4 ms·

My tone might have appeared dismissive because I was being dismissive. Is that not allowed? Are you the judge of how people should speak? Labeling and criticizi

by mbyrne 16y ago

My tone might have appeared dismissive because I was being dismissive. Is that not allowed? Are you the judge of how people should speak? Labeling and criticizing my "tone" is just an ad hominem attack, so you lose. Why not just answer my question, at what point do you stop? What is wrong with building an escalator, that would reduce risk too, if that is the goal, and according to you that is the goal of this device.

blackguardx 16y ago
I didn't make an ad hominem attack and posting a comment on the internet isn't a game that one can lose. Your comment demonstrates a lack of knowledge about rock climbing. Free soloing, which is climbing without protection, is far from the mainstream. You saw a video of it because it is an amazing display of mental toughness and physical fitness. Please don't use this as a stick by which to measure all other climbing endeavors.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  Request Denied. I will continue to use free soloing as my "stick...to measure" the coolness of all other climbing endeavors. And what you lose from ad hominem attacks is credibility.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - crux_ 16y ago
    This is just another way of saying you will probably never climb anything yourself, as well as that you prefer publicity stunts to authenticity. Free soloing is not a publicity stunt, but 99.9% of the time, free soloing with a camera crew is. I'm not a big fan of people who do that, since it encourages people to stupidly emulate what ought to be a deeply personal (spiritual, even) choice made by someone with the experience to choose wisely. "Coolness" only enters the picture if you're an idiot.
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      well, the footage was from 25 years ago, and it didn't get any publicity so I don't think it was a stunt. I seem to recall the footage as have being shot from very far away, so I don't think the guy brought a camera crew. You may be right, that I am an "idiot" because I think free soloing is "cool" and admire people like John Bachar. I don't judge the right way to climb or not, you are probably in a better position to judge other people and the correct way to climb, who has the right to emulate what, who is wise and who is stupid. I guess we disagree about my right to think of free soloing as being cool, but I prefer not to call you or anyone else names, and would like to sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by my opinions.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    Also, please. You may have read in the past that hackers have a sharp, cold, swift tone, and that it's okay in that culture to be rude when you're voicing your opinion in brief, but please read what you say and lose the edge to your talking. Every sentence I've read from you in this thread has been drenched in a generally aggressive and rude tone, as many other people have pointed out. It's not just one or two people that see your responses as such, it's a lot of people. I use the down-voting of your comments as evidence, and if that's not enough, the up-voting of the comments of those who have responded to you. Even look at your most recent response. Mentally, I can see you saying with this greater-than-thou smug look on your face, "Request Denied." I encourage you to, before you respond to someone, read what you wrote to them as though it were being said to you. Do you seem heartless, rude, a jerk? Write it again without the insulting tone. You don't get points for being mean. In fact, in the real world, you lose them; and you're not Dijkstra. You're not allowed to be rude and continue to earn favor anyway, yet.
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      you are completely right. though I would say I was more frustrated than smug.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    >And what you lose from ad hominem attacks is credibility. If calling someone out for being rude is an ad hominem attack (it isn't), then calling somebody out for using ad hominem attacks is a 'argument from fallacy' fallacy (it isn't, for similar reasons). (both are not applicable here because nobody basing their arguments on them) Furthermore, don't deal it if you can't take it...
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      yes, you might be right, I apologize.
      - mbyrne 16y ago
        As far as the "dealing it out and not taking it," I only expressed my personal opinion about a subject, I wasn't attacking anyone personally, as others, in my opinion, did to me. Having said that, I never thought I was "dealing it out" to anyone personally to begin with, so I wanted to apologize to anyone who was offended by anything I said.
  - aplusbi 16y ago
    No one said you can't use it as your "coolness test". If you expressed the opinion that free soloing is cooler than what this guy did, you wouldn't be getting down-voted. It's the fact that [seemingly] couldn't understand why anyone would want to do any sort of climbing that is in-between riding an escalator and free soloing mountains AND the fact that you did so in a subjectively rude manner.
