chucK

Wrong, OJ is not in jail. Trask is obviously a jailbird posting from the library computer. He must be one mean f**k top dawg 'cause it seems like he's getting to use it all the time. Either that or he's some little snitch warden's bitch whose got "special privileges".

quote: Originally posted by Toast: When I was in college I swore I'd never sink so low as to piss in a cup. This was more out of principle than the fact I'd fail. Well, the day actually came and I did the deed for a job I wanted. Nothing ever came of it and it makes me think the testing process itself may be flawed, testing clinics underfunded, or just a smoke screen by companies to deter the... um, smoke. Maybe you and Texas Speed's bosses just want some sure ammo that they can use to fire you with if they ever feel the need. Sweet dreams.

Michelle, Like SEF said, the real trick is in the consistent execution. You can say that you will focus on more bomber placements now. That's a good thing, but you know that you will soon come to a spot where you want a piece and there is a placement there, but you're not totally convinced it will hold. What do you do then? You can focus on the gear placement being bomber as long as you can hang out at that stance but at some point you will have to decide whether that placement is worth it. Will it help or hurt me? That's the tought part. Goran and this discussion will just make it a little tougher now for some of us until someone figures this sh*t out.

It seems like the cover will also protect them from UV degradation. Getting 'em wet and drying them out over and over seems like it could degrade them just as bad or worse than having them coexist with mildew. I don't think water has any effect on nylon by the way.

quote: Originally posted by Colin: Are the new-style screamers more prone to mildew? Is this anything to worry about? That is, is mildew known or hypothesized to degrade the strength of nylon, or are you just worried about stinky screamers? Stinky screamers! I'll bet Trask would like to comment on that one.

It seems to me that The amount of ropestretch that the crummy above piece will use up before it blows is proportional to the amount of energy it will absorb that will now not hit the by the bomber below piece. So, it does not seem obvious that the crummy above piece is a bad idea. For example, if the crummy piece does not blow at all, then it has significantly reduced the force on the below piece. Now, where the problem might be is that, even though ropestretch is used up at proportional rate of the energy absorption, I think it is well known that your dynamic system can withstand a lot more energy than a static system, thus losing ropestretch may be much more critical than absorbing energy. This'll get you thinking next time you climb Lovin' Arms ! As Mattp said though, you won't have to worry about this question with a two-rope system (as long as you're alternating the clips). [ 10-25-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: chucK ]

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: You may exercise your personal freedom and liberty to the extent that it does not infringe the personal freedom and liberty of your neighbor. Very simple. Yes, very simple. Noone disagrees with this. Unfortunately, this statement is never applicable in the big world of resource consumption. If you let consumers have free reign, the conservers will be infringed upon. If you let conservers have their way, the consumers will be upset. Greg seems to think that his statement validates degradation of the environment, because people who protest such activities are infringing upon the freedom and liberties of the degraders. If called on this point, he makes up some bullshit sidestep of how mining and logging are very clean and don't hurt anyone. Remarkable!!! How can one argue with a true believer of such twisted logic? It's beating your head against the wall people.

Sorry Mountain Goat. I really don't see what your point is about the fact that I do some polluting. I have been dodging you as this issue, and others you have brought up, seem tangential to what I am railing about. I was attempting to focus/waste all my time on the specific issue of why the desires of a few moneymaking polluters get equal time with everyone and their children who are forced to breathe and drink their detritus. I'm wasting enough time here as it is without having to think up a response to every one of your ceaseless jabs over minutia. But since you seem so hung up on this I will relent. Just this once. quote: This is the largest dodge there is, claiming others desires are not necessary ones while ignoring yours aren't either. AFAICT you're argument is that I can't complain about others polluting because I pollute myself. No scale of degradation is taken into account. Can this be correct? Are you're saying that the only way I can complain about, for instance, Iraq lighting fire to Kuwaiti oil wells and causing an ecological disaster, is if I first commit suicide and dispose of myself properly?! Sorry but this is the argument that I am gleaning from your posts. I find this argument incomprehensibly stupid. That is why I have not responded earlier. I feel you must take scale into account. I do not find my pleasure trips to the Cascades to be on an equal scale to an auto industry that markets inefficient automobiles to thousands of people just because they can. I hope this answers your question. This is how I feel it is OK to continue to live and create methane emissions while at the very same time rail about greedhogs who value conservation of clean air and water only if the market forces make it more profitable for them.

so where is sexy chocodile and his pathetic quests for pagetop on this one?

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: You say you are for lots of government regulations against "pollution". Are you prepared for the lack of choice, lack of freedom, and increase in taxes that this will lead to when the government declares that they are the only ones who can administer such laws? If you are, that is fine; send them extra money now. Yes, I would be willing to sacrifice if it meant making the world nicer for my children. I will be happily sending in my extra money when our government actually enacts policies to protect the environment instead of actively seeking to tear down such protections. quote: You are mixing two issues, Chuck, Market and Property. Your neighbor fell under the Property issue; cars is a market issue. Sorry, but I see this as another dodge. Cars is not the issue. The air we breathe is the issue. Government legislation succeeded in helping the clean air issue. It is currently hamstrung by the SUV loophole.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: "Q: Why do we have cleaner-burning cars nowadays than in the 60's? A: Because the government made 'em do it." Technology and the marketplace also played a part in this. Now c'mon Greg. You know that's a dodge at best. The change came about primarily because of the government meddling in the free market. quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Your sewer pipe story is a case where your neighbor was responsible to make things whole. "Financial viability" does not apply here because he didn't have a choice. Exactly!!!! He didn't have a choice because the government prohibited him from polluting. That's what this argument is about. I am for laws based on protecting our environment. I am for more of them. Forgive me if you think I am putting words in your mouth, but my take on this is that you are against such laws. Do you think my neighbor should have had the choice? Or should we have let the "market" take it's course? Do you agree with the Seattle City Ordinance that prohibits turd dumping?

