mattp

I wouldn't be surprised if Mike is worth a visit but I can tell you one thing: I was impressed with the ten mimnute treatement I received from the massage therapist in his office during the clinic opening. He actually made an impact on a back issue I've been suffering - in ten minutes! He also suggested a stretching thing that was new to me and which I think is going to work out well for me. LevelIII is right by Jillians, for all the pool hustlers in the house.

I wasn't there and I don't know from your post just how much he really interfered with what you were doing (he was clearly somewhat in the way but just how much I am not sure). One thing I'd say, however, is that if you feel someone is crowding you at a climbing area it is incumbent on you to say something about it. I've been on both ends of this issue but more often than not I've probably been the one doing the crowding, as I am much more comfortable sharing belay ledges, even gear, or passing or even climbing directly alongside other parties than most people are. However, in most situations a little discussion solves the problem as long as both parties are interested in solving it. Sometimes the party intruding will back off, sometimes they'll agree that they can share the belay anchors or the rope up spot without a problem if they cooperate about taking turns in the "front seat" or one party uses an extra long extension, or whatever. Most people, once you start talking about it, do not want to leave the situation unresolved and sit there glaring at each other from three feet away. If you do elect to talk about it rather than sit there all stony, however, it is generally a good idea to start out with "hey - what are you intending here because I'm feeling a bit crowded" rather than "back of f**ker - we'll be done in a minute."

Trip: Darrington - Dreamer Date: 6/30/2007 Trip Report: Dreamer never ceases to amuse me. I’ve climbed it a dozen times over the last 20 years, but when Troggy and I were talking about what to do in Darrington yesterday he said he wanted to climb Dreamer and I said OK. I was looking for an easy day out, and that climb is a little more than my idea of an easy day, but hey: the weather forecast was calling for mostly sunny with freezing levels at 7,000 feet which is near perfect for this adventure. The rock might actually dry out after the prior day’s brief rainshowers but it wasn’t going to be a bake sale on this climb that is in direct sun from sun-up until about 4:00 pm. The road is in reasonable shape, about the same as it has been the past two years, and some of the brushing we did a few years ago has actually held. There are some new sinkholes along the edge of the road as you get near the end, so my guess is it might not be long before the walk is extended somewhat -- even if the whole thing doesn't wash out three or four miles short of the climbing area. The parking / turn around just before where it turns worse in a rocky little slot next to a large log is shrinking. The trail could use a little brushing, but it is easy to follow and we crossed Copper Creek without having to hike up or downstream. Mr. Trog is a great partner and we had a good day on the climb. I led Urban Bypass, though couldn’t get to the crux bolt and did a slightly runout detour around it. Jason led the crux pitches of Dreamer, with some seepage in spots, including what is probably the crux move of the route where thin face moves are thankfully right next to a bolt leading to the second undercling. Jason styled it and we enjoyed the upper pitches including the newish knob pitch out left that avoids an easy pitch that unfortunately ends with a nasty bush pull on the more traditional line. As always, I thouroughly enjoyed the views and the high in the sky feeling of those upper pitches.

No doubt our buddies who did those climbs have other good climbs to their credit. I'm sure the Roan and Salish routes are worthy. Did somebody say Squire Creek Wall? I've been up there a few times and would like to go back. It is not a "user friendly" place, but it sure is fantastic rock! Darrington in general deserves more attention. Roadway access is shaky at best concerning the present Forest Service maintenance budget and the Squire Creek road was obliterated several years ago, though I don't know if more loss of access is imminent there. However, the Clear Creek road washes out a lot but is presently driveable. Particularly in the "standard" D-Town climbing area, folks ought to get it while they can! Enthusiasts might also consider showing up at the upcoming planning meeting (see Access Forum), and doing whatever else they can to encourage Congress to send some funding to National Forests. Their budgets have been SLASHED and the gates are going to come down on all of us as a result.

Phew!

Damn. KK just can't cut it I guess. It really sucks when somebody doesn't like his arguments. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: Poor KK.

Let me get this straight: he is not "your president," but the Democrats are "my party" or Nancy Pelosi is "my Speaker" whenever you don't like what I am saying about Bush and want to deflect those statements by complaining about the Democratic party? You are not doing very well today, KK, but you are right on track with the "assclown." Are you going to threaten to beat me up next?

