A Warning to Women Regarding A Prominent Valley Climber

Chad Millerwrote:

The tone of your comment says a lot more about your character than the discussion you’re trying to mock for attention. When someone’s first instinct is to belittle people raising serious allegations and reduce it to a “temper tantrum,” it usually signals a pretty stunning lack of empathy and maturity. You’re not asking thoughtful questions—you’re sneering from the sidelines and pretending cynicism is intelligence.

That whole “checking boxes” rant just makes you sound like someone who can’t engage with the substance of an issue, so you fall back on tired sarcasm and culture-war buzzwords to look clever. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a middle-school eye roll.

If your contribution to a serious topic is basically “lol everyone’s just raging,” it doesn’t make you the calm, rational observer you think it does. It just makes you look dismissive, small-minded, and desperate to sound edgy while avoiding the uncomfortable reality that real people are talking about real harm. 

Genuinely, I think you ought to share who has contacted you in defense of PTPP. These are the exact men who enable rape culture, and they should be dealt with the same

Jared Ewrote:

Genuinely, I think you ought to share who has contacted you in defense of PTPP. These are the exact men who enable rape culture, and they should be dealt with the same

The lawyer I hired and spoke with about what I can legally say without being exposed to lawsuits advised me not to.

I am able to say if you look at the Super Topo Refugees FB page the posts are publicly available. 

Chad Millerwrote:

The lawyer I hired and spoke with about what I can legally say without being exposed to lawsuits advised me not to.

I am able to say if you look at the Super Topo Refugees FB page the posts are publicly available. 

As "publicly available" as posts in a private group can be

"Supertaco Refugees" : https://www.facebook.com/groups/449723832238919/ 

Threads:

• So Pete how are your book sales going now?
• Undistracting Headline
• What happened to Pass the pitons Pete?

Fail Fallingwrote:

As "publicly available" as posts in a private group can be

"Supertaco Refugees" : https://www.facebook.com/groups/449723832238919/ 

Threads:

• So Pete how are your book sales going now?
• Undistracting Headline
• What happened to Pass the pitons Pete?

Publicly available as not sent to me specifically but available for anyone with an account to read. Legal definition of public. :)

Why are there no accounts of PP getting the #$@* slapped out of him? 

1 as the story goes

also surprised ol pencil neck hasn’t gotten snapped in half yet. 

ZT Gwrote:

1 as the story goes

also surprised ol pencil neck hasn’t gotten snapped in half yet. 

He’s been struck by at least one person his behavior. I’m not sure exactly what it was related to. I believe it happened at a Valley cleanup type event in ‘22 or ‘23. PTPP called the police on the woman who struck him.  Not sure what happened. 

Ally Lwrote:

With all due respect Andrew, fuck that. I wanna thank all the women and men who pushed back relentlessly on this thread to get the word out despite clear attempts to prevent that. MP is OnX, in the end a body of ventures and investors. They would 100% behave with all the amorality of a soulless corporation to protect their own interests- which probably would have been for this thread to not exist at all.

MP exists on the free labor of its users, the people who submit the routes and information that make any of this possible. For free. Then MP gets to decide when they don’t find your info beneficial for them and delete it? Yeah fuck that noise. Not giving them credit for the work of others in this case.

EDIT: apogee, where did I say in this entire forum that MP didn’t have the legal right to do what they do, the same way I have the legal right to shut fuck up and save my sanity from this thread? I’m just pointing out that it’s shitty behavior that affects the people that participate. It seems that everyone here is having trouble realizing that you can do legal things and still be an asshole. So thank you for that unwarranted and unneeded explanation of how all of this works. I definitely haven’t heard it on this thread already!

Also, yikes, what’s with all of you insisting on “getting flamed” and “flame on”? Is this really all just some fun internet debate for you? Cause it isn’t for me.

I totally understand your perspective, Ally, and appreciate all your comments. I thought it was absolutely shit behavior when the mods deleted your comment and Christian's early on. That was terrible moderating.

However, I also believe in giving credit where it's due, and I think since then they've actually corrected course and are taking an appropriately hands-off approach.