How about this one. SCARY!!!!!

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: My point here is that in order for people to change, you have to make it affordable. The majority (which is what you need to effect change) of people will remain with the status quo unless so motivated to change. If you can offer them a cleaner-burning engine with the same power, torque, ease-of-operation, and ease-of-maintenance, for the same cost, they are more likely to try it. Q: Why do we have cleaner-burning cars nowadays than in the 60's? A: Because the government made 'em do it. quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I don't know if there is a "God-given right to make money"; I think "pursuit of happiness" does or does not include money. No one has a "right" to make lots of money; we all have the right to be free to attempt this. Then I don't see why you think we need to provide financially viable options for people to avoid polluting. Unless they have a right to make their money any way they choose, I don't see why their right to corrupt the drinking water should trump my right to live a life free of toxins in my water supply. quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I have yet to understand how "people soiling the environment are infringing my 'freedom and liberty'". Which freedoms? Define "soiling." Freedom to drink from public water supplies without fear of toxins. Freedom to breath the air without fear of toxins. I ask you, why does someone's freedom to do business, trump my desire for freedom to not have to hide inside on a smog-alert day? Here's a little microcosm (true) story. When we moved into our new house, there was a mysterious extra-green patch in the backyard. Turns out that the nextdoor neighbors' sewer pipe went under our yard and was backed up and leaking raw sewage into our yard. Whose freedom trumps whose in this case? My desire to not have myself or my kids poisoned? Or my neighbors' desire to not have to spend a bunch of money to get their shitpipe fixed? I'll tell you what happened. We didn't make it "financially viable" for this guy to plug his pipe. We just made him fix it, using the law of the land. Are you against that? quote: Originally posted by Greg W: You are soiling the environment by driving to the crags. I'm serious. I guess you really do understand what I mean by "soiling" so I won't respond that question. Also, your gambit on prohibiting me from asking anyone for constraints on their polluting ways just because I do some polluting too is a tired tactic.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: quote:Originally posted by chucK: quote:Originally posted by Greg W: I don't really understand why you would be such a prick in your post; we have traded posts on other threads in a respectful manner (I think ). Sorry I hurt your feeling puddles. Maybe you can go and cry with Allison. Again you put words in my mouth; I was just trying to keep the debate friendly. Oh well, go fuck yourself, asshole.Putting words in your mouth?? I quoted you verbatim!

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: quote:Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Just curious as to where you draw the line, as it seems that eventually your politics and your various forms of recreation are at a danger of conflicting eventually. Did you see my post to daniel about responsible use and management? The technology is there to extract the oil in a minimum-impact operation, much like the current Alaska pipeline and its related works. The above exchange is where I got the idea that you were using a bullshit sidestep claiming that mining is very clean. Sorry if I misinterpreted. quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I never said that logging and mining never hurt anyone; get real. Again, the market drives the demand for steel, copper, paper, etc. Offer FINANCIALLY VIABLE alternatives and this may change. Why should the burden be upon us to offer "FINANCIALLY VIABLE" alternatives to inhibit wonton resource destruction? Forgive me if I misinterpret again but this sounds like in order to get people to stop soiling our environment we need to pay them? Do we need to provide for their God-given right to make their money if we want them to leave us a reasonably healthy place to live? The people soiling the environment are "infringing on my freedom and liberty". According to your earlier post that's not a good thing.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I don't really understand why you would be such a prick in your post; we have traded posts on other threads in a respectful manner (I think ). Sorry I hurt your feeling puddles. Maybe you can go and cry with Allison.

doughnuts

quote: Originally posted by chucK: mmmmmmmmmmm...sausage..errr....excuse me mmmmmmmmmm I should also add BEER SPECIALS =

mmmmmmmmmmm...sausage..errr....excuse me mmmmmmmmmm

I'll try to be quite respectful about this. I am not trying to pick a fight or anything (Perhaps I should have waited a day to post this?). But, what is wrong with way-long threads? There didn't seem to be anything extremely objectionable about "Muir on Saturday" or "Congressional Debates". It seems like they both got locked down solely due to their longevity. Perhaps I am wrong on this. If so, you can let me know. If not, what is wrong with extremelong topics?

climb, climb, i always climb out of bed every morning on a mountain made of sand and i know this doesn't rhyme but the clutter on the table is gettin' out of hand

EP actually

quote: Originally posted by Dru: An oly old egg with a red peg leg Thought a porcupine was his daughter But he soon found out That she had the gout And she often would wink underwater laughing song [ 10-21-2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: chucK ]

quote: Originally posted by Dru: You start a conversation, you cant even finish it Theres something wrong, youre not saying anything When I have something to say my lips are sealed Say something once, why say it again? psycho killer

quote: Originally posted by jon: Created a folder in the gallery for Rope Up picts. ummmm....how do you find that gallery thingy again ???