mattp

Seriously, these "tape is aid" pronouncements seem rather silly to me. Rock climbing is nothing more than a game, and to a certain extent we all make up our own rules. If you don't want to use them - don't. But if you belittle someone else who uses them because they are not something you want to carry around, well, you're commenting on yourself more than on that other person. If you want to discuss a somewhat interesting idea, though, the question of "why is rubber on your hands considered aid when rubber on your feet is not" is a good one. Is the reason, perhaps, that all of us use rock shoes but almost nobody uses hand jammies?

I see Polish Bob has an adherant. Hardcores unite!

If you want to get away from the crowds, it is easy to get off the beaten track on Mount Rainier. 90% of the traffic is on the DC and Emmons routes, and only handful of other routes see much traffic at all (the Kautz Glacier route is one of them). I don't know about the Disappointment Cleaver, but it is probably an OK route in the early season. So is the Tahoma Glacier and the Fuhrer Finger - both without much in the way of technical climbing. Also, look at the Kautz Cleaver and two right-hand routes on the Mowich Face: neither is very hard though they do involve a little bit of technical climbing.

Incorrect, Dru. In fact, I I don't think I had anything to do with any of those bannings. Cry to somebody else.

I think your first post was more on the money, Fern. The idea of carrying around a bouldering pad for those climbs with scary starts strikes me as a rather silly idea though obviosly there ARE places where it might help. But if it is a ground-fall at the start of the route that we are talking about, Catbird ought to consider backing down when he gets ten feet up and starts to sketch -- and in the long term he'd benefit more from learning how to keep a cool head and downclimbing than he would from relying on a guidebook to tell him which routes had scary starts or carrying around a bouldering pad "just in case." The idea that "if you're not flying, you're not trying" has its merits, as you note, but such statements are often flung about as juvenile puffery quite apart from their merit. Yes, we all need to push ourselves in order to get better. Many beginning or even relatively advanced climbers these days are used to sport bolted climbing where there is no routefinding judgment involved, no reliance on sketchy gear, and no runout potential. Consequently, today more than ever some of us need more than a little "push" to get beyond being unwilling to suck it up and climb through some truly challenging or runout bit of climbing, but the idea that you are not worthy or will never improve if you are not taking leader falls is just plain wrong - and I think its an invitation to serious injury. Particularly so if this idea is adopted by climbers who for whatever reason lack judment or common sense.

[Obnoxious post by mister Whirlwind noted. Grow up.]

I think my picture may have been April 2000. The first several hundred feet, up to the place where the vale is split by that infamous cliff outcrop, was all avalanche debris.

I believe I took that shot in late April of what I think was a relatively average snow year. Now, Sarah better find your trail, but it shouldn't be too hard --- should it?

Your right, Martlett. I should apologize -- for wasting my time. You obviously do not care to engage on ideas but just want to keep repeating your assertions. Again, I will point out that by showing how Hilary Clinton said Saddam posed a threat you have in no way refuted my statement that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington." In case you don't remember this line, run a Google search and see who said that.

Actually, HE didn't say that the BIG lies came from Bush and the Conservative press, I did. And by pointing out that Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle said that Saddam had weapons in 1998, or even that Hilary said so in 2002, you have done nothing to refute my statement. Mr. Bush said in his STATE OF THE UNION address that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium in Africa - after his own intelligence guys had told his own staff that it was probably untrue. Mr. Powell described the uranium tubes that were supposedly for Uranium enrichment centrifuges in his briefing to the U.N. - again when their own intelligence staff told them this was extremely unlikely or just plain incorrect. Point to where he said Iraq was responsible for 911? You are probably right that nobody in the Bush administration probably said, on tape, that Saddam was behind 911. They are smarter than that. However, they've clearly tried to link Saddam and 911 in the minds of the American public and every poll that has come out on this subject has shown that it has worked! Further, those who watch your beloved "fair and accurate" FOX news are the most consistently misinformed on this point. By far. Has anybody in the Administration put any real effort into clearing up this misconception? I think not. Rather, they STILL tell us we went into Iraq as part of the war on terrorism in response to the 911 attacks and nearly every day they are calling Saddam a terrorist and telling us how much safer from terrorism we are now that they've occupied Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld told us the Iraqi's were going to welcome us as liberators and they sacked the general who warned them that they would find occupation more difficult than they were anticipating. Maybe this wasn't a lie, maybe they actually believed that guy Chalabi and his friends on this point. If so, they are complete idiots -- they believed and repeated a stupid lie. And what about Freedom? Do you really believe that horse manure about how we are in Iraq fighting the good fight so the people in the middle east can live in freedom? We could continue the point by point here: liberals have made some stupid statements at times but it is not the liberals who made blatantly false statements as to the basic circumstances of this war in order to shape the public debate. You're trying to argue that liberals base their opinions on lies? Get a grip, Martlett!

