Peter_Puget

Got to go so I am responding in this manner. Maaa Maaaaa I feel like a goat. Although he is a better writer than me. PP- I might go for your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy, except that early in the thread, I DID provide examples of stories that I thought were slanted and I stated in what manner it was that I thought they were slanted. So Mattp a thief who is honest once is not a thief? Nobody, including yourself, has asked for any further discussion of these examples. You, on the other hand, thrust three "examples" but are too busy to explain how they exemplify anything. Again I was responding to your query to Trask referenced above. Certainly you can't believe it incumbent upon me to discuss any example of a conservatively biased press you might bring up when it has no relationship to my argument. I agree that my review of the web page headlines the last two days is certainly not proof of anything but I believe it is illustrative of the point that, on the surface at least, there is no obvious bias in the last couple days' headlines. See my earlier replies concerning "bias" and your own refutation of the headline approach. Your refutation however applies completely to yoru use of headlines. My use somewhat avoided your refutation by providing comparative headlines. Again, PP, do you mind fillin me in on how the Augusta story proves ANYTHING? You apparently have the answer to this question, and I would guess that it would not take more than a single sentence to describe your reasoning, but you are utterly unwilling to disclose it. Actually it would. But it would be easy for you to research PP who is off work and outta here

J_B who once suggested an Israeli professor who taught in a Palestinian University was an "Average" Israeli - Here is Mattp's response to Trask that I took referenced up above. Trask: can you cite a single example of an issue that the TV and the Seattle newspapers have concistently presented with a "liberal" slant? I honestly can't. I brought up the NYT. I never argued for the existence of a generally liberal biased media in the US. Since I have restricted my argument to a specific paper, the validity of your study does not reduce my argument in any manner. Your study, however, does not conclusively prove your position at all. Although I am glad to see that you agree (in your advice to RobBob) that it is up to the reader here on CC.com to actively research links provided. Oddly you have chosen not to heed your own advice and provided any analysis how my examples were in error despite your assertion that they are.

Trask's post at 10:09 on 1/8 does have an element of truth to it. Your reply to him at 10:39 asked for some examples. At the risk of sounding "Goatish" I merely provided three examples. All were given with enough detail that an interested party could research them. Your response was in essence to ask for a review of the entire US Media. Without a doubt this is impossible on this thread. Can MG or PP provide a detail documented analysis all the US media? Certainly not. I took such a response to be a bit smart alecy and proof that you were forcing the structure of the discourse into design that benefits you. (Don't take that as an insult) I chose (because I read it often) to use the NYT as an example of a new paper with a liberal bias and provided three diverse examples that would support my contention. There is a difference between providing an example and providing a detailed explanation. So much for my "defense" Do you feel that your recitation of headlines and editorial summaries would be considered proof of non-bias if our positions were reverse? I think not. Especially after your comments regarding my examples - particularly the growth rate example. Thus I can only conclude that you are creating an argument by volume not logic. At best the pot is calling the kettle black. My beer comment was meant to indicate that I was joking around; I didn't mean to be condescending in an personally insulting way. My apologies.

So right DFA, except right now it's sparkling water for me as I too have that holiday poundage. However I imagine You, Mtngoat, Mattp, SC and myself could drink a house down discussing politics if the need ever arose.

