chucK

What size are the first pair?

"From the amount of media coverage the ex-generals' revolt is generating, you would think they had donned khaki uniforms and stormed the Pentagon in an attempted coup. And yet all the retired brass have done is to speak out, generally from the safety of climate-controlled television studios. Ever since one general spoke to Time last week and The Washington Post fronted the story of others who were coming out from under the cone of silence, the controversy has been huge. Liberals rejoiced, conservatives counterattacked, and thumbsuckers pondered What It All Means." ...Read more Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes" at Washingtonpost.com

Doesn't this belong in the Cafe Sensiwhatevero forum?

After the major swelling has gone down, I found that alternating hot and cold soaks seemed to help. Ice water 5-10 minutes, then warm water 5-10 minutes, repeat, etc. Supposed to stimulate the circulation more that way. Supposedly tendons are circulation challenged and thus need all the help they can get to heal.

New allegations of Bushco lies...pictorial version of story

Yep, that's two precious weeks of your life you'll never get back. Might as well kill yourself.

It seems like an obvious joke story. Besides the obvious comic sendup material of super fast and light toughguy alpinist secretly seiging a sportclimb for 7 months and getting "seriously injured" because he didn't have any sportos around to tell him how to warm up... Does Steve House live in Bend? The bar at Santa Barbara airport? "less recognized Piolet d'Orr?" Can crimp but can't open-hand?

What is it about you guys not being able to handle conversations between other people that bore you? Can't you just ignore it? Why the need to inject yourself into this? How'd you of liked it if we posted a picture of a diseased penis into the thread announcing your son's birth?

Hey look! Here's a paragraph from today's WashPost article on the story, and it looks almost exactly like my second post to the thread! (I wonder if they read cc.com ) "As president, Bush has the authority to declassify -- and thus disclose -- intelligence information, and Cheney has also asserted that authority. But both men have repeatedly criticized the leaking of sensitive intelligence to the news media, and the administration has ordered investigations of leaks concerning a National Security Agency eavesdropping program and the existence of secret overseas CIA prisons for terrorist suspects." As you have said Peter, no crime, President's lie (or whatever term you'd like to use to characterize "not exactly telling the whole truth in order to give a different impression of the facts") all the time. But it is galling to be sold a bill of goods to get us into a disastrous situation, and then have the same guy who sold us the crap tell us it's not his fault, because the congress had the same information he did, the whole world had the same intelligence. Fuck

Here you appear to acknowledge that it is commonly understood that the Prez was making a self-defense argument. Though you do not think any misdirection toward this pretense was being made? Is this an error of the public? Was the press making a bigger case for self-defense than the Prez (who was making none?). Is the prez just a poor communicator? Why the reason for the disconnect between public perception and Presidential statements then? I do believe the second paragraph (power-play motive) is the correct one, but I believe the administration sold it under the various guises of self-defense and humanitarian. True belief in an imminent threat would be one situation where I would endorse the ends justify the means. But even then, when you do something like this, you should accept responsibility. When your judgement call turns out in hindsight to be a complete ill-informed blunder, you should be held accountable. Not that this is at all pertinent to the current situation (except for the blunder part), as even you agree that no imminent threat existed or was believed to exist by the President. They should have all the facts, because they are the only ones that have the true authority to declare war. The Prez as commander in chief has some latitude, in a time of war, but as far as invading a sovereign nation without due provocation, that ought to be decided by more than just one individual.

Are you going to post the helmetcam footage?

Peter, Under your scenario, I agree that nothing sinister is going on. However, your scenario assumes that it was truly believed by the administration that there was a threat. Information continues to come out that no major threat existed from Iraq, and that the administration wanted to attack Iraq even before they were in office. A threat from Iraq was not the motive. How does your scenario play out if this was instead an effort by our government to strengthen our grip on a very important part of the world. Suppose the administration truly believed this would benefit our country in terms of geo-political power. If this were more of an agressive power-play than an act of self-defense, would you still think there is nothing sinister about selling the invasion of a sovereign country under different pretenses? Do you not believe that it might at least be of some value to get advice from at least the congress that know the true situation when you are committing our nation to a very costly endeavour? Do you think there is any value to the part in the constitution that says only congress has the right to declare war?