Well, I've read this thing end to end (which has become no mean feat, akin to getting up one of the easier El Cap routes). Two things I think I can add:

1) There's a bit of an undercurrent of "guilt by association" in the thread, like: People who have known PTPP surely must have known about his proclivities and so are also complicit in them by at least negligence. Steve Schneider was called out in this way, and others were alluded to. I'll vouch for Steve's character! I've known him for years, and I've known him to do one of the hardest things a person with a reputation can do. I'd vouch for Steve and leave him alone with my wife any day (and night) of the week. "Being around PTPP" doesn't necessarily mean that one becomes privy to his (apparent) sexual problems, which means that one isn't necessarily complicit in some way. This leads to (2):

2) I've "known" PTPP for decades, probably much like Steve. I've never done a wall with him (despite several close calls, heh), but we've hung out quite a bit in the Valley. I've known him to be a hard drinker, and he can definitely come off as self-serving. But I haven't personally observed him behave, or even verbally lean into, the sorts of things described in this thread. He was always well behaved around me and my wife. I got a vague sense that he was a horn-dog, but I wouldn't be able to put a finger on what exactly gave me that impression, and being a horn-dog in itself doesn't tend toward illegality. Thus, I'm saddened that Hooking Up is getting any negativity from its association with PTPP. I'm in Hooking Up as a bit-player, and I found it worthwhile to make my tiny contribution to that volume. I'm sure that many other contributors feel the same. So, it troubles me to see the many suggestions on this thread to the effect that: We have some sweeping (and swept-under) problem in the groping/assault category, and if only we were all holding each other to account better, then we'd have less of a problem. For my part, I never saw anything to "hold to account," and I'd guess that Steve has been in the same boat. A "vague sense" isn't something you can act on or even say anything about. As I say, he was well-behaved around me and my wife.

This isn't a diatribe to defend PTPP! Enough has been posted here about him to be concerning to me.

But I am defending Steve, who is an absolutely class-act in my book. And I am saying that MANY of us who have known PTPP in various contexts, spanning a long time, may not have seen "enough" to be legitimately concerned at the time. If I excluded as friends people who get drunk and bloviate over the years, I would have missed out on many dear friendships with wonderful people, Warren Harding among them.

We should definitely be calling out ACTUAL improprieties AT THE TIME they occur! It gets really, really hard to do or even say anything of substance long after the fact. And, given my particular background, I am very suspicious of forum threads touting as "fact" that which may or may not be. The herd gets to stampeding, and herds tend to not think critically. I don't think this thread is a herd yet, but it could get from here to a herd pretty quickly. I've seen it happen, and herds get ugly. I speak from experience. Talking about boycotting or negatively reviewing Hooking Up, for example, is herd-type thinking.

Let's not head anywhere near "guilt by association" is my primary point here.

I feel that all this debate really misses the intent of the original post, which is clearly stated in the title of the post. So many are talking about how we can’t accuse someone of a crime without clear evidence or about how we shouldn’t light our torches and gather our pitchforks have a point, but that’s not even what this is all about really. 

The point is that most people tend to give other folks the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, which can have disastrous consequences when ‘proven otherwise’ is the case. This thread gives plenty of reason to act with caution around PTPP and spreads the word. Personally, I love that. I’ve never met PTPP, but if I meet him I’ll be sure not to allow him the opportunity to take advantage of me or anyone I love.

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

It seems as if the good thing about the Morlock-ish 'toxic men' of old was that they would punish men who stepped out of line; they'd be confrontational, even violent, in policing these things. There was a code. You didn't need the police. Now, men have been so detoxified, passive, and nonconfrontational, Eloi-esk, they do nothing but just let people get away with shit until they eventually get the courage to form an online mob, which leads to mob hearsay and hysteria, the crimes and misdemeanors of being a creep soon becoming sexual predator, then rapist, and who knows, even serial killer ("I heard of of his girlfriends just disappeared"). Maybe, if climbers had been much more confrontational in the moment, and far less concerned with being laid back and 'cool' (I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep), there'd be no need for 30 years of 'problematic' behaviour to be exhumed on this forum, and worse, guilt by association. Perfect human beings don't exist, and those who feel they are and so qualify to climb into the pulpit and lecture everyone else, and arbitrators of justice, are most usually monsters. 

What the fuck? This is revisionist history at best, and is downright creepy. There was no code Andy. You’re romanticizing a world that never was and saying some really weird shit in the process. 

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

It seems as if the good thing about the Morlock-ish 'toxic men' of old was that they would punish men who stepped out of line; they'd be confrontational, even violent, in policing these things. There was a code. You didn't need the police. Now, men have been so detoxified, passive, and nonconfrontational, Eloi-esk, they do nothing but just let people get away with shit until they eventually get the courage to form an online mob, which leads to mob hearsay and hysteria, the crimes and misdemeanors of being a creep soon becoming sexual predator, then rapist, and who knows, even serial killer ("I heard of of his girlfriends just disappeared"). Maybe, if climbers had been much more confrontational in the moment, and far less concerned with being laid back and 'cool' (I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep), there'd be no need for 30 years of 'problematic' behaviour to be exhumed on this forum, and worse, guilt by association. Perfect human beings don't exist, and those who feel they are and so qualify to climb into the pulpit and lecture everyone else, and arbitrators of justice, are most usually monsters. 

