Peter_Puget

Yes. OP Dovals and BD Ovalwires work fine. All the biners used in the system were wire gate??

Ever set up a carabiner rap system with wire gates?

Anyway less spray, more rock talk!

Take care

REI - Outlet

Sorry Mattp, just going by what you wrote. Now I am off climbing!

At least twice in the conversation Lowry was able to say – more or less unchallenged – that we tolerate or even invite political dissent in this great nation but it is irresponsible or wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises or “rewriting history” now. Certainly your quote in bold suggests not that Lowry was complaining of a debate in 2002/2003 but a debate now But I would argue that it seems reasonable that any debate over a false premise should be discouraged. I find it sad that you slam Rich for believing this. You bring up an occasion when I tried to stay on subject and declined to answer a question you posed unrelated to the specific issue at hand. At the time I thought it was a tactic to avoid the issue and again it comes up. I will say it clearly: It is wrong for those who voted to authorize the war to engage in a debate based on false premises now. You seem to be arguing that it is fine for those individuals to now be engage in a dedate based on false premises. I again say drop the false premises and debate honestly.

I share your distrust with NPR; however, I believe you are missing something in tonight's debate. Rich was merely saying that we tolerate and even invite political dissent in the US if it is honest and heartfelt. Clearly a dissent based on false premises or “rewriting history” is not an honest one and should not be encouraged. Debates should not be based on lies but rather honest differences of opinion, interpretation and of values. If those who authorised the war wish to raise a debate based on those differences and not on "false premises or rewriting history my guess is Rich would encourage the debate. Is it really so wrong for Rich to ask for a little honesty? Anyway I hope this clears it up for you.

Carved? Scratched you mean. First they do not help at all in telling problems apart. Second, on overhanging routes you can't see them anyway. Folded tape is mandatory! I can't believe you pulled all the tape!

Actually Rumr last time I went out bouldering along hwy 2 all the tape had either fallen off or worse faded so badly that I couldn't tell what was in or where the problem went. What ever happened to the caretaking spirit?

Virtual Donald Trump

I am rock climbing locally but not in a gym! You guys just got to get out and explore.

I stand corrected! link

I do find it odd that by showing several pargraphs of a speech you referenced to buttress your position, I am accussed of "slicing and dicing." No ducking here. I responded directly and showed the evidence that I felt supported me. To say I ducked is certainly to misrepresent the facts. Here is a quote from the speech you linked to that is also in my previous post:

The danger of Google is that you might not actually read what you have searched for. I would also add that spewing forth a bunch of google results is neither real research or argumentation. For example what you were trying to defend was this statement: You wrote this as evidence that the administration was arguing that the threat was imminent. Now it is clear your reference does not directly support this assertion but I will agree there might be some ambiguity with the timeline. Let’s see what else the President said in that very speech. It is clear that the president is saying that Iraq did not have nuclear capabilities at the time of the speech. Here is another quote from the same speech: Here we have an guess that after Saddam produces, buys or steals a certain amount of uranium he would be able to produce a nuclear weapon an less than a year. Bush is clearly saying that the threat is not imminent but due to uncertainty we should act now both to deal with the problem and to intimidate others from pursuing the same course of action. This speech supports my claim and not yours. I looked at your Rice quote but alas it was a quote taken from an interview given months earlier. Remember what I asked for => "Let's see the actual quote and context in which it was said (written?) and see just how this quote fits in with both our scenarios." Clearly the context in which something was said is critical to understanding its meaning. In your first quote it was possible to understand the context and realize how you were misrepresenting the quote. In the second it is not. Now let's move on to your long series of quotes. Again I note not context is given. I will agree that the whitehouse spokesman did use the "I" word several times not in agreement with the administrations position. I would add that most of your quotes do not use the "I" word and would tend to support my position. The adminitstration had a whole slew of reasons why they wanted to invade Iraq. Fear of an imminent attack wasn't one of them. As I pointed out before, the adminstration was trying to create a new norm in international law. This new norm was based on acting before the threat was imminent. The error you make in pressing your arguement is two fold. 1) it is simply not in accordance with the facts and 2) it tries to make the administration appear to be lying and in doing so misses the truly revolutionary change in international law that they were trying to make. A corrupt administration is always a danger no matter what the official policy may be but a bad policy is a danger with a good administration as well.

By the way, the link I posted here is even more interesting!

I make a post titled "Interesting reading" consisting of a link to an article by a wrtiter that by your own admission is brilliant. From that you conclude that I have "declined to discuss my argument" or "do any research." Your post by the was the first one to address the content of the linked article. How can I "refuse" before a comment is even made?!?!?!? I simply offered a link to an article that is interesting and well written. I thought others may be intersted in reading it. I made no argument. My "research" was reading the article and concluding that others might find it interesting. I ask that those reading your post consider how the lack of logic in your "challenge" to me might reflect on the validity of your statements above. Matt - I recall your bringing up the mushroom cloud over Manhatten several times before. Here is a quote from you from last week: Here is my reply: The thread is here. Note that in that thread I presented arguements and some supporting documentation. You called my arguement nonsense and then later agreed it was arguable. But at no point did you do more than spout the party line. I tried to engage you as evidenced by my quote above. You never replied. Cheers, PP

somewhat related

Egg Chips & Beans Edited to avoid confusion.

1) Cheesecake is always an essential part of life. 2) Why not post some workout plans and progress reports?

Maybe we should post pictures of ourselves in high school..except for some of you that was last year!

How can an area with 2 or 3 routes have a sleeper!?!?!!?!

Oly I'm not talkin' Alpine routes I'm talkin' crag routes. You know those routes that pack in all the goodness of a long alpine route into a pitch or two. Routes that would be great alternatives if your first choice was in use.

Body & Soul at Castle Rock. This is a fun crank thru a roof.

Did I really type that? I think I was drunk. Drunk with love for that good old "trad" physique! No sport wimpiness here.