mattp

I know it's said A-1, but I took one of the longest falls of my climbing career on that pitch. That was many years ago and I haven't thought I needed to go back.

In past years, there have been some spouses and sprayers hanging aroung the campsite during the day at ropeup, and I've felt pretty good about leaving my stuff unlocked and unattended. However, thefts in campgrounds are not unheard of -- take whatever you may think are appropriate precautions and don't rely on someone else to watch your stuff. I don't think anybody is going to be appointed security, but maybe that could be a lottery type thing and the "loser" has to sit around and not climb.

I'm wondering if anybody around here has done Shot in the Dark. I believe that Duane Constantino said it was one of his best efforts and I'm thinking it might be cool to upgrade the hardware. I wouldn't want to try it in its current condition!

You might have been on Luke. I've never done that one, but I've heard folks say it was pretty good and I think I remember there was a travese in there somewhere. Two pitches; 'don't remember the rating - 5.10a?

In my book, the start of Cornucopia route is on the plants, because the face offers little friction. How far left of Tidbits was your mystery route? Was it the next route left - immediately to the right of a newer one? I can't quite picture it from your description. Was it headed for a steep rib with a retreat sling hanging on an old bolt maybe 40 feet up? You could have been on Magic Bus. I think ChucK's picture is of that route:

We had ropeup at the Eighmile site the first year. I don't remember the layout, really, but there was plenty of room. You enter the campground and turn left at the dumpster.

I like about half of that Jack Johnson release. I guess that is not a bad average for recodings from that school of music. For the JazzFunk, Head Hunters is pretty good, though certainly "dated." The early Funkadelic stuff had some jazzy elements to it, as well.

Every one of those guys is a great musician in his own right. They went on to be the leaders of several of the most popular fusion bands for the next ten years. For those who don't recognize the name, Zawinul was the keyboard player for Weather Report. Tony Williams didn't become as popular as the others - he had an eerie and strange taste in music that made him harder to listen to, and much of what Dave Holland did as a band leader was a little too abstract for most fans but I think some of his stuff was really terrific - though it was less fusion and more "free jazz." He played base on all kinds of great fusion stuff with Wayne Shorter, Chick Corea, etc., but I liked the free jazz stuff with Anthony Braxton and Sam Rivers. I think you had to see it live to gain an understanding of it, though -- then the recordings took more life.

Friday, September 30th, through Sunday, October 2. We'll have the group campsite at the Eight Mile Campground in Icicle Creek, Friday and Saturday nights. Come joins us around the camfire or hook up for a climb. This is an annual celebration. We'll have a couple of slideshows, a gear swap is brewing, and there will some opportunity for inexperienced climbers to try their hands on some deliciious Icicle Creek granite with some help from more experiencd climbers while others head off to climb on their own or wander around the canyon, enjoying the scenery. It'll be a very good time ... hope you can make it.

He definitely had a big attitude, but lots of musicians did and still do. In addition to Bitches Brew, In a Silent Way is a terrific "fusion" album. It has an incredible cast, as well: * Miles Davis - trumpet * Wayne Shorter - soprano saxophone * John McLaughlin - electric guitar * Herbie Hancock - electric piano * Chick Corea - electric piano * Joe Zawinul - organ * Dave Holland - bass * Tony Williams - drums I think In a Silent Way was Miles' first real electric album and it was highly criticized at the time by some who said he had "sold out." It is far easier to listen to, very understated, in comparison to Bitches Brew which came next. I liked fusion at the time, but most of it didn't hold up - at least for me. I still listen to In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew quite a bit. For an earlier album, I like Kinda Blue.

Yes, the chest harnes is the way to go if you have a full sized camera and are not on technical ground. And theere's a lot to be said for the old SLR's -- I had one that withstood being dropped and didn't seem to mind the rain and worked GREAT until it got stolen afer I'd had it for fifteen years. I bet there isn't a modern digital that will ever match that.

Landing Pad for Jesus: Apocayptic Christians & Bush

I used to carry around a full sized camera for the same reason, and I think it is lots of fun to chase after really good pictures but most partners don't want to wait around while I fool with the camera and, for ski photos and climbing photos on the fly, a point and shoot pocket camera can't be beat. My last digital died on a wet weekend when I was fairly careful to keep it in a ziplock. Funny, though, I opened it up and took the battery and card out and kept testing it and it magically popped back to life about three months later.

I've been leaning toward that one, but I'm concerned about the performance in low light. Some reviews say the image quality is poor even in good light, but I think it is generally not thought a good performer in low light. Red eye is also a stated problem, but of course that is easily correctable with photoshop.

I think there are two different fundmentals at odds here: features vs. pocket size. I'm unclear what the advantage of having control of the aperture is if we are talking about a pocket camera as I've been perfectly happy with just being able to select +1 or -1 Fstop or "backlight" or "slow" or whatever. For active climbing shots, most of us want something that fits in a shirt pocket. Yes, I understand how one can manipulate deapth of field and contrast and etc. with full manual control, but I'm thinking that, for a climbing camera (pocket sized), qualities like good low-light capability, wide(er) angle zoom in addition to at least 3x optical, and waterproofness would be more important. If you want a real camera, that is a different story. But if you are hiking around looking for shots and setting up for them and stuff like that and really thinking about aperture settings, you are probalby packing a tripod and god knows what else anyway. Thoughts? Models?

Right on, Bug. In past years, I've taken folks up their first multipitch climbs but I won't be able to do that this year. Doxey is going to be setting some top ropes for new climbers as well - somebody could get the full on cc.com immersion if you take one of Doxey's graduates up R&D and then suggest they post a trip report with full-on epic tales of greatness. Oh -- by the way, the group campsite is going to be at Eightmile Campground this year because Bridge Creek was already reserved.