I may be a simple and chivalrous relic of the past, but I assumed that the issue with PTPP and his ilk was that they got high from sniffing each other’s farts and lost touch with reality. 

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

It seems as if the good thing about the Morlock-ish 'toxic men' of old was that they would punish men who stepped out of line; they'd be confrontational, even violent, in policing these things. There was a code. You didn't need the police. Now, men have been so detoxified, passive, and nonconfrontational, Eloi-esk, they do nothing but just let people get away with shit until they eventually get the courage to form an online mob, which leads to mob hearsay and hysteria, the crimes and misdemeanors of being a creep soon becoming sexual predator, then rapist, and who knows, even serial killer ("I heard of of his girlfriends just disappeared"). Maybe, if climbers had been much more confrontational in the moment, and far less concerned with being laid back and 'cool' (I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep), there'd be no need for 30 years of 'problematic' behaviour to be exhumed on this forum, and worse, guilt by association. Perfect human beings don't exist, and those who feel they are and so qualify to climb into the pulpit and lecture everyone else, and arbitrators of justice, are most usually monsters. 

That’s a lot of words to say you’re nostalgic for a time when fragile egos were propped up by intimidation and violence. Romanticizing “toxic men” as some kind of moral enforcement squad doesn’t make you insightful—it makes you sound like you think self-control and basic decency are signs of weakness.

Your whole argument collapses under its own contradictions. You complain about “mob hysteria,” while simultaneously wishing for a return to literal mobs—just ones that punch people instead of posting about them. Apparently, your ideal justice system is whichever version lets you feel tough without having to think too hard.

And the Morlock/Eloi analogy? Misusing The Time Machine doesn’t make this sound intellectual—it just highlights how badly you’ve misunderstood both the book and the present. The Morlocks weren’t noble enforcers of order; they were a warning about what happens when society degrades. If that’s your model, you’ve completely missed the point.

What really stands out is the insecurity underneath all of this. You’re not defending “a code”—you’re lamenting that people no longer tolerate behavior that used to go unchecked. Dressing that up as a critique of modern culture doesn’t make it profound. It just makes it obvious.  Bonus bigotry for trying to cram in homophobia.

Try harder next time.  

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep

It is hard for me to imagine anyone thinking sexual harassment is ok as long as the perpetrator is queer? What makes you think that? 

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

It seems as if the good thing about the Morlock-ish 'toxic men' of old was that they would punish men who stepped out of line; they'd be confrontational, even violent, in policing these things. There was a code. You didn't need the police. Now, men have been so detoxified, passive, and nonconfrontational, Eloi-esk, they do nothing but just let people get away with shit until they eventually get the courage to form an online mob, which leads to mob hearsay and hysteria, the crimes and misdemeanors of being a creep soon becoming sexual predator, then rapist, and who knows, even serial killer ("I heard of of his girlfriends just disappeared"). Maybe, if climbers had been much more confrontational in the moment, and far less concerned with being laid back and 'cool' (I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep), there'd be no need for 30 years of 'problematic' behaviour to be exhumed on this forum, and worse, guilt by association. Perfect human beings don't exist, and those who feel they are and so qualify to climb into the pulpit and lecture everyone else, and arbitrators of justice, are most usually monsters. 

Just because you have a thought doesn't mean you need to "author" it Andy. Fuck's sake, what a pile of shit.  

Camdon Kaywrote:

It is hard for me to imagine anyone thinking sexual harassment is ok as long as the perpetrator is queer? What makes you think that? 

In Andy Kirkpatrick's case it's a combination of homophobia and ignorance.  

Andy Kirkpatrickwrote:

(I doubt if Pete was Gay, or trans, anyone would give even a peep), 

What the actual F? We’re constantly battling the BS lies that we’re groomers and child monsters.

Wow, Andy, what a screwed up take that would appear to be highly out of touch with how sexual assault happens. It is in fact out of touch with the encounter with PTPP reported earlier in this thread.

Nobody is perfect, you amply proved that point, but we can do better than some kind of vigilante boys club.

Chad Millerwrote:

In Andy Kirkpatrick's case it's a combination of homophobia and ignorance.  

There is nothing homophobic in his post. The main point is clearly about male passivity and how modern men have become too nonconfrontational, leading to online mob justice and exaggerated accusations. He’s also calling out hypocrisy and selective outrage: the idea that the same behavior would be ignored if the person were gay or trans.  

You don't have to agree with him but immediately labeling it "homophobic" is lazy and misses the actual point.