The Forest Service is embarking on a five-year process to determine how to maximize recreation opportunities for the public with limited funding. Known as Recreation Site Facilities Master Planning, this process will help each forest determine its unique recreation niche, and identify sites that best help them fill that niche. “This study will look at the operation and maintenance of the campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, lookouts, visitor centers, and other facilities” on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, said Rob Iwamoto, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor. Although trails are not included in this list, many of these sites are regularly used by hikers in the course of our trips, so it behooves us to let the forest know how they can best manage facilities for the hiking public. You can do just that by attending a planning workshop. Three workshops are planned for the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie region. Please plan on attending one of them! This is an important opportunity to get your voice heard on a process that will affect hikers for many years to come. The dates and locations of the meetings are: July 9, 6:00-8:00 p.m., REI Flagship Store, 222 Yale Ave. North, Seattle, WA July 10, 6:00-8:00 p.m., Mt. Baker Ranger District, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA July 11, 6:00-8:00 p.m., Algona-Pacific Library, 255 Ellingson Road Pacific, Algona, WA This information was sent to me by the Washington Trails Association.

Are you serious? He's the president. He's commander in chief and the decider. Even as lame duck, he wields tremendous power and given their entrenched position and continued attempt to stonewall discussion of virtually all the issues about which your disloyal unpatriots complain, there is no reason to think the President or his cronies are waking up and likely to show more respect for reality or for the Constitution or anything else "in their way" -- and certainly not without constant pressure. As much as you would like everyone to leave your stooge of a president alone so he can continue these great programs you oh so appreciate, I don't think it would be a good idea for ANYBODY to consider him harmless and simply "move on."

Bias in favor of those in power or those who have access to the sources of information the media relies upon is not offset by balanced reporting as you would suggest. Consider, for example, the media's repeating Bush administration press releases ad nauseam and recycling their lies in the run up to the Iraq war: yes, the truth about these stories was available, and even available in mainstream sources like the NYT if you read very carefully, but there was a consistent distortion in how the news was presented.

Jay and fairweather, you can't be serious. The evil leftists who are so unpatriotic and misguided that they would complain about the misdoings of the President are more dangerous to American prosperity or security or prestige or whatever than the current Administration? You guys are tuly over the edge.

You are right, Jay, that we discussed the FISA court before. I got the impression that you were unaware that the warrants could be issued retroactively, as you argued that they couldn't be slowed down by having to obtain warrants. I could try to do your arguing for you, but I'm not sure I can find a search engine that will show me where you explained how cool it is for the Administration to fire prosecutors who have the integrity to do their job. And I'm pretty sure I cannot find where you've convincingly argued how our leaders have proclaimed that we were not bound by the Geneva Conventions and said that we needed to get tough with terrorists and then showed how this didn't lead to systemic abuse of prisoners. In this thread, however, the topic was "should Bush administratin officials have to comply with Congressional subpoena's." That is a different conversation, and one that I'd like to hear more about your ideas on. (If you look at my post above, you will notice I did not ask you simply to defend the Bush admin rather than attack its detractors, but I asked if you could defend their stance as to subpoenas directed to find about about matters like this.) In light of your and KK's insistence that it is all just partisan politics, however, I'd caution you, though, to consider what would your answer be if it was a Democratic president.

Anybody else notice how JayB and KK cannot seem to defend the Bush administration's actions but in thread after thread feel the need to attack anybody who complains about it as partisan? Hey guys: lets hear how great it is that they can't follow the law and get retroactive warrants from a court that is a rubber stamp for all but the most aggregious abuses, or how you honestly believe that the torture memo and Rumsfeld's statement that "we're taking the gloves off now" had nothing to do with the proliferation of torture at Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib. Tell us again how great it is that Bush's boys have politicized the Justice Department to an extent not seen before. How 'bout it, huh? And if you believe these things, why again would it be that the Congress or the public have no right to know how these programs were chosen or carried out?

KK: I'll bet the Dems do nothing to stick their necks out like force the President to withdraw troops. Your attack against the Democrats, however, in this thread which is about Bush's conduct, adds nothing to the discussion but to show that you refuse to talk about the question at hand. Is it time to call me an assclown now and maybe threaten to kick my butt?

You know? KK’s got a point. All presidential adminstrations lie in their State of the Union speeches, lie to take us into war against nations that never attacked us, lie about their domestic spying, lie about their administration’s authorization of torture, make the Justice Department into an arm of the White House, and disclose classified information in an attempt to discredit their political opponents. Big deal. So they don’t think Congress has any power to act as check and balance. What’s wrong with that? Clearly, impeachment would be stupid because all of them do it anyway.

