|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 21, 2009, 5:56 PM
Post #26 of 76
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
dingus wrote: clausti wrote: dingus wrote: iamthewallress wrote: dingus wrote: Yup got and see the point. I still think climbing partners should carry an EQUAL share of the community load though. Along the lines of the thin hands comment, really. DMT You mean weight in the back pack? I think everyone should do what they can. I carry as much as I can, you carry as much as you can. Sounds reasonable. DMT ok, you acknowledge that that's reasonable there... but how is "i'll carry what i can and you carry what you can" different from "someone who is 110 shouldn't have to split by weight an 80 lb load with someone who is 170"? Gonna keep hammering on this are you. SOUNDS REASONABLE is me... trying to meet someone half way. Apparently that someone is not you. That's OK. Carry your own load. DMT
I'M the one that keeps hammering on it? i do keep disagreeing with you every time YOU bring it up.
80 lbs adds up pretty quickly with a rope or two, a trad rack, sport draws, a thermos of hot tea, extra jackets, the pack itself weighs 5 lbs, and three liters of water a person. sunscreen. just saying.
and sorry, but i don't accept your "sounds reasonable." you either do or do not think the only fair way is to split in half by weight, which has been your stated position to date. so you're either conceding or not, and i was trying to figure out which. the answer appears to be "not, lets quit talking about it," which i do accept.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 21, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #27 of 76
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
You don't accept me trying to meet IATW halfway? Mighty big of you there.
You know the funny part? She carried HALF THE COMMUNITY LOAD the time we went climbing.
We never even discussed it. Imagine that.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 21, 2009, 6:20 PM
Post #28 of 76
(6411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
dingus wrote: You don't accept me trying to meet IATW halfway? Mighty big of you there. You know the funny part? She carried HALF THE COMMUNITY LOAD the time we went climbing. We never even discussed it. Imagine that. DMT
oh so you DO want to keep talking about it.
no, i don't accept your logical fallacy. you either do think that half by weigh is the only fair way, or you don't. there's not really any way around it. and you can think whatever you want, and i can tell you i think you're ridiculous, too.
i have never weighed packs with a partner. but by virtue of the fact that my pack is an small and my main partners is a large, stuffing them both usually results in an uneven distribution of weight. mostly because a rope weighs more than 15 draws. on the flip side, though, he still carries the rope (because it fits in his pack better) and i still carry the rack when we're going trad climbing, where often the rack weighs more. so that's how it usually works out.
and when i was climbing with guys i'd picked up in the parking lot at indian creek, i carried 5 sets of cams and my rope to often their 2 or 3 plus rope. i assure you mine weighed more.
but i STILL think it's ridiculous on the face to say that the only fair way is to split the load in half by weight. what are you going to do, weigh it??
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 21, 2009, 6:45 PM
Post #29 of 76
(6405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I don't recall saying that an equal share of community load is the ONLY way to split it up. There are certainly other less equivalent methods and I've used those too.
I was grateful to Nurse Ratchet the day she took the rope out of my pack because I was bonking.
But I don't want to depend upon stronger climbers to carry my shit for me (or drag me up routes beyond my means). Has nothing to do with you, what's in your pack, what you climb or how, or the chips you may tote on your shoulders.
Ideally speaking I don't want Nurse Ratchet or anyone else to have to carry my shit so I can go climbing. Its that simple.
As far as meeting halfway, I do that with my friends. Logic? What EVER.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 21, 2009, 6:55 PM
Post #30 of 76
(6400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
dingus wrote: I don't recall saying that an equal share of community load is the ONLY way to split it up. There are certainly other less equivalent methods and I've used those too.
dingus wrote: Yup got and see the point. I still think climbing partners should carry an EQUAL share of the community load though. Along the lines of the thin hands comment, really. DMT
from earlier in THIS thread, even. no, the word only isn't in there this time. so, do you or don't you think that equal by weigh is the only fair way? or are there other, equally fair ways?
In reply to: I was grateful to Nurse Ratchet the day she took the rope out of my pack because I was bonking.
congrats to you? i related a few instances because you seemed to be implying, because i find your definition of a "fair" split ridiculous, that i don't carry an adequate amount or that i try and get out of carrying things.
In reply to: But I don't want to depend upon stronger climbers to carry my shit for me (or drag me up routes beyond my means).
congrats to you again? i had no idea we were talking about stronger climber carrying more when hiking. i was pretty sure we were talking about weight of pack as relative to weight of person carrying it.
