mattp

Fence Sitter - Still you refuse to address remarks that I believe are proven to have been lies at the time they were stated to the UN. There never was any purchase of weapons grade material form Africa and our government at least knew that the evidence for that purchase was shakey and almost certainly knew the documents were false. Is what you mean to say that they may have lied to the UN but it doesn't matter because, in the end, you know that they lied for the right reason?

Dru's idea is not new. By the way, I do not do anything differently with hinged or rigid crampons as far as how I pack them in or on my pack. Your question implies you think it would be more difficult to pack the hinged crampons, but they are actually easier to deal with because they have less "agressive" front points and they also usually have longer straps. Since I always make sure they are tied on two different ways if they are on the outside of my pack, flopping is not a problem.

Veggie - War is Peace.

So Fence - you refuse to address the point still. Did they or did they not say those things? Were those statements true or not? Trask at least throws up a smokescreen in saying the reports that discredited those statements must all have come from the liberal press (I'd have to do some research on this point but I beieve he is way wrong- I don't think it is only the liberal press that has said so and I don't think there is much doubt that there was no active nuclear weapons program, no purchase of weapons grade material form Africa, the aluminum tubes could not have been used for centrifuges, etc...).

Fence Sitter - You have the same problem that Veggie has - a special brand of selective amnesia and a refusal to discuss a point. We are talking about lies or distortions that were offered before the war to justify going in there -- statements that have been proven to have been completely inaccurate at the time that they were offered. Yes, they may still find some WMD -- but that would not change the fact that they lied repeatedly.

Veggie - Did you look at the original post on this thread? It is almost exclusively referring to statements that have proven to be lies or, at best, major distortions of the truth that were offered with complete disregard for contradictory information. It is not too soon to call Bush and Powell liars. I wouldn't be surprised if they find some evidence of chemical or biological weapons, and of course we all know that Saddam was a terrible dictator and his people had the know-how to make WMD even if they didn't have anything when we went in there, and one might well argue that we were going to have to go in sooner or later, but this thread is about offering lies to justify our foreign policy. Apparently you have no problem with that. I suppose you must think "the ends justify the means" or something like that -- when it comes to Bush and company.

Trask- Are you among those who said that Clinton had to be impeached because he lied about getting a blow job?

Do any of you guys who think GW is great and Luna is bad question any of the following points: 1. In his State of the Union Address Bush said that Iraq had: "...up to 300,000 warheads, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and an advanced nuclear weapons program." 2. At the UN, Powell stated that the US had clear evidence on the location of chemical weapons facilities. 3. At the UN, Powell stated that Iraq had bought those aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges to produce weapons grade material. 4. We also said they had tried to purchase weapons grade material from Niger for atom bombs. 5. At the UN, Powell showed pictures of a terrorist training camp on the Iran border? 6. Not one of the above has turned out to be true and all of these statements have turned out to be be based on false or misleading information that the President and the Pentagon either knew was incorrect or which they had ample reason to doubt at the time that they issued these statements? Call me a cynic, but I think there is little doubt that they are deliberately trying to mislead the American public and the world.

Dreamer (at Darrington) is a good 5.9 testpiece in that it has slab, crack and face climbing, you have to place some of your own protection even though it is mostly bolted, it presents significant rope-management issues, and it is long enough that you have to have your game reasonbly well dialed-in or you won't make it. Very few parties who are only competent up to 5.9 are able to pull it off on their first visit.

I've done a lot of mountain climbing and I have never owned a pack that had a crampon patch, and never used any special crampon straps, and have never damaged a pack with my crampons or lost them. I've never used spike protectors, either, except when packing the crampons inside a duffel for airplane travel or a Yak train or something. It looks as if the pack pictured may not be set up to carry things on the outide, so the bleach bottle would work or you could wrap them in a small square of canvas or get a crampon bag an put them inside the pack. Even if they are pretty well-protected by one of these methods you may not want to pack them next to your super-light down sweater, but when bushwacking I often carry my crampons inside the pack and if I am carefull about how I do so they do no damage. Personally, I just face the crampons together, trying to pair the front points as best I can so that they tend to block each other, wrap one of the straps around them to keep them together and, if there is enough strap left, I lash them on the outside of the pack wherever I can with one of the ankle straps (it is a good idea to be sure a loop of it somehow goes through the frame of the crampon that it is not directly attached to). Then I clip an extra carabiner or use a piece of cord to make the whole thing hang straigt and tight, and to serve as a backup in case the strap comes undone.

