mattp

This thread is starting to get humorous: Fairweather says Pinochet was not a vicious dictator but a benevolent saver of thousands if not millions of lives; JayB tries to maintain the argument that it has nothing to do with a desire to control what goes on in an oil-rich part of the world; GregW opines that reservists who signed up in peace time and expected to play war games for one weekend a month are probably glad to be on active combat duty for at least a year. Have I said anything quite that silly?

That's so he can slip the sugar packets in there, under the table. Colin: take note of this if you really want to be the next Fred.

Prior to our invasion, Iraq was probably one of the the least active of all middle east nations in terms of exporting terrorism -- certainly behind Israel (occupied territories), Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan. Now it IS probably at or near the head of the class as a "hotbed" and a rallying cry for any Islamic malcontent who dislikes the U.S. or thinks they can get ahead by fighting the Jihad. I've said it earlier in the thread, but we got side-tracked arguing about whether capitalism is better than communism and whether Pinochet was in Chile or Argentina or whether he saved thousands or perhaps millions of lives. Whether you like it or not, I think we have to stay in there at this point, no?

Go for Kill de Wabbit!

So the Andinista weighs 4 pounds, and the Kelty may be less, but doesn't the HEAVIEST pack out there weigh something like 7 pounds? What is 3 or 4 pounds' difference, when you are carrying 30 or more? Whatever the answer to the question of this thread is, I say get the pack that is (1) the most comfortable and (2) has the features that you want (this may be that it is tough, or that it has the special shovel pocket, or that it is your favorite color, or that it is lighter), but don't sweat over the ounces if you are going to be carrying bivvy gear, food, water, a climbing rack and a rope. Off topic, I know. But ???? In my view, the lighter weight of the Go Lite or the Cloud are not an important advantage -- if you are going to be carring a significant load. If you are speed-hiking the PCT, or if you are going to be making a summit climb on 5.11 rock with just a sandwich and a windbreaker in your pack, worry about the empty weight of your pack.

Am I wrong, or do I remember correctly that they sacked one of their generals who came out in May and said that they didn't have enough American troups in Iraq and we were going to need many more to keep the peace? Does anybody remember this?

Interesting little tidbit: Some other Picketts explorers were there and it was either Mike Swayne or John Roper or maybe it was Silas Wild who commented that Joan Firey had participated a trip based on a similar vision thirty years ago. He pointed out on the panorama which portion of the traverse her party had completed, but at that moment I was discracted and I wasn't quite paying attention. Way to go, Wayne, Colin and Marko for realizing the fantasy of a forebearer that I bet you didn't even know you had!

Crackbolter- There aee lots of ski approaches to technical climbs around here and, although I have a pair of skis with Silveretta's on them, I usually opt for the telemark gear unless I'm headed for something really technical. I haven't climbed anything XTREME with the telemark boots, but have managed to climb many of the "standard" winter climbs around here with them - N. Ridge of Pinnacle Peak, N Face Chair, N.E. Slab of Da Toof, NE Couloir on Colchuck, .... They do just fine.

They DO suck for rock climbing, and they do not perform well on ice if you don't use rigid crampons, that's for sure!!!

Yes, most climbers would agree with you, that on steep water ice a rigid boot or a rigid boot/crampon combination is vastly preferable. But he's mixing it up a bit, talking about "mixed portions and portions where I remove my crampons altogether." There is a lot of mountaineering terrain where a more flexlible telemark boot (not one of the high calf racing boots) IS more comfortable and just as effective as an AT boot. Don't get me wrong. I would not take up telemark skiing for ski-mountaineering if I were starting out today. But the boots are better for mountaineering than your arguments would suggest.

I somewhat agree with alpinist here, Cracked. First, I'll admit that I telemark only because of a historical accident (I abandoned alpine skiing to eat granola and take up cross-country skiing, then the telemark fad came along). ON SKIS, I believe AT gear is probably safer and more effective on steep technical terrain (though telemark gear is better for more touring-oriented terrain). But I've done a lot of mountaineering in my telemark boots and I think they generally ARE more comfortable when travelling ON FOOT. I've never had a problem with the duck bill or with the flexibility of the sole on trails or on snow (these are not helpful features on rock). I've also done a fair number of water ice and mixed climbs with my telemark boots and they perform just fine (I use rigid crampons).

As much as anything else "fast and light" is an advertising campaign designed to attract sponsorship and sell books, magazines and gear. Yes, there have been some amazing accomplishments in recent years as the "new style" has taken hold, but it is really not new. Gu is new and of course nobody ever climbed THOSE particular routes in a "single push" before, but for as long as I can remember there has been a pretty steady progress toward faster ascents and lighter gear, with some climbers taking great pride in climbing such-and-such a route with just a day pack and a great deal of praise being lavished on those who are able to run up something that previously was done only with siege tactics. Lots of good points have been made here, but the bottom line remains: know your limits and think about what you are doing. A faster ascent and descent may minimize your exposure to certain environmental hazards, it may be fun, or you may enjoy the challenge of it - and it may gain you some respect or admiration. However, if you start leaving important gear behind (not the totally unnecessary items like all that extra camping equipment and "toys" like your camera or whatever) you will almost certainly be compromising comfort and you will probably be compromising safety should your plan not quite work out. And when, in the name of speed, you start soloing or simul-climbing things that you would otherwise belay, or when you decide to run it out across avalanche slopes in the middle of the sun rather than wait for a safer time of day, you know you are gambling. Fast and light is fine, but don't be fooled by marketing and don't let folks tell you that the approach that you wish to take is more or less valid than somebody else's. To each their own, but, in my view, the current fixation on "time, car-to-car" is a little misguided.