In reply to: Has nothing to do with you, what's in your pack, what you climb or how, or the chips you may tote on your shoulders.
In reply to: Ideally speaking I don't want Nurse Ratchet or anyone else to have to carry my shit so I can go climbing. Its that simple.
i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, either?
In reply to: As far as meeting halfway, I do that with my friends. Logic? What EVER. DMT
if you have no use for logic, then what is the point of having a rational conversation? shall i just call you a poo poo head and have done with it?
edited for the quote cheesetit.
(This post was edited by clausti on Apr 21, 2009, 6:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 21, 2009, 7:17 PM
Post #31 of 76
(6391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
clausti wrote: from earlier in THIS thread, even. no, the word only isn't in there this time.
Restated - you are correct Dingus, you did not say or imply this was the only method.
In reply to: so, do you or don't you think that equal by weigh is the only fair way? or are there other, equally fair ways?
Equally fair ways? Seriously?
In reply to: congrats to you? i related a few instances because you seemed to be implying, because i find your definition of a "fair" split ridiculous, that i don't carry an adequate amount or that i try and get out of carrying things.
That's all you mate. I never said such a thing.
In reply to: congrats to you again? i had no idea we were talking about stronger climber carrying more when hiking. i was pretty sure we were talking about weight of pack as relative to weight of person carrying it.
Yes I saw you entirely missed IATW's point about tradeoffs. No worries, you may come around one day.
In reply to: nope, has nothing to do with me or my chips. has something to do with yours, though, it would seem.
Has to do with pack weight, remember?
In reply to: if you have no use for logic, then what is the point of having a rational conversation?
We're having a rational conversation right now. There isn't much logic involved really, in most rational conversations. I don't fear a self-contradiction, is what I really mean along these lines. I don't think a self-contradiction is bad because OF the self-contradiction. I happily self-contradiuct as it suits me. One size fits all logic... isn't.
In reply to: shall i just call you a poo poo head and have done with it?
What's that got to do with logic or rational conversations?
In reply to: edited for the quote cheesetit.
Congratulations.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 21, 2009, 7:42 PM
Post #32 of 76
(6378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
clausti wrote: ok, you acknowledge that that's reasonable there... but how is "i'll carry what i can and you carry what you can" different from "someone who is 110 shouldn't have to split by weight an 80 lb load with someone who is 170"? it seems more than a little ridiculous that you keep coming back to this every time sexism comes up, especially since it doesn't really seem like an issue of sexism so much as practicality, to me. do you want to get there faster, or do you want the load to be "fair"? if i went climbing with a girl that weighed 170 (with me at 110), i'd be perfectly incredulous if she informed me that we were splitting the gear in half by weight and that was the only fair way. i mean, i'd carry it, because i'd rather go climbing than have a fight in the parking lot, but i don't think that person would be very high on my list of people to call for future trips.
I'm not sure I buy this entirely. OK, so it makes sense that someone who who weighs 170lbs is probably more capable of carrying more weight, but that doesn't mean the heavier person is stronger on a pound-for-pound basis.
I know folks who I outweight by 20lbs who are stronger than me. Do I still have to carry more because I weigh more even if they are stronger? It's kind of a bullshit answer to say "yes." When does it make sense to say, OK, half the load is unfair?
I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? Is the difference 20lbs? 50lbs? 60lbs?
Yes, I think splitting the gear up evenly is important. My partner, who is a woman, wouldn't want to do it any other way. I outweigh her by at least 50lbs. We're partners. We're equals. And it works very, very well. Somedays on the approach I carry the ropes and misc stuff (food, etc) and she carries the gear. Other days it is the opposite. On climbs, the leader takes whatever gear is needed, and the second carries the rest. I don't carry more on lead just because she's a girl and weighs less. We're a team, and we function that way.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 21, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #33 of 76
(6371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: Somedays on the approach I carry the ropes and misc stuff (food, etc) and she carries the gear. Other days it is the opposite. On climbs, the leader takes whatever gear is needed, and the second carries the rest.
i think all of that is perfectly reasonable, and sounds pretty much identical to what i described above as my system. but i bet that you're not weighing the packs to make sure they're even.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 21, 2009, 7:57 PM
Post #34 of 76
(6369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
clausti wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Somedays on the approach I carry the ropes and misc stuff (food, etc) and she carries the gear. Other days it is the opposite. On climbs, the leader takes whatever gear is needed, and the second carries the rest. i think all of that is perfectly reasonable, and sounds pretty much identical to what i described above as my system. but i bet that you're not weighing the packs to make sure they're even.
