mattp

You missed it, Otto. The TERRORISTS shut down cc.com last night.

I don't think you are correct there, CJ. Certainly, some people will post whether or not they are going to be flipped a bunch of crap, so maybe you mean traffic volume is not necessarily directly related to spray tolerance? You don't really mean that nobody could ever be discouraged by how their posts are received - do you?

I realize I'm a little late in the game, after four pages, but I think Gary raises a valid and, for cc.com, important issue. As I read it, Gary's initial thesis was that more people would post trip reports and offer useful information if cc.com was more civilized, and I think this is true. I know dozens of climbers who rarely post here or who have quit posting because of the inane, obnoxious, or downright rude treatment that even the most serious topics sometimes draw on cc.com. If we were a little more consistent about segregating the wheat from the chaff, I think we probably would see broader participation. My view is that if some guy posts yet the fifth trip report about Mount Stuart in two weeks and you find this boring - you should scroll on past. If some guy puts his foot in his mouth while asking a dumb question about what knot to use for a belay anchor, you really don't have to smack him in order to bask in the knowledge that you are superior. On the other hand, ChucK said it on page one of this thread and I agree: there has been greater restraint recently than at some periods in the past, and in fact we DO have quite a lively and varied discussion here as well as many of us are able to waste all day at work or perpetrate a bait and bash any time we want. Two years ago, I don't think that someone would have gotten a helpful response if they asked what kind of boots to wear for a climb of the standard route on Mount Adams, or what kind of bolts to use in conglomerate. Meanwhile, you can find a partner for an evening workout or contact information for the bush pilot who will serve your next expedition, and the site has become the home for most reports of new alpine climbs in the region.

PP, I've been wondering about that. It always seems a bit of a nuisance to wind the tape around my hands, and I do think that even being careful to avoid taping in a manner that constricts the muscles I may still be doing to to some extent, but I have yet to adopt the gloves andI think a carefully applied tape job offers better coverage. By the way, CB, I don't think the tape on the palm of my hands has ever caused any problem, but the convenience of the tape gloves is certainly a worthy consideration.

How do you think they'll portray this scene: This woiuld make for good entertainment, eh KK? web page

ABC is apparently re-editting the movie. New York Daily News If this is typical of the truthfulness of the film, then I'd say the flap is justified.

Who? Bush?

This is not quite on topic, but there may be another question associated with taping your wrist. When you make a fist, your wrist expands a little bit. My guess is that if you tape around your wrist with your hand held in a neutral position, you will reduce your power to the hand and fingers in some way. When I had an elbow tear some years back, I would use a band of tape around my forearm just below the elbow to prevent fully firing the muscles that controlled my hand and attached just above the elbow.

If it bothers, you, CJF, turn off our computer or go brows myspace.com.

I guess the question about this documentary is this: is it a documentary or drama, or is it propaganda. Given current politics, it is hard to believe it is not some kind of propaganda but of course both Dems and Reps are going to try to spin it their way nonetheless. This Time Magazine article presents a fairly lengthy history of the Bush administration’s pre-911 efforts to combat the terrorism threat which was drawn to their attention by Clinton officials. They Had A Plan Mostly, it reads to me as if there were bureaucratic and political impediments to getting a serious anti-terrorism program in place, not just along the lines of a national conscience or large scale consciousness such as W alluded to in his first post, but also at a more ground-level or interoffice kind of level. In part, the outgoing Clintonites presented a plan to pursue Bin Laden and the Bushies didn’t want to endorse something set up by their predecessors. THere were, however, other prioirities among the Bush people: the missile defense system, for example, and Rumsefeld's light and fast military. Neither this article nor anything else I have read suggests that Clinton was particularly effective on terrorism and in my opinion, Bush hasn't really been either - but I bet historians could spend a great deal of time debating this question of who was “better” on terrorism - or who would have done what under different scenarios. I’d have a hard time swallowing it if this “docudrama” suggests that Clinton was responsible for allowing 911 to occur and Bush was not. I think Crux raised a good question: who is going to pay for this documentary.

Are you saying that if we did change our lives, or perhaps rethink our foreign policy in the Middle East, the terrorists would have won? My guess is that is not quite what you are saying, but we've heard statements along these lines...

My number 1 partner for a couple of years now. My nephew, Toby.

P.S. Don't tell mom we forgot the helmets.

If you lost a chalk bag at Pineapple Pass, we have it.