Quote: PP AND MTN GOAT CITE NO EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL PRESS "….. PP cites three examples of how the NY Times is liberal-slanted, but did not even bother to argue that any TV station consistently slants things to the left. PP's examples just don't do it for me because he has failed to state whether, in the case of the "economy grew at 3.1%, slower than expected" the "slant" was liberal or conservative or whether the real news story was the figure itself or the fact that greater growth had been predicted or relied upon. PP's second example, that the NYT printed an op-ed written by a U.S. diplomat who had a direct stake in the matter he wrote about but failed to state his background, again does not convince me of anything. PP has not stated whether this failure to reveal background aided a liberal or conservative view of the matter, and he has not addressed the question of whether such "disclosure" appears in other op-ed pieces, such as the one written by George Mitchell two days ago. And then there is the "Augusta fiasco." PP has not stated how the NYT coverage of this matter may have shown liberal bias; he seems to assert, rather, that the mere fact that the story existed is evidence of that bias. " Egads! I turned to this thread hoping someone would have responded to my climbing post in it and was shocked to find Mattp had written a "Goatish" tome! "Goatish" that is in length only. I am not sure how to respond to his piece and have very little time to do so because I might get to leave work early! I find his internal contradictions amazing and vertigo inducing. For example take the title, shown in red above, and compare to the sentence highlighted in blue! Whoa Nelly! He claims that I didn't convince him of a liberal bias because that I never explicitly stated whether the bias I was trying to illustrate in my examples was conservative or liberal. (See brown highlights) Surely his very rejoinder indicates that he clearly knows I was using these examples to illustrate indicate a liberal bias. Now I wish I had been more explicit as that would have had him conceding to the obvious truth! I approach these discussions as a joint exploration of our culture. An exploration carried out by those with the shared goal of seeking to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Accordingly I have provided verifiable references that would enable other CC.comers to research the matter and come to their own conclusions. Now I find that I have entered a spray filled debating zone where the goal is nothing but assertion of a point of view. How could I have been so wrong. Perhaps a beer is on order.

Eric - thanks for the "selected" correction. I would make only slight modifications to my posting based on it. I was not making any comment regarding the routes difficulty,however, I would not doubt that given the right conditions many posters here could climb it.

I forget exactly when the Nelson/Potterfield book came out but I am pretty confident that since it was published, there has not been more than one (and I doubt even one but am hedging my bets) really cold winter. In perfect conditions it might be a great climb but since those conditions are pretty rare I agree with Dwayner that the designation as classic is not right. I am wondering what will happen if we ever get a really cold snap. I am certain the upper wall waterfall will be climbed and perhaps even collapse on someone. The North Face of Persis will doubtless see some ascents. Faces everywhere will be climbed. After these routes are thrown into the mix I wonder if EDMR will still be considered an occasional classic. The increase in winter climber participation is amazing as are the improvements that have been made in equipment. One thing that hasn't changed is the stability of the NW weather. My guess is many who think themselves "experienced" will make some very bad decisions when the next real cold snap arrives.

You bet! Haven't dressed up in one of my Club Kid outfits since the ole days at the Danceteria

So everyone cashes in funds the wildest Pub Club yet with famed tuntablist DFA spinning discs and Sexy Choc revealing the secrets of the "forbidden" moondance! Mtngoat, Dwayner and Mitch will answer question concerning anything!

So everyone cashes in funds the wildest Pub Club yet with famed tuntablist DFA spinning discs and Sexy Choc revealing the secrets of the "forbidden" moondance!

Ah Free Press. I remember the first time I climbed it. I swear it was rated 5.8 in the old Meyers guide but has since for some reason been up graded to 5.10a. The main problem is/was the rap anchor a freeking bashy! We backed it up. I heard later someone died while rapping. The groovy thing is that you can easily TR Fish Crack. Fish Crack is so cool that even rapping it an feeling the jams gets you psyched. Unfortunately the actual climbing isn't a cool as the scoping leads you to believe. It is a better TR than lead by the way. PP

FYI AG

Caution

I must admit to succumbing to the lure of political spray and honestly think that it is more interesting than bolting spray which always seems to me at least to be only a thin veneer covering another issue altogether. By the way I may get a bit spirited in the spray area at times but I don't intend to be an ass to anyone and while I try not to be sometimes I fall short of my goal. But since you brought it up, I think those new bolts on top of the pillar on the first pitch of Godzilla shouldn't be chopped as they are less intrusive than the collection of slings. Someone should put some chainns up tho.

Mattp quote: "Again, I noted above that I see a distinction between what may arguably be a liberal editorial bias, and a bias in the presentation of news on page one." Again I have never brought up "editorial bias" although I have noted others have. (here I assume you really mean op-ed bias) I have brought up three diverse examples showing bias in the NYT. Surely you must be aware that working and squeeking in posts makes it unreasonable to present a well documented argument showing an anaylsis of the majority of the american press. Thus your comment: "I note that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has really explained how the treatment of these or any other issue has been liberal slanted in the American mainstream press at large" is entertaining but in essence meaningless except as a smart assed comment. (which on here isn't something to be ridiculed) but as part of a greater argument isnt as I said without much meaning. Still an "E"!

