From: billw@ace.mentorg.com (Bill Wright)
Subject: Re: Ego's and Chalk, a walk down posting lane
Originator: billw@ace
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:49:17 GMT
Reply-To: billw@sjc.mentorg.com
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


Ah, a public flame war amongst past partners.  How invigorating!  I
prefer such things this be handled via Email, but since Brodesky isn't
man enough to confront someone face to face we will do it here.  Certainly
insignificant tripe, but maybe entertaining for those not involved.  I
suggest just moving on to the next post, however.

In article <BuC1Ex.1w7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, brodesky@td2cad.intel.com (Michael Brodesky) writes:
|> 	OK, I'll bite, yes the chalk makes rock look bad to some, and
|> to others it might look artistic. I'm not going to get into this part of
|> the thread. Instead I will focus on Ego's of Chalk users.
My only point is that chalk is ugly.  That is my only gripe against it.
Yes, it helps you climb higher numbers.  Just like shoes, spider mitts, tape,
friends, etc.  Who is denying this?  The man can't read or understand 
simple English.

|> 	I find it ironic that the person who posts the most climbing
|> adventures writes that Chalk users have big Ego's.
Wrong!  Where did I say this?  I didn't.  I said that the reason chalk is
used is to climb a higher number.  This is ego related.  Chalk users don't
have bigger or smaller egos than non-chalk users.

|> No new taxes seem to come to mind with
|> this statement. 
Obviously politics and analogies are not his strong suit...

|> I also find it funny that Bill says Chalk does not make a
|> impossible route possible, but goes on to say that people can climb
|> harder routes with chalk. If I climb 5.11 face and I think 5.12 routes
|> are impossible, does this mean if I use chalk, I could climb a 5.12.
I have yet to hear a single person deny that chalk enables one to climb
at a higher grade.  I personally think it is a small difference.  Maybe
a letter grade, maybe more.  The point is that you can climb at a higher
grade.  Is Brodesky denying this?  If not, then what the hell is the point
of the above?

|> 	Why do people who use chalk have big Ego's? Bill is spending
|> his time telling us how he does not use chalk, saying he can do routes
|> without it. Now who is boosting there ego? 
Clearly someone who simply did not understand my post.  EVERYONE can do
routes without chalk.  Just maybe not as difficult.  This isn't a boast.
EVERYONE can do it.  Hey, I can breathe too.  Maybe this is a boast to
Brodesky.  Heck, I just assume he can breathe.  

|>       From Bills posting's this year we know he uses spider mits. And
|> that he is just a 5.10 climber. Do spider mits count as something that
|> gets you up a climb easier.
Of course!!!  What an imbecile!  I freely admit this.  My one gripe was
that chalk uses don't admit this.  There is one difference of course...
I don't leave ugly marks behind.  But the marks weren't my main point.
My point is that people use chalk to climb a higher rating.  That's all!
If this idiot would read and understand we would be in agreement.

|>Should we all go back to climbing with
|> EB'S, instead of the latest style shoe. I'm sure Bill does not climb
|> in an out dated shoe, but uses the latest technology to do harder
|> climbs. Should we stop using camming devices beacuse they make it
|> easier to do pure crack climbs. I say no. 
I said this in my initial respond to this chalking issue when Eugene mentioned
that it was silly to chalk for 5.7.  He is arguing with me and using all
my arguments.  Heck, we agree!

|> If chalk helps a person
|> do a 5.7 or 5.14a what difference does it make. The person still has
|> to get up the climb.
Here is where we differ.  The person doesn't HAVE to get up the climb.
This same attitude has prompted people to chip holds.  You don't HAVE to 
get up the climb.  You can always wait until you are better.

|> 	Bills says he does not use chalk, He has also posted several
|> times this year that he climbed at Pinnicales, doing  POD, Buffalo
|> Soilder, Anchor Scream, Big Pucker  and other routes. Well unless
|> he was the first person on these routes after a heaver rain, and for
|> POD, a sideways rain, Bill has used Chalk. POD is so covered with chalk
|> that you don't need to bring your own to get chalked up for the route.
|> And the other routes are also covered with chalked holds.  Maybe Bill
|> uses a tooth brush to clean the holds before he uses them to avoid the
|> chalk. 
This is so absurd.  What an idiot!

|> 	Who are the big Ego climbers that use chalk. Bill has told
|> us that he does not climb with people better than him most of the time.
|> How would he know that climbers who use chalk have big ego's? 
Once again, I NEVER stated this and don't believe it.  Obviously Brodesky
just wants to fight and not have a reasonable discussion.  He knows where
I live.  Come and get me.

|> 	Was it not only a short while ago that Bill said that reach was
|> not an issue?  And people on the net pointed out that most of the top
|> climbers were taller than 6 feet.
This is not true and what the hell does it have to do with this discussion?

|> of his slack stick postings. Lets not forget how Bill wrote that
|> He, lead another climber  and I up Royal Arches in X-time, instead of
|> saying that we did the route quickly.
I don't claim to be egoless.  I have as much an ego (probably more) than
the next climber.  I don't see the relevance here though.  Obviously this
person did not understand my post at all.  For the impaired I will state
it as simply as possible:

	1.) Chalk lets you climb harder routes
	2.) Chalk is ugly

What part don't you understand?

|> 	Ah to chalk or not to be.
I guess an attempt at humor...  This character baffles me.

-- 
             Bill Wright / bill_wright@mentorg.com

                  "When in doubt, run it out!"