holds vandalized again on Connecticut classics
Clint Cummins
on the classic Connecticut climb Dol Guldur (5.11 ***).
Holds were also smashed on the neighboring route Volcanic
Panic (5.11+ ***). I don't know yet if either route is
still climbable.
This is the third time in less than 2 years that
Connecticut climbs have been damaged like this.
1. Dol Guldur - 5/1999
2. Vanishing Point - sometime prior to 12/1999
3. Dol Guldur and Volcanic Panic - 1/2001
I can't think of any other climbing area that has
apparently been targeted in such a way.
The vandalism occurred sometime between Monday 1/23 and
Sunday 1/28; possibly on Saturday 1/27.
One difference this time is that there is mounting evidence
that the culprit of both smashings is Bill Lyttle,
a local Connecticut climber. While the evidence would
not be good enough to stand up in court, such as a photo
of him doing it, or testimony from someone who witnessed
the acts, the suspicion is quite strong.
Here is the story on why Lyttle is suspected.
1. At the time of the 5/1999 incident, Lyttle was judged
the top suspect by my friend Ken Nichols. At that time,
Lyttle was angry with Ken over some other issue, and
Dol Guldur is one of Ken's favorite climbs (he trains
on it regularly, and has done it over 5000 times).
Unfortunately, there was no direct evidence then, other
than Lyttle making evasive replies to Ken's inquiries on
his whereabouts at the suspected time of the vandalism,
and the fact that Lyttle is well known as having a hot temper.
So I didn't name him in my posts on the subject at that time.
2. 3 weeks prior to the 2001 incident, Ken ran across
Lyttle and a companion (Dave Indio? - not sure of his name).
Lyttle's companion made several unprovoked threats to Nichols
at that time. Beside what might be considered a "usual" taunt
to Ken (threatening to epoxy holds to cliffs and bolt hundreds
of sport climbs in Connecticut), he also threatened personal
injury to Ken. Unfortunately, Ken has experienced these sorts
of threats before, and his reaction was simple and responsible -
he left the scene and filed a complaint with the police.
He went up with a police officer and intercepted Lyttle's
companion. He was notified of the complaint, and a check was
made to see if he had any outstanding warrants. It turned out
he did have an outstanding warrant, so he was handcuffed and
placed under arrest. During this time, Lyttle hardly spoke to
Ken, and is of course not responsible for the actions/threats
of his companion. But the arrest of his companion could easily
have motivated Lyttle to retaliate against Ken.
If it matters, I have no personal connection to Lyttle.
I did meet him once in 1996, when I climbed at Ragged Mountain
with him and with Ken. I have known Ken for over 20 years;
we have worked on Connecticut guidebooks together.
I live in California, and my source of information on these
incidents is Ken, who doesn't have a way to post directly to the
internet himself.
After my post on the 1999 incident, some people told me
they thought Ken should be a suspect as well. That is an ironic
concept, since Ken enjoys those 2 climbs in particular very much,
and Ken has been struggling to preserve the Connecticut crags
from damage (primarily bolting) for 20 years. Ken has considerable
integrity, and is well known for his uncompromising attitude on
issues where he holds strong beliefs. Preservation is one
of those beliefs. At times his defense of the crags has led
to unfortunate incidents such as bolt chopping (years ago) at
Rumney (NH), which have made him a controversial figure.
While Rumney remains a sore point for many people, the bolts
there were quickly redrilled/replaced, but restoring holds is
next to impossible. The true culprits of the Connecticut
incidents (Lyttle or possibly someone else) would probably
enjoy it if blame was placed on Ken, or if Rumney was rehashed.
I think we should focus on the present and try to stop
further vandalism, if possible. Unfortunately, the cliffs are
not easily defended from such acts. So probably the best we
can do is to attempt to identify the perpetrators and try to
remove their motivation for continuing such acts.
I wish I didn't have to make this post (i.e. if no damage
was done). But it happened, and all that can be done now
is to present all the information I know for those who care.
No doubt Connecticut climbers are sick of some of their classic
routes being damaged by some aberrant individual (Lyttle or
whoever). I feel frustrated out here in California, unable
to do much except make this post. But even if I lived in
Meriden, CT, I probably could not have prevented this.
So I am sure Connecticut climbers feel frustrated as well.
Note: I will make a followup post next week, with the
exact name of Lyttle's companion, and possibly additional
information on the extent of the damage to Dol Guldur and
Volcanic Panic.
Clint Cummins
----------------
In 5/1999, holds were smashed on Dol Guldur (the first time).
The route was still climbable, although it was harder to start.
A copy of my posts to rec.climbing at that time (5/27/99, 6/1/99)
are given below for additional background.
-----------
[text of my post to rec.climbing]
Subject: holds vandalized on Dol Guldor (CT)
Date: 05/27/1999
Author: Clint Cummins <cl...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
I just heard last night that the first 2 holds on the
classic route Dol Guldor (5.11 ***, near Meriden, Connecticut)
have been vandalized (i.e. destroyed). This route
is easily the most popular 5.11 in the state and one of
the very best (also one of the longest, at about 80 feet).
I'll post more details later when I learn more about it.
At the moment it makes me feel sick that somebody would
do this for whatever reason. Hopefully the holds can be
restored in some way, but they will never be the same.
The equivalent deed in other areas might be -
Gunks - chiseling off some holds from the third pitch of High Exposure
Yosemite - chiseling off the holds from the mantle on the last pitch
of Nutcracker (or maybe the starting holds from Midnight
Lightning)
Eldorado - chiseling off the initial holds of T2
I heard this news from Ken Nichols. He definitely did not
do it; he's livid and it happens to be one of his favorite
routes (also a favorite of many other people). It seems likely
that it was done to anger Ken. That was accomplished, but at
what cost (and what personal benefit)?
I've heard of people removing holds from a project (in the chipping
vein -- bad enough), but removing them from a classic route
(freed in the late 70s or early 80s) is an all-time low.
Clint Cummins
-----------
[text of my post to rec.climbing]
Subject: Re: holds vandalized on Dol Guldor (CT)
Date: 06/01/1999
Author: Clint Cummins <cl...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
I wrote on 5/27/99:
>I just heard last night that the first 2 holds on the
>classic route Dol Guldor (5.11 ***, near Meriden, Connecticut)
>have been vandalized (i.e. destroyed). This route
>is easily the most popular 5.11 in the state and one of
>the very best (also one of the longest, at about 80 feet).
>
>I'll post more details later when I learn more about it.
Here are the details:
The 2 holds were hammered, leaving behind 6 inch diameter smashed
areas. What remains of the first hold is now unusable (very small).
The remnant of the second hold is still usable. The start can
still be done, although the first moves are much harder now.
So it's not a complete disaster, but still pretty sickening in
my view.
Clint Cummins
Michael Riches
> Note: I will make a followup post next week, with the
> exact name of Lyttle's companion, and possibly additional
> information on the extent of the damage to Dol Guldur and
> Volcanic Panic.
>
> Clint Cummins
> ----------------
If I were you I'd beee very careful. A post like this could very well see
"you" in court for a number of things...You have absolutely no proof, what
so ever, that this individual is guilty of anything, except being at odds
with a friend of yours and yet you slander him on an international
forum...For your sake I hope the dhuuuude don't read this forum...
The Rockrat...
JKVawter
> If I were you I'd beee very careful. A post like this could very well see
> "you" in court for a number of things...You have absolutely no proof, what
> so ever, that this individual is guilty of anything, except being at odds
> with a friend of yours and yet you slander him on an international
> forum...For your sake I hope the dhuuuude don't read this forum...
Pishtosh. First off, Clint prefaced his post with the statement that there is
no definitive evidence that Lyttle vandalized holds, and he never says that
Lyttle vandalized anything. He goes on to report that Ken Nichols suspects
Lyttle and why. He recounts the history of animosity between the two. Where is
the false and malicious statement printed for the purpose of defaming Lyttle?
(By the way, this is the definition of libel, not slander; slander is spoken
defamation.)
Although Lyttle could sue, he likely would not be able to prove (a) that any
of the post is false, (b) that it was printed for the purpose of defaming
Lyttle, or (c) that his reputation was damaged by the publication.
JKVawter
Sparks
> Here is the story on why Lyttle is suspected.
> 1. At the time of the 5/1999 incident, Lyttle was judged the top suspect by my friend
> Ken Nichols.
The same Ken Nichols who "vandalized" every bolted climb in CT? You should be pointing that
finger at your friend. For him to accuse anybody is psychotic--but I forgot who I was
referring to.
take your drivel elsewhere...
Michael Riches
> Pishtosh. First off, Clint prefaced his post with the statement that there is
> no definitive evidence that Lyttle vandalized holds, and he never says that
> Lyttle vandalized anything.
Ahhh...but here is his preface...(I'll give you the slander and accept your
libel...) There is nothing here that even remotely defends, everything I
read actively accuses..
> I just heard that holds have been smashed a second time
> on the classic Connecticut climb Dol Guldur (5.11 ***).
> Holds were also smashed on the neighboring route Volcanic
> Panic (5.11+ ***). I don't know yet if either route is
> still climbable.
>
> This is the third time in less than 2 years that
> Connecticut climbs have been damaged like this.
> 1. Dol Guldur - 5/1999
> 2. Vanishing Point - sometime prior to 12/1999
> 3. Dol Guldur and Volcanic Panic - 1/2001
> I can't think of any other climbing area that has
> apparently been targeted in such a way.
>
> The vandalism occurred sometime between Monday 1/23 and
> Sunday 1/28; possibly on Saturday 1/27.
>"" One difference this time is that there is mounting evidence
> that the culprit of both smashings is Bill Lyttle,
> a local Connecticut climber. ""
He then goes on to say
> While the evidence would
> not be good enough to stand up in court, such as a photo
> of him doing it, or testimony from someone who witnessed
> the acts, the suspicion is quite strong.
...basicly admitting that this is nothing more than a personal vendetta. His
historical rendition of the climbers and the crag was carefully slanted to
make this "Lyttle" character look as bad as possible...
But, I'll give you and Clint the benefit of the Doubt...Show us the
"Mounting evidence"...Show us something to even remotely tie this Lyttle to
an act of desecration and I'll go away, hearsay and innuendo won't work. I
don't know any of the people in question and have nothing against any of
them, but to me, this reeks of a personal vendetta...somebody trying to kick
somebody in the teeth for no other reason then two bull headed individuals
locking horns. This is the kind of crap that doesn't belong here.
