mattp

size?

Certainly, the question of "what do we do now" is paramount, KK, but I think "how do we assure we don't make THIS mistake again" is also pretty damn important. Are you suggesting there is no value in discussing how it was that our President was able to get away with what was, even at the time, such a transparent pack of lies?

Cool bit of trivia there. Certainly, they all overlap and musicians borrow bits and pieces from a wide variety of influences, but when I think of Jimi Hendrix I tend to think more about the jamming and the extraordinary sound, both virtuoso and expression, that largely came from one guy. When I think back to Zeppelin I tend to remember more of the head-banging wall of sound and that famous heavy metal wail packaged in a generally tighter sound that (to me) more closely resembles modern heavy metal. That's my own take, anyway.

It seems to me that his contemporaries, Led Zeppelin, really cut the mold for heavy metal.

I'm with you there, 4ord, DP, VanHalen and Aerosmith were never "metal" in my book. But Archie schooled me: I clearly don't know metal. (Of course, if the pop sounds of Pearl Jam are in the same category as the harsh edge of Nivana's Bleach and it is all the same as the more metalic psuche of Soundgarten, the genre of "grunge" is really not useful to describe the music itself so much as the scene it came from.)

I agree with Alex, that the rest of the route (aside from the roped part) was "trivial." It has been over 20 years since I've been there, but my recollection of the Perren route was that even the roped bit was trivial but kind of fun in a novelty way because of how it was all fixed and the pro was marked with spray paint and it was almost a via feratta. We carried overnight packs and ice climbing gear. Faye was my second climb in the Canadian Rockies and I had never dealt with Rockies caliber rock before. If you have done much rock climbing and some mountaineering, it will probably be trivial. If you have not, well, it won't.

I think it sucks how so many of these discussions degenerate into name calling and bashing and I think the general culture and the policy of barely moderating spray threads contributes to this. Before everybody gets excited and starts calling me brown shirt nazi or whatever as they usually do when I've offered these observations in the past, let me state: I am NOT proposing that we start policing these threads for "niceness." However, the clear pattern is that anybody who is in a bad mood or who feels like being abrasive for whatever reason can send any spray thread to the toilet and, particularly in these "issue" threads, that is more the rule than the exception.

This isn't even close to the kind of dirt we are going to see, KK, but I agree with you it stinks.

On shelving, restaurant bus tubs from Costco work pretty well to hold gear and rifle through when getting ready for a trip. They also hold the cooking equipment and groceries on a car trip and are easily shuffled between trunk and picnic table, or slid underneath the bed you have in the back of your pickup.

Sorry to fall short of your standards, there Arch. I don't think I'll make the show tomorrow night, but maybe you could suggest some appropriate recordings I should check out. My wife will thank you for it.

I go there once a month or so. See you there?

For tossing rappel ropes, I generally use a combination of gravity feet and coiling. I'll coil what is to become the bottom half or third of the rope - butterfly style - but gravity feet the remainder. Then, rather than drop that coil, I'll actually throw it down. Each individual rap may demand different combinations of feed and throw, and sometimes it is better to double rap, carry the coils with you and feed it out as you go on low angle terrain. Wind, bush, steepness, and other similar factors dictate what will be best. Skinnier and softer ropes cause me more trouble than stiffer or fatter ones.

Actually, Arch, I like metal. I like a variety of styles, and for several years I shunned rock in favor of jazz because it is more interesting, but I've always had a soft spot for crude and loud rock music that can only be called metal. My heroes? Jimi, of course. I'm 50. And I like freaks: Snakefinger, Zappa, and Sun Ra. Tad is my favorite from the Seattle sound, and I thnk Bad Motorfinger is the best album to come from that scene. I think that fits the "metal" mold. I like Metallica and Rage Against the Machine. But my post was really more about cc.com: we have lots of talk about metal bands kicking ass, and lots of links to heavy metal videos. I suspect that the average Joe poster, and even the average Joe sprayer, is not so fond of Slayer that they don't listen to anything else. Some of today's posts would support this hypothesis.

Are you posting from that lead position, 15 feet above gnar trad scare-for-pro? I think there is a cultural thing going on here that is apart even from taste or even the utility that you suggest: when I'm getting scared on lead I'm not so sure my favorite Rage Against the Machine tract is what I want in my head - to be honest. It is more fitting back at the campsite.

Don't get me wrong: I like heavy metal. But I have noticed that out of every 10 links to music videos on cc.com, it seems like 9+ of them are links to heavy metal. Occasionally someone will mention that they like classical music but folk music? When was the last time someone here posted that they admired the singing talents of some female vocalist? Do climbers exclusively listen to metal?