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      Actually someone did do that and called me an "idiot" for thinking free soloing is cool. But you are right, the fact that I don't see the appeal of the middle ground, and that I expressed my opinion in a "subjectively rude manner" was a mistake. Of course, I was disappointed that rather than just ignore a honest personal opinion or explain the joy of the middle ground, people attacked me personally. But that is fine, and I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by my personal opinion and attempts to defend myself. Life is too short and I don't want anyone feeling bad about what I said. I apologize if I offended anyone.
aplusbi 16y ago
>What is wrong with building an escalator. It's not rock climbing and it's (arguably) not as fun. You need to keep in mind that the clamp this guy built wasn't be used to pull him up. In fact, if the article is accurate then he didn't even physically need the clamp since he never fell on it. What he was doing was much more similar to that "real climber" you saw than riding on an escalator. Here's a video of Dean Potter attempting to climb the Tombstone - he falls but his safety gear catches him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfaFxHYmOmo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfaFxHYmOmo And for what it's worth, Dean Potter is famous for "free solo" climbimg, meaning that he often climbs without any safety equipment.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  For what it's worth, I never called, to the best of my recollection, anyone a "real climber" or not. Having said that, I want to apologize to anyone who was offended by what I did say.
raganwald 16y ago
Labeling and criticizing my "tone" is just an ad hominem attack Factually incorrect. An Ad Hominem fallacy is suggesting that there is something wrong with you and that therefore your argument is wrong. You are entitled to any opinion you like. We celebrate iconoclasticism here, HN is all about people doing things most people do not like. However, if you attempt to redefine the word "climbing" in a way that is entirely at odds with how everybody else uses the word, you can expect to encounter resistance. If the only climbing you respect is free soloing, have at it. I've free soloed, I respect it, I won't argue with that. But if you're going to argue that everything else isn't climbing, well, that doesn't strike me as intellectually constructive. There is already an established vocabulary of terms for the various styles of climbing, and there is no visible need for throwing it all out and starting from scratch. Now to address your second point. It's an important one, and a little research into climbing history reveals that this is a divisive debate going back over a century. Some people feel that risk is an essential component of the climbing adventure. Some do not. There is a gymnastic pursuit that is carried out on plastic and on rock called climbing, and in modern times it can be carried out with little or no risk. So can cycling. You can decide for yourself whether it is worth doing if there is no risk of injury or death. There is also a thrill-seeking or adventure pursuit carried out on rock and in high, cold places. Proponents seeking adventure deliberately place themselves in harms way through free soloing, fast and light alpinism, and through placing protection that is of limited utility. Risk is not a black and white decision, most adventurers manage their adventure to expose themselves to a perceived tolerable amount of risk. These two pursuits are both called "climbing." If you strongly prefer the latter to the exclusion of the former, you are not alone, but you also aren't in the majority. So your question of why not build an escalator is easy to answer. The escalator removes the gymnastic element of the exercise and for those who seek adventure, removes too much risk.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  Saying that I think a guy who can swing from rock to rock like a monkey is an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "climbing" is ridiculous. I actually have no opinion about what climbing is or is not. I was expressing admiration. Like if a quarterback throws a huge pass and the receiver dives across the goal line and catches the ball with one hand for a touchdown. Now that's football. I'm not saying everyone one else on the field isn't playing football or shouldn't be allowed on the field. Maybe I should have written my comment with three exclamation points...Now, that's climbing!!! Boy Howdy!!! Also, I don't care or judge whether people climb with or without risk. But to your point, you actually could make an escalator the width of a gymnastic balance beam and with bumps, so that it would have adventure and risk, for those who seek that from escalator climbing. I am sorry to have commented because clearly I inadvertantly hit a nerve with a subset of climbers who apparently feel some kind of insecurity or something, when compared to awesome free soloists. Anyway, I have get going, I can't stay here in the basement typing on my Dad's computer, I have to get back to middle school for the afternoon assembly. But thanks for spending all your time chatting with me.