Climb: The Tooth-South Face Date of Climb: 9/4/2006 Trip Report: ChucK reported five cams stuck on this route last week, so Toby and I thought we'd go take a look. Somebody must have read the report and gone up there with a coathanger. We saw two fixed pieces yesterday. Thanks, ChucK. We didn't score any booty, but the Tooth is truly a Cascade Classic. (In fact, it is probably better than the Gritscone and Bruce's Boulder and Mt. Pilchuck - combined!) It was a little warm, but we had a great day and the ice cream after we were done was pretty good too! Gear Notes: peanut butter and honey sandwiches Approach Notes: lots of rock hopping

Again, maybe you and I are not reading the same newspapers, Fairweather, but the book referred to at the start of this thread says it and the Washington Post editorial so proudly cited by JayB even admits the fact that the ultimate source of the Plame leak was the White House. As far as I've seen, nobody is debating why the famous memo was circulated in the White House, either. Maybe you are confused but you shouldn't be. Not just because of this affair, but due to their consistent lies, self-dealing that boggles the imagination, getting us into a disastrous war, doing all they can do to shred the Constitution, and just the fact that the whole dam lot of them are a bunch of crooks and liars -- they SHOULD be led off to prison in handcuffs.

It was good, but I'd only give it a b+ . It was a little muddied in its logic, I think and it wasn't as direct as it might be. When is somebody really going to start the heavy hitting and come on out and call a spade a spade?

Yes, Capp, I climbed your buttress. As I said, I climbed both that one and the one to the right, in the 1980's. I climbed the main one first exiting via the obvious escape gully that you avoided, and a second time I climbed the "rib between the gullies" and then hopped over to the left to finish at the summit. Look at the photo above: the central buttress is the one that is left of center in this view, with the left hand buttress as your pal Rat notes ending at the tower just on the edge of the frame. There are actually at least six or seven distinct buttresses on that wall. I have an aerial shot that I'll see about uploading so you can take a look.

Pardon my error, Peter. As you and I and everybody else who has been paying attention knows, we are talking about a reported attempt to purchase Uranium. That is the allegation that the President made more than once. It was untrue. The White House had been told to take it out of his speeches. They did not. That is what this whole debate is about. Not whether Wilson was recommended by his wife, or whether his report was tanked or whether he conclusively proved anything. At least as early as January, the White House has acknowledged that they had been told to take it out of the State of the Union Speech and they have apologized for "those sixteen words." Any attempt to focus on whether Wilson was inaccurate, or whatever other smoke you are trying to blow is just that: dodge and weave. Have a nice day.

Dodge and weave. HELLO! Jay,Puget. Consider this: Nobody is saying that Wilson was incorrect. Nobody. There never was any attempted Uranium purchase. And this: Wilson says he concluded that there had been no Uranium purchase. We haven't read the report, but apparently it has been dissected and misrepresented a bit. For example, it was reported in the Post that it said the Iraqi's tried to purchase uraniium in 1998, but it actually said it had been the Iranians. If the conclusions or teh specific words of that report are important in this debate why isn't it published? And this: The White House has acknowedged that the President continued to make the charges about the Uranium purchase after they were told it was, at best, questionnable. Remember their rationale: it was ONLY 16 words? And this: In all of the smoke, even your fantastic editorial admists that the Valerie Plame leak, whether first published by Armitage or not, actually originated in the White house at a time when they were in fact talking about how to discredit Wilson. Remember the Memo? I ask again: do you think Wilson should not have spoken out? And I'll ask: Do you think his wife deserved to be outed? Do you think the White House had nothing to do with it?

"Liar" would be closer to the mark than "apologist." Wilson did pretty much debunk the Niger Uranium story and, although his report may not have been circulated to the Whitehouse, they received a phone call and a memo from Tenet, the Director of the CIA, asking them to remove the matter from the President's speeches because it was probably false. Our man Bush continued to make the charge. The OpEd is not apologizing for anything, it is actively trying to deceive the reader. Were you, Jay, actually convinced - at any time - that Wilson should not have brought his knowledge that the President lied about the Uranium to the public eye?

Sadly, someone might read Jay's editorial and find it convincing.

Right on, gents. Nooksack Tower is just plain gorgeous and also one of the hardest summits to obtain in the State, as well as attached to what is probably THE quintessential Cascade peak. This is one of my favorite Cascade climbs - all things considered. From what I've gathered, you made a good move heading right to the "strenuous cracks" instead of taking the tempting cracks heading up and left on that "headwall." You didn't need those crampons anyway.

Chuck's picture shows the first two pitches of Safe Sex (pretty close, anyway), and this variant as well as the original start of Dreamer both start at the base of the Botany 101 dihedral just to the right of the lowest red dot in this photo. You will have a hard time missing this spot if you aim for it. The best approach is to scramble up bushy flakes to reach that location from below and right as opposed to what most parties do, which is to follow an obvious dihedral that leads more directly to the base of the Botany 101 dihedral, reaching it from the left, and which causes most climbers to get a little scared and break out the rope in an awkward spot. I'd recommend starting as shown here, on Safe Sex, or starting 150 feet - 200 feet lower and to the left where you may want to start with "Dreamer Direct" and "Urban Bypass" to reach the 4th pitch of the original Dreamer. Of the available options, I'd say the original pitches 1 and 2 of Dreamer are the least attractive.

It goes all the way to the very top. article about President Bush's sense of humor