Peter_Puget

I see that you now conceed that there is at least an "arguable difference beteween immminent and gathering" that's a step up from nonsense. I wonder why you continue to post the party line on whether they lied or not. Just another opportunity to reiterate the talking points I guess. The plain fact is, they said that we might see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before any U.N. inspectors could do their work. 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. Cheers,

JayB - Suppose a corporation is formed for the specific purpose of buying and developing a parcel of land. Does it follow that "it" (the ghost in the machine?) would have a desire to perpetuate itself after accomplishing that goal? Why no mention of shareholders? Are corporations required for being free market?

Why do you believe this?

Too much time in the gym makes me climb poorly. Any ideas why?

ChucK - The administration’s argument is controversial and radical. I believe that to the extent the specific claims about Iraq are proven not true or the result of an explicit program to mislead the world they will serve to weaken their argument. After all if it should be “legal” to engage in a preemptive act against a country based only on the theory that they will pose a threat in the future the analysis had better be good. Absent a fabulously accurate threat forecasting system there would be no way to judge the legality of any preemptive act. The ultimate defense would always be “well we thought the threat was true.” Of course out and out lies would make the action illegal. Given this I do not see how your comment (“Are they meant to in some way minimize the more and more obvious deceptive marketing practices used by the Bush adminstration to lead us into a disastrous foreign-policy blunder?”) has any merit. Any deceptive marketing practices utterly destroy the administration ‘s new theory of pre-emptive action. Stefan – Fairweather pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I would add that it was a member of the Pakistani nuclear program who was selling “nuclear secrets on the open market. The full fallout form that remains to be seem. Matt – In your reply to my first post you simply state how I am spouting nonsense. No argument just an assertion. In your second paragraph you echo Chuck’s belief that the whole imminent issue is just away to distract public attention from the administration lying. To that I say see my comments to Chuck above. You clearly do not understand the issue. I then respond by equating your lack of argument with a simple attack. I still believe that is the case. I then add that the administration had many arguments supporting its decision to invade Iraq and clarify that my posts here only relate to the "imminent" issue. Immediately after I post a quote and a link to a document prepared by the Whitehouse supporting my position. To that you reply: To that I can only reply: Cheers,

link

Wow Mattp --You do seem testy today. Your venom and vitriol simply do not sustain any sort of argument. What's up with the attacks? I would add that the US had a broader arguement concerning the lagality of its invasion I was limitin gmy repsonse to the part of the argument related to the "I" word.

It is interesting that you bring up this example. I say interesting because this is an example I would use to illustrate to folly of the left. I suggested quite strongly to ChucK a couple years ago that his insistence on bringing up the "imminent canard" revealed either his capacity for not telling the truth, mindless sloganeering or a simply an incapacity for understanding the plain truth. I continue to belive this. The administration never argued that it was acceptable to attack Iraq because it was an imminent threat. Had it done so it would be operating well within the confines of “international law?” What the administration argued was something new and outside of traditional international law. One of the primary assumptions underlying its argument was that the threat from Iraq was not imminent and yet was potentially of such great consequence that it required action. The US argued that the threat of WMDs changed the playing field and consequently the rules as well. Several years ago I posted links to the legal opinions of the US and Australia regarding this. The "imminent threat" canard has been one of the main talking points of the left ever since. It is an obvious tactic whose purpose is to mislead the public as to the administrations true arguement.

Oly take it from me fame is fleeting. Better to look elsewhere for satisfaction. Just a week or two ago I was a hero the subject of threads and now I am forgotten......oh how I long for yesterday.....

Ding Ding we have a winner!

More than a few holes have been drilled using old Boeing surplus bits (bought by the pound) ground down to fit Rawl holders.

hmmmmm

Except….. I will pick them up on my way home from work! Actually I just thought I’d offer a couple comments regarding 5-10 bits. 1) The 3/8” are the most easily broken bits I have ever used. Be careful while pounding. 2) The 5/16” and the ¼” have a reverse taper so be careful not to take too much off while sharpening. If too much is taken off the bit will be too small. This is a pain with the 1/4". If you guys don’t want the ¼” I can find use for them.

Erin Brokavich

That's not exactly what I said....

a box filled with a variety of tools...

Not sure I fully get what you're saying. For me learning to relax a bit more than I was enabled me to use my existing tool box more effectively.

The PIKA looks a lot like it is a copy of the old Forrest Hammock. I have spent a few nights in the Forrest hammock and it isn’t so bad. (A long time ago I spent a few snowy nights on a wall in a home made hammock - I became a bit wet. Hammocks are hard to stay dry in) You can even use it as a belay lounge. One problem is that it would pop off my feet a bit and I’d loose the bottom half of the hammock. Definitely buy some PVC pipe to use as a spreader bar. The Forrest was small so you can stuff it into the bottom of a pack. I have hidden it in a pack when I thought my partner was overly optimistic on finishing a route in a day. If you aren’t sure if you will ever do a wall again, I’d say it would be best not buying a ledge if money was an issue. If you plan on doing a bunch of walls or spending lots of time belaying from slings a ledge would be the best bet. A hammock sucks for sleeping. I bet you can score a good deal on a ledge on the secondary market => I think that’s really what I would do if I were you. I agree with AFIVE about going for the double if you are buying a ledge.

So you think that advice isn't good?

Finding a partner who wasn't singing "Peter don't be a hero don't be a fool with your life....." everytime I was leading. Actually it was the advice "Don't fall because you're scared of falling" my level is pretty low tho

OK the network just crashed again So I thought I'd spray about one of the greatest albums ever: The Modern Dance Pere Ubu I even think these lads played in P Square the year after this came out.

Discovered some new places to climb..or at least hang out

Don't see that. I wonder how much of her first album is really her work. If a good portion of it is, she has a lot of talent. She has to decide if she wants to be a jokster or a real talent. Time will tell. Next year she will be performing on (off?) broadway in a musical. Eh a bad sign......

I am outta touch!