Anyway
Your witness
The Rockrat...
JKVawter
> JKVawter defends our wayward Clint with:
>
> > Pishtosh. First off, Clint prefaced his post with the statement that there is
> > no definitive evidence that Lyttle vandalized holds, and he never says that
> > Lyttle vandalized anything.
>
> Ahhh...but here is his preface...(I'll give you the slander and accept your
> libel...) There is nothing here that even remotely defends, everything I
> read actively accuses..
This has nothing to do with the legal definition of libel.
> > I just heard that holds have been smashed a second time
> > on the classic Connecticut climb Dol Guldur (5.11 ***).
> > Holds were also smashed on the neighboring route Volcanic
> > Panic (5.11 ***). I don't know yet if either route is
> > still climbable.
> >
> > This is the third time in less than 2 years that
> > Connecticut climbs have been damaged like this.
> > 1. Dol Guldur - 5/1999
> > 2. Vanishing Point - sometime prior to 12/1999
> > 3. Dol Guldur and Volcanic Panic - 1/2001
> > I can't think of any other climbing area that has
> > apparently been targeted in such a way.
> >
> > The vandalism occurred sometime between Monday 1/23 and
> > Sunday 1/28; possibly on Saturday 1/27.
>
> >"" One difference this time is that there is mounting evidence
> > that the culprit of both smashings is Bill Lyttle,
> > a local Connecticut climber. ""
Again, reporting what he has heard.
> He then goes on to say
>
> > While the evidence would
> > not be good enough to stand up in court, such as a photo
> > of him doing it, or testimony from someone who witnessed
> > the acts, the suspicion is quite strong.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. He says the suspicion is strong, and he
tells you why. How is this malicious (unless it is complete fabrication, which,
trust me, Clint is not capable of)?
> ...basicly admitting that this is nothing more than a personal vendetta. His
> historical rendition of the climbers and the crag was carefully slanted to
> make this "Lyttle" character look as bad as possible...
>
> But, I'll give you and Clint the benefit of the Doubt...Show us the
> "Mounting evidence"...Show us something to even remotely tie this Lyttle to
> an act of desecration and I'll go away,
Of course, that remains to be seen.
> hearsay and innuendo won't work. I
> don't know any of the people in question and have nothing against any of
> them, but to me, this reeks of a personal vendetta...somebody trying to kick
> somebody in the teeth for no other reason then two bull headed individuals
> locking horns. This is the kind of crap that doesn't belong here.
It may be a personal vendetta. So what? Clint's friend may be a bolt chopping
maniac. Lyttle may be a small minded vandal, or not. It remains to be seen. I'm not
taking sides (yet). All I said was it's not libel. So I'll see your crap, and I'll
raise you one free speech: This kind of debate _belongs_ on this forum.
JKVawter
Michael Riches
>
> It doesn't get much clearer than that. He says the suspicion is strong, and he
> tells you why. How is this malicious (unless it is complete fabrication,
> which,
> trust me, Clint is not capable of)?
My Point exactly...From the sounds of this , so far, it is a complete
fabrication...unless Clint can produce some reasonable evidence...(Which I'm
sure if it was there, it would have been posted...) Again, I don't know any
of the parties involved. But if you think this kind of childish and
maliciousness (to use your own definition) is free speech and should be
condoned, then somewhere the legal system you revere so much has failed on
you...I think that somewhere in the annuals of personal rights and freedoms
it says that a person is innocent until "Proven" guilty...if we are going to
debate this we really should have the facts...You obviously like and trust
Clint's opinion...I don't know him...I have no reason to believe his
accusations...I have no reason to think that anybody has done anything
(Ken chopping...Lyttle Chipping...) at this point in time and it really
doesn't mean a lot to me anyway...My contention is simply that to use an
international forum to destroy the reputation of somebody is wrong and
unless there is cold hard evidence, then this is simply "Crap" and should
not be posted...Bring on the evidence...
The Rockrat...
JKVawter
> JKVawter1/28/01 10:12 PMjkv...@earthlink.net
>
> >
> > It doesn't get much clearer than that. He says the suspicion is strong, and he
> > tells you why. How is this malicious (unless it is complete fabrication,
> > which,
> > trust me, Clint is not capable of)?
>
> My Point exactly...From the sounds of this , so far, it is a complete
> fabrication...unless Clint can produce some reasonable evidence...
Clint passed this along. Period. He has no obligation to provide anything more. If
this is the last we hear about it, then it fades into oblivion. If there's more to
it, or another side to the story, then I hope we get to read it here.
> (Which I'm
> sure if it was there, it would have been posted...) Again, I don't know any
> of the parties involved. But if you think this kind of childish and
> maliciousness (to use your own definition) is free speech and should be
> condoned, then somewhere the legal system you revere so much has failed on
> you.
I can't hear you way up on that high horse.
> ..I think that somewhere in the annuals of personal rights and freedoms
> it says that a person is innocent until "Proven" guilty...if we are going to
> debate this we really should have the facts...
Fair enough. I'd like to see some facts.
> You obviously like and trust
> Clint's opinion...I don't know him...I have no reason to believe his
> accusations...I have no reason to think that anybody has done anything
> (Ken chopping...Lyttle Chipping...) at this point in time and it really
> doesn't mean a lot to me anyway...My contention is simply that to use an
> international forum to destroy the reputation of somebody is wrong and
> unless there is cold hard evidence, then this is simply "Crap" and should
> not be posted...Bring on the evidence...
I don't think that Clint is using this forum to destroy Lyttle's reputation. And I
don't think he should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us who gripe
about other climbers. Cold hard facts are pretty rare on a newsgroup. Mostly what
you read are opinions. Everybody's got at least one.
JKVawter
Ed Esmond
I'm sorry about the damage done in CT. It is my sincere wish the all of the
irresponsible behavior would stop.
I thought it was ironic, however, that just this morning, I was climbing at
Farley, a crag in Western MA, the scene of Ken's latest vandalism. A local
climber, who lives about 20 minutes away, had recently rebolted "Bandwagon,"
one of the best 5.12's in southern New England, with glue-in bolts. As you
are aware, the original bolts had been chopped by Ken a couple of years ago.
"Bandwagon" was one of approximately 25 bolted climbs the locals had added
to complement the numerous trad and mixed lines at the crag. As you are
also aware, Ken chopped all the bolts, removed all fixed pins, and removed
all of the webbing toprope anchors at this crag. As you also know, Nichols
live in CT, many hours from this crag.
After this past Thanksgiving, it was noticed that a glue-in on "Bandwagon"
had been damaged by being sawn through, and a Rawl 5-piece bolt was removed,
and a wire staple placed in the hole. You know pounding a wire staple into
the vandalized bolt hole is typical for Ken. The other bolts were
apparently untouched. However, after Christmas, the locals found the rest
of the glue-ins had been hammered over. There also was damage to the
surrounding rock.
As you should know, the landowner of the section of the cliff where
"Bandwagon" is located, had given tacit permission for bolting.
Additionally, landowners of other sections of the cliff have expressed
displeasure at the previous chopping. These facts, combined with the local
climbing community's unanimous support of bolting should cause a prudent
person to question Ken Nichols' moral authority to enforce his "ethics." I
should also mention again that Ken lives hours away in CT not MA, and has
never climbed at this cliff.
You should also know there is reason to believe that Ken did the initial
vandalism on "Dol Guldur." You should also be aware that Ken has had a
25+ year long "personality conflict" with the first ascentionist of
"Vanishing Point." At this point, the question that needs to be asked, "Is
there a climber in New England that Ken hasn't had a personality conflict
with?" At this point one need to also ask the question, "Is the rest of the
world that's fucked up, or is it Ken?"
You mention that Bill Lyttle has a "hot temper." How would you describe the
temperament of someone who has been arrested for and convicted of assault
because they grabbed someone by the neck and choked them? Would you
considered that to be "hot tempered?" Perhaps you don't remember this
little "incident" between Ken and the husband of Leslie Brown, the president
of the Ragged Mt. Foundation?
As you also probably know, I consider Rumney NH, to be my "home crag." I
certainly do not enjoy rehashing what Ken did at Rumney, However, I do feel
the incident is somewhat indicative of Ken's behavior and mentality. As you
know, a group of CT climbers, in defiance of Ken's unilateral ban on
bolting in CT, bolted a climb in the TrapRock region of CT. It was an
irresponsible action, because they knew it would provoke outrage in Nichols.
Ken's response was even more irresponsible. He drove 3+ hours north to
Rumney NH, where he chopped the bolts on a number of routes. As you should
know, no locals from Rumney were involved in the TrapRock bolting. The
Rumney community had nothing whatsoever to do with the any of the actions in
CT. When Ken was asked about it it, his cavalier response was, "I was
sending a message..." I don't like to dwell on the past, but a person's
past behavior, gives a good indication of his present intent.
I don't know who did the latest vandalism in CT. Such actions are
thoroughly irresponsible and should be thoroughly condemned. Likewise Ken
Nichols' actions have been thoroughly irresponsible and should be thoroughly
condemned. It would appear to me that Ken is reaping the bitter harvest of
the seeds that he has sown.
Regards,
Ed Esmond
Clint Cummins wrote in message <9528ou$5...@wisdom.Stanford.EDU>...
>I just heard that holds have been smashed a second time
>on the classic Connecticut climb Dol Guldur (5.11 ***).
>Holds were also smashed on the neighboring route Volcanic
>Panic (5.11+ ***). I don't know yet if either route is
>still climbable.
>
>This is the third time in less than 2 years that
>Connecticut climbs have been damaged like this.
>1. Dol Guldur - 5/1999
>2. Vanishing Point - sometime prior to 12/1999
>3. Dol Guldur and Volcanic Panic - 1/2001
>I can't think of any other climbing area that has
>apparently been targeted in such a way.
>
>The vandalism occurred sometime between Monday 1/23 and
>Sunday 1/28; possibly on Saturday 1/27.
much chopped out...
Clint Cummins
[many good points; see below]
Thank you for your well written and thoughtful reply/followup
post. I'm glad you posted it, because my perspective and
knowledge on the events is clearly limited.
I hadn't heard about the latest Farley chopping.
>...You know pounding a wire staple into the vandalized bolt hole
>is typical for Ken.
Yes.
>... after Christmas, the locals found the rest of the glue-ins
>had been hammered over. There also was damage to the surrounding
>rock.
