mattp

I use Firefox to browse the web, but out of laziness I still use outlook express to read e-mail - though I bet there is a better option.

Over the past week or so, I've been getting e-mail from screen names I don't know but whose name is similar to or might even be someone I know but who has never contacted me by e-mail before. These messages have an RE: line that indicates I might want to look at the mail, but no content appears in the "preview" window of my browser. They have attachments. I have noticed that sometimes when people forward messages to me they come as attachments rather than as a message I can view in the normal read message window. I have always routinely just deleted any suspect e-mail. I figure if somebody really wants to get in touch with me they can call. However, more and more I find some of my clients and friends seem to think E-Mail is the only way to communicate and they are angry (or worse) if I do not answer their messages -- even where they sent something under some screen name they could have no reason to think I'd recognize and their message came as an attachment. Is there a safe way to open suspicious attachments?

looks like you're covered. You could borrow mine, but it is a little out of date. Check out the description for the Beckey Chouinard route: The book doesn't list McTech or Watchtower.

When you and your partner are using the ATC guide, and belaying the follower in autoblock mode, you can swap them at each belay and save some time on the switch-overs. It works as follows: Upon reaching the belay, you set your anchor or clip to the chains and belay your buddy straight off the anchor in autoblock mode. When they arrive at the station, you leave them on belay while they get set for the next pitch. They give you their ATC and you put them on belay from your waist using their locking 'biner. They unclip their belay on the device you had been using to belay them up to that station and take it with them. This was shown to me recently, and attributed to Colin. It is a nice trick, except when the other guy has a locking biner you don't like.

That, of course, WAS my question. I'm not really sure what our options were, or how great the perceived threat we sought to offset really was in either case, but but in both cases we later found these parties acting against our interests and found the need to take them out. Certainly, the history of our involvement with and manipulation of other countries to "offset" or "contain" their neighbor's power in what are sometimes referred to as "proxy wars," or our shoring up ghastly regimes who were friendly to some American business interest, or removing one that we deem offensive, has blown up in our face more than once. In the current situation, do you see any potential for this to happen with Saudi Arabia?

Don Ryan: you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously. If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make. Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?" JayB knows what he was doing, he is smart, and he is perfectly capable of firing back on his own. He doesn't resort to the kind of character attack, innuendo, and clown pictures that you find so entertaining.

Jay, If you want to argue that it was a good idea to support Saddam, be my guest. If you want to try to use the above noted statistic to suggest we didn’t do so, you’re sadly mistaken or lying. You drum up a statistic that, if true, shows we may not have been his biggest arms supplier in 1990. However, in the years immediately before that we sold Iraq equipment essential for a nuclear industry, we supplied them chemical weapons, and other such toys for 1.5 billion according to one source. source Jay will immediately seek to discredit See also souce Jay will scoff at See also wikipedia - liberal media incarnate Elsewhere, it has been reported we supplied them poison gas, and that when the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime in 1988, the Reagan administration blocked it. damn Google anyway! Lastly, it has been noted that in addition to weapons per se, we supplied a lot of "dual use" equipment that could (and later did) supply a war effort - such as main frame computers, helicopters, etc. Russ W. Baker, IRAQGATE: The Big One That (Almost) Got Away, Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't. Columbia Journalism Review March 1993. Just what is your argument? He was good then but turned bad? It was the lesser of two evils? 1990 is the only year that matters? Do you think the same applies to Saudia Arabia, 2007?

Don't worry. Some of my best friends are dick heads.

Trip: Exfoliation Dome - Darrington - Dark Rhythm Date: 7/29/2007 Trip Report: We drove through rain on the way up to Darrington, but I promised: it never rains on Exfoliation Dome – not with this kind of forecast for marine spooge. And lo: that blessed spire of rock also known as “The Fin,” was dry. Drizzle and mist periodically swept down the valley from the direction of Dreamer, but we enjoyed the day on excellent (dry) granite. We’ll be back. At least I will.

