W

Don't go, Shane!

I agree it seems to be a declining art. Growing up, my brother and I would ski bumps until we couldn't walk. You don't see it as much, I think snowboarding's popularity has something to do with it, also the culture has changed. As for knees, mine aren't shot, but I certainly can't ski bumps at the speed and resilience I could at age 20.

Thanks for sharing that.Excellent trip report and great photos. It's breaking my heart! I spent a month in Bariloche last year with my wife, including two visits to Frey for rock climbing; it's undoubtedly some of the best climbing of it's type I've ever done, with the Refugio experience only adding to it. Nothing like splitter granite all day, huge plate of pasta, a fine Malbec, and some good conversation by night. But hey, what happened to "Dracu", the psycho kitty? Tormentia looks like a new one.

All that said, if law abiding muslims in western countries want that to stop, they should be getting a lot more vocal in their criticism of radical Islam, because their silence is noticeable. you know what it is? it's those STEREOTYPERS! those stereotypers are all the same. they should just be rounded up and sent to some island where they can stereotype all they want. and another thing it's those finger pointers that cause all the problems. You like the irony, yes? I'm also all for: domestic spying, eavesdropping, illegal detention, all the rest of it, because hey- if you're not one of the "bad guys", you got nothing to worry about, right? I'm trust my government to make these kinds of distinctions, always!

Well that's it! If the terrorists control the media I'm just going to have to get my news from a factual source. Rush always tells me the truth! OMG is that your auto sig now?

For starters, it's every day on Fox News and AM talk radio, which has a listening audience numbering in the tens of millions, or more. The general population seems more than eager to speak up in the military's defense. I think the US military is less likely to undergo institutional persecution and harassment than law abiding muslims. All that said, if law abiding muslims in western countries want that to stop, they should be getting a lot more vocal in their criticism of radical Islam, because their silence is noticeable.

MH Fleece is sold.

If you say no, we'll invade. No one can stop us now that Henry Rollins joined up:

Or perhaps their reading comprehension is lacking:

Asura- Lost Eden HUVA Network- Distances Also, a new affinity for some old favorites: Radiohead- The Bends Massive Attack- Mezzanine

Have the following lenses for sale: Kiron 28mm F2 Kiron 80-200mm F4.5 Has had a tiny screw loose inside forever, but has always worked and functioned properly. Pentax 50mm F1.7 The camera body these lenses fit on died years ago, so I have not used these lenses for many years...long enough for the fixed focal length lenses that I can't remember the quality, but the zoom I last used in 2000. Here are some shots taken with it: These are not high end lenses but are good for a starter kit. I have no use for them, I have a high tech setup now... so I don't want very much for them. I'd take $50 for the whole lot.

Have some random items for sale: OR windstopper hat. Only worn a few times. $5 Still have from an earlier post: BRAND NEW Climb High supergaitors $50: Spectre SOLD 3rd Tool SOLD Gloves SOLD ice axe SOLD Fleece Jacket SOLD Also have some goretex items for sale, look Here Post or PM

That would, I think, again be only a change of state of matter. The theory if I recall is that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed, it is all about what state it is in. I'm no physicist, however... That's tricky; who is this entity that is letting go of the desire? And is it letting go in order to gain something- to gain the state of non-desire? Which the current being sees as desirable? A few who've taken it further than the Buddhists will say that being truly free of desire is entirely a matter of full awareness of the workings of your own mind- and cannot be attained by any conscious action to change those workings. The awareness itself creates the insight.