WHAT????????????????????? That fair priced hell hole with plenty of space, ample parking, plenty of games, I-5 access, and a more central location than West Ballard? How could you agree to such a place??????????????????

Martlet, your blind ignorance and unwillingness to read the news is showing pretty badly here. You accuse the liberal moonbots of basing their opinions on untruths, yet the big lies about this war -- all of them -- have come from the BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONSERVATIVE PRESS. It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington. It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam was linked to the 911 attacks. It wasn't the liberals who said the Iraqi people were going to greet us with open arms and we wouldn't need a strong military presence to keep the peace after the mission was accomplished. Get a grip.

The more I learn about this war, the more my moonbat opinions are confirmed. Based on what I know, even considering your stunning revelations about how miserably uninformed I am, my guess is that the facts will show that the folks higher up in the chain of command are concerned with public relations first, and doing the right thing second. This is pure speculation on my part, but I don't expect anybody in any position of power to do more throw a few scapegoats to the dogs and try to tell us how unusual this apparently NOT unusual practice is.

Where do you get this attitude, Martlet? I clearly stated that I DID NOT have all the information. I'm sorry I don't keep up on the do. You must think it helps your argument to be a jerk.

No liberal idiot tried to manufacture news. The original post, and pretty much all those which follow, are based primarily on speculation and nobody is concealing that fact. To me, however, it IS B.S. if CentCom knew what was going on January 13 or earlier, and only now that it has become a big issue do they make what as far as I know is the first arrest and only now, perhaps, they are intervening at all -- and mostly out of a desire to do damage control it seems. I understand that war is ugly, and notwithstanding the heartfelt objections raised by the "liberal idiots" in this thread, there may even be a place for this kind of conduct (though I don't think it sounds like this will turn out to have been even close to justified). But the whole thing looks pretty hypocritical to me.

So what's your point, Mr. Martlet? I agree that it is a little bit of a stretch to assert that the photographs MUST have been taken for blackmail purposes, but I'd also have to say that it IS plausible that this was somebody's motivation for taking or for keeping them. Anyway, aside from that curiosity, Rumsfeld apparently knew about this activity as early as January, and the Red Cross reported it last Fall. Yet it was all kept rather quiet until now. Ask yourself: doesn't this "smell" like some kind of coverup? I know that since the Nuremberg Trials we of the "civilized world" have said that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense but, rather than arrest some twisted sadist female footsoldier, shouldn't we be seeking to hold those responsible for overseeing the whole program responsible for doing just that? To me, Rumsfeld's apologies sounded like Richard Nixon: "I'll tak all of the responsibility but none of the blame." (I know, the Dems are just as bad.)

I received a whiplash neck injury doing the big smackdown after catching a tip last Sunday. Injuries DO suck.