So much for my theory of chopped bolts being quickly replaced
with no rock damage.... Of course, we are not trying to equate
this with Dol Guldur, but any damage beyond the original holes
is not in keeping with the rock preservation goal.
>... landowners of other sections of the cliff have expressed
>displeasure at the previous chopping. These facts, combined with the
>local climbing community's unanimous support of bolting should cause a
>prudent person to question Ken Nichols' moral authority to enforce his
>"ethics." I should also mention again that Ken lives hours away in CT
>not MA, and has never climbed at this cliff.
I agree that (in my judgement, based on limited knowledge) it
would likely be best (for Ken's cause of keeping bolts out of
Connecticut, as well as for all the Farley climbers) if Ken would
leave the bolts at Farley alone. I think he probably views
it as a "Domino theory" situation. I.e. if the "bolts get too close,
they will spread". I think a "you leave my crag alone, and I'll leave
your crag alone" approach would be much better.
>You should also know there is reason to believe that Ken did the initial
>vandalism on "Dol Guldur."
Sure, a reason or two could be proposed. I could probably even
invent a reason or two that I could be blamed for having done the
damage (although my alibi is pretty solid). My judgment is that
Lyttle has the best motive for both incidents. My judgment could
be wrong, and there is no conclusive evidence.
As for a reason to believe that Ken did it, you didn't state
any, but I'll anticipate slightly and take a guess. I have no
idea if this is what you had in mind, but perhaps others are
guessing this. Perhaps people are worried that Ken might have
smashed the Dol Guldur holds himself, to create an excuse to
take some big action, such as to chop Rumney again, or chop at
New River Gorge, etc. If so, then he would have likely done the
first hold smashing too, but no "big chop" resulted. How about
an excuse for a "small chop", like in Massachusetts? There
seems no point in that, as apparently he already got to the bolts
at Farley. If he wanted to do a chop, he could cite any number
of excuses, but I don't think any of them would gain much sympathy.
So why smash holds on his favorite routes for an excuse that gains
him nothing? If I am sure of one thing, it is that Ken is
rational and has a reason for everything. There is just nothing
to gain in this case. As I recall, after the first smashing,
when people accused him of doing it, his response was "Yeah, sure.
I'm going to chop every hold in New England, *starting in
Connecticut*!!" I don't buy this reason for Ken smashing
holds at all.
Here's another possible reason. Perhaps a motivation would be
to draw sympathy to himself. I.e. "I'm a victim here; will
people please help me out". This doesn't really work, either.
People will instead just blame him for starting the whole
cycle years ago. No sympathy from most people.
>You should also be aware that Ken has had a 25+ year long
>"personality conflict" with the first ascentionist of Vanishing Point.
Technically, not true, because the first ascentionist was
Kevin Bein, on toprope. As for the rap bolting of Vanishing Point,
I guess you mean Bruce Dicks? Ken described this in detail in
his guidebooks, and of course he does not like it. I'm not sure
what the point is. I don't think Bruce would do any hold smashing
whatsoever.
>At this point, the question that needs to be asked, "Is
>there a climber in New England that Ken hasn't had a personality
>conflict with?"
Probably essentially true, but irrelevant, except in saying that
Lyttle is not the only person with motive. What I was trying to say
was that Lyttle was the most likely person, based on rather limited
evidence. Not the only feasible person or the only person with
reason to want to retaliate against Ken for past actions.
>At this point one need to also ask the question, "Is
>the rest of the world that's fucked up, or is it Ken?"
Neither.
>You mention that Bill Lyttle has a "hot temper." How would you describe
>the temperament of someone who has been arrested for and convicted of
>assault because they grabbed someone by the neck and choked them? Would
>you considered that to be "hot tempered?" Perhaps you don't remember
>this little "incident" between Ken and the husband of Leslie Brown, the
>president of the Ragged Mt. Foundation?
Firstly, I don't know the details of this assault on Leslie Brown's
husband. So I'm not able to provide a possible defense.
Good point on the temper - Ken has a hot temper as well.
But hot temper by itself does not make Ken the most likely suspect
for Dol Guldur. Lyttle has the more plausible motive, in my opinion
(i.e. to retaliate for the arrest of his companion). I just don't see
a real motive for Ken to damage his favorite climbs (see above).
My reasoning was: motive+anger could yield an action in a relatively
short time frame that a person with less of a temper might avoid.
>As you also probably know, I consider Rumney NH, to be my "home crag."
>I certainly do not enjoy rehashing what Ken did at Rumney, However, I do
>feel the incident is somewhat indicative of Ken's behavior and
>mentality.
OK, I would have to agree it is relevant, in light of the recent
Farley chopping. I didn't want to try to discuss the Rumney chop
in my original post; it was already too long and I figured it
could be brought up in a followup like this if people were
interested. So, yes, let's cover it.
>As you know, a group of CT climbers, in defiance of Ken's
>unilateral ban on bolting in CT, bolted a climb in the TrapRock region
>of CT. It was a somewhat irresponsible action, because they knew it
>would provoke outrage in Nichols.
To be more specific, they (Sam Slater and some other guys, the
so-called "Wags") (rap) bolted Volcanic Eruption (one of the routes
with recently damaged holds; I misstated the name in my post as
Volcanic Panic). Before they did this, they announced their
intentions to Ken, to see what his reaction might be. My recollection
is a bit faint, but I recall he said he would chop a lot of bolts
(possibly it was "all the bolts in New England") and
make them sorry if they did it. They bolted it anyway, including one
bolt next to a handjam that would be easily protectable with a Friend.
I know Ken was understandably upset about that bolt more than the others,
since it was by even rap bolting standards unnecessary.
Sam led the route (perhaps others led it that day as well), and then
he immediately removed the bolts, saying "well, Ken is just going to
chop them anyway" (true enough, but why not just hang a static line
with some figure eight loops like Skinner did in Hueco Tanks,
if you want to have a temporary sport climb). The answer is of
course that they wanted to see if Ken was bluffing or not. So
he chose Rumney as the target he thought would hurt them the
most, and the chopping happened.
>Ken's response was it even more
>irresponsible. He drove 3+ hours north to Rumney NH, where he chopped
>the bolts on a number of routes. As you should know, no locals from
>Rumney were involved in the TrapRock bolting. The Rumney community had
>nothing whatsoever to do with the any of the actions in CT.
Yes. Ken just knew that Rumney was the favorite area of Slater
and the "Wags". Probably they took some heat from the Rumney locals,
who likely asked them why they risked his retaliation, after he
verbally committed himself. But he made a lot of enemies in the
process. At the time, I thought it was kind of a clever idea,
to fight the "bolt wars" away from the Connecticut crags, and
keep them fairly undrilled in the process. But it is grossly unfair
to the Rumney climbers, and to the Massachusetts climbers over the
years. It also creates a lot of enemies and scares away potential
sympathizers to the "bolt-free Connecticut" cause.
>When Ken was asked about it it, his cavalier response was,
>"I was sending a message..." I don't like to dwell on the past,
>but a person's past behavior, gives a good indication of his present
>intent.
Fair enough, especially combined with the recent Farley chopping.
But as I explained above, Ken didn't simply invent the idea of
chopping Rumney on the spot. He threatened to do it (or something
like it, sorry I can't recall the specifics) in advance. When
Volanic Eruption was bolted, then he faced the tough decision of
1. backing down, and probably seeing more routes bolted in Connecticut
2. following through, even though it might hurt his cause
Slater and friends faced a similar decision. I.e.
1. go ahead and bolt it; maybe Ken will back down, and will allow
some bolts in Connecticut. Or maybe he will follow through and
innocent climbers in Rumney will be affected.
2. back down and have no bolt war.
Either way, Slater et al were probably sure the bolts were not going
to last in Connecticut. Maybe it was even a strategic move to let Ken
go ahead, and eventually undermine his own cause. I think probably
they were not sure, and would not be held accountable by many
for what could be considered a small action on their part.
>I don't know who did the latest vandalism in CT. Such actions are
>thoroughly irresponsible and should be thoroughly condemned.
Thanks for your affirmation of this.
>Likewise Ken Nichols' actions have been thoroughly irresponsible
>and should be thoroughly condemned.
Fair enough. I can only defend Ken's chopping actions to
the extent that I agree with his cause of keeping bolts out of
Connecticut. I feel it is his decision to make on how he wants
to personally achieve that goal. I respect his devotion to the
cause, although I question the effectiveness and fairness of his
actions. I also consider him to be a long-time friend, and
a very deliberate and rational person (not that he never gets
angry; that happens to most of us).
>It would appear to me that Ken is reaping the
>bitter harvest of the seeds that he has sown.
This is an excellent summary that I must agree with.
The main pattern that seems clear to me is that crags can't be
adequately defended from a determined bolt chopper, bolt placer,
hold smasher, spray painter, or whatever. And after the fact
retaliation often does little except to possibly perpetuate
the cycle. As in the "bitter harvest" above. Unfortunately,
most of us have known this for years, yet it continues.
Clint Cummins
Roger Florensa
>I think a "you leave my crag alone, and I'll leave
>your crag alone" approach would be much better.
What do you mean with *my crag*? Is he the landowner? Is he the only climber who climbs there?
Roger
Gleshna
1. IMHO your post is not slander or libel.
2. I am curious as to why a specific name needs to be posted on the internet as
a suspect? What is gained by this as opposed to merely listing all of the
facts?
REd
John Peterson
latest Ken Nichols drama in a public forum. I think the only thing
worth saying here is that Ken's viewpoints are his own. He in
no way speaks for the Connecticut climbing community - irresponsible
actions taken by him or by others are not part of any general
consensus on the part of the local community. Thus these debates are
not really about issues of the general community (or significant
factions thereof) but rather individual conflicts involving pride,
egotism, revenge, and stubbornness. Many of the people involved in
these conflicts choose not to make this a public debate and doubt that
there is any real purpose in trading accusations.
There are a lot of people in Connecticut and elsewhere working hard on
the very serious issues of climbing access and conservation. Throwing more
logs on the "bolt wars" fire only distracts from real work at hand.
John Peterson
JKVawter
> [snip]
>
> There are a lot of people in Connecticut and elsewhere working hard on
> the very serious issues of climbing access and conservation. Throwing more
> logs on the "bolt wars" fire only distracts from real work at hand.
What are people in Connecticut doing, for instance?
JKVawter
Dingus Milktoast
>
> Many of the people involved in
> these conflicts choose not to make this a public debate and doubt that
> there is any real purpose in trading accusations.