Respectfully: Have you, or anyone else, seen this creator? What do you know of him (her? it?). Have you directly experienced it? On what basis can we undeniably establish this creator as authentic? To what extent could our experience of the creator be a product of our conditioning? I am offering a mere supposition on the possibility that this creator is simply a construct of the human ego's craving for permanence and security. That comes without rejecting the possibility that something or someone did create life. Have you experienced life from the perspective of a dog's mind? Or a fish? How do you know what consciousness is for other living things? A dog clearly has a consciousness of itself on some level, in that it knows it's a dog, it relates to each species in distinct ways. Most animals seem to be far more in tune with their instincts and intuitions that humans, actually. This "higher deeper reality": What makes you so sure that this is not an invention of our mind? Does this really exist, or does it only have validity within the context of the individual? Surely the individual word on this matter is not applicable to all of humanity? Therefore it is fragmented and incomplete! I have to wonder if THE GAME you speak of is nothing more than a contrivance based on a quirk of nature that is our mind's ability to be self-aware. Without condemning it outright, it is not necessarily good or something that makes us "more intelligent"... it is what it is. What is a soul, then? The matter that composes all things is permanent, but it is never in a permanent state. Your cells are in constant change; in some respect you are not the same person you were 2, 10, 20 minutes ago. Memory attempts to hold us in place, yet even that can be witnessed as futile.

Is it? Are we so important that some being with conscious thought had to have created us? I'm not saying there is or is not; but the mind's ability to contrive, including the concept of something greater than one's self, is boundless. Are you sure that the concept of the 'creator' is not possibly the ego's ultimate projection of itself- all powerful, all knowing, owning and ruling over everything? The end goal of desire? We are probably the only species that spends its lives endlessly torturing ourselves, and one another, agonizing over why we're alive. Everything else just seems to be living. True, and it should remain so, yet the history of humans strays far from this.

Is this the new goal? Permanent occupation to secure resources and launch military attacks against anyone in the region who challenges us? I thought it was about saving the oppressed Iraqis from an evil dictator? I don't seem to recall the government ever trying to sell the US public on a permanent occupation of Iraq and the middle east, although that has been my assessment nonetheless from the very beginning. It's nice to hear a confirmation that the government has indeed lied through its teeth to everyone about it's motivations. Also, does this goal (new, or otherwise)have any consideration whatsoever for what the people who live in these countries want? I'm not talking about militants. I'm talking about the general population- or should we consider anyone living there who wants us to leave a 'terrorist'? Suppose the Iraqis, and all their neighbors, don't like the idea of what they see as Christian soldiers occupying Muslim lands and securing their resources? You may have a different vision but that won't change those perceptions. Surely the Iranians must be held accountable. But what you're talking about is nothing more than a modern day attempt at colonialism of a fanatical society that has resisted foreigners for thousands of years. The only thing that will be permanent from this is continued bloodshed and attacks against Americans.

Well, he did say: "obliterate those societies", and "destroy those countries". Which I would assume includes, by necessity, killing millions of citizens of those countries. More immediately, I'm curious as to when this sort of "two enemies" talk combined with irrational calls to kill millions of people (or else "they" might kill us...) will bring us back to the good old days of political assassinations and civil unrest. Would be easy to laugh all this off if he wasn't the pied piper for so many people.

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, here's the latest from the "proprietor of the truth": Are there different rules of engagement for each enemy, or should we just kill them all now?

Damn. Without question, this man's life and work has inspired me as much as anyone I can think of. The true adventurer, this guy represented all that is great about the comraderie and spirit of mountaineering, and the wonder of exploration and the sciences. To Mr. Washburn, Thank You. My hats off to you, sir, for a life lived beautifully.

Hiring a guide makes it less proud, but: Rainier was so easy it was "disappointing", and climbing was getting so boring because you always reached summit so you really needed to do a first winter ascent to make it interesting again, yet: and further: You went to the "hard school" of mountaineering but: If all this is true, you evidently haven't learned by doing, yet you express disdain for hiring a guide to teach you, then you bemoan a lack of a partner to "learn from", and prior trip reports and your posts in general would demonstrate a general unwillingness to listen to your partners. You seem very conflicted and to be honest, ego driven, despite your claim that it is all about "adventure". The fact that you have already climbed Rainier on your own, claim it was too easy, yet just now are asking questions about the dynamics of prusiks and belays, tells me that your ambition far outweighs your skills and judgment- if you're climbing Rainier w/o a guide, you should already have proficient knowledge of such things. Seriously: you seem somewhat earnest in wanting to learn. I suggest you start by detaching yourself from your past experiences and what you think you know and how skilled you believe yourself to be, and adopt a beginners mind. You'll not only actually learn more, you'll probably find it much easier to get partners who will want to climb with you, and keep climbing with you.