by mbyrne 16y ago

blackguardx 16y ago

I didn't make an ad hominem attack and posting a comment on the internet isn't a game that one can lose. Your comment demonstrates a lack of knowledge about rock climbing. Free soloing, which is climbing without protection, is far from the mainstream. You saw a video of it because it is an amazing display of mental toughness and physical fitness. Please don't use this as a stick by which to measure all other climbing endeavors.

mbyrne 16y ago
Request Denied. I will continue to use free soloing as my "stick...to measure" the coolness of all other climbing endeavors. And what you lose from ad hominem attacks is credibility.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- crux_ 16y ago
  This is just another way of saying you will probably never climb anything yourself, as well as that you prefer publicity stunts to authenticity. Free soloing is not a publicity stunt, but 99.9% of the time, free soloing with a camera crew is. I'm not a big fan of people who do that, since it encourages people to stupidly emulate what ought to be a deeply personal (spiritual, even) choice made by someone with the experience to choose wisely. "Coolness" only enters the picture if you're an idiot.
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    well, the footage was from 25 years ago, and it didn't get any publicity so I don't think it was a stunt. I seem to recall the footage as have being shot from very far away, so I don't think the guy brought a camera crew. You may be right, that I am an "idiot" because I think free soloing is "cool" and admire people like John Bachar. I don't judge the right way to climb or not, you are probably in a better position to judge other people and the correct way to climb, who has the right to emulate what, who is wise and who is stupid. I guess we disagree about my right to think of free soloing as being cool, but I prefer not to call you or anyone else names, and would like to sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by my opinions.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  Also, please. You may have read in the past that hackers have a sharp, cold, swift tone, and that it's okay in that culture to be rude when you're voicing your opinion in brief, but please read what you say and lose the edge to your talking. Every sentence I've read from you in this thread has been drenched in a generally aggressive and rude tone, as many other people have pointed out. It's not just one or two people that see your responses as such, it's a lot of people. I use the down-voting of your comments as evidence, and if that's not enough, the up-voting of the comments of those who have responded to you. Even look at your most recent response. Mentally, I can see you saying with this greater-than-thou smug look on your face, "Request Denied." I encourage you to, before you respond to someone, read what you wrote to them as though it were being said to you. Do you seem heartless, rude, a jerk? Write it again without the insulting tone. You don't get points for being mean. In fact, in the real world, you lose them; and you're not Dijkstra. You're not allowed to be rude and continue to earn favor anyway, yet.
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    you are completely right. though I would say I was more frustrated than smug.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  >And what you lose from ad hominem attacks is credibility. If calling someone out for being rude is an ad hominem attack (it isn't), then calling somebody out for using ad hominem attacks is a 'argument from fallacy' fallacy (it isn't, for similar reasons). (both are not applicable here because nobody basing their arguments on them) Furthermore, don't deal it if you can't take it...
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    yes, you might be right, I apologize.
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      As far as the "dealing it out and not taking it," I only expressed my personal opinion about a subject, I wasn't attacking anyone personally, as others, in my opinion, did to me. Having said that, I never thought I was "dealing it out" to anyone personally to begin with, so I wanted to apologize to anyone who was offended by anything I said.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  No one said you can't use it as your "coolness test". If you expressed the opinion that free soloing is cooler than what this guy did, you wouldn't be getting down-voted. It's the fact that [seemingly] couldn't understand why anyone would want to do any sort of climbing that is in-between riding an escalator and free soloing mountains AND the fact that you did so in a subjectively rude manner.
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    Actually someone did do that and called me an "idiot" for thinking free soloing is cool. But you are right, the fact that I don't see the appeal of the middle ground, and that I expressed my opinion in a "subjectively rude manner" was a mistake. Of course, I was disappointed that rather than just ignore a honest personal opinion or explain the joy of the middle ground, people attacked me personally. But that is fine, and I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by my personal opinion and attempts to defend myself. Life is too short and I don't want anyone feeling bad about what I said. I apologize if I offended anyone.