Yup. Many people prefer to sweep their dirty laundry under
the rug.
>
> There are a lot of people in Connecticut and elsewhere working hard on
> the very serious issues of climbing access and conservation. Throwing more
> logs on the "bolt wars" fire only distracts from real work at hand.
I don't subscribe to this school of thought. It's your
state, granted. But if the rest of us want to gossip about
the antics going on in NE, we will continue to do so at our
leisure. If nothing else, it's a case study for what we
don't want to have happen in our areas.
DMT
John Peterson
My point is that a lot of the people with first hand information do
not elect to join in the public discussion. We're happy to discuss
access issues but this "who did what to whom" stuff isn't going to
generate responses from many of the people involved. If you feel
there is "dirty laundry" here that involves more than just the clash
of a few egos feel free to point this out to everyone. However, if
someone is chopping holds, what do you propose to do about this? Ask
the local climbing community to place all crags under armed guard?
The purpose of many of these vandalism attacks is simply to get
attention. Focusing attention on these individuals rather than the
issues is a waste of effort and simply paves the way for others to get
attention through similar actions.
John
John Peterson
Connecticut. Just off the top of my head:
* Surveys to determine crag ownership
* Legal action to defend traditional access rights
* Work (lots and lots and lots of work) with management agencies to
generate climber friendly policies. We're working right now to open
up crags around Hartford on MDC property. We're also working hard to
get the New Britian water board to acknowledge climbing as a
legitimate use of their property (they own many of the best crags
outside Ragged Mountain and East Peak).
* Work with the CT highway patrol to preserve access to ice climbing on
Rt. 9.
* Work with local property owners adjoining our Ragged Mountain
property to resolve access problems and make sure climbers are
being "good neighbors"
* Maintaining Ragged Mountain and other crags, including trail
construction and trash pickups
* Putting up to date access inforation on the web (well, sort of up to
date. This is my responsibility unfortunately!)
Connecticut is unlike many climbing areas in that there is no federal
involvement: progress made by the Access Fund at the national level
doesn't help us at all: all of our interaction is with local
landowners and government entities. People like Leslie Brown, Dave
Fasulo, Jeff Sargeant, and many others have been putting in a lot of work
on behalf of Connecticut climbing community.
John
Dawn Alguard
>
> For your sake I hope the dhuuuude don't read this forum...
People who know him do.
Dawn
Thor Lancelot Simon
Roger Florensa <flor...@medicina.ub.es> wrote:
>
>--------------FE0599E3808BF36FBDAB5D42
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Not only is he not the landowner, the landowner (reputedly) *approves* of
the bolted lines on his crag. That's right, *his* crag. He owns the land,
he can let people bolt it if he damned well pleases.
(as appears to occur with distressing regularity) Nichols would certainly
seem to be way, way, WAY the fuck over the line of totally unacceptable
antisocial behaviour here.
It's hard to see how he could possibly think committing acts of vandalism
on the property of someone actually *reasonable* about access issues could
possibly do his cause anything but harm.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
And now he couldn't remember when this passion had flown, leaving him so
foolish and bewildered and astray: can any man?
William Styron
JKVawter
> Nobody is going to stop you or anyone from talking about this stuff.
> My point is that a lot of the people with first hand information do
> not elect to join in the public discussion.
Why? What are they afraid of?
> We're happy to discuss
> access issues but this "who did what to whom" stuff isn't going to
> generate responses from many of the people involved.
But it opened up the discussion. How is this harmful?
> If you feel
> there is "dirty laundry" here that involves more than just the clash
> of a few egos feel free to point this out to everyone.
See above.
> However, if
> someone is chopping holds, what do you propose to do about this? Ask
> the local climbing community to place all crags under armed guard?
No. Since many of us live too far away to get involved in Connecticut, I
think all we can do (aside from contributing to the Access Fund, getting
involved at our own crag), is to talk about the issue on a public forum
where other climbers can read and think about these issues, and perhaps
gain some insight into why these battles break out.
> The purpose of many of these vandalism attacks is simply to get
> attention. Focusing attention on these individuals rather than the
> issues is a waste of effort and simply paves the way for others to get
> attention through similar actions.
I don't think you have anything to worry about. Hearing about this is more
instructive than inflammatory. I would guess that most of the old
schoolers like me who have on occasion resented the intrusion of rap
bolted routes into old trad areas, think Nichols' actions are way out of
line, and counterproductive in the extreme. But I believe that more good
can come from talking about the issue publicly than by keeping it quiet.
JKVawter
George Marsden
(admittedly based on accounts in the climbing press), I would like to
provide this summary of my reaction to Clint's post.
(For the purposes of this summary, the part of Ken will be played by
Pot.)
Pot: "Hey kettle, you are black!"
Michael Riches
> I don't think you have anything to worry about. Hearing about this is more
> instructive than inflammatory. I would guess that most of the old
> schoolers like me who have on occasion resented the intrusion of rap
> bolted routes into old trad areas, think Nichols' actions are way out of
> line, and counterproductive in the extreme. But I believe that more good
> can come from talking about the issue publicly than by keeping it quiet.
>
> JKVawter
>
I also think that talking about issues can be way more beneficial to a
subject then to start throwing accusation around...But anyway, it seems this
one kind of backfired...Ken Nichols seems to be getting the brunt of the
nastiness...
The Rockrat...(Lyttle who...???)
mp...@my-deja.com
Shit man... Now I know that very few people approve of Ken or his
actions... But this is not about Ken or about Mr. Little, or anything
like that... This is about climbing routes that some of us who are
not maniacs with drills OR crazy bolt-choppers climb on... You
can't even understand how bad it sucks when your climbs are
getting fucked up and nobody seems to give a shit.... People would
rather bicker and bitch about this climber and what he did to
so-and-so's husband or some pansy-ass gossippy shit like that
than talk about the fact that awsome climbs in a state with very few
awsome climbs are getting trashed....
You people blow...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ed Esmond
I don't appreciate being characterized as a "maniac(s) with
drill(s)," or as someone who is only concerned with "some pansy-ass gossippy
shit." I replied to Clint only to point out that his information on the
vandalism of Dol Guldur came entirely from Ken Nichols. Any information
based solely on Ken's word must be viewed with some skepticism. I stated
the chopping was irresponsible and should be condemned. I think I do know
how bad it feels to have something like this happen.
Perhaps my post was too difficult for you to understand. Let me try again in
a voice that maybe you will understand...
It blows that some fucking nut-case chopped the holds off the only good
routes in a rathole state like CT. It blows that some fucking nut-cases are
only happy when they're fighting. It blows that some fucking nut-cases
feel the need to lash out and do shit that hurts totally innocent people. It
blows when one fucking nut-case acts like an asshole, and other fucking
nut-cases respond and also act like assholes. The whole thing really blows
when everyone else has to suffer because some assholes can't control
themselves....
There... we're talking about it...feel better?
Does talking about it put the holds back on the routes? Will it stop
someone from doing it again in the future? Let's hear what great
contributions you have...
We're waiting...
Ed Esmond....
mp...@my-deja.com wrote in message <9571m3$gk1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
ne...@my-deja.com
mp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Shit man... Now I know that very few people approve of Ken or his
> actions... But this is not about Ken or about Mr. Little, or anything
> like that... This is about climbing routes that some of us who are
> not maniacs with drills OR crazy bolt-choppers climb on... You
> can't even understand how bad it sucks when your climbs are
> getting fucked up and nobody seems to give a shit.... People would
> rather bicker and bitch about this climber and what he did to
> so-and-so's husband or some pansy-ass gossippy shit like that
> than talk about the fact that awsome climbs in a state with very few
> awsome climbs are getting trashed....
>
> You people blow...
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Bravo mpahl! I agree 100%! Do you climb in CT? Drop me an email before
everything gets chopped up!
Ed: Don't call my state a rathole - and calm down before you start to
look like the pot & kettle yourself. Did mpahl call you personally a
maniac or a pansy-ass? Why so nasty to mpahl? I think his point was that
anger only ends up in stupid shit like chopping holds and bolts. Maybe
you can concieve how much this pissing on our crags sucks, that's fine.
And maybe is's gossip to bitch about somebody who isn't here to speak for
himself? Whatever, just don't call my state a rathole, if you have read
his guidebooks you'd know that at least Ken thought more of CT than that.
ne...@my-deja.com
PS: Know where I can get a copy of Hooked on Traprock? Chessler's out of
'em but they do still have Ragged. http://nt1.adventuresports.com/pub/
chessler/welcome.htm -Still a great resource.
Steven Cherry
>PS: Know where I can get a copy of Hooked on Traprock? Chessler's out of
>'em but they do still have Ragged. http://nt1.adventuresports.com/pub/
>chessler/welcome.htm -Still a great resource.
Ken might have some. I got my copy of Hooked on Ragged from him
directly. Clint will know how to get in touch with Ken, or write
me, I have his phone number.
-steven-
--
<ste...@panix.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Yosemite should be a nature center, not a profit center"
-- David R. Brower
Clint Cummins
adding some details I wasn't sure of before.
>I just heard that holds have been smashed a second time
>on the classic Connecticut climb Dol Guldur (5.11 ***).
>Holds were also smashed on the neighboring route Volcanic
>Panic (5.11+ ***).
The neighboring route is named Volcanic Eruption.
>I don't know yet if either route is still climbable.
I had planned to report further on if they are
climbable, but I realized if I said they are still climbable,
there is some chance it might encourage the hold smashers
to return and attempt to "finish the job".
>...
> 2. 3 weeks prior to the 2001 incident, Ken ran across
>Lyttle and a companion (Dave Indio? - not sure of his name).
Dave Indino was his name.
>... Beside what might be considered a "usual" taunt
>to Ken (threatening to epoxy holds to cliffs and bolt hundreds
>of sport climbs in Connecticut), he also threatened personal
>injury to Ken. ...
Indino also threatened to "destroy Dol Guldur".
>... It turned out he did have an outstanding warrant,
>so he was handcuffed and placed under arrest.
Indino's outstanding warrant was for assault.
It's not my intention to imply that these few details imply
Indino is more or less of a suspect than Lyttle. For example,
Indino was not linked to the original Dol Guldur smashing in 5/1999,
as far as I know. I just added them to make the description
in my original post more complete.
Clint Cummins
mp...@my-deja.com
> I don't appreciate being characterized as a "maniac(s) with
> drill(s),"
Fine... I never characterized you as anything.... If you noticed, my
post was not in response to you or your comments... But hey, if the
shoe fits...