How dare somebody suggest they know something that Wallstein does not? He's a great climber and a great guy, but this is a discussion board and doesn't always have to be about "I know better than you." Keep an open mind, and one day you may find out that some newbie not even finished with mounty school actually has a good idea that you could learn from.

While many here espouse a disdain for media personalities, lots of folks care who it is that they meet and they are justifiably more excited to run into Steve House or Fred Beckey or even Dan - on the trail than they would be to meet some unknown climber -- because these are people they have been reading about and thinking about.

I've been using the butterfly coils for years and it works fine for me, though I do usually flake it out because i tangle it often enough that it seems worth the extra time needed to flake it out - and since this is only necessary at the start of the first pitch of something it doesn't seem to be too much of a time drain to flake the rope. These French-coil or the carefully-unfold-and-stack-the-butterfly ideas sound worth trying, but there's a good chance I'll continue to make a mess of my rope. My hands are not size 14 and at the end of a climb I am usually not in as much of a mood to carefully stow the thing as I am, at the beginning of one, in the mood to carefully set it up for a lead. For the last few years, however, I've been climbing with someone who likes the old fashioned circular coil despite the twisting imparted that way, and I've found myself more and more using this method -- especially when I'm not going to stuff the rope in a pack. A coil thrown over the shoulder carries much more comfortably than the butterfly-tied-into-a- pack.

Agreed, PP, that there are some good climbs there; and Catbird may be right that "sucks" is too harsh a word (if that is his point). I'm sorry I dissed such a magnificant gem of a climbing area but it is Friday and I have nothing better to do but to say absolutely stupid things like Exit 38 is probably my least favorite of all Washington climbing areas. That doesn't mean I won't go there, though -- only that I'd go somewhere else given the chance.

Actually, Mr. Bird, there are at least a couple of crags in that area. Fee Demo Wall, and "Pillars of the Earth." I thought Dryad may have been asking about the latter, which may have a couple of bolts on it but is not a slab area with 4 or 5 bolted climbs.

Catbird- If you don't understand why Exit 38 sucks -- and you've been there -- you must have a different idea of aesthetics than I do. The place is an overcrowded eyesore, next to an interstate in one of the wettest areas within driving range of Seattle. The climbing is certainly challenging, but it is not what I call exciting or imaginative and there is nothing I would call a "great line." Exit 38 is good for a pump after work or when I don't have time to go anywhere else, and my hat is off to the guys who developed it, but it is certainly not a destination climbing area in my view.

Damn right, ChucK. It is generally a poor idea to take a large group of inexperienced climbers up a route that you haven't got completely figured out. At the worst it could be dangerous, at best they will all be standing around while you figure out where you are going to set your belays.

Thanks all, for helping make the event a success!! I drove by there this a.m. and I picked up somebody's kiddie juice cup but the place looked OK.... maybe they'll let us come back some time.

See you there.

While you are at Magnuson Park tonight, think about what it would be like if they built 20 astroturf fields down there and lit them up with enough candlepower to rival the downtown stadiums. The current plan is to build a regional sports complex there for adult leagues from Kent to Everett. friends of Magnuson Park website

I believe it was May or June when a friend of mine broke his leg on Mount Ruth becuase he hit a small crevasse in mid turn. The slot wasn't big enough to fall into or anything, but it was enough to seriously catch a ski! It was a nice clean break, though.

Considering just such tactics, wasn't it Ivan Coonyard who posed the question: when does a nut become a pin?

Here is where we will be:

We DO need some nonalcoholic beaverages. Remember, beer is not allowed in Seattle Parks.