mattp

Fact is, I've been posting here since the beginning of cc.com and the guys who post "dont' take it seriously" are almost 100% the guys who go apeshit when you post something directly to them. The fact is that we hang out on this site on a daily basis and get to know each other as personalities on-line and off-line. What we say here DOES mean something. Make of it what you will. You can spray whatever insult you wish and the fact is that IN REALITY nobody is going to show up at your house and call you on it. But, just as surely, IN REALITY, somebody is going to take offense. Personally.

Sorry, PC13, but that's crap. The fact is that we hang out on this site on a daily basis and get to know each other as personalities on-line and off-line. What we say here DOES mean something. Make of it what you will. You can spray whatever insult you wish and the fact is that IN REALITY nobody is going to show up at your house and call you on it. But, just as surely, IN REALITY, somebody is going to take offense. Personally.

For winter camping at or below timberline, the advantage of a tarp is not only weight. It offers much more comfort as well. All those who worried about my tarp protecting them ended up hanging out in my snow hole on nearly every ski-camping trip I've taken. A tarp is better for this purpose than a tarp tent, but neither is very good for camping in the alpine zone.

"Tramp," from the King and Queen album with Carla Thomas, has always been one of my favorites. "You country Otis -- you wear overalls." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic8RxGdI5bk

You're a simpleton. Which particular idea there do you disagree with? The idea that forging peace in the MIddle East or between Pakistan and India would increase our security? The idea that we have a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons we cannot use and which do not deter terrorists? The idea that if we maintain a huge arsenal and supply arms all over the world it can be used as a justification by those who would seek their own arms?

Thanks, JohnDavidJr. Maybe the cc.com equipment police aren't ready for your ideas but I hope others who are not quite so into gear for gear's sake will find your post informative. I don't disagree with the idea that good quality gear is often worth the money but, as you note, lots of cheapo gear works just fine. (Disclaimer: I am one who thinks a cheapo windbreaker and raincoat combination is at least if not more effective than goretex, and who uses a plain tarp for winter camping in the Cascades and Coast Range.)

On the same page with this editorial was one where William Kristol wrote that we have won the war in Iraq and that a speedy Israeli victory in Gaza is important for the war on terror. And today Ann Coulter was on TV saying that only liberals and communists seek to assassinate our presidents. I bet we're going to see a constant stream of this stuff on the editorial pages from those who have complained that the liberal media has been unfair to George Bush. Bolton and Yoo were largely against treaties of any kind and Yoo was particularly into the "unitary executive" theory of government. How can the "liberal media" runs these pieces with a straight face?

Maybe someone with hard numbers will show me wrong but I was there the summer before last and it did not seem any more crowded than when I first went there 30 years ago. I don't think it is really unreasonably crowded there.

I guess that makes you one of us AssClowns, right Mr. Serenity? You were one of the early posters here, if I recall correctly. But while I hold high hopes for Obama and the Democrats AND a change in American politics, I agree with you: a whole new crop of AssClowns is moving into the White House and into Congress and (I think this is what you hinted), we may see little in the way of big changes.

Tvash: You've asked me not to send private messages so you refuse that avenue of discussion yet come on the public thread to call me a douche and say I'm lying. Please feel free to say what it is if you honestly feel I've made something up. Or simply drop it. Your call.

Fairweather, as I concluded on the last page: it may in some respects be pointless for me to complain that you or Tvash or anybody else are being obnoxious and we could continue to debate who is the asshole around here but that is really rather stupid. I felt your slap at Mr. K was unjustified, and my point about your bragging about how you’ve got out so much was poorly stated, perhaps, but I found some similarities in it to some statements made by your brother Tvash last year. Then, I complained about his being obnoxious and part of his reply included a "mention" that he climbs more than I do and posts a lot of trip reports. I found the similarity in your "mention" of your last year's record ironic in light of your comment about he and I and Kurt. Anyway, T'vash doesn’t think he made those statements and I think you too are saying here that you didn't intend to use your climbing record to suggest you were better than the other guy or "right" in some other argument. I’d really like to see you explain the need to carry weapons in a National Park rather than leave the discussion after concluding that I am being “disingenuous.” I'd also genuinely like to read more trip reports and welcome discussion of climbs that you describe as "slogs." You may not believe me, but I appreciate both.

Woah. Down boy. I believe my "characterization" was accurate as far as it goes. I said you indicating something along those lines and I believe you clearly did. But whatever. As far as who is being a prick or whether I should use my moderator powers to ban somebody? I believe it is fair game to offer my opinion as to what takes place around here. I'm sorry you don't like it. Because the rules of engagement as we have maintained them permit being obnoxious in spray, I have not set to ban anybody or asked that any moderator delete any spray posts simply because something said was obnoxious. And passive aggressive? The reason you are pissed at me, and have carried a grudge for six months, is precisely because I came out and directly criticized you. I have not said anything else defaming or ciriticizing you, or undermined your aruguments in some other context or anything else other than simply stating I disagree. Carry on. Arguing about "you're the asshole; no you are" is stupid. I count myself as being stupid for commenting on this at all.

Don't worry, Fairweather. We are not all some monolithic block, the cc.com liberals. In fact, I once complained about Tvash's carrying on in an insulting fashion - similar to how I complained about your insult that is out of place here - and his response was somewhat like yours here in suggesting that because he went climbing more than most posters around here (and he had the added claim that he posted a lot of trip reports) he was somehow to be perceived as more justified or more tolerable when he cut loose in spray. Here, you suggest that because you climb or hike or ride every weekend you are justified in sneering at Mr. K's skiing? I realize you and some others don't like it when I dog on the bait and bash style that passes for argument around here. Some don't like it when you and some others take every opportunity to sneer and smear. You in fact grow indignant when somebody speculates about your lifestyle or values or home life - right? Don't for a minute think that the fact that you get out every weekend justifies putting down somebody else because they don't get out as much as you. If we're measuring dick size around here, I'm sure you realize that there are a lot of posters with more impressive climbing resume's than yours or who may drive bigger pick ups.