My mom’s been dead ten years, Choda, and if Mac is similarly situated I don’t think you’re bragging too much if you are referring to her. Gear is gear. I take care of it and it generally takes care of me. I worry more about the more fragile or crucial elements of the chain or damage that will affect the essential purpose rather than just convenience or appearance. For instance: I don’t like it when my dearest little kitty pees on my rope, but I’ll sit on my pack or use a ‘biner for a beer opener (even though the traditional method torque’s ‘biner and may cause a sticky gate) and I’ll pack ice screws inside a helmet so they don’t rip a hole in my pack (may rip holes in foam lining). Because I DO use my gear for unintended applications, I’d recommend going for the tough over the superlight unless you’re trying to make a speedclimb or if you have money and inclination to replace things often -- even though this may result in heavier pack. I'll set a tarp that will brush up against bushes, for example, or maybe use it as a cover for a pile of stashed gear or even a wrapper for a package in a helicopter sling or a car trunk; the lightest weight tarp that is designed only to be used for rain shelter may not withstand this. It is not anal to take care of what you have; it probably IS anal to inspect your gear after every climb or keep detailed lists or what you carry or … Everything has different standards and the amount of care required depends on the item under consideration and the intended application. I agree with Choada's prior suggestion that a helmet that you can tear in half with your bare hands is probably not a good piece of gear, though for some limited applications it might be OK. For a sport climbing helmet, or even one used for crag climbing that could include "trad," a one-smack-breaks-it helmet might be OK. As suggested earlier, drying wet gear is probably a good idea, but my impression is that this is probably more important with tents and clothing than it is with ropes and hardware, as I have not known mildew to sacrifice gear strength as much as appearance, smell, and long time lengivity of materials that in the case of a rope you are likely to discard after a couple of seasons anyway. Cleaning and re-lubing pieces from your rack? Probably more important with cams, and in particular certain brands of cams, than carabiners.

Rad, I'm happy to carry a helmet that weighs slightly more than those bike helmets they pass off for rock climbing helmets these days. But what do I know? I sometimes use a large camelot as a hammer, too.

With those superlight modern helmets, I think the helmet's breaking is part of how they absorb shock. In the case of a falling rock, this may well be a reasonable mechanism. You are going to get one blow, and presumably the rock is thereafter on its way down the cliff to nail the next victim below. However, in the case of a mountaineering accident - say a tumble down a gully or something - or even perhaps in a long leader fall on a crag climb, you probably want a helmet that maintains some integrity as it takes the abuse it is going to be subject to.

Even if I put them inside the helmet so they won't be hurt when I sit on my pack?

I bought a helmet that weighs 3 oz more, from another shop. The cycle of abuse continues.

Not long ago, I had a salesman in a local climbing shop tell me that I obviously abuse my gear when I complained that my most recent climbing helmet had been broken in my pack. I went in there, asking if he could sell me a helmet that wouldn't break if I sat on my pack or maybe took it off in a hurry, and his response indicated that I had no right to expect such a thing. Do I need help? Is sitting on your pack an abuse of equipment?

Lets hope so.

You are welcome, Jay. Next time I consider having a political discussion with you I guess I should simply assume you are going to put words in my mouth and argue with what I didn't say. You seem to agree with my premise that the chances for a free Tibet are pretty slim and I don't hear you questioning my doubt that the U.S. government is going to want to push China too hard over this issue - or the reasons why I think not. So what do you do? Make up a bunch of BS that I didn't say and scoff at it. Now that we've cleared that up, How about this: dmuja is absolutely right that the Chinese suck. You can argue with that, can't you?

JayB, I said I don't think our government is likely to get involved in any Free Tibet effort because there are no valuable resources involved, and I stand by that statement. If Tibet was located just outside our border, say in Mexico, it might be different. If it happened to be in an important location - say next to the Panama Canal or in the middle of Europe, things would be different. But a backwater place with no big resource value and of no apparent strategic import unless we want to get in the middle of some future war between China and India? I don't think it likely that Bush, McCain, Clinton, or Obama are going to get too heavily involved except maybe make a reference to it on the campaign trail or some oblique reference in a press conference dealing with other issues. Are we going to arm the rebels? Call for serious sanctions? I doubt it. And you seem to agree. I have not argued that, as you summarized my writing "the only, or even the principal, motive behind US participation in wars has been to enrich itself via seizures of natural resources or territory." Clearly, that has not been the case. The last time that we seized natural resources or territory through a war effort was - what? The Spanish American war? Or maybe the Pig war? Go ahead and continue with the snide remarks. I'm sure you are really impressing lots of folks here. As to my very active imagination? I imagine a political discussion where you didn't feel the need to be snide. I doubt it will ever happen, though.

So where did you get the idea I was talking only about military intervention when I said we were not likely to get involved? Is that the only type of "involvement" we might undertake? Thanks for answering my question about waht do you actually think about the idea of a movement for a free Tibet. It seems you more or less agree with the basic premise of my posts above. Now you can continue to sling the insults or sarcasm if you feel the need. Consider this my stock response: "I know you are, but what am I." Are you really suggesting that we generally go to war for reasons that do NOT have to do with geopolitical influence or resources or, god forbid I'd introduce another possible motivation: business interests? Why don't you do some of my homework for me and list all these great moral wars we've embarked on where we had no political or economic interest in the outcome.