>or as someone who is only concerned with "some pansy-ass gossippy
> shit."
Again... I was not writing in direct response to you, or anyone else,
for that matter, but after looking back on your comments, it seems to
me, anyways, that you are indeed a "pansy-ass gossiper" I quote:
>How would you describe the temperament of someone who has been
>arrested for and convicted of assault because they grabbed someone by
>the neck and choked them? Would you considered that to be "hot
>tempered?" Perhaps you don't remember this little "incident" between
>Ken and the husband of Leslie Brown, the president of the Ragged Mt.
>Foundation?
Those are your pansy-ass gossipy words, Ed.
>I replied to Clint only to point out that his information on the
> vandalism of Dol Guldur came entirely from Ken Nichols. Any
information
> based solely on Ken's word must be viewed with some skepticism.
Don't lie to us, Ed... All one has to do is look at your origonal post
to see that that's not why you replied to Clint. You replied to Clint
in order to talk shit about Ken Nichols. You never once said in your
origonal post that "Ken's word must be viewed with skepticism" or
anything like it... All you did was talk shit 'cause it makes you feel
like a badass to pass judgement on others...
> Perhaps my post was too difficult for you to understand. Let me try
again in
> a voice that maybe you will understand...
>
I won't bother quoting the rest of this inane and completely uncreative
drivel... Don't insult my intellegence, it just makes you look like an
idiot... Don't gossip about shit that you don't know about and that
doesn't concern you... Don't lie to rec.climbing, we're not idiots...
> Does talking about it put the holds back on the routes? Will it stop
> someone from doing it again in the future?
No and possibly yes... No, talking about it does not put the holds back
on, but yes, talking about it might stop future damage... Specifically,
if we make it clear that smashing holds is unacceptable and that it
does irreperable damage to the entire local climbing community, someone
might think twice about doing it next time... Conversely, if we just
bicker about what Ken Nichols has and has not done and what Ken Nichols
does or does not deserve, all it does is contribute to what has been a
particularly stupid and destructive war... You are part of the problem,
Ed... I'm trying to be part of the solution...
Clint Cummins
>>I think a "you leave my crag alone, and I'll leave
>>your crag alone" approach would be much better.
Roger Florensa <flor...@medicina.ub.es> wrote:
>What do you mean with *my crag*? Is he the landowner?
>Is he the only climber who climbs there?
Sorry, I used the terms "my crag" and "your crag"
quite loosely. Nichols does not own any of the Connecticut
crags, nor do the climbers at Farley Ledge or Rumney
own their respective crags. What I meant by "my crag"
is the crag where I climb the most; "your crag" is the crag
where you climb the most.
Clint Cummins
Clint Cummins
has gotten much worse. It is now essentially destroyed as a
climb. More evidence that Bill Lyttle and Dave Indino are
the hold smashers has surfaced as well.
Here's the story, which I learned today in a phone call to
Ken Nichols.
On Saturday morning (2/3/01), Ken and Mark Cashman (Mark has a
web page at http://www.temporaldoorway.com/climbing/ ; he may place
information about these problems on the page at some point) approached
Dol Guldur from the top. Fresh snow had fallen on Friday night, and
they noticed a single set of footprints (plus some dog footprints) which
headed directly to the top of Dol Guldur. At the top of the route,
one of the 4" anchor trees had been destroyed (broken off), and
a smaller tree was broken off as well. The formerly incut hold
at the top of the route was smashed (beaten on with a hammer).
A broken ball peen hammer was lying there on top. They also
noticed that at least 2 holds at the bottom of Volcanic Eruption
had been smashed (previously, they had only noticed one was
smashed). Ken and Mark left at 2pm.
On Sunday morning (2/4/01), Ken returned with a different
climbing partner. A large "K" was visible on top of the
route, created with percussion hits, like from a ball peen hammer.
Key holds all along the length of the route were smashed.
At the bottom of the route the words "Hi Ken" were chiseled into
the rock. While Ken and his partner were surveying the damage,
they noticed Lyttle and Indino approaching from below with their dogs.
(Lyttle has 2 pit bulls, and Indino has one). However, they
retreated without reaching the cliff, when they noticed Ken was
at the wall. Apparently their m.o. is to walk their dogs from
the lower road up to Castle Crag, checking the wall in the process,
and then approach the top of the route if nobody is around.
These latest observations make it pretty clear that Lyttle and
Indino are the perpetrators of the hold smashings and chiselings.
It's very likely a team of two people was used to enable smashing
the holds in the middle of Dol Guldur while on rappel. A solo
rappeller would have nobody to alert him to people approaching
from above while on rappel (and to protect his anchors if he
feared criminal violence).
I'll present their phone numbers/addresses here, in case they
think they can carry out these acts in anonymity. (I do not
advise that they be approached or threatened physically - this
is Indino's approach at least, and there is no need to stoop
to this level). In addition, when Indino was arrested some
weeks ago, he asked the police officer not to release his
address to Ken Nichols. Apparently he was worried that Ken
might adopt his tactic of physical threats. There is
of course no need to engage in criminal activity to defeat
these guys. Just making the facts known and letting the
police take care of criminal matters is enough. Indino's
address and police record are public information, available
from the State Attorney's Office in Waterbury.
Bill J. Lyttle lives in Wolcott, CT, and his phone number is
(203)-879-1034. He likes to climb at Rumney and boulder
in the Gunks. DOB: 5/22/73. He is employed as a security guard.
Dave Indino's address is:
2269 Waterbury Road
Cheshire, CT
(203?)-753-0714
Directions (in case the address is ambiguous):
From I-84, exit 26, N on Route 70 (Waterbury Road).
In less than one mile, there is a bar/nightclub on the right.
Opposite on the left is a green, boxy house (2269). The
Waterbury town line is a few hundred feet further N.
(This may seem a bit extreme, to provide directions,
but the point is merely to show that he can't operate
anonymously).
Indino's arrest warrant was for 5 counts: 3rd degree assault
(the victim was his pregnant wife), 2 counts of threatening,
breach of peace, and failure to appear in court (2nd degree).
The first counts resulted in a restraining ("no contact") order.
Personally, I don't think one should conclude from these counts
that Indino is a dangerous criminal or something similar.
But they don't indicate good character, either.
In case it was not clear in my original post on 1/28,
Indino had never met Nichols before the encounter 3 weeks
ago, where Indino made the numerous threats of personal injury
to Nichols and the threats to destroy Dol Guldur. So presumably
Indino got at least some of his information on Nichols from Lyttle
(although other sources are possible). An implication is that
Lyttle may be responsible for inciting Indino, even if Lyttle
didn't do any actual smashing (this time; he is still suspected
of the smashing in 5/99).
It is frustrating for me to make these reports from a distance,
and not be able to do anything more to help. I even worry that
providing recognition of the damage might motivate the vandals
to do further damage. I guess they probably feel they are heroes
or something for destroying Ken's favorite climb, and possibly
rendering Volcanic Eruption unclimbable as well. Of course,
they are really just excitable fools. Too bad it's not actually
funny. Those were arguably the two best 5.11s in Connecticut,
enjoyed by many more people than just Ken.
Clint Cummins
Clint Cummins
Gleshna <gle...@aol.com> wrote:
>1. IMHO your post is not slander or libel.
Thanks; I was trying to keep it as objective as I could.
>2. I am curious as to why a specific name needs to be posted on
>the internet as a suspect? What is gained by this as opposed to
>merely listing all of the facts?
The hope (was and is) that the word that the facts were
known would make its way back to Lyttle and Indino, perhaps through
other climbers who recognize them. Hopefully they would be
discouraged from continuing the vandalism, assuming they are
the culprits. Additional evidence might come forth as well, if
people observed them near or on the route at key times in
question. If they have good alibis, I'd be happy to make that
information known as well, and to withdraw my accusations.
Clint Cummins
Michael Creel
form of behavior possible within the climbing universe, I also think that
publishing peoples addresses in the way you do is getting pretty low within
the world of rec.climbing. Here in Europe there has been a move to publish
the addresses of pedophiles. Subsequently, through mistakes about
identities, similar names, etc., at least several perfectly innocent people
have had their houses vandalized, etc. These are obviously different
issues, but it shows how vigilante justice is not a good thing. I think it
is the business of the police and/or landowners, depending if these climbs
are on public or private property, to take care of stopping the
destruction. As you yourself put it:
Clint Cummins wrote: > Of course, they are really just excitable fools.
It seems to me that the last thing needed is to get into escalation mode,
especially if Ken Nichols is one of the cast of characters.
I understand and share your frustration. However, if these guys are the
type of idiots that they seem to be from your posts, I don't think that
they will react to this kind of pressure in the way you want them to.
Michael Creel
Russ Walling
>
> The situation with Dol Guldur (former 5.11 *** near Meriden, CT)
> has gotten much worse. It is now essentially destroyed as a
> climb. More evidence that Bill Lyttle and Dave Indino are
> the hold smashers has surfaced as well.
>
> Here's the story, which I learned today in a phone call to
> Ken Nichols.
WTF!!!!!!
This is some of the craziest stuff I've ever heard/read. Not sure what
your part is in all this Clint besides being Kens mouthpiece, but Ken
Nichols has made his own bed with his past behavior (yeah, yeah in my
opinion). He may be your friend and all the rest, but the majority of
people that know *of* him think he is an anus and a vandal in his own
right. These other vandals, if they are in fact the guys, will probably
just love you crying to the world with this BS and then giving
directions to their houses. All you clowns should just have a big cage
match and get it over with. Sounds like all the boys need naps and
their botties paddled to a nice crimson before they get to go out and
play again. Fuck sake man, just end it...... somebody with a single
hair on their sack should wade past the pitbulls and find out just what
the sketch is with these two *alleged* vandals. If its them, straight
ass drop them right there and lay down some law. If it ain't them, they
should heartily kick your ass for blabbing 3rd hand knowledge and giving
directions to their house.
What's it all coming to........?
Russ
--
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Todays Auctions on Ebay:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItemsLinkButtons&userid=fish...@aol.com
Visit our www site: http://www.FishProducts.com
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Clint Cummins
>> I replied to Clint only to point out that his information on the
>> vandalism of Dol Guldur came entirely from Ken Nichols. Any
>> information
>> based solely on Ken's word must be viewed with some skepticism.
