chucK

Get back in spray Trask. Stop messing with the serious topics.

You're probably right Trask, but I do think there's a chance for us patriots due to the relatively large numbers of us in the "strongly dislike" category.

I really don't think it's a logical argument to justify misdeeds by saying they're no worse than other misdeeds. I don't know what common thread you are thinking of for those other Presidents you mentioned, but I don't think any of them invaded another country with less reason than Bush did in Iraq. The fact that he obviously lied to the American people in order to justify the war is repugnant. You could probably make the case that some on your list up there lied to go to war. But if you did, it wouldn't justify Bush's misdeeds. The Vietnam War is probably the best comparison you could make. Do you think Bush is not so bad, because, "heck we attacked Vietnam!" Johnson decided not to run for a second term because of his misdeeds in SE Asia. Nixon was impeached. I'd settle for either of those solutions to the current problem. I would say, "I'd settle for the JFK solution" too, but, of course, I won't, because that would be stupid. By the way, though the Iraq war is my biggest beef with GWB, I also really do not like his economic (tax cuts in times of nearly unprecedented budget deficit) or environmental (speaks for itself) policies. ETA: Oh yeah, I forgot to add my dismay about the continuing erosion of civil liberty under the Bush administration Bush is selling our soldiers, our country's prestige in the world, and our children's and grandchildren's economic and environmental health to the most convenient bidders. He sucks. He should be impreached, but I'll settle for him getting voted out of office.

This is your opinion, don't play it off as fact or common knowledge. I love how you anti-freedom, socialist, big government fucks all say, "All must do this and agree with me 'cause I think so." Fuck all you guys, make up your own political mind and act for yourself. He didn't say anybody "must" do anything. He just implied that you're unpatriotic if you support GWB. Surely that's a fair card to play considering recent history.

Actually, I think you are color-coded unpatriotic. I can't remember what the color is though.

Here's a mainstream, though not conservative, media report on it Jim. Frontline

Maybe someone could make a toiletseat cover out of an old climbing rope! Everyone's always asking for something to do with those. Kleenex box holder would be good too.

Yeah, for all those pre-dawn approaches you do to the boulders. Right? No, it's for the 420 sessions around the campfire! Only a rookie uses a headlamp for a 420 session around a campfire, rookie.

I wonder how long with would take Dan - to get from Edelweiss Chair to Tuscohatchie Lake? Dan Howitowski?

The plus for me of a Tikka is that it is so damn small, that I can easily carry it for an emergency light to get myself down from the Chief or Snow Creek Wall or something like that like once a year. The Tikka plus is bigger than the Tikka, just a bit more, but enough to make it more inconvenient for slipping in your pants pocket. Those BD Ion lamps are REALLY tiny. I wonder if they would work in a pinch in an emergency descent. Two LED's versus three.

This smells like something organized by Beck. I think we should ridicule it and him.

I moved it from a trip reports forum and edited the title. And he'd still need the @ key.

Yeah, but I was doing it without parentheses, because my parentheses keys are broken

and some Gu?

Sorry, you are wrong. s/s = 1 but m/s/s does not equal m/1 (note m/s*s = m = m/1). Try punching m/s/s and m/s*s into a calculator

Here's something that I have tried, that might help (though don't count on it for 4 days out!). When hiking or whatever, put the snow in your mouth, then inhale through your nose, and exhale through your mouth. The exhalation through the snow melts the snow and doesn't waste any body heat that you aren't already expelling! Mix that snowball up with some Gu and enjoy.

How do you Solar-Slab-soloers descend from the top (at less than 9.8 m/s/s presumably [Alpinfox note m/s/s is more correct notation than m/s*s ])?

we are the knights who say knee

Shit CBS! You should be grateful that the stuff you "contributed" to that thread got shipped to the memory hole. Save your ass some embarassment

Sorry CBS, I put your example in the category of restricting alteration the environment. I would not call it banning all humans from the region, and I would definitely not call it opposing climbing.

Ummmm...Arlen, wouldn't that basically be "banning" for all practical purposes?

You suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Actually I think Darin was just rebutting your statement that seemed to imply that the rich are paying more than their fair share (to charities as opposed to the federal govt.). Ok let’s assume I agree. If someone makes a lot of money and they then have the obligation to share the wealth, I do not a see how people who for selfish reasons (like spending the summer climbing) choose to reduce their income/wealth can avoid a similar obligation at the assumed income/wealth levels they have voluntarily chosen not to achieve. So are you saying that everyone has an inherent income? That they should pay back to the state an amount based on that potential? Gosh, that sorta sounds like Communism!

I am very interested in how (and if) Fairweather will respond in a factual discussion of this issue. It is easy to hijack other threads and snipe. Much more tough to make a cogent case. I am also interested in documentation supporting HRoark's claim that some environmentalists support complete ban of humans. I don't doubt that he can find some wacko's webpage out there calling for all humans to kill themselves, but I do doubt that he'll be able to find anything that supports the belief that mainstream environmental movements are so anti-human. As for whether I feel Environmentalists oppose climbing, I think it would be safe to say that environmentalists do not oppose "climbing". Some environmental groups do oppose alteration of the landscape by humans for any purpose, even recreation. Thus some environmentalists oppose fixed anchors as well as the complete trashing of a scenic area in the name of climbing as has been done at Smith Rock. I wouldn't call this opposition to climbing per se, but an opposition to unnecessary human impact on the environment.

This is a bit confusing, but as I understand it, wouldn't this mean that the actual giving of the "other" 93% of the pie is also understated? Thus, logically, this rebuttal really doesn't?