On 28/02/2013 singersmith wrote:
>I don't know how this could possibly be construed as an ego issue; I'd
>maintain it's exactly the opposite - that is, a concern for everybody else
>and that which can't be known (the future). It would seem then that 90%
>of climbers who post here are egotistical jerks; I don't get that sense
>at all, this isn't Supertopo. I think it's a public service issue and that
>is what concerns me and warrants logging those concerns for the record.
>I don't really want to chime in much more until I see the bolts first hand
>but I do have a couple of thoughts.
Personally, I believe that all Victorian and Tasmanian climbers (the only two places I've climbed extensively) act in the best interests of both the environment and rock climbing in general.
I'd like think all FAs and bolters have climbing's (and the environment's) best interest in mind when the do the things they do. And I believe that is overwhelmingly the case.
There is no evidence to suggest Andrew doesn't as well. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the first step towards a retro-bolting spree. Does that mean that he or anyone else that ever places a bolt or develops a climb will always make the best decisions? Of course not. Does it mean that because they make either mistakes or do things that not everyone agrees with (if that was even possible) they are unethical? No.
I'm not really sure of the reason why people are posting how they are posting either, ego was just a guess and seems to have touched a raw nerve with a few.