Author |
biner breaks on Forever Young |
|
|
16-Dec-2011 5:59:05 PM
|
On 16/12/2011 DJ Biggs wrote:
>DJ: " Is it possible to tweak it so its not all round stock?"
>
>ODH: "Why would you want to do that?
>To prove that a non-round biner can break like that?...... "
>
>Notice how the first two lines are properly formed questions? The third
>line is a statement, with a question mark; a well dressed strawman. Followed
>by blah, beat up straw man here, blah.
Pedant warning, but it's perfectly legitimate to create a question by making a statement with a question mark or raising one's voice at the end of a sentence. You've even done it yourself - nice strawman huh? Language would be much more limited if we didn't have at least 3 different formats asking questions.
Is that a cat?
That's a cat, isn't it?
That is a cat?
|
16-Dec-2011 6:15:45 PM
|
Hmm true, I'm glad you noticed. Still it all sets up a false premise to beat up on, irrespective of how you describe the grammatical construct. Maybe you can tell me what it is?
|
16-Dec-2011 6:21:55 PM
|
*points at cat*
Cat?
|
16-Dec-2011 6:28:17 PM
|
Now you sound like a 2 year old, Andrew!
|
16-Dec-2011 8:07:01 PM
|
when ODH comes back from the wilderness (where do rogue ODHs go? Fyshwick? Weddin Mtn?) we should break some real biners, maybe with the combined force of our opinions and keyboards or failing that, with hydraulics.
|
17-Dec-2011 9:32:48 AM
|
No need for that Mikl, ODH has already explained HOW it happened, no need to investigate WHY.
I actually enjoy ODH usually. If it was just same old debates on bolting ethics/grading/newb looking for partner/who wants to buy my smelly shoes/etc, it would get boring very quickly. Characters like ODH are the reason I go on Chockstone. Plus it's so easy to make him blow up and resort to personal attacks.
|
17-Dec-2011 11:17:11 AM
|
What do you mean no need? When all you have is a hydraulic ram, everything looks like a load test!
|
17-Dec-2011 1:28:29 PM
|
On 16/12/2011 Wendy wrote:
>Pedant warning, but it's perfectly legitimate to create a question by
>making a statement with a question mark or raising one's voice at the end
>of a sentence.
Does that mean the larger portion of the Australian population are asking a question with almost every sentence they utter?
;D
|
17-Dec-2011 2:16:04 PM
|
Yeah no. They answer it before every question too?
[For example]
|
17-Dec-2011 7:05:22 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 mattjr wrote:
>On 16/12/2011 Wendy wrote:
>
>>Pedant warning, but it's perfectly legitimate to create a question by
>>making a statement with a question mark or raising one's voice at the
>end
>>of a sentence.
>
>Does that mean the larger portion of the Australian population are asking
>a question with almost every sentence they utter?
>
>;D
Why would you think that? heh x 3?
|
17-Dec-2011 8:27:17 PM
|
Aren't we all getting a little haughty about this? If ODH goes around calling everything and everyone a retard, he knows he's going to get banned. Lo and behold he got banned - for one goddammed pussy week. This is a perfectly sensible action by the mods.
For me the funny thing is how it's drawing out a whole bunch of wallflowers professing their love for the Hero. If you all think the "campfire" piss taking is so funny then why don't you chip in.
What pisses me off is not the whole calling people retards thing (as I ?naively?tend to think its taken as its meant) but people like muki/bommer/jammin making comments about how women look in a bikini.
HEY JAMMIN YOU STILL HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO MY QUESTION AS TO HOW KEEPING A ROPE LOG CONTRIBUTES MORE THAN ONE SECOND TO A ROPES LIFE.
|
17-Dec-2011 9:24:21 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 useful wrote:
>HOW KEEPING
>A ROPE LOG CONTRIBUTES MORE THAN ONE SECOND TO A ROPES LIFE.
every second keeping the log is one less second for climbing
|
17-Dec-2011 11:17:42 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 useful wrote:
>If you all think the "campfire" piss taking is so funny then why don't you chip in.
I want to but amn't funny enough... Plus I feel bad after being mean to someone. When ODH is mean I don't feel bad, usually I giggle.
|
18-Dec-2011 11:03:50 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 useful wrote:
>Aren't we all getting a little haughty about this? If ODH goes around calling
>everything and everyone a retard, he knows he's going to get banned. Lo
>and behold he got banned - for one goddammed pussy week. This is a perfectly
>sensible action by the mods.
>
>For me the funny thing is how it's drawing out a whole bunch of wallflowers
>professing their love for the Hero. If you all think the "campfire" piss
>taking is so funny then why don't you chip in.
>
>What pisses me off is not the whole calling people retards thing (as I ?naively?tend
>to think its taken as its meant) but people like muki/bommer/jammin making
>comments about how women look in a bikini.