<mp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Don't lie to us, Ed... All one has to do is look at your origonal post
>to see that that's not why you replied to Clint. You replied to Clint
>in order to talk shit about Ken Nichols.
This isn't fair to Ed. I don't think he lied. He made a lot
of good points in his post, too.
>You never once said in your
>origonal post that "Ken's word must be viewed with skepticism" or
>anything like it...
Ed's point about "sole information" is a fair criticism.
Hopefully the information is mostly factual, and much of it can
be checked (the police warrant, for example). Perhaps Ed didn't say
it directly in his original post, but what he is talking about now
is his intent during that post.
>No and possibly yes... No, talking about it does not put the holds back
>on, but yes, talking about it might stop future damage... Specifically,
>if we make it clear that smashing holds is unacceptable and that it
>does irreperable damage to the entire local climbing community, someone
>might think twice about doing it next time...
Ed clearly agrees with this - it was made clear in his post,
and I'm glad he said it. He could have left that out, but he did not.
I'm glad you agree as well (hopefully nearly all people do).
>Conversely, if we just
>bicker about what Ken Nichols has and has not done and what Ken Nichols
>does or does not deserve, all it does is contribute to what has been a
>particularly stupid and destructive war...
I agree that Ken's past actions are not an excuse for something
like this. But they are relevant to some extent because they most
likely motivated the individuals who smashed the holds. So it is
just an insight into the vandals motivation, not a legitimate
justification by any of our judgments. I had hoped in my followup
to Ed's post to provide some background facts on the Rumney incident
which might not be well known. I agree overall that discussing
the bolt chopping is a digression from the current problem, but
it is only natural for it to be covered, since that is all many
people have heard of Ken being associated with these days.
>... I'm trying to be part of the solution...
Thank you. Hang in there, and let's hope the crazy hold
smashing stops. Nobody wishes that kind of damage on the best
routes (or even the average routes) in any area or state.
Clint Cummins
Clint Cummins
>> The situation with Dol Guldur (former 5.11 *** near Meriden, CT)
>> has gotten much worse. It is now essentially destroyed as a
>> climb. More evidence that Bill Lyttle and Dave Indino are
>> the hold smashers has surfaced as well.
Russ Walling <Fish...@aol.com> wrote:
><<snip of directions to the dudes houses and more wacked stuff>>
>WTF!!!!!!
>This is some of the craziest stuff I've ever heard/read.
OK, including the "directions" was a bit wacko. I guess my
frustration is showing a bit. The address is enough if somebody
wants to find it. It might be useful if somebody wants to
identify the vehicle he drives, so it could be IDed near the
crag. I don't advocate any threats or assaults, etc., although
I can see how providing "directions" might normally be interpreted in
that way.
>...
>somebody with a single
>hair on their sack should wade past the pitbulls and find out just what
>the sketch is with these two *alleged* vandals. If its them, straight
>ass drop them right there and lay down some law.
I wish it was that easy. I'd be surprised if they admitted to
anything, but I could be wrong. So if they simply deny it, nothing
is resolved.
>If it ain't them, they should heartily kick your ass for blabbing
>3rd hand knowledge and giving directions to their house.
Actually it's 2nd hand knowledge, but I believe it's accurate
and Ken doesn't know how to post himself. I feel a little bad
about the directions. But I thought they might have some legitimate
use. Ideally, somebody who knows them could talk to them (and I
really mean talk, not threaten or try to retaliate for what are
still allegations).
Clint Cummins
Clint Cummins
>While I agree that this sort of vandalism of routes is probably the lowest
>form of behavior possible within the climbing universe, I also think that
>publishing peoples addresses in the way you do is getting pretty low within
>the world of rec.climbing.
>Here in Europe there has been a move to publish
>the addresses of pedophiles. Subsequently, through mistakes about
>identities, similar names, etc., at least several perfectly innocent people
>have had their houses vandalized, etc.
Yes, I would feel bad if their houses were vandalized as a
result of my post. Hopefully with these two individuals, there would
not be a case of mistaken identity. The real problem (of publishing names
and addresses) would be if they are innocent, as accusations might not
be quickly forgotten, even if retracted.
>These are obviously different
>issues, but it shows how vigilante justice is not a good thing. I think it
>is the business of the police and/or landowners, depending if these climbs
>are on public or private property, to take care of stopping the
>destruction.
Agreed.
>As you yourself put it:
>Clint Cummins wrote: > Of course, they are really just excitable fools.
>It seems to me that the last thing needed is to get into escalation mode,
>especially if Ken Nichols is one of the cast of characters.
If it helps, I don't think Ken is planning any retaliation/escalation,
except to disseminate these facts (and some interpretations of the
facts which I feel are reasonable). I think he would be happy to state
he was "weighing his options", if he thought it would be productive
in stopping the destruction. He doesn't believe it would.
>I understand and share your frustration. However, if these guys are the
>type of idiots that they seem to be from your posts, I don't think that
>they will react to this kind of pressure in the way you want them to.
I'm concerned about that as well. My hope is that someone can
contact these guys in a non-threatening way and convince them to stop
(or discover if they are in fact innocent). Probably people who
already know them fairly well already know how to contact them. So
the numbers/addresses might only be useful to to people who have met
them at climbing areas but didn't have their contact info, or people
who met them in the past but don't have their current contact info.
But there is the risk that the contact info could lead to threats
(I hope not). Or that they may interpret posting the contact info as
an implied threat.
Clint Cummins
Julie
> However, several of things that he said to me came across as (from my
> own perspective) misguided and taken away from a very narrowly defined context
> and situation could easily be interpreted as the hyperbole it appears to be when
> baldly written.
Keith, my apologies - I was interpolating, and it was your message that shed the
light. Let me clarifiy what I saw:
Your previous post:
<<So that was you and Ken. You who my buddy and I encountered in the area on
Sunday. I have to say that you guys really screwed up when you were speaking to us
about this. Screwed up, I mean, by so carefully naming the
two individuals you did. The one of you who spoke, I suspect it was Ken (I really
don’t know you guys, or the other two you mentioned, at all) came across as having
something of a vendetta against the fellows you were so
precisely naming to us.>>
What I took from that was that you had encountered Ken at DG on Sunday. Now, I'm
going to assume that Ken knows his adversaries; even if I'm wrong, I think it's a
fair guess that you're obviously quite a bit younger than all these folks. So it
seems clear that Ken knew you weren't the enemy.
Yet from Clint's post of his conversation with Ken:
<<On Sunday morning (2/4/01), Ken returned with a different climbing partner. A
large "K" was visible on top of the route, created with percussion hits, like from a
ball peen hammer. Key holds all along the length of the route were smashed. At the
bottom of the route the words "Hi Ken" were chiseled into the rock. While Ken and
his partner were surveying the damage, they noticed Lyttle and Indino approaching
from below with their dogs.>>
It seems to me that Ken is a bit ... rabid ... in his storytelling, of who he met
and what they'd done. From your post, it also seemed he was pretty eager to
perpetuate the conflict, with whomever would listen. More hyperbole.
Has anyone else verified the damage described above, BTW?
JSH
Dawn Alguard
>
> Personally, I feel bad for Clint.
Steven,
I'm absolutely amazed. You've always been the first one to point out
how wrong it is to make unfounded accusations in a public forum. I
can remember you jumping to the defense of Donald James Perry and Ken
himself on several occasions both here and on gunks.com.
I simply can't understand how you can be defending Clint on this
matter. Put me in the "once respected Clint, now don't" camp.
Whatever Ken has or hasn't done, whatever Bill has or hasn't done, we
know exactly what Clint has done and what he has done is sick.
Dawn
Keith Hoek
Ken that we encountered and I guess he may indeed have wanted to win newbies like us to
his cause ... and I was certainly on side with him right up until he started naming
names.
In principal he was on a winning end run, how could he not be, with folks in the area
wreaking senseless damage to the environment and he rightfully pointing these things out
to guys like us. But he dropped the ball the same way then as Clint did in the way he
started this thread. I mean the crying shame here is that Ken had a golden opportunity
to start cleaning up his game, so to speak, but he didn't.
> going to assume that Ken knows his adversaries; even if I'm wrong, I think it's a
> fair guess that you're obviously quite a bit younger than all these folks. So it
Ah Julie, you're a sweet lass to say so.
> and what they'd done. From your post, it also seemed he was pretty eager to
> perpetuate the conflict, with whomever would listen. More hyperbole.
> Has anyone else verified the damage described above, BTW?
We didn't, my buddy and I were pretty much focussed on another area and only gave the
Amphitheater a passing glance as we walked by it a couple hundred yards distant.
However, we may have an opportunity to go and specifically check the damage out for
ourselves sometime in the next few weekends.
If I see anything new I guess I'll be passing it on to the RMF, and if they think it
worth disseminating I imagine they will put it up on their website. Being unfamiliar
with the area I don't really think that I'll be able to detect anything except the
flagrantly pointed vandalism that Clint described already.
Keith.
tomr...@my-deja.com
never use or read any of his guide books again. Just where do you draw
your ethics. Let's lighten up on the guy.
Dawn Alguard <da...@tradgirl.com> wrote:
> I simply can't understand how you can be defending Clint on this
> matter. Put me in the "once respected Clint, now don't" camp.
> Whatever Ken has or hasn't done, whatever Bill has or hasn't done, we
> know exactly what Clint has done and what he has done is sick.
>
> Dawn
>
Kelly Rich
> .. .. ..
> So Clint, please stop acting as judge and jury in a situation that you
> are not even a part of. By doing nothing more than posting these
> second hand stories, you prove yourself to be a coward who is using
> this newsgroup to hide behind.
In reading this thread, I find it is not Clint who is showing to be the
coward, but rather KN. He gets his buddy on the opposite coast to
write these posts instead of putting them up himself. Instead of
trying to open a line of communication with the warring factions,
you have cloak and dagger.
Clint makes a comment that KN doesn't have any access to the
net. Hard to believe that little kids can figure out ways to get to the
library and post, while someone resourceful enough to author several
guide books can't muster the mental wherewithal to figure out a way to
hook into this high-tech society.
As long as cowards do damage by the cover of night, the cycle will
continue.
:- k
Steven Cherry
>Steven,
I think I can feel bad for Clint while not defending what he did.
Yes he went over the top in the way he has publicly announced his
suspicions, and posting addresses and directions, all of which are
errors he has acknowledged. But doing so also undercut a serious
discussion of the issues raised, and that's everyone's failure, not
just Clint's.
