pope

Did we team up on that pitch?

Couple of points. The resolution calls for "serious consequences" without detailing what those might be. It certainly didn't spell out conditions under which the United States would be authorized to invade and occupy. Secondly, is it clear that the no-fly zone was an U.N. imposition? Finally, I would just like to ask, one more time......WHERE ARE THE W.M.D.'s? One can hear a tremendous amount of nonsense about how we're going export democracy to the Middle East, and how once Iraq is an open and democratic nation terrorism will cease to exist. But that's not the way the Iraq War was marketed to us. Recall that Iraq constituted an immediate threat, or so we were to believe. Do you really think that if George Jr. had said, "Let's spend 100+ billion and sacrifice thousands of lives to bring democracy to Iraq, even though the nation is relatively harmless to us".....do you think we'd have bought his line of BS?

Well said. You've got to believe that anybody (except possibly a Freshman at a third-rate college) attempting to fake these docs would make the minimal effort to match technology with the doc's creation date.

This thread is completely pathetic, as are the majority of contributors. Seriously, what the heck do you wankers do all day? This is a page right out of Soap Digest.

God damn, Lamby, I owe you a pint for that one.

....with bovine perspiration on her upper-lip area.... zappa page

Matt, I think we could work it out...I think we could tolerate snowmobiles in the "Alpental Valley". Take any one of the arguments extended in support of bolting/abandoning gear for great lengths of time at the "Rap Wall", modify it slightly, and I think we could put forward a powerful argument in favor of snowmobiles in the "Alpental Valley". Recall that the Rap Wall isn't in a wilderness area. In fact it's right next to a ski area. Since it is already spoiled, let's allow bolt trails and quick-draws. Well, if the area is already spoiled, why not snowmobiles? The ease of access to the "Alpental Valley" (together with the statements of the preceeding paragraph) mean that the area can/should accomodate a variety of recreational groups. Snowmobiles leave less trace and, therefore, are in one important way less intrusive than sport climbing. Come on guys, there's room for everybody. It's all good, ain't it? The "Alpental Valley" offers not only easy winter access but also the elevation necessary for forming ice. Hence, sporty-mixed climbers would struggle to find a better place to climb. Extending this argument, just think how the elevation and snow pack in the "Alpental Valley" could extend the snowmobile season! BTW, I love Dwayner's suggestion that once snowmobiles are tolerated, it would be consistent with the artifical experience of bolted mixed climbing to catch a ride up to the Rap Wall. Now I'm thinking how cool it would be to have a little Coffee-in-the-Box, drive-through .....that is, snowmobile-through....expresso stand up at the Rap Wall. Maybe the little hotties serving up lattes could retail quick-draws and spare monopoints. They could sell winter-weight polypro T-shirts printed with the message "Going leashless. Allez!" Finally, and more seriously, "Alpental Valley" is not an appropriate name for the Source Lake area. It is not by any means remote, but it does have a wilderness feel to it, regardless of the fact that it's a very short trek out of Alpental. My point is.....and damn it, MattP, I think you know I'm right....sport climbing will turn this little bit of heaven into a circus. Go find a road-cut. Please.

Your post seems to echo the sentiments of many who have contributed to this discussion. I'll ask you the same question I asked the primary developer of these routes: why can't a suitable top-roping cliff be found? There are many outcrops of steep rock featuring ice drips that can be found even closer to Alpental. Many have fairly easy top-rope access. Check up-slope in the woods about 10 minutes up the Snow Lake trail. Nobody would be bothered and we wouldn't have to leave a trail of bolts and quickdraws. Here's another question. And Rudy, I'm being absolutely serious here so spare me the hyperbole accusation. Let's suppose 30 more routes go in, and let's suppose ropes and quick-draws hang off these climbs half the winter. How could we reasonably object to a group who would like to see snow-machine access? I assume they're currently prohibited in the Source Lake area, but I can imagine a day when they'll come forward and say, "Look, we're just another user group. We'll have less impact than those damn climbers." How are we going to respond to that?

Matt, we're talking about a 40-foot wall. Others have suggested that perhaps the route would be less visibly offensive if it were climbed as a top-rope. Now we're hearing that top-roping would be "dangerous" and impractical and blah blah blah. This just made me curiuos about how the route was established in the first place. And in my mind, while all short leads are kind of trivial, and while all visibly offensive routes are a compromise best avoided, when these aspects are combined with the fact that establishing bolt anchors on rap isn't really leading at all, we're left to question, "Why all the fuss?" Why bother with a "lead" if you're not really leading? Why leave a mess of bolts and quasi-abandoned quick-draws on a route so short that the pad people would be tempted to give it a "V" grade? Why pick an extrememly popular day-use winter recreation area to establish these aesthetically dubious creations? I'm not an advocate for "sport climbing" or "ice sporting" or whatever the latest fad of bolt chasing is called. Bolt dependent climbs, except for the really bold routes established on lead, will always represent the cheapest, least sporting (there's some irony for you) approach to (cough, cough) mountaineering. I really don't think there is a place where this should be considered acceptable (to answer Rudy's question). There are certainly places where it is less offensive, but a high-use winter recreation area (Denny Tooth area) isn't one of them. There must be hundreds of logging roads with 40-foot road cuts into crappy rock where the bolt junkies can get their fix. Send it, girlfriend! Allez.

since you've seen the route - that it overhangs about 35 feet in 80 feet and that approaching it from above is very difficult, especially in winter, you'll know that top-roping this route would be much more dangerous than leading it. Oh really? Just how did those bolts get placed on the first "ascent"? Was this modern test-piece established on the lead? I could possibly change my mind about it in that case.

