In reply to UKC News: I think that this is all getting a bit "wood for trees".
My feeling is that Lama's stated goal of improving on the style in which the Compressor route can be climbed is based on the idea that free = better. However, in order to do this he has decided to ignore some other stylistic considerations, such as the "no bolting from abseil in the mountains" rule that many subscribe to in the US.
This rule itself is subject to its own transgressions (as mentioned elsewhere by Tom Briggs) where people do things like drill a rivet to hang from so that they can place a bolt on lead. This is clearly not in the spirit of doing routes ground up in order to preserve adventure and minimise drilling, but it is not forbidden by the only drilling on lead rule.
Blanket application of these rules without prior thought as to what you're trying to achieve or why the rule was invented is what gets us into this mess.
I disagree with Mick that without these rules climbing ethics and style would reduce to the lowest common denominator. We all want to climb things in a "good" way. Climbing ethics are not formally enforced, and bar the odd confrontation when somebody upsets other climbers, we generally manage to preserve the vast majority of the mountains and cliffs we visit in a state where climbing can still feel like a fair game.
When I first started climbing I had no knowledge of terminology beyond what leading, seconding and top roping meant, or even any idea that there was such an entity or body of literature on climbing ethics and style. We would still try to climb routes without resting on the rope, or pulling on gear. We knew that doing a route "first try" was harder and more of a challenge than needing several attempts. We also eliminated things like pegs and bolts when we felt it was appropriate, as they can detract from the challenge. We picked these things up first hand by thinking about what we wanted to achieve, as I sure many others have, and continue to do.
I think that the black and white authority statements that are now so often repeated in climbing circles (onsight is always best, free is always best, top roping is always bad, bolts are always bad) push us into a bit of a corner. The rules are followed without thinking about why they are there. Grey areas are found and exploited to allow people to play by the rules while contradicting the reasons behind the rules being invented (e.g. pretty much every "is it onsight if..." thread you've seen). I think that abbing down a route in a wild, adventurous mountain setting in order to prepare it for a free ascent would feel wrong to most people if they thought about what they actually wanted to achieve by freeing the route. But if "free is always better" overrides everything, then "free by any means necessary" can wind up becoming the rule that is applied.
Very few people out and out ignore the rules, not because everybody reads the rule book and sticks to it, but because they have evolved from what makes climbing satisfying. In fact, maybe having a rule book causes people to focus on the rules rather than feeling honestly happy with the way in which they climb the things they climb.
Ironically, I feel that is our obsession with ethics and style that has contributed to the mess that we have going on on Cerro Torre right now.
I think that the marketing/placing bolts and fixing ropes to safeguard camera crews/leaving rubbish and gear in the mountains thing is a separate argument (and much more about ethics than style). By the sound of some of the blog posts on this subject, the issues with these last year have been addressed to a great extent by Lama and co. this season.
Apologies for the rambling post.