mattp

A friend of mine, a woodworker, said it was "tradition" that when you build "dead space" into a piece of furniture or a part of a house you should place a piece of newspaper or other similar item in the time capsule. He would place a piece out of the tabloids, thinking it would hold greater interest over the years. What do you think: would a 1951 tabloid have held more interest? I think a "straight" newspaper is probably a better long term momento.

What are the dates again?

In my own experience, crud and breakable crust and glop are often more easily handled with telemark turns than parallel - though the variety of conditions is endless and I do parallel and even snowplow turns in addition to jump turns on my telemark skis quite often. I agree that the telemark turn is generally more strenuous on the quads, though, and I'm not arguing with PeterC on this point to the extent of stating there is any definitive advantage to the telemark. I'd be interested to know if there is a good, simple to use, reliable releaseable binding for telemark skiing that provides the traditional flex in the ball of the foot. To me, one of the greatest arguments for the AT bindings is that many of them are really easy to get into and out of while providing a highly adjustable release mechansim that works very well.

No "falsehood" there, Fairweather. They stated over and over that the ad WAS sold as what they refer to in this piece as a "standby" and if I remember correctly that Guliani paid the same rate for his add. If they are now retracting that statement, you can't blame that one on me. If we want to talk about falsehoods, I can fire up the search engine again and show where you have denied making YOUR OWN posts about calling for the use of a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan (or somewhere "over there") or where you denied that you had ever posted your real name and said that should be the end of any statement from me that you are posting anonymously when you post under the name Fairweather. You forgot what you had previously posted? Maybe. But maybe these were falsehoods. Now: lets talk about that MoveOn add if you feel it is such a major issue. Do you think Patreus was "fair and balanced" in his report to Congress? If you are all about free speech, wouldn't that Move On add be an acceptable expression of a political viewpoint? If you, like others, are upset that they would call him "General Betray-Us," why is it OK to repeatedly bash Hillary Clinton, call the French "surrender monkey's," drum up a false campaign of lies about John Kerry's swiftboat adventures, or any of the other very public and very scathing attacks that occur daily but that support YOUR political viewpoint? If NYT did give MoveOn some price preference, I disapprove, by the way.

No doubt, the book that lagely fueled the Telemark revolution, Cross Country Downhill, featured skiers wearing Grateful Dead tee shirts. The telemark craze grew out of cross country skiing, with an emphasis on lightweight touring through the back country. Once skiers began taking telemark rigs on steep alpine terrain, whether on Rainier or a resort, they wanted heavier equipment so the emphasis on light weight is no longer there but this quote from Barnett's 1978 book, noted by Lowell Skoog on one of his history pages, is relevant: "High-speed controllability is certainly the strength of Alpine skis. The limits, however, are both clear and strict--Alpine skiing is good for only gravity-powered travel. The main difference between the loose-heel and Alpine techniques is not power or grace, but primarily this high-speed capability. [...] Speed, of course, has never been an objective of the touring skier, in fact slow speed maneuverability, in which the Nordic techniques are very strong, is supremely important. But it is exciting to ski fast and unfettered, and if it can be done without sacrificing other desirable goals, why not do it? [...] Clearly, the limits of loose-heel, lightweight skiing have not yet been reached." With the heavier gear, telemark equipment is nearly as stable as AT at higher speeds and I more often than not use parallel technique on steep terrain but when skiing through some kind of crud, maybe in the woods, I can slow it down and still execute turns without resorting to highly physical jump turns that the AT guys end up with. Again, it comes down to this: if you are after the Triple Couloirs on Dragontail, AT is probably better (though it has been done on Tele). If you want to ski through the Enchantments via the standard Colchuck - Aasgard - Snow Lake - Snow Creek loop, telmark equipment is better (though Kurt's father probably did it on AT gear back in 1960).

I think telemark skiing IS more versatile for general back country skiing, but for real up and down skiing (particularly the down part) AT is better. The flexible sole of a telemark boot is an advantage when you have to walk anywhere, and the fact that with telemark bindings the tails of your skis pick up when you lift your foot are a great advantage when sidestepping over logs or crossing creeks. The ability to take short bits of downhill without switching the bindings is an advantage. With the flexible ball of your foot, telemark boots that are not monster knee high racing boots are all around more comfortable for touring. AT gear is better for skiing real downhill steeps, though, and the releaseable bindings work better than release plate-mounted tele bindings. Some climbers feel that AT boots are better when you take the skis off and want to climb technical terrain, but I've found I can climb water ice up to WI IV in telemark boots, and even easy mixed pitches just fine. I use rigid crampons and the toe extension presents no real problem. If you want to pursue ski mountaineering and anything resembling extreme skiing, AT is better. If you want to pursue hill-and-dale scenic tours in the backcountry and are going to pursue downhill runs in that context, I'd go with tele.

