Peter_Puget

Colgan!

What's Colgan's info?

I liked it too! I bet traffic goes up in winter!

What's up w/ NWOG.org? PP

Don't have time to research this but comment slike the following are just too rich: "The free market is basically homogenous," Dalton argued. "American audiences have far less choice than French or Australian audiences." It is total bullshit.

Lamebone you're driving me crazy. I am working like mad for the next month but would you be interested in a trip winter spring? Drive from Meford Fri am and leave the crags Subnday mid day? Its a bit further away but there are some nice granite domes along the Feather River in CA

I would only note that since I am talking about removing 5 piece bolts that are many years old and you are talking about removing them after several weeks, you might have different experiences than me. I think if you place a bolt, you should do so with the expectation that it will be in place for many years not weeks. Over years what will be the impact corrosion? Who knows for certain. I have nothing against 5 piece just letting you know my experience with some bolts I did not originally place. PP

I have come across several 5 piece bolts that have become spinners due to what I assumed to be corrosion between the cone and the bolt. When this has happened it was a really big pain to remove the bolt. I think that ½’ stainless is the way to go. These bolts should last years and certainly have adequate strength.

Soory I couldn't help myself I looked at this picture and thought of Trask!

can you think of a better name than "Rabbit Ears" for this formation? PP

States which either are democratic or turning democratic but I would also note that it isn't the states but rather the districts that matter. Since this is a quantifiable phenomenon, I think that anyone squawking about voter rights would be concerned. The Democrats as experts in voting thus I can only assume that since they benefit most from this their silence speaks volumes about their true interests.

Ok here is an admittedly extreme example which should clarify the point: First the size of the House is fixed and the distribution between states is adjusted if needed after each census. See this link for a summary of the process. To the extent illegals are included in the census and to the extent they are disproportionally located in certain areas the votes of the “voters” there count more than regions with lower illegal populations. Imagine if you will a district with only one voter but a boatload of illegals. This voter would have complete control over one representative. This is of course a nonsense example serving to illustrate a real problem. PP

Mattp - The point has nothing to do with gerrymandering or the Supreme court being manipulated. PP

Whirlwind - You Da Man!

Whirlwind - My favorite sayiong when I wimp on a hard move is "I need more emotional content"

Stolen from the web. Where are the protests by liberals over this. There is none because they really do not care about one-person one vote but rather they care about keeping themselves in power! Come on Gore let's see some action! For many years the Supreme Court has imposed a so-called "one person, one vote" requirement on most United States election apportionments. While "one person, one vote" has a nice sound to it, the results of this slogan are often perverse because not every person can vote. Legal and illegal aliens, many convicted felons (in many states) and children are the most obvious examples. One consequence of the "one person, one vote" rule is that voters in districts that also include a disproportionate number of people not eligible to vote enjoy disproportionate voting power. Indeed, the "one person, one vote" rule in principle allows for creation of standard sized election districts containing a tiny number of eligible voters. A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies states that there are nearly 7 million illegal aliens and 12 million other non-citizens counted in the 2000 Census and that as a result of the interplay of the "one person one vote" rule and recent immigration four states lost a congressional seat in 2000 because of illegal aliens and an additional five states lost a seat because of the presence of lawful non-citizens. The "one person, one vote" rule has been paraphrased as expressing the fundamental principle that nobody's vote should count less than anybody else's just because of where the voter happens to live. But the "one person, one vote" rule itself is creating exactly that problem - in general and now in with respect to House apportionment. The simple fact is that a vote from a district in which few ineligible people reside will count less than a vote from a district that includes a lot of people ineligible to vote - just because of where the voters happen to live. The Supreme Court should refine its "one person, one vote" rule to allow apportioning agencies (usually state legislatures) to create districts which include equal numbers of persons eligible to vote. That is, the correct rule should be "one voter, one vote" - not the increasingly perverse and internally inconsistent "one person, one vote" aberration. PP

Link Air gets better under Republicans gets worse under Clinton/Gore.

Senator Cantwell's expression of good sense on this vote in the face of party and media pressure is almost enough to make one not dearly desire her removal from the Senate.

Well not really but it could easily be. See you anti bush guys are just in a very old rut. Free thinking? Nope more of a role for non thinking automatons. Link

Any thoughts on not getting a strong signal while under trees? I have read some reviews suggesting that this is a problem. Thanks for the replies PP

Once I bumped my head into one of those at Index! It appeared to be abandoned though - lucky for me as I didn't see it until after I hit it. I think the route was Narrow Arrow Direct.

Just a quick link: Link I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview: Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. That put O'Reilly at his most prickly and defensive mode, and Gross was never able to get him back into the interview in an effective way. This was surprising because Terry Gross is, in my opinion, one of the best interviewers anywhere in American journalism. Although O'Reilly frequently resorts to bluster and bullying on his own show, he seemed unable to take her tough questions. He became angrier as the interview went along. But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop. By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly. Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway. That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and should not be used on NPR. I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias. A few comments: The glass is half full The glass is have empty The glass is filled with a volume 50% its capacity The glass on the table holds 100 oz. It currently contains 50. In other words: If you believe that the "truthfulness" of the introduction indicates no bias, I say you do not understand bias. Sometime ago I posted another NPR ombudsman link where he expressly admitted that NPR selects they information it presents so not to turnoff viewers that they hope to recieve $$$ from. Look at the corrections list also avialbale online. Find all the corrections related to the Israeli/Palastinian conflict and divide them into two categories: the first where the intial report made the palestinians look good and the second where the initial report made the Israelis look good. Now compare the relative size of each. The result the pro palestinian category will be 300% the size of the pro Israeli category.

The use of Taper bolts s/b discouraged as they are very difficult to place correctly. When not placed correctly they can look and feel good but still be very weak. Plus they can be easily screwed up by future tightening. Don't use them! The bolt Mattp's friend may be talking about might be an improved version of the old Taperbolt. I have place a couple of Taperbolts in the way distant past and everything seemed ok but people I know and respect some of whom where once Taperbolt advocates turned me against them. LInk I just found I have replaced some 5 piece non stainless and found that sometimes probably due to corrosion they cannot be removed with a wrench. Perhaps this a result of Puget Sound dampness and would not happen frequently in drier areas, but it happens enough that the removability of these bolts is not a given. Matt I would also note that wedge anchors are better on lead because you can drive one in and rest on it before tightening it up. I must confess that I have only place a few 3/8" on lead and try like hell to use smaller sizes but I am down to 3 1/4" and about 30 5/16" PP PS Mattp I hope you are not at work like me!

Isn't that a route at Index?

Sure but mostly from editorialists like Sean Hannity, or however is filling in for Rush.