretty lame if scott said this to mike.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Did you hone this line of argument on a date or something...after the drug store was closed?

no! no of course not!

Mike Dudley wrote:Just got back from the Sierras... can we just go back to talking about weiners?

here we go:

I'm back early. Injuries suck.

Eric,

I'm not sure how you perceived my post as saying that Scott can't explain himself on mountainproject. I said he won't, not can't. Again, if you guys want him to explain himself, he would show up in a public meeting. I still don't understand why you don't have any interest in this.

You might ask me, why won't Scott explain himself on here? Well, it's pretty simple. People tend to be far more rational in person than behind a computer screen. Think of it like this Eric, if these threads contained things like: "Eric is spineless, Eric needs counseling, Eric is the Ken Nichols of the west, I hate Eric, I encourage everyone to chop every one of Eric's routes," you would think it is completely ridiculous, right? You are a popular guy on mountainproject. Scott is not.

I have trouble buying this whole thing is about the communinity, not the squabble between Scott and Eric because: YOU AREN'T CALLING OUT RICKD. If you guys really care about the community, why aren't you calling this out? Don't you think Rick is being extremely antagonistic? Wouldn't chopping all of Scott's routes be terrible for the community?

Furtheremore, Eric, what about your threats on the previous thread about raining on the sheepshead? Those are about chopping Scott's routes in retaliation to Scott messing with any of your routes (or variations in this instance), right? Is it justified to chop Scott's routes because he changed your bolt hangers? Or even if he had chopped your routes, is it acceptable to chop his? Is this really about the community?

Have you done anything to antagonize Scott? Yes, Scott has done some foolish things. He has told me he regrets some things he did. Scott, for example, told me he regrets messing with Ray Ringle's routes on the Beaver Wall. At that time, did you have the wisdom to know rap-bolting would be a generally acceptable way to bolt routes? From how he described it, he and Ringle are able to laugh about it now because Scott realizes he was being foolish then. Eric, have you done anything regrettable? Do you have a perfect record? As some biblical text says, (I'm not a religious dude, so I don't really know) let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Geir, if this is about the community, why aren't you calling out Rickd? Why aren't you calling out Eric's threats to chop Scott's routes? You said you are against chopping anyone's bolts ("a position which actually benefits Scott") but it seems you are only concerned with Scott's actions.

While Scott switching the hangers isn't be best way to handle the beef with Eric, do the hangers need "repair?" Are the hangers Scott put up unsafe or inferior in any way? According to Eric's guidebook, we should be using camoflauge bolts whenever possible.

Again, I'm not here to defend Scott's actions. All I'm saying is that the whole "for the community" argument is a thin veil for the anti-Scott vendetta.

Just answer the questions.

Dan Cohen wrote:Geir, if this is about the community, why aren't you calling out Rickd? Why aren't you calling out Eric's threats to chop Scott's routes?

I am against all chopping. If anyone chops one of Scott's lines, I will help replace it. To my knowledge, since I have moved here, nobody has chopped any of Scott's lines.

[EDIT: I'm against all chopping without gaining the approval of the community first. Should have said this initially, but was at work and rushed.]

Dan Cohen wrote:I'm back early. Injuries suck. Eric, I'm not sure how you perceived my post as saying that Scott can't explain himself on mountainproject. I said he won't, not can't. Again, if you guys want him to explain himself, he would show up in a public meeting. I still don't understand why you don't have any interest in this. You might ask me, why won't Scott explain himself on here? Well, it's pretty simple. People tend to be far more rational in person than behind a computer screen ... Eric, what about your threats on the previous thread about raining on the sheepshead? Those are about chopping Scott's routes in retaliation to Scott messing with any of your routes (or variations in this instance), right? ... He has told me he regrets some things he did. Scott, for example, told me he regrets messing with Ray Ringle's routes on the Beaver Wall. At that time, did you have the wisdom to know rap-bolting would be a generally acceptable way to bolt routes? From how he described it, he and Ringle are able to laugh about it now because Scott realizes he was being foolish then.

So Dan, are you Scott's spokesperson on MP now?

It sounds to me like you are simply relaying the contents of this thread to Scott, and he's telling you what to say. Is this the case?

I understand you say you are opposed to chopping anyone's bolts. Does that not present some conflict with Rick's call to chop all of Scott's routes, or Eric's threat to chop Scott's routes on the sheepshead? Considering you put a lot of time and effort into your sheepshead and Troll Wall topos, doesn't this bother you?

Let me present this parallel: if someone said, we should hack into Geir's website and destroy his topos, would you hope someone would speak out against this? Especially if a member of the community had publicly said they are against hacking into websites and destroying topos? Or would you do nothing until your topos were gone? (I am sure your topos are backed up on your computer, but you get the idea, right?).