>
I know people who are alright until they are drunk, then they are aggressive tools. Apparently Damo/ODH is an alright guy in real life doesn't mean they shouldn't ban him if/when he goes too far here. Muki/BomberPro/Jammin is the same on chockstone as in real life.
|
19-Dec-2011 1:35:12 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 useful wrote:
>Aren't we all getting a little haughty about this? If ODH goes around calling
>everything and everyone a retard, he knows he's going to get banned. Lo
>and behold he got banned - for one goddammed pussy week. This is a perfectly
>sensible action by the mods...
>
I fully agree that he should have been banned (although I didn't see what he wrote). There is no point in having rules if you don't enforce them.
I just think that the obnoxious bastard can be entertaining sometimes. I have sometimes wondered what people like ODH are like in real life. Like, for example, if I ran into him at the crag without realising it's the same person that pretends to have tourettes online???
The ironic thing is that he got banned for saying effectively the same thing as me: That the climber wouldn't be able to tell what load was on the biner and that people are making too many assumptions. The difference being that he was willing to accept Ben and Robby's assumptions and I thought a bit of investigation was warranted considering the implications. When a plane crashes they don't just take the pilot's word for what happened, do they?
Getting back to the discussion:
What I didn't agree with was Robby trying to shut down the discussion because he thought he was the final authority on what happened. The orientation of the biner in the first picture was very different than the one provided later. This led Mikl to find that the biner failed in bending and not torsions as people initially thought. So already there was something learnt from the debate.
Still, I was interested in thinking more about Ben and Robby's account. In the first picture there doesn't even appear to be enough room for the quickdraw to move to the second orientation, particularly from just "brushing against it" (remember the picture is of the 1st bolt, not the 3rd were it broke). Surely, anyone competent enough to lead would already know that the second orientation is bad. When you think about it, the second orientation could conceivably happen even if there was plenty of room behind the bolt. All that is required is uneven rock around the bolt or narrow legs on the U.
What Ben said earlier was right: it is the climbers responsibility to be aware of the safety of their gear. When climbing trad you take care not to knock gear out as you climb past, same goes for sport. I don't like how Neil felt obliged to apologise for the bolt placement (as I don't think the countersinking on the bolt was to blame). I think bolters accepting responsibility for the actions of climbers could set a bad precedent. Ultimately, it was the climber and to a lesser extent the belayer who were responsible for what happened. If the biner failed because of a manufacturing fault, then that would be a different story.
If nothing else, some bolters have added an extra step to their bolting practice and any sport climbers that were under the delusion that they are not responsibile for their gear, have been set straight. So all this discussion was worthwhile.
|
19-Dec-2011 3:32:52 PM
|
On 18/12/2011 rolsen1 wrote:
>I know people who are alright until they are drunk, then they are aggressive
>tools. Apparently Damo/ODH is an alright guy in real life doesn't mean
>they shouldn't ban him if/when he goes too far here. Muki/BomberPro/Jammin
>is the same on chockstone as in real life.
Well i'm gonna stick up for Damo in his absence as i have climbed and shared many a rope with him. And would gladly do again any day of the week.
So you may ban him for a week and say he's unfit to sleep with pigs. But i'll raise my hand for the outcast and down trodden, and say that he is fit to sleep with pigs.
|
19-Dec-2011 3:53:45 PM
|
On 17/12/2011 useful wrote:
>Aren't we all getting a little haughty about this? If ODH goes around calling
>everything and everyone a retard, he knows he's going to get banned. Lo
>and behold he got banned - for one goddammed pussy week. This is a perfectly
>sensible action by the mods.
>
>
I'm not being haughty. I just think it's been demonstrated time and time again that time out doesn't change how people interact - if they like their little shebang, they continue it when they get back. Banned people reincarnate themselves and continue playing. Anyone who doesn't like what Damo writes can stand up for themselves and challenge it. That would be sensible. Think of it as like a playground. You have to learn to deal with shît you don't like if you want to play. Temporary or permanent bans aren't sensible, they are just posing - because we know that in actuality, anyone can start a new account and start again. Or come back and do exactly the same thing when they leave the naughty mat.
|
19-Dec-2011 4:00:54 PM
|
If someone here calls me a 'retard', while un-PC, it's probably for a reason - like I said something controversial or provocative (about pre-mixed drinks and tattoos and corporate rock probably). I can defend my position or not. Same goes for anyone else. But call me fat and I'll punch you right in the face.
|
19-Dec-2011 4:04:25 PM
|
On 19/12/2011 Wendy wrote:
>I'm not being haughty. I just think it's been demonstrated time and time
>again that time out doesn't change how people interact - if they like their
>little shebang, they continue it when they get back. Banned people reincarnate
>themselves and continue playing. Anyone who doesn't like what Damo writes
>can stand up for themselves and challenge it. That would be sensible.
> Think of it as like a playground. You have to learn to deal with shît
>you don't like if you want to play. Temporary or permanent bans aren't
>sensible, they are just posing - because we know that in actuality, anyone
>can start a new account and start again. Or come back and do exactly the
>same thing when they leave the naughty mat.
It seems to have worked in this case. No sign of ODH or anyone acting like him since his ban.
|
19-Dec-2011 4:06:33 PM
|
Run that theory by me again next week.
|