aplusbi 16y ago

>What is wrong with building an escalator. It's not rock climbing and it's (arguably) not as fun. You need to keep in mind that the clamp this guy built wasn't be used to pull him up. In fact, if the article is accurate then he didn't even physically need the clamp since he never fell on it. What he was doing was much more similar to that "real climber" you saw than riding on an escalator. Here's a video of Dean Potter attempting to climb the Tombstone - he falls but his safety gear catches him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfaFxHYmOmo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfaFxHYmOmo And for what it's worth, Dean Potter is famous for "free solo" climbimg, meaning that he often climbs without any safety equipment.

mbyrne 16y ago
For what it's worth, I never called, to the best of my recollection, anyone a "real climber" or not. Having said that, I want to apologize to anyone who was offended by what I did say.

raganwald 16y ago

Labeling and criticizing my "tone" is just an ad hominem attack Factually incorrect. An Ad Hominem fallacy is suggesting that there is something wrong with you and that therefore your argument is wrong. You are entitled to any opinion you like. We celebrate iconoclasticism here, HN is all about people doing things most people do not like. However, if you attempt to redefine the word "climbing" in a way that is entirely at odds with how everybody else uses the word, you can expect to encounter resistance. If the only climbing you respect is free soloing, have at it. I've free soloed, I respect it, I won't argue with that. But if you're going to argue that everything else isn't climbing, well, that doesn't strike me as intellectually constructive. There is already an established vocabulary of terms for the various styles of climbing, and there is no visible need for throwing it all out and starting from scratch. Now to address your second point. It's an important one, and a little research into climbing history reveals that this is a divisive debate going back over a century. Some people feel that risk is an essential component of the climbing adventure. Some do not. There is a gymnastic pursuit that is carried out on plastic and on rock called climbing, and in modern times it can be carried out with little or no risk. So can cycling. You can decide for yourself whether it is worth doing if there is no risk of injury or death. There is also a thrill-seeking or adventure pursuit carried out on rock and in high, cold places. Proponents seeking adventure deliberately place themselves in harms way through free soloing, fast and light alpinism, and through placing protection that is of limited utility. Risk is not a black and white decision, most adventurers manage their adventure to expose themselves to a perceived tolerable amount of risk. These two pursuits are both called "climbing." If you strongly prefer the latter to the exclusion of the former, you are not alone, but you also aren't in the majority. So your question of why not build an escalator is easy to answer. The escalator removes the gymnastic element of the exercise and for those who seek adventure, removes too much risk.

mbyrne 16y ago
Saying that I think a guy who can swing from rock to rock like a monkey is an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "climbing" is ridiculous. I actually have no opinion about what climbing is or is not. I was expressing admiration. Like if a quarterback throws a huge pass and the receiver dives across the goal line and catches the ball with one hand for a touchdown. Now that's football. I'm not saying everyone one else on the field isn't playing football or shouldn't be allowed on the field. Maybe I should have written my comment with three exclamation points...Now, that's climbing!!! Boy Howdy!!! Also, I don't care or judge whether people climb with or without risk. But to your point, you actually could make an escalator the width of a gymnastic balance beam and with bumps, so that it would have adventure and risk, for those who seek that from escalator climbing. I am sorry to have commented because clearly I inadvertantly hit a nerve with a subset of climbers who apparently feel some kind of insecurity or something, when compared to awesome free soloists. Anyway, I have get going, I can't stay here in the basement typing on my Dad's computer, I have to get back to middle school for the afternoon assembly. But thanks for spending all your time chatting with me.