The difference between upbeat and downbeat is not so trivial. But I'll accept your analysis and say that bias in inherently small and incremental. For example, one never exclaim with surprise that the Guardian is leftist! Or the Nation! Or The National Review is conservative! But one can say the NYT is liberally bias.

Yes you did. Mr Rainse (sp) deciding on content of his paper by virtue of political correctness - ie his liberal bias. This would be to me Prima facie evidence of bias in his paper. You of course have can always provide a smart ass rejoinder such as "do you think they unfairly present the background of some commentators but not others?" Such is the nature of the beast you have constructed. What I have done is simply: (1) Shown how the NYT has in headlines presented 3.1% economic growth as a negative when others haven't. (2) Pointed out an instance where important info on an editorialist was omitted. (3) I pointed out how a recent controversy involving political correctness at the NYT. To me the bias is clear. Your listing of editorials is silly nonesense - are you really claiming your review is representative of all editorials? (Hey where have I heard somethoign similar before?) Other have mentioned that their editorial writers have been deemed very much unfavorable to the current administration. PP

LOL Mattp you crack me up! I find it odd that you do not even reply to the NYT running an article about the cuurent NK crisis and yet leaving such an important detail. I'll repeat myself and reiterate that I am not commenting the content of op-ed pieces. And I will repeat that the first time you coupled my name with op-ed pieces you were in error. I'll give you an "E" for effort. And the Augusta fiasco is relevent to the issue at hand.

Mattp - I didn't bring up any OP-ED piece BUT I have something hanging in my office from the NYT that is a op-ed piece. On Oct 19 the NYT ran an essay defending the 1994 accords with North Korea and which presented the accords as the basis for resolving the current crisis. Question:Who wrote the article? Answer:A Mr. Joel S Wit. QuestionWho is he?. Answer: A guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and formerly a State Department official. Here is a more complete bio: He was most recently the coordinator for the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework and was responsible for U.S. policy related to the implementation of that agreement. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Wit served as senior adviser to Robert L. Gallucci, ambassador-at-large in charge of policy towards North Korea, where he worked on U.S. strategy to resolve the 1994 nuclear crisis, was in charge of the interagency sanctions working group, and led the U.S. effort to establish a new international organization, KEDO, to implement the Agreed Framework. Now did the NYT note that their editorialist was once responsible for monitoring NK's behavior. Nope. Note here I am not discussing the content of his editorial but on the papers nondisclosure of an important fact that would enable a reader to place the writing in a context. By the way what do you make of the whole Augusta fiasco? PP

"Economy Races Ahead at 3.1 Annual Rate in Summer," - Associated Press headline on the AP website. "Economy Grows at 3.1 percent. Consumer spending on big-ticket items fuels third quarter surge." - Washington Post. "Economy Grew at 3.1% in 3rd Quarter, Slower Than Expected" - New York Times. Hmm see a bias in the NYT. The paper of record. This is not an editorial. I just happen to have this posted in my office.

MAttp: Several years ago I heard two "Seattle" climbers interviewed in NPR. One came across well spoken, articulate and so on the other in comparison seemed dull. I saw the same two climbers on TV and the difference was even more dramatic. The funny thing is that without any doubt if I was hanging by a thread and could use one of my lifelines to ask one of those two for advice, I would have without a moments hesitation called the one who appeared to be the dull one. Without regard to intellect I would assume that a politican like Blair would be a better speaker. Indeed the hard part about politicians is wading through their public masque.

Read this!

Attn ALL CC.com users! (& Mattp too) Please believe the very worst that is said or written of me. Shamefully I never even made it to the gym. I did, however, enjoy a video taped viewing of Joe Millionaire! PP

I guess it's the difference between cognition and understanding. I just went for a cup of coffee got off the elevator and saw a great pair of legs walking by. Luckily she was going for coffee too. All the way I was thinking "man is she hot." The when I say her face I realized she was about 16 years old. The I thought:I JUST HAD A TRASK MOMENT!

Documented proof the some Japanese officers ate the livers of captured soldiers in WWII.