No, I am not looking for instructions from cc.com on when and where to go. What made you think that? I just asked what the NWAC might mean by "Normal Caution" (Note: that is quite different from "Normal Conditions"). I was not trying to find out exact conditions and safety estimates at all. I was asking more of a technique question. I think it is analogous to the "What is meant by "Standard Rack"" question. Yes, it is vague, and answers may vary. But by that very nature it seems a bulletin board might be a great resource to find what a lot of people think about a fairly direct but ill-defined question. I have an idea in my head of what Normal Caution might mean. But I do not have extensive experience in snow travel. Thus, I think it is quite possible that my idea of "normal caution" might differ from that of someone else with more experience. I thought this might be a good way to calibrate my notions with those of the more experienced. Thanks to all of you who replied to this thread for giving me some input, even if we may have misunderstood each other. (Except for counterfeitfake, your reply was worthless. )

Why yes, I do believe a president shouldn't lie to the public and/or congress in order to sell a war. People oughta at least have the true justifications before we send off our kids to die for the cause. There should be some oversight in starting up a war. It's a serious thing, and it's tough to back out of once it's started. It's that old measure twice, cut once thing. Do you think the President should be able to just lie about something as serious as this?

If, in fact, Bush actually did authorize leaking this information, it is probably not a crime, because the Prez (by some accounts anyway) is authorized to unilaterally declassify information. So probably no impeachable offense, darn it. But, IMO (if true) it would show more evidence that the Bush administration cherry-picked in the rush to war by selectively declassifying items that bolstered their case while jealously guarding all other information on the bogus premise that releasing it would jeopardize national security.

If you read up on the current news you will see that what has finally bumped Delay over the edge is the conviction of his chief aid (for illegally influencing public officials). Sounds somewhat similar to WJ Jefferson, but I don't think his aid is actually convicted yet. You're right, currently more outrage should be directed at Randy Cunningham because he is actually convicted of crimes himself (not just people very close to him in his organization). Not sure about Ney though. While he is implicated in directly selling his vote, there are no formal charges or indictment yet.

I don't think your information is totally correct here. The story is that Bush authorized leaking highly classified information. But the information was related to the national intelligence estimate, not the Valerie Plame thing. For more in-depth info, see here .

You'll be closer to the mountains in Centralia than you would be if you lived in San Jose!

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks Doc! Any more stuff that would be considered retarded? (That's probably an easy one and could easily launch some serious spray) What about stuff that you might not have to really worry about in the green zone, but you would want to be wary of in the Yellow? (harder question with greater exposure to liability!)

Ahh, the old fallback of the stumped instructor!

Hey Harry, See the furthest right green box in your chart. What do they mean by "normal caution"?

From the avalanche forecast: "normal caution should be adequate for backcountry travel at this time." What do they mean by normal caution? Does that mean, stay off 35 degree slopes? Dig your rutcschbloch trenches every mile? Wear your beeper and never get out of sight of your partner? What do you guys consider "normal" caution? (For context see avalanche forecast.)

Dru's way may be pretty good. Might be worth a try. Possible problems I forsee though: If you're carrying a whole bunch of gear it might be pretty tough to fit it on a couple of gear loops. You might not be able to get at a specific piece of gear if you can't free up the correct hand (probably won't happen very often). I usually put the draws on the rear gear loops. You can reach those with either hand, and there's no need to see the draws. A big rack swinging around on the sling is annoying, so I put the biggest couple of cams on my harness. If I'm going light enough to be able to fit all the gear on two loops (the one's I can see) comfortably, then I'll definitely ditch the gear sling. That doesn't seem to happen often though. Guess I like to sew it up! Two climb-dependent rules: 1. Chimney's and offwidths: try to avoid racking on your harness, and definitely don't rack anything on back loops. 2. Slabs: everything on harness. Sling will hang down exactly in the way of seeing where your feet go, which is crucial on a slab. Plus, you usually don't need a very big rack on slab. Another rack recommendation

Kij, Unless more people chime in, I wouldn't count on any cc.com gathering at the pub tonight.