So you're letting your hatred of the Democratic party prevent you from disapproving of Bush? Couldn't resist. I agree, that our policies with regard supplying weapons or other support often seem rather short sighted. This is not exclusive to Mr. Bush, though. I think Democratic as well as Republican leaders have done this a bunch. Check out the now dated book that is very much a "hate America first" kind of tome, "Endless Enemies," by Quitney. You'll hate the book but you may concude the basic premise has a shred of sense. In a nutshell, Quitney argues that our usual practice of supporting specific leaders or governments who were able to lend us assistance at any point in time has, more often than not, left us holding hands with someone who later turned against us or played us against somebody else. We give weapons to the Saudi's today because they are seemingly on our side, and it may come back to bite us. Just as where we armed Saddam against Iran, or Afghanistan against Russia, or ... I'm not sure his ideas are practical where he suggests we could endorse ideas or policies rather than specific leaders or governments, and in practice I think this means we could have provided operational support for Saddam or the Afghani's without actually giving them weapons or saying that "Saddam is our freind and we're going to overlook whatever bad things he might be doing," but there is something attractive about his basic premise. Could we promote Saudi Arabia as a counterpart to Iran, or support some of their activity in this regard, without ending up wed to the house of Saud and providing arms that may one day be used against us or our allies?

Hey you: The July 4 gig fizzled, but the climbing up there remains pretty cool. I've got a parter(s) for tomorrow, but if anybody else is going to be in the area, we might share some photo opportunities or something. I'm not quite sure what we're doing, and maybe they'll kill me for posting this, but DTown is fun!

That's your choice, Mr. Shoes, but from my own perspective I can tell you that I've never regretted posting my real name on here. I have regretted some of the things I've said, but those were things I shouldn't have said or didn't mean whether I was identifying myself or not.

Jeez, Mark. That was three years ago. I felt then, and I feel now, that where somebody is attacking someone else by name and getting personal about it, the person attacked probably has a right to name their accuser and demand they take responsibility for their words. You may disagree, as you have stated here. Feel free to bring it up next time we meet and I promise I won't intimidate you. By the way, I was looking for the post Mark complained about and guess what I found? A 2005 thread where FAIRWEATHER POSTED HIS FULL NAME in an effort to get me to stop complaining about his taking advantage of his anonymity. I bet he doesn't want me to post the link to that thread, though, as it doesn't come up with a simple search of his name. In another discussion, about a month ago, Fairweather denied he'd ever suggested the use of a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan and I easily found the statement he denied. We're all capable of having an imperfect memory of some old spray war, but Mr. F has no right to claim superior memory or that he more accurately portrays these things than anyone else around here. As far as I'm concerned, we've beat this dead horse. I've argued that certain people who post anonymously abuse that privilege, and that they wouldn't be as rude or crude if they posted under their real names. Some posters deny this.

Brian, the incident I mention was, if I am not mistaken, the second time you "quit the board forever." I bet some others around here remember it though they may not want to step into this pile of pooh. I tell you what: I feel so bad about this I'll stay home from climbing and spend all weekend scrolling through old threads looking for it. My point remains the same. I believe you would conduct yourself differently if you used your real name instead of a screen name, and you have not credibly argued otherwise.

Fairweather, actually it has happened at least twice that I've complained about your attempting to intimidate me by posting my real name yet hiding yours, and you felt compelled to acknowledge who you were. In one of those incidents, you posted something to the effect of: I am ___________, and I live in ___________ - are you happy now? I can't find it with the search function. Did you ask a moderator to delete it? You are right in that I don't think you ever volunteered your ID quite in the same fashion that Dawg has. Don't worry. We allow folks to post anonymously on cc.com. That is not likely to change unless several moderators agree that someone is unfairly targetting somebody else by name, while hiding their own identity (or doing something similar). My only real point is that I think you and others would behave a little differently if you were allowed only to post under your real name and I made the secondary point that I believe you are dishonest in failing acknowledge the manner in which you hide behind that anonymity. I am not going to post your name and phone number, but you certainly have not indicated I am incorrect.

I forgot to mention. We had our own doctor.

Tonight’s Bentleysized Pubclub was a great success. First of all, the beach was as nice as always. We had a nice little party, and several new people showed up. Tony’s bluegrass buddies were fantastic, and people from other parties even came over to ask what was the occasion and, of course, we had our mascot. As it got dark, the boys kicked up a great fire. But all too soon, the parks department came along to help us put it out. Curfew is 11:30, and the fires go out at 10:30. Thank you parks!

Golden Gardens is the beach park in Ballard, NW Seattle. Surf and sand. Volleyball and Frisbe. Olympic Mountain sunset. If you haven't been there before on a Summer evening, you owe it to yourself.