That's not likely to happen, Kevbone. They are convinced that they have to be perceived as "moderate" in order to get elected. I'm not so sure that if they actually came out with a clear platform and decided to stand for something they couldn't make a good go of it but that is not what their general thinking is. So they'll continue to be marginally better than the Republicans on lots of core issues but otherwise keep from rocking the boat.

As you cross the wash immediately before the "right" culvert, you can look up and see some granite up on the hillside. You are not looking at the Static Point formation itself, rather something up and left of it, but the granite is unmistakeable. There used to be a cairn on the culvert here, and the trail cuts back up the bank at an angle, up and left.

Lake City Bar and Grill 12725 Lake City Way NE

I bought a #11 hexentric at the one in Ballard about a year ago.

OK then. We gonna see JZ?

Fairweather, stop being such a cry baby and see if you can stick to a discussion. About once at week, it seems, you get frustrated with being on the losing side of an argument and start calling people a**holes. If you direct your tirade at me, and if I’m bored enough, I’ll sometimes return your fire. Meanwhile, you criticize the Times, but you offer no better source of information. You are welcome to chime in to the Cheney thread, for example, and tell us how the stories reported in the New York Times and LA Times are inaccurate. Or in this thread you might present some information about how nationalized health care is actually less efficient than private - instead of railing on unions.

If you are responding to my line of discussion, Robo, I wholeheartedly agree: I have long enjoyed Cocaine Connection and I in no way mean to sound critical of it or of Mr. W or of the climbers who developed any other route I mentioned or might mention if we were to continue this discussion. I'm interested in discussing the nuances of how people view these questions.

I'm not sure you have full rights to do as you see fit, Jens -- or at least that you should. For nearly 50 years we've used the First Ascent rule as a means to limit the proliferation of bolts, while having some balance in favor of "safety" or "sensibility" by allowing the FA to upgrade. This practice has served us well, but it has rested on the assumptions that (1) the FA is likely to be more thoughtful about altering the route than others might be and (2) there is a measure of respect that we owe the FA in allowing them to decide. I think many people who have hammered away about the FA rule, too, have assumed that (3) the FA is not going to want to add bolts to older routes because they will feel that this "degrades" their image or something. The FA rule has served us well, but it is not 100% perfect.

I disagree on both counts, Dru. Outer Space is a classic climb. So too The Kone in Darrington. Steven Pass Motel anyone? If you look critically at bolted climbs just about everywhere you can find examples of bolts that were "misplaced" for one reason or another or which later turn out to be somewhat obsolete. That was one of the points that Chouinard commented on in his 1961 article that kicked off the modern anti-bolt philosophy Further, I believe that one of the bolts on Cocaine Connection might better be located elsewhere, although I don't know whether I'd actually suggest moving it without going up there and thinking about it, as well as examining the placement with a consideration of whether it could be removed cleanly and thinking about the "useful life" left on the bolt already in place and just how much better would a moved location actually be. -- We could heatedly debate whether this or that particular bolt should ever move, or what makes a climb "classic" so that it must be maintained as a museum, but my point is simply that I don't think "classic status" as defined by age should necessarily determine that a route should never be altered.

Even if the original bolt is in the wrong place? There is a climb where the FA placed a rivet, stood in stirrups, and drilled a bolt hole. Climbers cannot reach the bolt from the stance below it. Most climbers use what amounts to a CHIPPED HOLD, sticking their finger in the rivet hole, to hang on long enough to make the desperate clip. When rebolted with modern hardware, they maintained the original configuration. Good or bad? I can think of another climb where the FA placed some of the bolts while hanging from a hook. These bolts are next to good hook placements but not really in the best locations for the free climber. The bolts are 20 years old and if the FA goes to replace them, should he refuse to consider the possibility that moving one or two of them a few feet from their present location might make the clips easier, reduce rope drag, or better protect a crux? In another location there were two routes with two belay stations about ten or twelve feet apart. One station consisted of five quarter inchers. The other had four. The FA of the four-bolt station removed it, and replaced the five-bolt station with two new bolts. This in fact turns out to be a more sensible belay location for his route as well. Was this an "ill advised" improvement? Another route has a bolt next to a crack. On first ascent, that crack did not offer pro. The gear there is just fine. Should that bolt remain sacrosanct?