mattp

Indeed, Ian, I do keep a little extra.

Fence, just to be clear about this I should say that we all believe Clinton was a liar. Your initial completely vague assertions that he told some unidentified lie about Kosovo just didn't cut it and at least you have now told us how it was that you think he lied about it. It would further help to make the comparison if you could provide a single citation or source for what you are saying. Either way, however, I don't think that will change my opinion about GW and company. They went before the UN and the American public and offered what were either blatant lies or unchecked facts as "evidence" to justify the war.

Catbird- I believe it is a better idea to travel on the middle third of the rope, with each climber carrying enough rope to reach the other. That way, you have the option of lowering a second rope to your victim after protecting the edge of the crevasse so it won't cut into the lip, and you can do things like haul up their pack, or rap down to provide first aid, or whatever else you may need to do.

In a word, yes. Didn't they say he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Didn't they make a big deal about how our troops had to carry gas masks and special suits to protect themselves because he was likely to use these things against us even if it meant he would kill lots of civilians in the process? Weren't our soldiers almost certainly ordered to look for and secure any such weapons? Meanwhile, do you want to fill us in on the Kosovo lie?

I'm sorry you feel misunderstood here, Fence. I said that "they" tried to suggest that Clinton was as bad of a liar because he lied about the blow job - and I failed to point out that it was actually Cavey who tried to make that particular point. What I said was true, however. You repeatedly asserted that Bush did not lie, then you switched tactics and insisted that you were all along arguing that all politicians lie. How is that misconstruing what you said?

It won't work, Ursa. Mr. Fence, like way too many Americans, refuse to look at the facts of the situation because they don't want to question their fearless leader. Yesterday we saw a couple guys repeatedly assert that Bush was not a liar while refusing to address the specific examples given. After this was pointed out, like ten times, they changed their argument to say that all politicians lie, and they say that Clinton was just as bad because he lied about a blow job and about not inhaling. Realizing that this is rediculous - the idea that lying about one's private life is somehow comparable to lying about the need to go to war - Fence told us that Clinton lied about Kosovo but he is unable to tell us what Clinton said that was a lie or when he might have said it. You can't have a logical discussion with these guys. That is why Alpine K says we're all a bunch of suckers, I bet.

So like I said, it sounds like you think the ends justify the means. You and Mr. Bush may be right that it was a good idea to invade Iraq -- we shall see. But they lied - and you apparently agree that it looks as if they lied, although you offer as an excuse the possibility that they were merely misinformed. You seem to think that is OK, but I don't like it. If they lied I don't like it and if they were making national policy decisions based on "misinformation" that could easily be debunked, I like it even less.

Gotta love those pop-ups. Maybe if we play our cards right, Jon and Tim will set up this site to generate a bunch of that kind of stuff. "The world's tiniest horsecock" and "Your computer is infected -- you need the spray fest eliminator or you'll never get it to shut down." That'd be cool.

Actually, I "said" cronies and you think I was "implying" Republicans. But you misunderstand me here if you think I am suggesting I believe in the Democrats. I certainly don't like the Republican party and I disagree with just about everything they stand for, but I think the Democrats are a bunch of spineless politicians that show no signs of leadership whatever. The point of this discussion, however, is that Bush, Powell, Cheney, and their gang, along with the conservative talk show hosts, think-tank denizens and other associated cheerleaders, are shameless liars. They lied about why we went into Iraq and, although I wouldn't be surprised if they found WMD there, I would be equally NOT surprised if they made up false evidence and lied about finding them. In my eyes and, I believe in the eyes of the rest of the world, our administion has zero credibility.* You are correct that we don't yet know what they may find there, and it is too soon to tell how things are going to end up. We can, however, make judgments about events that took place in the run-up to the war. They lied. Plain and simple. History may or may not show that invading Iraq was the right choice but I believe that unless someone completely re-writes history, we will not find that they were telling the truth when they offered the "evidence" discussed above. *Funny thing about the term "credibility." The war mongers have been redefining the word by saying that "credibility" has nothing to do with being thought to speak the truth, but that our credibility lies in being though so completely irrational that we would launch an attack with little or no justification if someone doesn't do what we say. Like I said, war is peace. Lies are truth. And credibility is madness.

I have said several times that I would not be surprised if they find something, Mr. Fence. But I do think they were lying to the public and the UN - repeatedly - in their efforts to win support for the war. At this stage that may not matter in as far as the most important thing now is to be sure that Afghanistan and Iraq are able to move ahead toward improved political and economic life and hopefully the future governments there will end up being more friendly to the West and the Moslems of the world will not see us, in hindsite, as infidel invaders who should face retaliation by suicide bombers for the next generation or two. However, I believe we have seen a clear example of how Bush and his cronies will lie to get us into a war. I believe this undermines our credibility and I do not think the ends justify the means.

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.