No, but we try to be equal. We make assumptions that probably don't work out to being half, but we take "half the weight" as a goal when we pack.
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Apr 21, 2009, 8:49 PM
Post #35 of 76
(6355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: clausti wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Somedays on the approach I carry the ropes and misc stuff (food, etc) and she carries the gear. Other days it is the opposite. On climbs, the leader takes whatever gear is needed, and the second carries the rest. i think all of that is perfectly reasonable, and sounds pretty much identical to what i described above as my system. but i bet that you're not weighing the packs to make sure they're even. No, but we try to be equal. We make assumptions that probably don't work out to being half, but we take "half the weight" as a goal when we pack.
A case where "up" is foremost on the brain rather than "Fair"? I guess it's a matter of team priorities? If the team priority is "BEER" that beer is going up!
No?
ls
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 21, 2009, 8:50 PM
Post #36 of 76
(6354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Actually, I usually put rocks in the bottom of clausti's pack so that our loads come out to an even 50-50.
Don't tell her that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 21, 2009, 8:53 PM
Post #38 of 76
(6345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
ladyscarlett wrote: If the team priority is "BEER" that beer is going up! No? ls
Yes, particularly if she weighs a lot less and can't handle her liquor.
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Apr 21, 2009, 9:21 PM
Post #39 of 76
(6337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: ladyscarlett wrote: If the team priority is "BEER" that beer is going up! No? ls Yes, particularly if she weighs a lot less and can't handle her liquor.
Fair play!
ls
ps - shouldn't give away your game plan...heh
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 21, 2009, 11:07 PM
Post #40 of 76
(6320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
ladyscarlett wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: ladyscarlett wrote: If the team priority is "BEER" that beer is going up! No? ls Yes, particularly if she weighs a lot less and can't handle her liquor. Fair play! ls ps - shouldn't give away your game plan...heh
DOH!
Twice in one thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 21, 2009, 11:24 PM
Post #41 of 76
(6315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
camhead wrote: Actually, I usually put rocks cams that I *swear* I'm going to use today in the bottom of clausti's pack so that our loads come out to an even 50-50.
fixied.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 22, 2009, 4:47 AM
Post #42 of 76
(6278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: clausti wrote: ok, you acknowledge that that's reasonable there... but how is "i'll carry what i can and you carry what you can" different from "someone who is 110 shouldn't have to split by weight an 80 lb load with someone who is 170"? it seems more than a little ridiculous that you keep coming back to this every time sexism comes up, especially since it doesn't really seem like an issue of sexism so much as practicality, to me. do you want to get there faster, or do you want the load to be "fair"? if i went climbing with a girl that weighed 170 (with me at 110), i'd be perfectly incredulous if she informed me that we were splitting the gear in half by weight and that was the only fair way. i mean, i'd carry it, because i'd rather go climbing than have a fight in the parking lot, but i don't think that person would be very high on my list of people to call for future trips. I'm not sure I buy this entirely. OK, so it makes sense that someone who who weighs 170lbs is probably more capable of carrying more weight, but that doesn't mean the heavier person is stronger on a pound-for-pound basis. I know folks who I outweight by 20lbs who are stronger than me. Do I still have to carry more because I weigh more even if they are stronger? It's kind of a bullshit answer to say "yes." When does it make sense to say, OK, half the load is unfair? I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? Is the difference 20lbs? 50lbs? 60lbs? Yes, I think splitting the gear up evenly is important. My partner, who is a woman, wouldn't want to do it any other way. I outweigh her by at least 50lbs. We're partners. We're equals. And it works very, very well. Somedays on the approach I carry the ropes and misc stuff (food, etc) and she carries the gear. Other days it is the opposite. On climbs, the leader takes whatever gear is needed, and the second carries the rest. I don't carry more on lead just because she's a girl and weighs less. We're a team, and we function that way.
I think "we are equals" is an incomplete definition of a true partnership. To truly be a team is to be gestalt.
My brother and I hiked a portion of the AT awhile back and for that month our pack weight distribution was not equal. He out weighs me by 50+ lbs. and is built like a football player; I'm taller, thinner and have an altogether different body type. We realized that the most efficient system was for him to carry 15-20% more than myself on average. If my pack weighed 50lbs, his would weigh around 60.
Conversely, he is still afraid of heights despite being a climber for over 5 years and having jumped out of air planes. When it comes to exposed leads, I always take the sharp end. Not because he can't ever make it but that shit gets to him sometimes and we have to go down. Its more efficient and productive for our team if I take the exposed and or runout pitches.