I don't know if it is a matter of cowardice or just what it is that drives people to make condescending and derisive posts under a pseudonym while protecting their anonymity. Many of us know who some of these more acerbic posters are but the three who are here and now defending their behavior have at various times said "OK. You know my name and now the issue is resolved." Then they go back to their anonymous attack, sometimes directly personal, while consistently bristling when somebody mentions their real name or mentions that their real name is absent from regular discussion here. This idea that they can disclose their actual name on one page in one thread a year and they they are not hiding their identity the other thousand posts a month is little more than a dodge. If they truly feared harassment, they would fear that the would-be harasser will find their identity if it is disclosed once a year because somebody who is motivated to target them may spend a few minutes looking for that information. If they want to carry on like a jerk, however, without a casual or infrequent visitor to the board knowing who they are, this habit of admitting their identity once a year and then protecting their anonymity the rest of the time works very well. By the way, Fairweather, he may have sent you an e-mail, but did my liberal friend you so despise actually physically threaten you or call you at work? You still complain about him periodically, but I have not seen you complain about anybody else harassing you. Was there somebody else? The same guy who called me and some others at work, perhaps? Yes, it happens, but the way to avoid it is not to disclose your identity only once a year but to avoid drawing so much attention to yourself in the first place. And yes, Joseph has been at times extremely caustic but where somebody has responded in a reasonable manner he has replied that he is simply stating his beliefs and he is vehement about them but he has recognized that the other guy has a right to their opinion.

Don, Are you seriously arguing that you would have posted all the inflammatory rhetoric and stupid pictures if you were signing every post "Don Ryan?" I don't think so. As you know, I have some issues with the basic premise of these bait and bash ethics threads, and I agree with anybody who says "it goes both ways" and "Pope and Dwayner have some valid points" but I don't think anybody - not even richardnoggin - has been as deliberately inflammatory as you and your pal Pope. I believe some of that has to do with your anonymity. Should we try a little experiment and change your screen name to "Don Ryan?"

dinomyte, In a general way, I agree with you. However, here I think the balance may have been tipped a little heavy toward the "don't do it" side of the equation. There's no question that the risk of a crevasse fall on Mount Rainier is very real. Some very experienced climbers have posted on THIS website about how they have been completely surprised by a sudden and unexpected collapse. Mount Rainer is not like many if not most other mountains in the lower 48 states. There is no doubt that the mountain is HUGE, with a capital "H" and that it presents hazards unknown elsehere. Help may be far away if something goes wrong or if the weather changes unexpectantly -- though it may not be all that far off on the D-C route (with the emphasis on the word "MAY"). But I think I more or less agree with the bottom line in posting the advice, "just do it." The climber on Mount Rainier, whether in a large group or solo, must make their own decisions and "standard precautions" or "accepted practice" need not necessarily apply. I've solo'd the mountain more than once, and I believe I had sufficient glacier travel experience and NW climbing experience to make sound judgments as to conditions as well as terrain, but that is neither here nor there. We don't know about "the other's" experience, their judgment, or their proclivity toward caution. I don't assume the poster is incompetent or expert. Mount Rainier is serious, and I hope they realize this. Beyond that, and maybe a few tips to the wise, who am I to say whether they should head up there or not?

Nope. In my opinion that is a rather sad aspect of life on this board.

I don't know whether this guy complained directly to them or not, but trashing people on the Internet without first making an effort to address your complaint directly is pretty much situation normal for cc.com.

Now that I agree with, Bug. I don't know the personal values of everyone at higher levels in the Forest Service, but clearly the agency is under the control of the Executive branch and subject to the whims of Congress, and during the timber boom times there was lots of support for the agency as a timber harvest subsidy pipeline. Now that they've largely run out of old growth and environmental laws have reduced their ongoing harvest even of second growth, there is much less support for the agency as a whole and even money for recreational management and the roads and trails that are part of it, which should be a growing focus in light of population trends, is drying up. They used to build and maintain roads with tax dollars for the exclusive or primary use by loggers. Now, policies of privatization and starve the beast have replaced those of direct and indirect support for business. To some extent, I think, some of the hard core conservationists are taking advantage of this situation. They can lobby their representatives to win green points by voting for a new wilderness area in a location that was not going to be logged or mined anyway, and the Forest Service can then plan on spending almost nothing to maintain this area - they will allow no new trails, and they'll cut back on existing access in the name of preseving the integrity of the Wilderness, and fewer people will go there. It is a win win, no?

I think if you talked to the people at the National Forests and Parks around Washington, Bug, you would find that most or many of them DO care more than a "rip" about recreation for you and me. As I've indicated, I think Fairweather has overstated his case about how environmental legislation or environmental groups have the death grip on recreational use, but I think you too have mis-stated the situation. I may have a selective sample, but my experience has been that as a general rule land managers are friendlier to climbing now than they were when I first started many years ago. However, I fully agree with you about the population growth curve, and I think that increased recreational pressure IS going to lead to more regulation of climbing and other related activities on public lands.