UKC

At the beginning of April, Sheffield dark horse, Neil 'Nige' Kershaw made the 2nd ascent of MaDMAn, E8 6b, at Wimberry.

Nige added a direct finish containing yet more 6b climbing, though fortunately was protected by a runner in Trident...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68872

In reply to UKC News:

Could someone explain the idea behind the MaDMAn spelling?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

MDMA's the chemical formula for some dance drug. Is it Ecstasy, maybe?

jcm

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Are you a bit wet behind the ears sunshine?!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Actually, it's not the chemical formula at all, is it? A popular acronym for the scientific name of the substance, more like.

jcm

In reply to UKC News:

Lad!
Mike

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Thanks

In reply to Removed User:

Hmmm, hard drugs don't really appeal to me. If that sort of thing floats your boat, then fair enough

In reply to UKC News:

Interesting how the grade could change without a second ascent eh? Grade creep anyone?

In reply to Toerag:

Maybe several people had tried it and felt it was harder than they expected. Or TR-ed it and come to a conclusion about the grade that way.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I suspect it's more that people took one look at the photo of the first ascent and metaphorically ran away

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Krv68Ki8eRw/Uz0nmPFlZnI/AAAAAAAABHI/nxuE3vmya6c/s...

In reply to TimB:

Is that NK's sloping ledge, so that he's basically done it and just needs to dive into Trident, or does that come higher up?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That's right john, that's the slopey ledge. Although its still a tricky couple of moves into strident, or a bit of a gripped placing the gear as Nige explained in the text.

In reply to TimB:

I love that picture. The facial expression is unforgettable.

Well done Neil Nige on getting it done. A crying shame the footage isn't a tad better but I guess that's your quiet unsponsored style. Totally respectworthy.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Ecstasy is definitely not a hard drug!

In reply to TimB:

That's a brilliant picture!

In reply to simes303:

If you can die from it then to me it's bad news. As I say, if you don't mind that sort of thing then fill your boots

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Might pop to the pub tonight for a few pints of hard drugs.

In reply to simes303:

It is classed A and as such irrespective of your view it most certainly is, irrespective of how many would view the classification as ridiculous

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Paracetamol?

In reply to Offwidth:

What a load of rubbish.


Back on topic, it's brilliant to hear of the second ascent after such a long time.


I'm off to a techno party in a bit. x

In reply to Offwidth:

Quite right.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

hmmmm

In reply to Removed User:

Just to be clear I think the drug should never be Class A (and am generally for legalising and controlling all currently classified drugs) but it is and because of that the consequencies of being caught selling it could wreck a life (and it technically criminalises more than a quarter of our population). Also the criminals selling it can put all sorts of other shit in it other than the MDMA.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes I figured you had been misread by the above.

In reply to Offwidth:

Really a 1/4 of the population?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I'd say thats an underestimate if anything of the young people who use it and for the drug in question that would run from the 90s dance scene. From being at Uni in the early 80s it was not uncommon for me to be the only person in a party who hadn't popped pills or smoked dope (unless you count passive smoking). My drug of choice was always booze and as drugs go it does way more damage than some class A drugs.

In reply to Offwidth:

So there's no actual evidence for your 25% figure? Sounds way over the top to me.

The difference between alcohol and many other drugs is that it causes no damage in small doses, and to most people is not addictive.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

For example the official stats:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/drug-use-age-popular-c...

My honest view is that official stats must be seriously underestimating rare use (once only, a few times only, used modreately for a short period etc). Most of my friends always said they never used drugs if asked, as the risk of consequencies were high. Its also terrible politics to admit the scope of the problem as it shows the war on drugs just doesn't work and the population tolerates uncontrolled substances and the criminal gangs usually behind them, becuase the government won't do something more sensible.