In reply to Iain Peters:
> I didn't raise the subject of stakes, Tyler did.
No, you did (wednesday 14.26)!
> And you implied a certain hypocrisy on your part in happily using them.
Guilty as charged.
> Here's the point: you think a chain in a specific location is sanitising the climbing experience, but a stake doesn't.
No, they both have a sanitising effect, but, aesthetically I just find chains around the actual rock abhorrent in a way I don't with stakes in grass.
> Fine, but others don't agree and climbing is an activity that is full of contradictions and controversy.
Absolutely, and long may it remain so. I can see both sides of the argument, but, in the end it is an entirely personal viewpoint and I do seem to be part of a not completely insignificant minority.
> Compromise can actually work without polarisation or becoming the thin edge of a wedge.
Well, let's just hope it does in this case!
> Defining a huge mass of man-made fibre and rusting metal as an organic ebb and flow is quite frankly ridiculous.
No, I find the idea quite satisfying.
> The only story it tells is that most climbers are suspicious of trusting their lives to random lengths of nylon of indeterminate age and strength, preferring to sacrifice a sling and krab to add to the mess. That's the reality.
Yes, and I like that way of doing things (though, thery should cut away the stuff they don't trust). The chain may be visually less messy (and even less obtrusive), but that is obviously not my point.