I'm not trying to restrict Rick's right to freedom of speech, I'm encouraging you to back your words by using the same freedom of speech to discourage routes from being chopped.

Geir Hundal wrote: So Dan, are you Scott's spokesperson on MP now? It sounds to me like you are simply relaying the contents of this thread to Scott, and he's telling you what to say. Is this the case?

No, I'm not Scott's spokesperson. Yes, I have discussed some things with him. I have asked him some questions, including questions about his actions, and he has responded. The Ringle thing, Scott told me about that a while before Eric brought it up.

It's pretty insulting to say that I am simply relaying Scott words. Not that I needed encouragement to talk to Scott about his regrettable actions, but Eric asked us to. I do it, and I am accused of simply passing Scott's words.

Eric Rhicard wrote:But it would be nice if you guys would answer the questions

Okay, fair enough...

-If someone chopped one of my routes, would i be upset? Yes.

-If someone replaced my hardware, would i be upset? Initially; probably. Long-term; hard to say without getting a rationale first. If it was unwarranted, i would be upset but not as upset as if it were just removed.

-Are Scott's actions, in this scenario, acceptable? Impossible to say without knowing what his reasoning was/is.

Just curious.. Has anyone called to ask him what his reasoning was/is? I would, but this just isn't my fight. As Geir pointed out [indirectly], it concerns all of us and i agree with that since we all climb there. However, IMHO, it's not my place to confront him on this. Now, if it were my route he replaced hangers on, i would have called him to ask why he did so.

Dan Cohen wrote:I understand you say you are opposed to chopping anyone's bolts. Does that not present some conflict with Rick's call to chop all of Scott's routes, or Eric's threat to chop Scott's routes on the sheepshead?

Ah c'mon, Dan. Big difference between someone who chopped and someone who sprayed: "I hope his routes get chopped."

At least argue soundly. You're pushing the peanut gallery to the Rhichard/Hundal axis.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Ah c'mon, Dan. Big difference between someone who chopped and someone who sprayed: "I hope his routes get chopped." At least argue soundly. You're pushing the peanut gallery to the Rhichard/Hundal axis.

I agree there is a big difference between talking about chopping and actually chopping. I'm not saying we should go chop every, or any route Rick has done. I'm saying we (especially Geir, who says he is opposed to any chopping) should condemn Rick's call for chopping. Rick didn't say "I hope his routes get chopped." He said "I call out to all of you to chop every Scott Ayres route on the planet and start over!" Then, he, or admin, deleted his post! I applaud admin if it indeed that is the case.

This is another example of the inherent faultiness of mountainproject and online forums. What you referred to as spraying, as if to minimize it, I don't think would be acceptable in an in-person forum.

geir, dan: there seems to be a rift developing between the two of you in this thread, which seems very unfortunate to me because i had always thought you guys were friends--or if not friends, friendly acquaintances. i have climbed with and hung out with both of you guys at the same time, and it always seemed like you were friends. maybe i was wrong, i don't know, but i personally would be very sad if the two of you stopped speaking to each other or each ended up with reservations about the other because of this. we are clearly getting no where. let's not kill another friendship because of this.

Jon Ruland wrote:geir, dan: there seems to be a rift developing between the two of you in this thread, which seems very unfortunate to me because i had always thought you guys were friends--or if not friends, friendly acquaintances. i have climbed with and hung out with both of you guys at the same time, and it always seemed like you were friends. maybe i was wrong, i don't know, but i personally would be very sad if the two of you stopped speaking to each other or each ended up with reservations about the other because of this. we are clearly getting no where. let's not kill another friendship because of this.

Jon, there is obviously a rift between our perceptions of the whole situation. I don't want that to effect my relationship with Geir. I did consider us friends and am totally open to being friends again, not that I personally dislike him now. The day I climbed with Geir on the sheepshead, I had a genuinely good time and learned some racking techniques that I consistently use. But I do think Geir is trying to rally this issue against Scott for personal reasons. My posts to Geir have been an attempt to call that out. It's not because I'm friends with Scott. It's because I really care about the Tucson climbing community. I have repeatedly said I don't approve of Scott's actions. He openly admits, at least to anyone who cares to ask, he has made mistakes. If he wouldn't admit it, I would call him out too.

With that said, I am not on this thread to make friends at the expense of my dignity. So Geir, (and Eric, who I have been critical of too) I would love to be friends and climb with you guys (I offered to talk about all this over a beer, I would still do that), but I think the climbing community is bigger than my friendships with you guys or Scott.