Yes, I'm sure there is "interest in returning the Olympic National Park to its natural state," but in my view that is currently the case without further loss of roadway access. Yes, you can drive into the Hoh Rainforest or up to Hurricane Ridge or out to Rialto Beach in your Winnebago, but over 90% of the park is roadless area right now. I think it is very cool that way -- even were the Dosewallips road restored it'd still be a good example of a park where there are quite ample recreational opportunities and your grandmother can go there and actually see what lies within the park while at the same time it contains a vast wilderness. Beyond "lets make it natural," are there specific concerns that lead people to want to abandon that Dosewallips road? I'm with my man Fairweather on this one -- it seems that there are some people who just don't want anybody to be able to get into the woods at all. I'd write a scathing letter to my public representatives, but before I start calling folks names I'd like to hear if they have some specific concerns that I should consider.

Can anybody explain why "they" seek to block the reconstruction of the road? Is there any issue other than the basic idea that roads are a bad thing - I mean is somebody arguing that there is rare elk habitat or something in the Dosewallips?

Yes, the first five rappels are off stuff very similar to bushes. They're a little messy with loose rock, bushes and flakes, and they are low angle so the rope doesn't throw well. Climbers used to more civilized and steeper rappels complain bitterly about this descent but the problems are really very easy to deal with for precisely the same reasons as they occur: the rock is low angled and there are bushes and flakes to grab if you have to go back up for a stuck rope. The rope generally pulls OK, though, and the problems mostly plague the first one down the rope only. Just take your time and expect to get the rope tangled up every time you throw it down. This kind of terrain is not the place to try to make time by doing extra long rappels.

Dude is right that the extension does hamper getting in and out of your pack, and it does add some weight, but I think it is a plus in general. Similarly, I'd opt for the double-thickness bottom if you are going to be doing much mountaineering where sitting glissades will be involved. The waist belt, too, is a place where I would not skimp on weight. I have had no problems with my standard (fat) waist belt getting in the way of my climbing harness and the way it carries a heavy load is phenomenal. In my opinion, the weight of your (empty) pack is not a major concern. You can go for every bell and whistle in the book and the difference will only be an extra pound or two. I like a plain pack with just two daisy chains up the back because these are not in the way when you are not using them and they tend not to snag on bushes or on the trunk of your car as much as those specialized things for ice tools, wands, crampons or a snow shovel. Also the daisy chains more easily adapt for carring the odd item like the folding chair or the ski boots that don't fit inside your pack, but its an issue of flexibility and a clean outside profile more than one of weight. It is all that extra gear and food or the completely unnecessary tent that makes your load heavy, not the extra few ounces that you can shave off by trimming down the extension skirt or the waistbelt or the other "options" on your pack. (I do pull out the stays and remove the top flap, sometimes pull off the side straps, and occasionally even remove the waist belt to lighten up the pack for a summit climb, though.)

I have a SARC, about 10 years old, and I love it. I don't have any of the attachments, and I got it without the zipper on the back, but I had Dan put a semi-circular zipper on the side. He didn't like "messing up" his design that way, but I find it handy for stuffing a down sweater in and out of the pack at rest stops. The pack carries a week's worth of gear for an Alaskan alpine climb just fine, and it also does very well for day trips with a lot of junk. I can throw a rope, rack, and half-rack in there just fine, and for summit climbs I remove the aluminum stays and it climbs pretty well, too. Even without molded foam and fancy stiffeners, the McHale double-buckle waist belt is the most comfortable I have ever used.

I'm not confusing anything, Mr. Puget. You seem to somehow view refusing to sign an agreement that most of our allies seemed to want signed as "cooperation," and you apparently don't want to answer my question.

I ask only a simple question, Mr. Puget: GENERALLY SPEAKING, if you had only to categories to select from, do you believe Mr. Bush has been A) cooperative or B) uncooperative. I stated that I believe he has been generally uncooperative, and that undermining and refusing to abide by U.N. resolutions is an example of this. You said that I was confusing cooperation with the UN with cooperation with other nations, as if to say that he HAS been cooperative with other nations -- just not the U.N. So which is it: A) cooperative or B) uncooperative. There are no squirlly defnitions needed for a simple overbroad and vague statement like this.

Real men and their wives don't drive a Golf -- even to the grocery store. Those cars are for west side liberal city dwellers.