Actually, Catbird, there is a "relevant" point in Joseph's statement and my reply: one who contemplates establishing a new route should think about the context -- that is, how it will fit into the area and whether it may cause access problems or stimulate bolting conflicts or cause other problems. (Granted, this is only tangentially relevant to the initial question "how is is it done".)

That has sometimes been the case, but it has also happened that the climbers who react against sport climbing to wage the bolt wars and draw land owners or land managers into those conflicts actually cause the access problem, and trad climbing itself has also caused access problems.

For smaller diameter ropes, I prefer a slightly stiffer hand because i think it means they tend to whip around things a little less when you pull a rappel - so they get stuck a little less. I had no complaints about the stratos failing any "smoothness" test, and in fact I have owned several pairs over the years and the old ones are only slightly stiffer than the new. Stratos ropes are tough.

For now this has been canned, and the property is going to be turned over to the city as an extension of the park. however, as we all know this could change. How'd that come about? That's good news! Too bad they already built the sewage treatment plant there, though.

I really don’t think we know what drives Seattle area public policy and planning decisions, but I sure as hell don’t think it is any overriding sense of what is a good idea. I’ve lived here for over twenty years (does that make me a native?) and it sure seems to me that the overriding principal here is that THE DEVELOPER ALWAYS WINS. Could it be that the Monorail is failing because it won’t generate the government-sponsored largess that other large-scale developments have? I’ve seen the big building boom in the 80’s, when Martin Selig seemed to pretty much have his way with the City and, for example, he was allowed 20 extra floors on the Columbia Tower (what do they call it now?) because he gave “concessions” like all that “public space” on the lower 5 floors so he was allowed to build above the existing cap on building heights to 40 stories or something like that. Then there was the Norsdtrom parking garage – who benefited from that? And then the Microsoft campus had a highway built just for it alone (sort of), and the Westlake Mall was built as a “city park” when in reality it was a private development. Who is paying for that wonderful highway exit and access road for the Issaquah Highlands? Paul Allen offered to build a “commons” but we the voters turned it down (maybe that was a good decision and maybe not) but isn’t the City going to let him do whatever he wants? And we’re going to have “exclusive” housing development in the middle of Discovery Park, last I heard. Is it perhaps the case that the Monorail is being shot down because it is good for “the people” but not good for Mr. Big? I don’t know if the City/County/State officials are getting rich off of any of this, but I bet the developers are! I also bet that we, the taxpayers, are contributing mightily to every one of these projects. I really don’t know the truth of any of this, but I wonder.

The real question I have is this: why are the powers that be so set against the monorail? From day one most powerful people around town have been shooting it down and thats why we've had four votes to build it and it h hasn't gotten anywhere while, by contrast, we've voted no on two stadiums that have gotten built. Why are we moving forward on light rail, but not the monorail - is it really an inherently bad idea? Yes, some say that an elevated line is ugly and they note that Fifth Avenue has suffered from the impact, but hey: a monoral line doesn't block traffic and isn't it much cheaper per mile than light rail? Yes, Ballard to West Seattle may not be the most heavily travelled route in the city, but won't the light rail serve or potentially serve SE and NE Seattle so a line serving NW and SW portionsof the City would seem to compliment that, right? It seems to me there are plusses and minuses here, but we're not talking about them. It's not about whether the little guy gets screwed when land is condemned -- as we have been discussing here, and I don't think it is about whether the financing package is no good -- as we've been discussing in the media. What are the real issues? Do we really think the monorail board has been incompetent while Sound Transit has been well run?

Plexus- I've heard of several people trying to get to Bacon Peak from Mount Watson and proclaiming it "impossible." Based on their reports, I'm guessing you have to drop down into Noisy Creek somwewhere, rather than follow the ridge crest. Have you done this trip?

You seem at least equal to me, at least as far as arguing for entertainment. Don't give up! Really, though, I think this whole question is an interesting one. I don't know what to make of all the morass of politics we face over public transit. Is the monorail a bad idea? I don't know. To borrow from your "clarification," all I'm saying is that I really don't know if the monorail is a bad idea or not.

That's why I asked for clarification of your viewpoint, Archy. When you wrote stuff like how no one's property was comandeered or stolen to make biketrails and said you didn't understand why the little guy had to get screwed for public transit and held out busses as an example of how the little guy doesn't get screwed, it looked to me like you were arguing a rather strong line against public condemnation for transit. Where you express sympathy for the victim of urban growth -- at least in the form of transit expansion -- I'm with you. I'm not sure the situation is as you suggest, however, if you are suggesting that the property owner is always or even usually forced to sell their property for some under-valued amount or that roads and street-cars do not require takings of private property. (I'm not putting words in your mouth here, am I?) Also, I am sure the "little guy" who lost his or her house is unhappy about the situation even if they got 110% of "actual market value" unless they were planning to sell anyway -- and when they look back after the transit is completed and (maybe) values in the area have gone up, they are probably even less happy about it. It'd be interesting to lear what payments were made to those who are losing their property for stations along the new light rail line and what accomodations/support/etc. is going into Rainier Valley or the U. District and what this is going to do for the "little guy." I don't know -- do you? Where you read in the newspaper that the local chamber of commerce says area businesses are going to be severly impacted, or when Mr. Citizen Activist comes out with some alarming cry and it is published in the newsapaper alongside predictions of ecomonmic growth and talk of an improved quality of life in the area I don't really know what to make of it all. By the way, you ignored my last red herring. If it penciled out to be a good idea in terms of practical transporation coirridors and cost, What would you say to a proposal to convert some of the bike paths that have been built through "rails to trails" programs back to rails again?