To make it realistic, those who are as drunk as you were can stand on the edges, throwing things at us. "Here's the view from the ... [iNCOMING - OUCH ] ... second step on the ... [ OUCH] ... Central Rib ... [RUN, DAMMIT!] ... "

I didn't offer a proposal because I don't have one. In the context of that specific incident Fairweather keeps referring to (Path to 911), I DID say that we should not see propaganda passed off as documentary on channel 5 - and I opined that maybe execs should be punished. I really don't know how it might or should work, but I agree with what TVTK said that (1) there should be higher journalistic standards, and (2) the independence of the press needs better protection.

The same old, tired, cliched response. You guys are laughable. Fox news (which I don't actually watch you dickweed) is biased. Why? Because you say so. It's a tautology. The NYT is, of course, NOT biased. How dare anyone make such a ridiculous claim. After all, everything in the NYT is true! Obviously! Because the bias in the NYT conforms to your world view. But wait, that's essentially what you just accused all the "fox news" watchers of doing. And that's what you accuse them of doing repeatedly, over and over, as your favorite knee-jerk response to any skepticism of any story in the news that threatens your fragile world view. Not only can't you read a newspaper, you can't read cc.com either. I've argued that the cries of "liberal media bias" have been bogus, for sure, but I don't remember many times when anybody here argued that the NYT w had no bias. I'd say they do a better job than a lot of outfits, but clearly they are biased toward printing what BUSH wants them to print - and have been - since the day he was first elected.

Unlike my brothers Fairweather and KK, I actually BELIEVE that the public should be given fair and balanced information. Fairweather believes that the public airwaves (not private cable channels) should run propaganda which is presented as "fact" (but only if it is slanted in a direction HE favors, of course). For his part, KK apparently cannot even be bothered to read a newspaper and cries that it shows bias for the NYT to publish a paid political add from MoveONn. The NYT did not give MoveOn any discount. Do you think KK would be complaining if the add were not run by some liberal assclowns.

I think I agree with your recommendations that follow, Tvash, but I can't at all agree with the intro. The shameful state of the American media is not only a disgrace, but it is a threat to democracy if you assume that a democracy is based on an informed public. How else do you explain the fact that some fairly intelligent people, including our dear friend Fairweather or even my card-carrying ACLU member of a father did not "get it" that Bush lied to take us into Iraq? As we all know, the media presented the stories about how there was no uranium purchase in Africa, the aluminum tubes could not be used for a centrifuge, the meeting in Prague never happened, the intelligence was being systematically misrepresented in a manner favoring stories supporting invasion, the international inspectors were very clear there was no nuclear weapons program, etc. etc. etc. However, the fact that these stores were reported but overlooked by most Americans - even those who would otherwise be predisposed to be suspicious of a war plan such as this one - indicates that the manner in which they were presented was biased. Nobody with even a shred of intelligence failed to realize that Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and almost all the 911 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, so I don't think you can just pass it off as a post-911 fog. To take a more recent example: the news talked about Gonazlez' resignation for one day. I watched the Seattle paper for several days and saw no follow up; it was not even mentioned in that weeks "Week in Review" section of the New York Times. By contrast, the return of Hsu's campaign donations by Hilary Clinton was in the paper and on the radio every day for a week and a half. Maybe the bias here is not so much as liberal/conservative as it is incumbent/opposition candidate -- or in the case of the Iraq invasion just simply in favor of the sitting Administration (though it didn't seem to be that way when Clinton was in office) - but there is clear bias along side just poor quality and it distorts our view of events to such an extent that the American voter really can't be expected to make informed choices.

Jay, your slipping here. First of all, market competition HAS generated new medicines for erectile disfunction. More than one. I have more than one friend who has worked for Icos, and they have told me they made more money on ED than anything else - and that was their business plan. Perhaps they are disgruntled employees? Second, I didn't say that there is or should be "government compulsion" but I DID say there was and should be government and other "coordinated" funding and this has proven central to most pharmaceutical research that actually produces real breakthroughs. (I could be wrong, as I acknowledged, but I have read this steadily for many years and I believe it is likely true.) I DID say that public health advances have come about in large part through government-directed programs. You have not even tried to refute that. I did suggest that many of the "services" offered in modern American medical practice are not really linked to any "therapeutic target" as you say, and you didn't refute this. You and I can differ as to whether private insurance companies and the research department at Pfizer are more likely to be looking out for yours and my interests in living healthy lives than might be the National Institute of Health or whatever but, if you want to "debate," please answer the argument.