Hey wienerhead, I'm just sticking up for my buddy. He makes a valid point and then some of the classy elements on this board launch a personal attack against him. From what I've read, he's doing an adequate job making his critics and detractors look silly. Glad you made it to Leavenworth today, but I'm especially glad I had a chance to read your contribution to this discussion. Reminds me of how little some of you really have to say.

Funny you should keep bringing up the accusation that Merv has called sport climbers gay on this board. I've invited you to find one such example and you never have. You, on the other hand, are quite fond of dropping the G-bomb with regularity. I've found a few AlpineK quotes to remind you: Paddling is gay. Why else would kayakers wear spray skirts Most ironworkers are gay...not that there's anything wrong with that. You're gay They talk about John Wayne in Repo Man. He is so gay.... Utilikilts are gay.

Not every fun activity is an appropriate activity. Riding your motorcycle through the meadows of Mt. Rainier might be fun, a gondola ride up the Chieftan might be fun, and throwing beer bottles at pedestrians might be fun.....these activities might be all fun, but are they "all good", as sport-climbers like to say?

And I suppose this qualifies as a contribution? You can't respond to the topic, so you turn to personal attacks on Dwayner. If you don't have anything to say, put a yam in it.

Studly again in my estimation.

Hope you washed your hands.

Soccer is fun to play and significantly more fun than running wind sprints. However, as a spectator, I find the game's natural rhythm to be a cure for the insomniac: run, pass, run, pass, dribble...oops, change of possession. This is followed by run, pass, run, pass, dribble...oops, change of possession. After about twenty such cycles, the first real scoring opportunity is blown dead by an official who calls "off sides". Then it's back to the cycle: run, pass, run, pass, dribble...oops, change of possession. You’re right, they’re not wearing pads. Weighed down by the gear American football players have to carry, I doubt your “real football” players would be running for 45 minutes. In fact it might improve the game if they were to wear pads. Then there’d be no justification for flopping on the grass every time they get bumped.

Right, but we don't have rock cops, and there is no law specifically banning bolting/leaving quickdraws near Source Lake. Like dumping an old mattress at the park, however, it's just poor style.

Football requires tremendous levels of fitness (both strength and endurance), strategy, skill, guts and general toughness. Timing/choreography and team attitude are also critical, and without a quality coaching staff, success is nearly impossible. Football has it all. Don't like it? Have a tissue for your issue.

People hell-bent on bolting every cliff in the universe aren't going to listen to objections no matter what the tone. Let me ask you, Kurt, if somebody in your neighborhood was known for dumping trash down at the city park, what approach would you take? Would you ignore it? Would you politely remind them that their actions are not appropriate, then sit back to see if they alter their behavior? I don't think so. The only reasonable solution is to expose the culprits and keep the lights shining on their behavior until they're too embarassed to continue.

Rugby. Jeeeeesh.

On the other hand, I was invited to a brunch-style meeting with a guy who practices some of the activities we're discussing here. Our conversation was civil. We ejoyed a wheat-grass beverage, a bowl of yam soup and shared our views on developing sport-mixed climbs at the Pass. Bottom line is, it doesn't really matter how politely we object, this shit is going to happen. I was informed of a "vision for 30 more routes" of similar nature in the area. There didn't seem to be any understanding that for those with time limitations, the valley is a special place where one can find a little wilderness just around the corner from an interstate and ski hill. Nor was there an admission that the hardware presented any significant visual impact that might be objectionable. There was, however, vocal disapproval for the chopping of Dan's Dreadful Direct and another Castle Rock sport route that had been crowded next to Saints. We concluded with a "good to see ya" and a hand shake, but we didn't reach any kind of compromise or agreement. Instead, I was asked to stop criticizing the activity. I think it's important to realize that climbers exist....very active climbers...who have a radically different view of what's appropriate. They see the mountains as their personal playground, and they believe that permanent alterations resulting in visual impacts that are objectionable to others are acceptable behaviors. "Don't like bolts? Take it up at Smith!" some suggest. That place wasn't always an ethical abomination. Maybe somebody should have been more vocal from the onset. "It's not wilderness. There's a ski area just around the corner." But it is a place where many recreationists go for wilderness, to escape steel and engineering.

Did a redneck get your coyote?

Now I'm curious as to why not a single vet at the RNC kicked this guy's teeth down his throat: offensive little prick

Yes, telling lies can certainly do a lot of damage, and the Time/Newsweek polls demonstrate that fact. Again, during the debates you will see George Junior attempt to persuade us with similar jive, only he will be IMMEDIATELY exposed for, on the one hand, being a God-damned liar, and on the other hand, insulting the intelligence of his audience (who are evidently fairly stupid, again based on the recent polls). Larry, you are without conscience.