Clint is a well-intentioned fellow caught in a difficult position.
He has contributed greatly to Connecticut climbing and elsewhere as
well. Unlike people who waltz into a forum or a crag and take and
take with no hint of giving back, Clint has given of himself
consistently and well, for years and years. He deserves far more
consideration and respect than he has gotten, and a lot more slack
for these understandable lapses.
Unfounded accusations bother me as much as they do the next person,
maybe more, as you suggest. But the piling-on of criticisms of
someone who's doing more good than bad bothers me at least as much.
There's no need for me to add my voice to the criticisms of Clint's
posts, I only wish there was no need for me to add my voice to a
chorus of Clint's defenders.
Thor Lancelot Simon
>So to be consistent, what you are saying is that you and others should
>never use or read any of his guide books again. Just where do you draw
>your ethics. Let's lighten up on the guy.
This is evidently some definition of "consistent" of which I'm not aware.
Could you explain it to me?
I wouldn't mind if you explained what it had to do with the text you
included below, either:
> Dawn Alguard <da...@tradgirl.com> wrote:
>
>> I simply can't understand how you can be defending Clint on this
>> matter. Put me in the "once respected Clint, now don't" camp.
>> Whatever Ken has or hasn't done, whatever Bill has or hasn't done, we
>> know exactly what Clint has done and what he has done is sick.
>>
>> Dawn
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
tomr...@my-deja.com
giving him (perhaps rightfully-- to a limit) is probably, to the extent
that it is, over-done now. How long should we continue to berate the
guy who has, I am sure, realized his mistake. We have already put him
to the ground, kicked his teeth in, called the lawyers, asked for his
address, taunted him, called him a coward, spit on his evil soul. Now
that all of this is done and everyone has vented are you guys going to
be consistent and continue with this gang bang by not reading or using
any of his very helpful guides. I mean if he is a piece of sh*t, (of
which I think not) then by all means be consistent in your condemnation
of him.
Don't get me wrong, the phone and address was a little much but I am
sure the offended party is more then able to defend him self if he
desires, whether by law or battery. I am sure that if someone posted my
phone number and my family's address I would come unglued and it would
not be pretty. I am a very revengeful person with little character
forbidding subsequent actions. The fear of dying or jail is my prime
reason for staying in line.
I say that we get beyond this, particularly if Clint apologizes, and
welcome him back. To be honest he is one of the better personalities of
this group. And I can at least understand mistakes and poor actions by
someone on a onetime basis. If my skeletons ever escaped out of the
closet I'd also ruined.
tom "forgiven"
In article <95s89h$8d4$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
Steelmnkey
>Yeah, like that makes posting people's real-world addresses (not
>to mention essentially inciting direct violence against them while
>sanctimoniously pretending not to) A-OK. Sure.
>
>Fuckwit.
Ooooohhhh...you got me there. Fuckwit...wow...how can I respond to that?
I'm clearly in over my head here, having been accosted by such a mental giant.
Fuckwit...I still can't get over how speechless that left me. You are clearly
not just a lurker, but a worthwhile CONTRIBUTER. All the other newsgroups will
be jealous now...
G.
p.s. Nothing like a good conversation to get the day going.
Fuckwit...damn...that was a good one. Can I use that?
Thor Lancelot Simon
>What I was rhetorically suggesting was the beating you folks have been
>giving him (perhaps rightfully-- to a limit) is probably, to the extent
>that it is, over-done now. How long should we continue to berate the
>guy who has, I am sure, realized his mistake. We have already put him
You think Ken Nichols has realized his mistake? That's funny, I don't
think I've ever run into _anyone_ who was willing to argue that side of
the issue before.
Steven Cherry
> Clint makes a comment that KN doesn't have any access to the
>net. Hard to believe that little kids can figure out ways to get to the
>library and post, while someone resourceful enough to author several
>guide books can't muster the mental wherewithal to figure out a way to
>hook into this high-tech society.
And so it comes almost full circle! In this very thread Dawn made a
reference to Don Perry, a fellow who went to the library and tried to
figure out how to join this and other on-line climbing forums.
Most of us can remember how well that went for him.
It's one thing for kids to jump on line and stumble into some Brittany
Spears fan site and make the same giggly comments as everyone else. It's
another thing to find the right forums for serious discussion of climbing,
learn the various methods of posting, come to understand netiquette paying
particular regard to the idiosyncracies of Usenet, and make some cogent
and clear points about a highly controversial matter at hand. All in a
trip to the library, where his friend can't even walk him through any
of it.
tomr...@my-deja.com
>
> You think Ken Nichols has realized his mistake? That's funny, I don't
> think I've ever run into _anyone_ who was willing to argue that side
of
> the issue before.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
Julie
> Kelly Rich <kel...@netscape.com> writes:
> > Clint makes a comment that KN doesn't have any access to the
> >net. Hard to believe that little kids can figure out ways to get to the
> >library and post, while someone resourceful enough to author several
> >guide books can't muster the mental wherewithal to figure out a way to
> >hook into this high-tech society.
>
> And so it comes almost full circle! In this very thread Dawn made a
> reference to Don Perry, a fellow who went to the library and tried to
> figure out how to join this and other on-line climbing forums.
> Most of us can remember how well that went for him.
To his credit, Don Perry eventually figured it out, removed his online ramblings
to his own web page, to which he pointed us (albeit in vain). He's also posted
to Gunks.com with more success. Old dogs *can* learn new tricks.
JSH
Kelly Rich
> Kelly Rich writes:
> > Clint makes a comment that KN doesn't have any access to the
> > net. .. .. ..
> .. .. ..
> It's one thing for kids to jump on line and stumble into some Brittany
> Spears fan site and make the same giggly comments as everyone else. It's
> another thing to find the right forums for serious discussion of climbing,
> learn the various methods of posting, come to understand netiquette paying
> particular regard to the idiosyncracies of Usenet, and make some cogent
> and clear points about a highly controversial matter at hand. All in a
> trip to the library, where his friend can't even walk him through any
> of it.
Being resourceful, Ken could use the phonebook to look up a Web Cafe
where he could pay for some time on a computer. With a bit of guidance
from Clint and the folks at the Cafe, it shouldn't take too long to figure
out how to post.
I have no doubt that if he wanted to, Ken is crafty enough to figure out
how to get on the net and post himself. The point being: instead of dealing
with the matter directly, he sends the addresses off to Clint. At some point,
the characters involved in this story are going to have to meet. The manner
in which they chose to do so has ramifications for more than just the few
involved.
:- k
Jason Huckaby
> stoop low enough to try to pin the route destruction on Bill. So let's
> face the fact that almost everyone else in this state already knows,
> that Nichols is a scheming, honorless, vengeful, and egotistical shell
> of a man and anything that spews forth out of his mouth should in no
> way, shape, or form be considered as the truth.
Have you ever even met Ken Nichols? From your rant above, I doubt it.
I have. Ken does not have an internet connection and like 98% of the
climbing community, does not read rec.climbing. Maybe a blessing in
disguise?
I find it unfortunate that his *past* actions (way past) have sent
such a strong shock wave of hatred through the climbing community.
There are very few people that have spent so much time rock climbing
and dedicating their lives to climbing. Last year, at age 52, Ken
climbed 3050 routes and spent 295 days climbing! (and it's all neatly
recorded in one of his little notebooks)
Ken certainly has his opinions, but is not running around chopping
bolts willy-nilly today. A vast majority of bolts chopped in New
England have been shortly followed by "Musta' been Ken Nichols"
whether he was in the area or not. The rush to judgment has been
cast unfavorably against Ken many times.
So what is my point really? Unsure.
I guess I find it hard to believe that Ken would thoughtlessly
blame an innocent individual. He happens to be an extremely logical
and careful person, which also mirrors his "bolt-free" lead ethic.
So, if Ken has a strong reason to believe that this guy is
vandalizing routes, you might want to believe it.
How would you approach or deal with the problem if you were in
Ken's shoes?
JH
Dawn Alguard
>
> like 98% of the
> climbing community, does not read rec.climbing.
I think you're way off on that. Rec.climbing has a much greater
sphere of influence than people sometimes realize.
> Ken certainly has his opinions, but is not running around chopping
> bolts willy-nilly today. A vast majority of bolts chopped in New
> England have been shortly followed by "Musta' been Ken Nichols"
> whether he was in the area or not. The rush to judgment has been
> cast unfavorably against Ken many times.
So it's your theory that every time the RMF places bolts at Main Cliff
and they get chopped a week later it's *not* Ken doing it? If that's
the case, Ken should speak to the RMF and some other climbers about it
and see if a truce of sorts can be arranged so that the retaliation
against Ken (which is now hurting us all) can stop.
*Someone* is still chopping every bolt placed in Connecticut and this
is the first time I've heard it suggested that that someone isn't Ken.
Dawn
JKVawter
> Jason Huckaby wrote:
> >
> > like 98% of the
> > climbing community, does not read rec.climbing.
>
> I think you're way off on that. Rec.climbing has a much greater
> sphere of influence than people sometimes realize.
What makes you think so? I tend to agree with Jason on this point, though
I would say "most" climbers, and not 98 %, and my feeling is based on
anecdotal evidence. What evidence do you have other than from the people
you tend to climb with (which is, after all, anecdotal)?
JKVawter
Jason Huckaby
> So it's your theory that every time the RMF places bolts at Main Cliff
> and they get chopped a week later it's *not* Ken doing it? If that's
> the case, Ken should speak to the RMF and some other climbers about it
> and see if a truce of sorts can be arranged so that the retaliation
> against Ken (which is now hurting us all) can stop.
> *Someone* is still chopping every bolt placed in Connecticut and this
> is the first time I've heard it suggested that that someone isn't Ken.
I don't have proof either way. I do know a few routes here in Maine
have
had bolts "added" after the FA party free'd it (Ken Nichols was part of
the FA)
Jason Huckaby
> So it's your theory that every time the RMF places bolts at Main Cliff
> and they get chopped a week later it's *not* Ken doing it? If that's
> the case, Ken should speak to the RMF and some other climbers about it
> and see if a truce of sorts can be arranged so that the retaliation
> against Ken (which is now hurting us all) can stop.
> *Someone* is still chopping every bolt placed in Connecticut and this
> is the first time I've heard it suggested that that someone isn't Ken.
Chopping is what fueled the route vandalism, or is it something else?
I am surprised to hear that bolt-choppping is still happening today.