You can do it, Josh. I skied it, in October, in fog, on a relatively low snow year. I did it just for the novelty (trying to get turns all year), and there was a short section where we had to take the skis off; there was a little bit of bare ice and some minor wandering around crevasses, but nothing serious (we did not put on crampons and there were no scary bridges or anything). It'll be fine unless by "any sort of real crevasse challenges would have to be avoided" you mean that your friend doesn't want to have to walk near step over anyting they might fall into.

In that case, try it at somebody else's house - especially on Saturday night after having a few cocktails. It is a good party trick your host will be sure to appreciate. JUST DON'T RUN IT MORE THAN A SECOND OR TWO.

Try it!

For more fun and entertainment with a microwave, put a light bulb in there. Don't let it run for more than a second or two, though.

Now I see where people may be getting some of their bad habits - from a poor job of restating the law by the Department of Licensing! After looking at that DOL webpage noted by Rockhard, and finding the excerpt about not entering the intersection if you cannot get through it, I decided to look in Chapter 46.61 of the RCW, the statutes which actually set forth those "rules of the road." What I saw was and Unless there is some other law that I missed, I don't think it is in fact illegal to pull out and wait in the middle of the intersection if you are going to be turning left, are not obstructing traffic, and are not going to get stuck there. I think philfort is right that the lack of a requirement for driver's ed encourages the proliferation of bad driving habits.

Rock - That would be a stupid law, though it wouldn't surprise me. However, they can still watch the light, and when they see it turn yellow they can go for it, no?

How about those idiots who are waiting to make a left turn in two-way traffic, and wait behind the line (before entering the intersection) or fail to fully pull out into the intersection and thereby needlessly cause the car behind them to have to wait behind the line. I'm talking about situations when there is no back-up on the cross street, so no chance of getting caught in the intersection if you pull out. I believe it is perfectly legal and safe to pull out, yet their hesitance to do so often causes them and perhaps the driver behind them to completely miss their chance to make a left turn until the next light cycle.

In the context of the litigation that was mentioned at the outset of this thread, I think one of the first questions would be whether the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, or the WTC had some kind of duty to take some precautionary measures that they elected not to take. My guess is that the answer to this question is vague but mostly no. (RobBob noted that any civil engineer probably already knows that the buildings were going to collapse after being hit, though, so maybe they should have ordered an evacuation quicker or something). If the answer to this first question is yes, it would then be time to look at whether and how the failure on the part of the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, or WTC may have actually caused injury (death) to the "victims" and then the third general question would be whether the "victims" had similar duties or ability to foresee the disaster or what they may have failed to do to protect themselves. By the way, I gotta say that I agree with the general feeling that I don't think the victim's families should be able to prevail in this matter, and also the idea (not expressed) that the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, and WTC were also "victims" here.

Sisu, it sounds as if you had good representation in your dispute with your employer but I would not always recommend that somebody look for the wolverine. If you are paying your attorney by the hour, many aggressive attorney's can take a four-hour matter and turn it into forty without substantially improving their client's position. This may happen because the attorney's are greedy, but it also sometimes happens because it reflects their sense of professionalism (they may feel it is unprofessional to do less than everything they can for their client, or to "give in" even on issues that don't matter), and it sometimes happens because their clients ask for this kind of service.

Mount Baker or Three Fingers might offer some fun. Baker of course lacks the moderate rock that you described, but it is one hell of a beautiful mountain, and on Three Fingers you could start with the North Peak, and then hit Middle and South if time permitted.

[grovel] Fairweather, I do not presume to speak for you or all of Americans. My views are my own. I do believe, however, that many Americans are not willing or interested or able to look our relationship with the rest of the world in anything like a balanced manner. How else can I (or you) explain that, as of June, most Americans thought we had in fact (already) found weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq or that, as of yesterday, most Americans think that Saddam was somehow responsible for 911? I believe these are clear examples of self-delusion: many or most Americans find a way to convince theirselves of these things even though neither our elected officials nor even the most hawkish pundits in our national media have said them. I believe that you have repeatedly asserted in the media bias discussions that your views are mainstream and the liberal press is way left of center. Within the last week you told us that you really don't care if Bush"mislead" us about the reasons we were going into Iraq. If you speak for the mainstream, and if you think it is OK for our government to give us false information if that information supports the war effort, how can you say that you and this mainstream that you speak for are not wanting information that supports your view rather than information which may be accurate? When you assert that "we have scattered al queda, at least for a time," are you meaning to suggest that they are today less organized or less capable of carrying out their attacks than they were two years ago? In light of their ongoing activities, and considering yesterday's news article, isn't your assertion an example of what I am talking about (again, assuming that you speak for the mainstream)? You have told us that most Americans trust Fox news rather than the traditional nationally respected media. Do you assert that Fox's mission is to provide fair and balanced information? [End of Grovel]

Sorry rbw, you are right. I "impliedly" but not "specifically" said I was "NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them." Rather than to state it specifically, I wrote that "Do these and similar insurance company practices belie the fact that we are a society of irresponsible whiners? Probably not, but I do not believe that the "problem" is entirely the fault of greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients." I'm a lawyer. I lie. But I don't think I'd be wrong to suggest that the far greater amount of distortion and just plain lying that we read or hear in the media with respect to this issue comes from those that try to argue that plaintiff's attorneys are to blame for everything from high insurance costs to court congestion to the inability of our government to provide basic services.

Obviously, it is not over yet - but it is probably a little too early to start crowing about even a temporary success at this point.