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, to meld them such that together you are greater than the sum of your parts is the essence of a partnership. Your equals in that you both have something to contribute and you strengthen one another.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 22, 2009, 1:36 PM
Post #43 of 76
(6259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Climbing is a lot more than just the physical act of getting up and off a route.
I look for partners that understand that. I actually get uncomfortable when in the presence of people climbing without that awareness. I want to get away from them, and I sure as hell don't partner with them.
So, while it does seem that more men, in general, have the ability to climb at higher grades, endure more physical discomfort, use physical strength to get up something, and perhaps even be able to compartmentalize fear more efficiently, the fact is that more than 99% of us aren't in that top category.
We're just out there, getting out there. And, we are people, with all our character traits, which help and hinder us. The dynamics change depending on who we are with - we may react negatively to one person(as I do when in that company of narrow-focus, climbing is just that time spent on the route types) and shine when with someone else.
I climb with mostly men and have seen all types, from incredibly competent to incredibly the opposite. And everywhere in between. I think that to compare the reality(the gamut of people) to an idealized concept isn't really very useful.
About the load sharing. I definitely want to carry my share. I quasi-dated a guy for a while who damned well made sure I was carrying half. But most people aren't that focused on such a thing. They divide gear up almost as a symbol of the partnership: We share this experience. It's the aspect of partaking together that is the thing. To me, anyway.
I have had a lot of guy partners who take on more than their share. In the beginning, I resisted this, because I wanted to be doing my part. But....to push the point caused wasted energy and discord. Especially if we were meeting at the crag and the packs would have to be redone for a pretty short approach. The energy of partnership is better focused in other directions.
That said - I also found myself holding back a group a while back, and had to accept giving over the rope I was carrying in order to reduce that ...rope drag....on the approach. It was a 2 1/2 hour approach, and a bit through some scrambling. I was with 4 guys who are totally fit and experienced in heavy approaches. I am ....not.
We divvied up gear in the beginning, and I took a rope on my pack. I was fine for most of the part, though I was slower. But when it came to some thrashing and boulder hopping, I slowed down immensely, compared to these people who just kept going as if it were a walk in the park.
One of the people offered to take the rope and while I initially resisted, the fact was that it would have done more to drag down the partnership by refusing that share.
So....while I was technically an unequal partner, I think they all knew that going in. Not a once did I catch a whiff of condescending attitude or impatience. Nor was I patronized or treated like a liability. On two occasions, someone stuck around me when I *had* to move through a section that would have been a catastrophe if I botched it, but for the most part they left me to get through what I had to. Just not going to enter into that 'helpless femme' dynamic.
It was a good day, and an experience I wouldn't have had with most any other partners I have known. If I were focused on physical equality, the situation couldn't/wouldn't have occurred. My better partners, I believe, received benefit by sharing something I deeply appreciated.
So.... I don't know about this egalitarian thing. It doesn't seem to really matter, in the larger scheme. I could easily set myself up to experience climbing through 'physically equal' or even with me being the more accomplished. Would I want to? No. I like the mix. This weekend I am getting out with someone who has done only two leads, and I am the stronger partner. Sometimes, I get out with people who climb harder, but I know the crag/climbs and have that to offer. Sometimes I get out with incredible, accomplished people and learn from them. It's all good.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Apr 22, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #44 of 76
(6255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
I outweigh my usual climbing partner by 100 lbs. sometimes, in the interest of fairness and equitability, necessity demands that I offer to carry her.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 22, 2009, 2:26 PM
Post #45 of 76
(6249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I could easily set myself up to experience climbing through 'physically equal' or even with me being the more accomplished. Would I want to? No. I like the mix.
Nice post about your thought processes. Regarding the above...
(how to make this point?)
Being able, willing and actually taking the lead - and I don't mean the sharp end of the rope, I mean the lead, on everything - find a new rock, suss out a trail, get up there, find a line to try, recruit a partner (or 2), go up there and have at it - one example.
Another - I want to climb a wall. Do I hire a guide to 'get the rope up there' for me? Do I find a Gun to put the rope up there for me?
Or does the 13 year old boy stare at a picture of Tom Frost hanging in aiders at the end of roof traverse on Salathe Wall and say to myself - 'I can NEVER do THAT.' And then a couple of decades later find himself DOING AS TOM FROST DID.
And he may ask himself - HOW DID I GET HERE?
He got there with a self-starter attitude. He got there using the notion that a compleat climber, while perhaps never rising to World Standards (whatever those are), a compleat climber seeks mastery of the sport.
