Clove-hitch yourself into anchor or not

Buffy Johnson......sounds more like your mama vaccinated you and you verified the causative link between vaccinations and Autism......what's your obsession with "exploding belays??" Why don't you articulate to us what an "exploding belay" is, as you introduced the term near the top of the thread?

John.....you're either incapable or incompetent.

"Why don't you articulate to us what an "exploding belay" is,"

You're an exploding belay.

^Exactly! Hahaha.

Arin wrote: That's how I roll

I third that notion.

Kevin Bradford wrote:i usually clove hitch into the shelf with a locking biner and belay the follower from the masterpoint in guide mode

^^^This

John and Robbie....

You're obviously not the sharpest tools in the shed.

^^^ Is this guy's belay about to explode? omg

This may come down to an analysis of weather or not you pulverize the chalk in your chalkbag to oblivion or do you leave some chunks of various sizes. I could imagine a rogue chunk of chalk could potentially blow a belay to smitherines. Combined with rope drag on while belaying from above on a TR could spell disaster.

climbing2man wrote: Indirect is defined as being attached directly to an anchor, bolt or anything else in which you are no longer under the weight of the rope and if the belayer goes off belay, you will be safe, since your indirect into the anchor.

Ha, thanks for defining that for us. Umm, "indirect" = not direct? "in direct" = in direct? what the ?#&@

So, the other day, I said "Hey, I'm indirect or, um, I mean, in direct". My partner said "are you directly in or indirectly in? Can you be more direct about being indirect." I said, "Well I was heading directly to the anchor but in order to avoid the crux, I decided to go indirect and avoid it". Now I'm at the anchor and I'm indirect, I mean in-direct".

My partner said, "What the eff did you just say".

So I said, "off belay". He said, "Well why the hell didn't you just say that". I replied, "That term is so obsolete. It's just to simple. It has worked for decades but I prefer this new term. All the cool noobs are using it.

Greg D wrote:All the clueless noobs are using it.

Fixed that for ya!

What is up with this "in direct" nonsense I hear people saying these days, any way? The term is "off belay" folks, use it.

--- Invalid image id: 109477363 ---

Kevin Bradford wrote:i usually clove hitch into the shelf with a locking biner and belay the follower from the masterpoint in guide mode

Exactly what I do.

Granted, the older I get, the more I seem to be suffering from premature exploding belay.

Its a real struggle, im trying to get a piece in, getting pretty pumped, got this tight fingerlock, then BAM, premature belay explosion

"What is up with this "in direct" nonsense I I hear people saying these days, any way? The term is "off belay" folks, use it."

Its not the same as Off Belay.....

Its when you clip in with a draw, so your belayer, and your cord, get to relax for a bit.....while your dogging the S-it out of a climb. (sport context)

Off belay... you can unhook, walk away, eat lunch.... in other words: Belayer your dismissed, I am done with you and I will rap down. (again sport context)

But to get to the OP.... indirect.... humm BITD we always call it "tying in"...
and there are several ways to do this, pick one.

THE INTERNET.... a whole new world of info.

Ah, that is true Guy, *I've* even used it that way. But never at an anchor: only when I was clipped or FiFi'ed into a piece of pro mid-climb.

What's up with using it at the anchors? Are they really just telling the belayer they are momentarily anchored, and they expect to stay on belay? Because it seems like when I'm hearing it used they really mean "off belay." Curious, now.

Guy Keesee wrote:But to get to the OP.... indirect.... humm BITD we always call it "tying in"... and there are several ways to do this, pick one.

"In direct" - makes some sense but kinda awkward, IMHO, with the potential for confusion.
"indirect" as per the OP usage - simply incorrect.

Marc801 wrote: "In direct" - makes some sense but kinda awkward, IMHO, with the potential for confusion. "indirect" as per the OP usage - simply incorrect.

Is it possible that one is "in correct", in the sense of being attached correctly to an intermediate piece of protection, or in more esoteric situations, to the anchor?

Marc801 wrote: Fixed that for ya!

Did you miss my sarcasm? My oxymoron? Hello?