Only the best that low income housing can buy. Make me an offer.

bump- puffball sold. Items pictured in original post remain...

Although the trend is certainly leashless, a number of Canmore locals aren't throwing them away entirely, either- not yet, anyway. One of my regular partners who lives up there climbs leashless on most routes, but still occasionally uses them on very steep and pumpy routes and especially in wet conditions when your grip could be compromised. Also, he likes using them on some of the longer routes, mainly because he says the security of leashes simply allows him to climb faster. The important thing ultimately is to experiment but keep it in the comfort zone, and keep your options open. I do know a few people who insist that they climb faster w/o leashes and never get pumped now, but the majority of these people climb 70+ days of ice per season and train almost incessantly. My feeling is that if you get the technique and confidence with leashless mastered, the latter assessment will hold true 90% of the time- although I can't speak from direct experience because for me it's a work in progress. Personally, it seems likely the way my life is that I do not have enough time to devote each season to getting proficient enough with leashless that I could realistically conceive of leaving them behind on mountain routes, especially given that with my ice climbing time at a premium, I often just want to spend my time climbing the routes I've always wanted to do and not top roping and going back to school. While I'm going to press ahead learning these skills as time permits, I don't find vertical ice stale and boring enough that I need to make it much harder. But...as always, that's the wild card and what keeps the game exciting- at different points in my life I have once thought: ice, rock, big walls, the big mountain routes, those were things other people did, certainly I couldn't do those. You just never know what one small decision to try something is going to lead you to do someday. In the end, let others lead you by example rather than shaming you into adopting their style. I'm more inspired to go leashless by watching my partner do the business on AI 6 terrain in the mountains sans leashes than I would be if some Frenchie comes up to me in the parking lot pointing and giggling at my leashes. "Can you believe it? Our children warm up on grade 6 ice and they've not even heard of these leashes...". Get on out there and giv'er.

The merits of who should lead are pretty much irrelevant; Simul terrain is, for me at least, terrain where the only reason either climber would fall is being careless and/or an act of nature (broken hold, rockfall, etc.), but otherwise it's terrain neither climber would fall because of the difficulty. I think it goes without saying that both climbers should be of similar skill level, or the terrain pretty damn easy, if you're going to be simul climbing. All that said, I strongly disagree that a lead fall by the leader while simuling is worse than one by the follower. If the second comes off, the leader doesn't just take a gravity leader fall, he is PULLED DOWN by gravity plus an additional force. If his last piece is 15 feet below, for example, the rope likely will whip back through the biner if the second continues falling unchecked; when the falling leader passes the pro, he'll be violent slammed statically into the rock. It would be like a leader fall with pro at your knees, but already at terminal velocity. I'm not at all in agreement that a leader is somehow more able to hold a falling second just because they are the stronger climber- if the leader is pulling a 5th class move and is suddenly hit with a 180 pound dynamic downward load, they're likely coming off. With that theory in mind, the stronger technical climber always goes second on the basis that if a fall did occur, you'd want to increase the chances that it's #1 taking it... but nonetheless, the caveats of paragraph #1 rule above all. It is bad no matter what. If one member's routefinding and protecting skills are weak enough that having them lead is thought provoking, it already sounds like a proper belay is in order, with that person having the top rope.

Oh no you don't- I'm giving him MY house...AND my car. I want this on my conscience. My altruism sure makes me proud.