I think this is a record for number of posts by one person in an hour, or at least it feels like it.

Dan Cohen wrote: He openly admits, at least to anyone who cares to ask, he has made mistakes. If he wouldn't admit it, I would call him out too.

As a lurker on this thread this statement is just plain sad. It sounds like a spoiled teenager who knows he is doing stuff he shouldn't but does it anyways then thinks everything will be OK by simply saying "I'm sorry.....Yeah that was foolish....." It's fine to make mistakes, it's how we learn....but at some point you need to learn from these mistakes. Simply owning up to them isn't enough if you are going to repeat them.

Eric clearly going about this on the internet is not going to get the results you are looking for. Have you simply called Scott on the phone and asked him why he switched your hardware? Seems a bit petty to keep pushing the online thing, just talk it out man to man.

Dan someone spraying for an all out world wide bolt chopping spree on the internet is very different than someone actually chopping. You have said this yourself in regards to Scott choosing not to post online, because people say things that they normally wouldn't in person. It's weak, quit playing both sides on this.

Shawn M. that was a perceptive post about poison. If I spent more than a few minutes now and then fretting over Scott Ayers I would have to agree and I would have gone for counseling. (This thread being more than I usually think about it in a year)

Daryl, thanks for the answers.

Jon, relax this is discussion, it is one of the things this country is founded on.

Dan Cohen, I appreciate your thoughtful posts and am glad to read them. I have respect for you and anyone else willing to type their way into the record.

As far as Rickd goes I think he is just blowing off steam and I think he realizes the community would not stand for it as they didn't for Ken Nichols actions out east.

I would not put up with Rickd or anyone else if he was out there chopping Scott's or anyone elses route.

I would do it because even though Rickd and Scott have "personal issues" it is still wrong. That is what I am asking you guys to do. Take a stand and say to Scott that despite what Eric may or may not have done to you, chopping a route is not the solution.

I don't go after Scott for the fun of it, I go after him because he is out of line. If you guys don't have what Jon said to stand up to him and insist he quit saying one thing and doing another then I will. That's why we have this very long but interesting thread.

Oh, and as far as the rain in the Stronghold goes, I wouldn't do that to climbers because chopping routes is really DICK! On the other, hand sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

THIS IS IMPORTANT, I WISH I HAD TYPED IT FOUR PAGES AGO.

You guys can Quote this. If Scott puts the original camo hangers you couldn't see from the ground, back on those variations and replaces any bolts he may have chopped, and if he promises not to go messing with other peoples routes even a little, and he promises not to tell everyone what and where and how they can climb and bolt, then Scott will never hear from me again. If Scott posts these promises on a thread here on Mtn. Project, I give you my word Scott will only hear from me on this and other sites when I comment on the routes he puts up.

Does the above seem unreasonable. Is this not what any of you want from other climbers?

So there you have it Dan. Do you think we need a public meeting to sort this out or can you and his other friends convince Scott to do the above.

Also for the record, a few years ago I asked a couple of Scott's friends to set up a meeting so we could work this out but I never heard anything.

Hey Philfell, I am pushing this online so that there is a record of it. Scott has a habit of saying one thing then doing another when it suits him. I think that is why he gets such a hostile reaction online, people don't like that sort of behavior.

rickd wrote: I remember what Lee Dexter told me 13 years ago- He no longer goes to the primary or even secondary areas as too much has been lost. Those third string things look pretty cool right now.....

Your post is important, and others should reflect on what you have said. Thanks for you efforts down there, and you are correct on the Sups (thank god). It is a shame that bolting anything and everything is so widely excepted. I too have leaned towards the Lee Dexter path. I go out to get away, not be part of some trend.

Since, Rick inspired me to chime, I might as well state. That Scotts actions speak louder than anyone on here's words. He F-up, he keeps silent, and that too speaks volumes to the character of the man, knowing full well what is said here. If it was me, I would have manned up by now. Keep em honest down there.

wow - some really excellent stuff has been posted since i visited yesterday afternoon! i'm at work and can't reply intelligently with the few minutes I have, but look forward to chiming in afterward.

Russ, I would be inclined to echo your post for the most part. I have only a passing acquaintance with Scott, but have greatly enjoyed many of his routes. I have also enjoyed quite a few routes put up by the other side of this dispute. That being said, I am reminded of something my friend Derek once said to me concerning a similar situation in Eldorado Canyon; "Stu, I'm too busy climbing to get involved in these arguments."

<quote=Russ WallingThat being said, I don't like squeeze jobs or most bolts near cracks. They get a chop vote.

That means a lot of bolts get chopped on End Game.