Not only that, but he fails to address any of my arguments while calling me ignorant. Does a list of patents refute even the last of at least four basic points I made? No. He doesn't state that those patents, or which ones, were obtained by private companies not funded by government grants. I'd be the first one to admit that I am no expert in this area, but the inept attempt to "rebut" my statements makes me wonder just how much of an expert JayB is, too.

I think it is more accurate to say that most major advances in medicine have come from coodinated and mostly government efforts. Here is a relevant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association Medical Marvels: The 100 Greatest Advances in Medicine ... The authors assert that unbridled market forces restrict discovery and dissemination of knowledge I don't subsrcribe, so I cant actually call it up, but the synopsis sounds like it is consistent with other things I've read on this topic. Most advances in public health also come from government efforts. For example: who wiped out Polio or TB? Hint: not the free market. Market competition generates new medicine for erectile disfunction, or ever more clinics with MRI machines that are used over and over again when the result of the tests most often have no affect on the treatment prescribed but the tests cost thousands of dollars.

The nuance in your opinions of Clinton has largely escaped me. Do you have any other comment on this summary of Greenspan's book?

Here is the deal: I am not "citing" Greenspan to suit a political agenda so much as to see how the personalities here at cc.com will respond. I made that point in my initial post, above. Second of all, when did I or anyone else around here claim not to have a political agenda? You are approaching histrionics here. As to your quote that Greenspan's theme (for a significant part of the book) is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism, what response would you like? Clearly, you and I differ as to how much we say we believe the government should intervene in the free market, but in reality it may be more that we disagree as to what type of government intervention is needed to curb the problems that occur in a free market. If I'm not mistaken, you'd advocate for restrictions on liability exposure, for example, you've been in support of this war that Greenspan says is clearly all about oil, and i'm sure if I thought about it I could find other areas you support GREATER government involvment than I do.

I was referring to the fact that KK routinely calls people "assclowns" when he disagrees with them.

".... if you disagree with them you are either a communist or terrorist..." or maybe just an assclown?

Clinton good / Bush bad? In another thread, you complained that somebody's post did not reply to what you thought you were asking. Are you now thinking that "topics don't matter?"

I am awaiting scathing response from KK, histrionics from Fairweather, and some long winded thing I cannot understand from JayB. Greenspan gives Bill Clinton high marks.....gives Bush an "F ...

Actually, they vote against their pocketbooks quite often too. They vote for tax cuts for the rich and extra burdens upon the middle class. They vote for tough guys that "stand up to terrorists" by starting wars we are sure to lose and are going to pay for for 25 years or more. They vote for cuts in funding for public education so they can send their kids to private schools. On and on.

It takes 15-20 minutes. I don't carry around a hand drill to get myself out of a bad choice of descent routes or even the unexepected bail - it isn't necessary. But it is not that hard to drill a hole by hand.

Did I ever say any of that? 1. It is closer to the truth to say that the Bush Administration has used the religious right, rather than the other way around. Who here has said that Bush is a puppet of the religious right? 2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right." 3. What I wrote was that the hassles with airport security are not so much a loss of freedom (though there is some of that, I suppose), but a stupid charade that is part of the ongoing effort to distract us. Go back to school or take some reading comprehension lessons at the Kuman Learning Center.

Yes, that was the question - a rhetorical dodge to avoid responding to the very here and now reality that, in the name of fighting terror, the Bush administration HAS chipped away at the Constitution and eroded our image as a beacon for liberty - with the backing of Congress. Why can't we wait in front of the airport terminal to pick somebody up? It is not about security, it is about making us fearful on the one hand and grateful for our government on the other. If the bad guy has a trunk full of explosives they will either (A) blow themself up to get to heaven, or (B) jump out of the car and run away, with a timer set to go off before the airport security has a chance to call a towtruck. There is no rational basis for the anti-terror restriction. Even though our daily lifestyle has not changed much, we've been told to trust the government and do what they say. And we're going to pay for it for decades, at least.

I long for the good old days when I was free to take toothpaste and nail clippers on an airplane.