Seeks it. I didn't say masterED. Seeks to....
Me? I want to (and have) be able to organize a wall climb, recruit a compatible and fairly equal climber, and have at it, on our own. I want a partner who sorta operates under the same principle. We will both want 'our share' of pretty much the whole experience - leads, first down on raps, hauling, and well, ferrying loads.
Its a mindset.
Its not that I expect HIM to carry half the load - I expect ME to carry half the load. Turns out most of my regular partners, without having ever verbalized this issue, see it the same way and automatically seek to equal the loads out, usually by using the hand-method. Its not some anal-ized quibbling over ounces lol.
Its normal. Laying out the community gear and the 'hefting' half the load, is normal. Barter time too... um.. you take the rack and half the draws, I'll take the rope and the tent poles. or whatever... a water filter for a hammer, etc.
The load gets distributed, packed and toted.
I do not see how the compleat climber gets there byu toting less than his half of the load.
And its not the load per se- its the attitude and expectation... suggests an entirely different approach to the game.
An example of attitude - if I can't take my half of the leads (come what may) I am on a route not within my capacity. Getting lead up such a route (which has certainly happened in my career lots of times - I'm just not that good a climber haha) is not nearly as satisfying as those climbs where I was able to rise to the equal partner standard.
Its an attitude and mindset and I am damn sure not going to apologize for it nor am I likely to change, at this late stage. If I didn't have this attitude I would have hung up my climbing shoes a long long time ago I suspect.
So when I say "I think climbers should carry their half of the community load" I am TALKING ABOUT ME. That's my opinion, that to me is the ideal distribution for CLIMBERS.
The Compleat Climber carries her half of the load (and again, by load I mean ALL of the load, not just pack weight). If this Compleat Climber is guiding clients up a route of COURSE she carries more load. If this Compleat Climber is being GUIDED up a route perhaps she is on vacation?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 22, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #46 of 76
(6238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I get on some routes I wouldn't, were it not for my partners. The .9's and 10's, I don't know if I will ever be able to lead. I hope so, but I don't know. Under that, I may not be willing to lead currently, but I expect that if I found myself somehow wandered into it, I would be able to pull it off.
What about the idea that a person, such as myself, going into such situations(like a 2 hour approach where you and your partners are the only ones there, and if you get hurt, it's bad) being a step towards that mastery you refer to? That's how I feel about it when I am with better partners.
Also - I absolutely agree that it is not about my PARTNER carrying half, but ME carrying half. And not just the physical gear. Alas, some things are not tangible. I must be carrying half of something to have the wonderful people in my life who come looking to climb with me on a repeated basis, I think. And it isn't the idea they're going to get laid, which is one a lot of people suggest is the only motivator in such situations.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 22, 2009, 2:53 PM
Post #47 of 76
(6235 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Gawd, this whole "carry half the load" stuff is bullshit. Let go of the egos people. GMburns, replace "outweighs by X pounds" and use "partner has a bum leg and is slow as fuck going up hills". Sometimes it just makes more sence for one person to take more of the load, or do more of the work.
But I'll tell you, even though I had my friend carry a heavier load up to the crags when we went away climbing at Easter, we still took turns hanging the draws. And THAT'S where climbing equality comes in. Not that one was more capable than the other, but opportunities are open and I'm not berated as a woman when I take charge in the climbing arena.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 22, 2009, 3:01 PM
Post #48 of 76
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
granite_grrl wrote: Gawd, this whole "carry half the load" stuff is bullshit. Let go of the egos people. GMburns, replace "outweighs by X pounds" and use "partner has a bum leg and is slow as fuck going up hills". Sometimes it just makes more sence for one person to take more of the load, or do more of the work. But I'll tell you, even though I had my friend carry a heavier load up to the crags when we went away climbing at Easter, we still took turns hanging the draws. And THAT'S where climbing equality comes in. Not that one was more capable than the other, but opportunities are open and I'm not berated as a woman when I take charge in the climbing arena.
Its not bullshit. Read into all you wish, but the bottom line is if you aren't toting your share of the load to the climb you aren't toting your share of the load to the climb. There is no getting around this.
Slow partner with a bum leg - I'm not sure this is the example you want to use here....
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Apr 22, 2009, 3:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 22, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #49 of 76
(6227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
dingus wrote: Slow partner with a bum leg - I'm not sure this is the example you want to use here.... DMT
since GG is the one with the bum leg, pretty sure she can use the example whenever she wants.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 22, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #50 of 76
(6224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
OK then run with it!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