I don't really know Ken well, but from the brief discussions I had
with him this summer, I assumed that his bolt-choppin' days were in
the past.
Your "Mad" CT bolt chopper may or may not be Ken, I have no proof
either way. If bolts were chopped (by someone else), I don't think
Ken would go out of his way to say "I did not do it", since he
hates bolts - without question.
There is a route here in Maine that has a shiny bolt on it. Ken was
part of the FA party when it was established (without bolt). Ken
was here in Maine for a good portion of the summer and mentioned it.
He had opportunity and motive :) - but the bolt remains. Maybe I
should go check?
A very sad situation overall. I'm sorry to hear it has erupted
into such a mess.
JH
Dawn Alguard
>
> Dawn Alguard wrote:
> >
> > I think you're way off on that. Rec.climbing has a much greater
> > sphere of influence than people sometimes realize.
>
> What makes you think so? I tend to agree with Jason on this point, though
> I would say "most" climbers, and not 98 %, and my feeling is based on
> anecdotal evidence. What evidence do you have other than from the people
> you tend to climb with (which is, after all, anecdotal)?
I suppose it's anecdotal, though not just based on the people I climb
with. It's based in part on people I didn't know read r.c saying
things to me like "I liked your TR". I mentioned sphere of influence,
which was really my point. It may be that "most" climbers don't read
r.c but "most" climbers in CT are certainly aware of the details of
Clint's post by now.
Anyway, here's an anecdote about Bill Lyttle and r.c's sphere of
influence, but I promise there's no chopping in it!
When I was getting ready to go to Yosemite, I got a lot of teasing at
the gym. When I wrote my TR, I used a bit of dramatic license and
attributed everything anyone ever said, plus a few things I'd made up,
to Bill (granted, Bill had said *some* of those things).
It never occurred to me that anyone I knew or anyone who knew Bill
read rec.climbing. I thought it was just the small, weird
intersection of tech-weenies and climbers. No one had ever mentioned
it to me, anyway.
So I posted the TR and almost immediately I got email from someone at
the gym - "Nice TR. I wonder what Bill's going to think."
Boy did I feel bad. Dramatic license aside, Bill had always been
extremely helpful to me. He'd been free with advice and
encouragement. And now I'd made him out to be some kind of comic-book
villian.
Trying to mitigate whatever damage I'd done, I printed a copy of the
TR and brought it to the gym.
"I hope you're not going to be made at me," I said, handing it to him.
"I hope not too," he answered very solemnly.
He read it quickly and when he handed it back he was smiling.
"I think it's great," he said and he never mentioned it again and
never changed his manner to me, for better or worse. The teasing
continued and in fact he's the one who gave me the nickname Tradgirl.
Dawn
maohai huang
: JKVawter wrote:
: >
: > Dawn Alguard wrote:
: > >
: > > I think you're way off on that. Rec.climbing has a much greater
: > > sphere of influence than people sometimes realize.
: >
: > What makes you think so? I tend to agree with Jason on this point, though
: > I would say "most" climbers, and not 98 %, and my feeling is based on
: > anecdotal evidence. What evidence do you have other than from the people
: > you tend to climb with (which is, after all, anecdotal)?
:
: I suppose it's anecdotal, though not just based on the people I climb
: with. It's based in part on people I didn't know read r.c saying
: things to me like "I liked your TR".
Having stayed in Europe for a couple of weeks and having a hard time
finding partners partly because of language problems, I actually wonder if
98% climbers in the world can read English well enough so that they can
follow threads in a English newsgroup, not to say participate.
but that is a minor point in this thread. what amazes me of these threads
regarding hold-chopping, bolt-chopping, and posting addresses is that so
many people even think chopping bolts and chopping holds are anywhere close
to comparablly bad. C'mon people, bolts can be replaced, maybe slowly --
But the rock is still there; Clint shouldn't post addresses but that is
something about certain individuals; However a good route chopped is a good
route lost forever. FOREVER -- way after all these silly argument and
personal conflicts are obliterated by time. What was destryed was a three
star route in CT where climber/rock ratio is really really high, and
getting higher every year because more and more people are taking up
climbing.
I am not sure who did the chopping. But I am sure I feel many posters in
these threads have lost perspective as climbers. That is what I am saying.
Ed Esmond
should be obvious. I don't think there is anyone who supports the hold
choppers, or thinks it was an appropriate action. I know quite a few people
who could be considered "Ken-Haters," but none of them even remotely think
the actions of the hold choppers was ok. Everyone I have spoken with is
appalled by the whole thing.
The unfortunate reality is that the hold choppers extremely misguided
actions were in retaliation to both the long and short term behavior of one
individual, Ken Nichols. There is anger towards the hold choppers, but
there is also anger toward Ken, because he is ultimately responsible. If he
hadn't been a jerk to so many people, for so long, this whole rotten mess
wouldn't have happened. I think that is the perspective of many of the
posts.
The choppers lashed out at Ken, but it was the climbing community that got
hurt. That is the real tragedy.
ed e
maohai huang wrote in message <96jull$61g$1...@news3.bu.edu>...
>Dawn Alguard (da...@tradgirl.com) wrote:
>: JKVawter wrote:
>: >
>: > Dawn Alguard wrote:
things snipped
Clint Cummins
Thankfully, there has been no further vandalism to the climb.
On 2/17, Dave Indino's car was observed parked in Hubbard Park
(below the crag), and he was observed at the very base of
the route, feeling the initial holds for quite awhile. When
a climber rappelled down the route, Indino retreated further
downhill in the boulders and was in the vicinity for some time.
There was no confrontation, however. Lyttle's car has not
been observed in the area for many days.
In case there are future incidents :-( , I will describe
Lyttle's and Indino's vehicles. If people recognize their
cars, and the cars are observed in some future incident,
then there are many more potential witnesses.
Dave Indino - license number 919 PLA
Lincoln Continental - grey on top, dark blue/black on bottom.
The trunk on this type of car has a bubble where the spare tire fits.
Bill Lyttle - license number 912 GAG
Station wagon
As before, this is by no means a suggestion to make threats against
these individuals, or to vandalize their cars/property. It is just
a way to identify them, and the suggestion is to keep your eyes open
if you observe them in the area.
In my previous post, I gave Indino's address and directions to
his house. I was criticized for giving the directions, and I
didn't feel very good about it, since they might be construed as
a suggestion to vandalize his property. Fortunately no such
incidents have been reported. I haven't read most of the
further posts since then, but I will make an attempt to do
so soon. As I stated then, my main purpose
was to prevent them from feeling they could act anonymously (if
in fact they were reponsible for the vandalism incidents).
I now have Bill Lyttle's address as well:
Bill Lyttle
15 Frisbie Circle
Wolcott, CT 06716-2803
This is off Todd Road, from Route 322, off I-84.
Of course, it would be simple to find on a map, or at
a web map site like www.MapQuest.com , if there was some
reason to visit in person. Again, by no means should he
be threatened or his property vandalized. The ideal solution
would be to simply catch him or Indino in the act of further
vandalism, or to somehow obtain more/better evidence that they
were involved in the past acts of vandalism, or that they
made repeated threats to do it. If this were to happen,
the law enforcement officials would be able to take action.
Private "vigilanteism" is a bad idea. It just gives the
other party an excuse to retaliate as well.
Clint Cummins
JHVSMan
was seen at the base of the route? I was definitely there for "quite a while",
surveying the start of the route, looking at the upper sections with
binoculars, and taking a few photos. I was on DG for the first time in '98 and
haven't been back since. Wanted to see how bad the damage was. So I was
"feeling the initial holds for quite a while". I also took a really close look
at Cat Crack, Rat Crack and Squirrel Cage too. Perhaps those activities
escaped vigilance.
When I was about halfway down the scree field, I heard someone yelling
something (It sounded like "Run Away!!" from the deadly rabbit scene in MP's
Holy Grail) and turned to see them setting ropes on the route. I thought to
myself .. great people are still climbing the route. I debated about trudging
back uphill to see who it was but decided against it.
I did "retreat" downhill to the boulder field- where I spent a pretty long time
checking that out too. I didn't see anyone else out there in the time I was
around. I did leave a lot of tracks in the snow (and so did my dog).
Do all these activities make me a suspect for something? Perhaps I should post
my address, phone and plate number?
If people want to surveil Dol Guldor, it's a free country and I guess it could
help prevent further vandalism to the route, which would be tragic. But maybe
you should relax the drama a bit.
Keith Hoek
certain premonition of numbness for the time when I bump into a rec.climber
who asks me … “so where do you climb?”
Keith (not just another CT looney) Hoek
Kelly Rich
I do not know why you have to publish the address
of individuals to an international forum. If you have
the addresses of the suspected villians, they why have
you not sent them a letter asking for a meeting to
sort this mess out? (This is a serious question.)
Negotiation is the best way to resolve this type of
dispute. Underground tactics only promote more espionage.
Clint, in your message, you say:
"Private 'vigilanteism' is a bad idea. It just gives
the other party an excuse to retaliate as well."
However, by posting addresses to an international forum, it
seems you are trying to intice bystanders to get involved
in this dispute, thus initiating another round of
vigilantism.
In short, please try to figure out a positive way to
deal with this problem.
:- k
Scott
If anyone is planning to climb anywhere near Dol Guldar (say, a 150 mile
radius), please contact either Clint Cummings or Ken Nichols. If Clint would
be so kind as to post their addresses, you could send them a note as to when
you planned to climb. It may be helpful to include a recent photo of
yourself for proper identification. For if you are not recognized, Bill and
Dave might be blamed. Oh, Clint, let us know what you and Ken drive and your
plate numbers in case one of us plans to climb anywhere on short notice. We
can then just slip the note and photo under your windshield wiper.
--
ScottZ
Mad Dog
> When I was getting ready to go to Yosemite, I got a lot of teasing at
> the gym. When I wrote my TR, I used a bit of dramatic license and
> attributed everything anyone ever said, plus a few things I'd made up,
> to Bill (granted, Bill had said *some* of those things).
I've met at least 25 lurkers at crags all over the US and Canada. It's not
uncommon to hear a couple of people talking about some thread they were
reading. Once, a local kid thought he had a FA but the route had been done
years ago. I posted that, then overheard him at the crag expressing doubt
about my post. I didn't bother introducing myself.
OTOH, I know climbers that are otherwise into the Internet that never have
even checked r.c and don't plan to. Some folks check it out once, are
disappointed and never go back.