chucK

Doesn't Pugh have a corniced knife-edged ridge this time of year? I was turned back a couple of times in early season at the knob above Stujack Pass by the exposure of that ridge. Though that was a while ago, my mind's eye does not remember that as an optimal kid hike. However, once the snow's all gone, things are much different (good trail to the summit).

Since the "crux" is a traverse above overhanging terrain also consider the ability of your second. And what about that move topping out onto the pedestal? That one seems like it should be easier but it always sketches me out a little (sneaks up on you). That's probably the place where that guy who died last year initially fell and hurt himself (i.e. be sure to sew that part up).

#6 is where you want to be at 7 on 5/5/5

Just goes to show you that if you want to get anything done on a.com all you gotta do is whine on cc.com

Maybe it's that filter program your Mom put on your computer.

I would guess that it clearly details rules of engagement at checkpoints, which of course would be very useful to people who wanted to attack checkpoints or smuggle stuff through them. Don't know if you'll have much use for that info though Klenke. I hope

10b's at Index that are called "10b" (at least in the guide that I have), and people actually climb. Lovin' Arms p1 NAD p2 Terminator City Park p2 Zipper p1 (10b on topo, 10a in text) I guess I'd go with the 10c for Thin Fingers, but I've only toproped it (but I have toproped it about a jillion times! ).

possible new Simpson's episode?

If you're in a convexity* (on steeper ground with a less steep section below you) the sliding on all fours (weight on feet, hands for balance) technique has a good chance of stopping your fall as you grind into the lower-angled part. Don't give up right away! If you're on a concavity* (gets steeper below you) like the top of bulge, then all bets are off. I might try one of those sketchy running tactics, depending on how much rope is out. Whatever you do, make sure the rope is never behind your feet. Getting flipped over on a slab is serious bad news. * I could be mixing up these technical math-geek terms

I have BD halfdome helmet with one year's cragging use and IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT already. I can easily see how EternalX's expectations did not meet reality. Likewise I can see how JJ thought nothing of it, since he knows the true history of the item. That said, a buyer beware attitude is lame, and your honor (or at least mine) is not worth 30 measly bucks that will be gone the next time you fill up your gas tank. I pulled some shit like that in high school and it still makes me feel shitty when I think back on it.

Here's my scariest moment in the hills: link Not much compared to some of the other "hightlights" in this thread though.

Please consider that: a) large rocks trundled from great height can take surprisingly unpredictable paths. b) Castle Rock looms above Hwy 2 (not to mention lower Castle Rock climbs).

gawd! I'm even more bored now.

He posted at least one cool trip report in the past. More than most posters. This is the first blatant ad he's posted isn't it? You think it's OK to let it slide just this one time?

"WASHINGTON — The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered. [...] Another U.S. official said Rice's office was leery of the center's methodology, believing that analysts eager to avoid a repetition of last year's undercount included incidents that may not have been terrorist attacks. The U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office eliminated "Patterns of Global Terrorism" when the counterterrorism center declined to use alternative methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks." link

If you're talking about snipping off the last 15 feet of climbs by adding premature anchoration, then I would say in general I am opposed to this idea. I'm sure there are climbs where a good case for this can be made. In general though, IMO the default should be anchors at the top, not midway. If someone places anchors midway, there should be a very compelling reason. I haven't seen the anchors on TUIB, but I have climbed that pitch and never had any problems topping out. In fact as I remember, there were two ways to top out. You could stay in the wide crack for good fun, or step right and exit to easy territory. I'm not sure I understand why anchors below that section would be needed.

What I wonder is how it is determined what is a "drug" and what is a "nutritional supplement".

More information from the NYT "A 1994 law championed by Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, shields makers of herbal and nutritional supplements from strict adherence to F.D.A. rules that require drug makers to prove that their products are safe and effective. Instead, the law defines nutritional supplements as food, which is assumed to be safe unless federal regulators can prove otherwise. After all, "if food producers were required to show a benefit as a precondition to sale, the sale of foods such as potato chips might be prohibited," Judge Campbell wrote." Sounds like the judge is following the law. So the answer to the implied question of judicial activism seems to be "no". To ban a food, the burden of proof is on the FDA prove that it is dangerous. The FDA's hands are tied in this case as they can't ban low doses of ephedra unless they have proof it is harmful. The current proof out there is basically linked to higher doses. However, since they suspected that low doses of ephedra were harmful, it was considered unethical to study it in humans.

Here's some good advice if you're just starting out How to rock climb

What's up with the red blob on Davis-Holland? Bad photoshop? Trundled Chevy? Meth lab?

I might be Big Snow. You can definitely see Seattle from there.

There is current thinking that high-fructose corn syrup can add to your weight because it doesn't immediately signal the satiated response, so you can intake more calories without feeling any more full. If you aren't intaking anything else, then your liver will convert the fructose into glucose which will signal your brain that you are full. But if you've already got enough glucose going from other stuff, it won't.

I would really like to meet (well maybe not ) these liberals that JayB continually brings up that are big fans of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc...

"The chemical industry's position that this [bPA] is a weak chemical has been proven totally false. This is a phenomenally potent chemical as a sex hormone." In their study, vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for conflicting results of studies: 100 percent of the 11 funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90 percent of the 104 government-funded, nonindustry studies reported harmful effects. " link Could it be that your supposition of a "liberal bias" is just a result of comparing the bulk of the scientific community with the industry shills?