I bet, other than what you read in the Muir on Saturday thread, you know little about Feck's habits. The twelve month's of skiing quest is as worthy as any around here -- and maybe more so than the tutu ascent of Mailbox Peak.

The Dead have put on some of the worst, if not top of the list and just plain THE WORST, shows I have ever seen. I saw them in Eugene once, when they barely did more than tune their instruments and their lead singer, Donna, never even turned around to face the fans. But they also put on some of the best shows I've ever seen. I saw George Clinton and Nirvana hit the sweet spot, and Beastie Boys and Neil Young, Commander Cody and Art Ensemble of Chicago. But The Dead really could rock - once in a while. I don't think the Dead were really "overrated" so much as they were just plain inconsistent. By comparison, and from the same era, I saw the Rolling Stones at least three times and they never put on a great show. Big stage and fireworks, but not a real "gel." Some of their albums were great, though.

Well put, muja. Before his first year is out I will probably join Prole in complaining that Obama isn't liberal enough but right out of the box I think it is a good idea to retain Gates and bring on some recognized "experts" for his economic team.

Jay: Do you actually insist that we need not regulate fisheries because the market will take care of the resource management issues involved? Do you think we need not plan or regulate our use of water, because if we use up the Oglalla aquifer the Canadians will just sell us their water or if the aquifer starts getting depleted that market forces will lead to its restoration? Isn't this what you suggested a week ago? If we've come around to agreeing that regulation is inherently difficult but never-the-less necessary, how do you see it actually being employed in the management of fisheries or water resources?

You could tell me exactly how I've misrepresented you, Jay, and in clear language state what your real position is on how liberals criticizing the war on terror are a misguided bunch and are perhaps harming the war effort. If you say that you in fact were not supporting their argument, I will then apologize sincerely for suggesting you have agreed with Fairweather and KK that those who publicly decry America's use of torture are among the misguided. Then we would know what we are talking about and the conversation could continue. For starters: 1. Have you, in this thread, suggested that you think those who publicly criticize our war on terror have done us a disservice? How exactly do you see it? 2. Does your disdain for "liberals" extend to a disdain for their criticism of the Bush administration's torture policy and pronouncements? How so?

Back about page 4 or 5, Jay, you were arguing that we don't need to regulate water usage or fisheries because the markets will take care of it. Several of us call B.S. and several pages and four days later you've finally come around to this? That statement is ridiculous on its face. Nobody on cc.com has ever suggested that it is unnecessary to have laws, or that you argued that idea. And your follow up? I'm pretty sure all of us will agree that regulations can have unintended consequences and that the problem of such bi-product should not be taken to mean there can and should never be any regulation. Maybe what you are trying to say is you didn't mean what you said on page four but I can't tell. A little less ergo and a bit more clarity would help us to figure out just what we're talking about.

Nope. That is JayB's tactic. I try to make an effort to understand what the other guy said, and when I restate what it is that I think they posted I am often actively inviting them to "correct" my interpretation because sometimes it is hard to understand what some folks around here mean from reading their posts. If in fact I have misunderstood you, please correct my misinterpretation. Do you think we who criticize the Bushies' authorization of torture are "soft on terror" or not?

this one for starters. I've got to admit, though, that I haven't taken careful note of your specific nuance with regard to torture and what you would or would not exactly approve of. It is often tedious to wade through your posts and figure out exactly where you stand on specific issues, but you are consistently derisive of those who criticize the war effort, and this thread is a perfect example. Liberals who disapprove of the war are soft on terror and naive. Now get back over to the other thread and tell me whether you actually believe your arguments or is it for you simply a game of "gotcha."

Fairweather: this guy probably thinks that the bad guy from Mombay should not be tortured. He served 14 years in the Air Force and served as an interrogator in Iraq. He has concluded that not only does torture rarely succeed in gaining good intelligence, but that our use of torture has in fact caused legions of foreign fighters to flock to Iraq with the sole goal of killing Americans - in other words, he says, it has led to increased American casualties. You and KK and JayB may think that anyone who criticizes American use of torture is misguided and encourages terrorism. Us libtards on cc.com don't see it that way, and neither does Matthew Alexander. I rather suspect there are a lot of other members of the U.S. military that don't agree with you either.

Honest question for JayB: do you really believe your arguments?

I'm with you, Fairweather. We need people getting out and enjoying our wildlands if long term preservation efforts are going to be politically sustainable.

I'm not sure I get your Leroy video there, Bill, but back to the show at hand: yes, Rudy's initial post was about the attack in Mombay. As far as I can tell, nobody here much commented on that. Fairweather and KK posted that the liberals are responsible for the attack but they weren't really talking about that incident so much as just poking their friends here in the eyes. JayB then came up with one of his straw-man arguments, suggesting that anybody who has been critical of the war on terror must believe that all terrorists are acting in tandem and their actions are taken only in response to U.S. policy, and then things took a turn downward from there. I don't see anyone seriously suggesting the U.S. is responsible for what happened in Mombay, and now we're back to the more general discussion of how folks should view and talk about all of this and I got the impression you were suggesting that those who speak critically of U.S. policy are somehow misguided or hurting our efforts but, in going back to re-read your post I think it was really the harsh rhetorical language like "Americans are the real terrorists" that you were referring to. The "Islam is cancer" type firebranding falls into the same category, no? It is fun to say provocative things on the Internet and, yes, there may even be a tiny element of truth to both statements but one gets the impression that the writers revel in these statements of blind hatred.