Peter_Puget

Breach is declared officially

Looks like they deleted the thread. I didn't call CC.com a dive bar. I merely warned the gentle RC.com readers that CC.com was a rougher place.

Hey are you the perfect wife: Cleaver Mortar & Pestle Large measuring cup (4 cup) PP

California bound. Will try to go climbing a day or two. Hope the weather improves!

Erik - Here is the straight scoop. Hangout with her and to the extent you can get her to support your climbing lifestyle do it. Don't utter the "L" word. Take time to figure out what you really want to do. Climbing can be pretty boring but rainy dark winters are always depressing. Don't make a quick decision! PP

Thanks Fairweather! I agree with your comments completely. Odd how J_B has been calling for "peer reviewed" studies in another thread. Weird because the implication is that a peer reviewed study would be (relatively) free of bias. Note that he calls for this freedom only in this case. The Nation article defending the Arming of America clearly is defending the indefensible (one of many I would say) yet he presented The Nation as a persuasive unbiased source of info. In another thread he suggested that one of the Professors he was quoting was an Israeli without an point of view (here is the quote from Mtngoat's binary world:_"These texts are not from anyone's press in particular, they are opinions and witness accounts by people with a good knowledge of the israeli state, often israeli citizens themselves.") The odd thing is this professor has taught at a Palestinian School and is far from a typical Israeli. He is actively a political beast. Apparently the standards of truthfulness and full disclosure are only to be upheld if there is a "peer review" process to catch you if you fib. The so-called "liberal" press is an embaressment of rigid "group think" and cognative dissonance. Happily the fallacies of Arming of America were caught. What is sad is (and I would encourage everyone to spend 15 minutes researching this) was how vociferous the defense was and still is. PP

Posted a link and already three anon users were reading the mighty MoS!

DFA -Your image is apprpriate considering that Todd Skinner and Beth Wald sold red Soviet t-shirts to earn $ after visiting the soviet union and competing in a speed climbing contest. Your low down commie tendacies not withstanding! PP

Scot? Alpinek? Climb on pot?

I say either the Roadhouse near the Seattle Vertical World or Targies on Queene Anne.

Hey look at the new TLG In Action Post!

Sorry posted the wrong pic before.

From National Review - Melissa Seckora Michael Bellesiles, a former Emory University history professor and author of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, can no longer claim the prestigious Bancroft Prize, awarded to him in April 2001, as his own. In a statement released Friday, Columbia University announced that the school's trustees had voted to rescind the prize because Bellesiles "had violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct." Arming America "had not and does not meet the standards they had established for the Bancroft Prize," the trustees found. Columbia also requested that Bellesiles return $4,000 in prize money. It is the first time the prize for "distinguished works" in American history and diplomacy has been withdrawn since it was first awarded in 1948. Arming America was immediately embraced by many scholars because it appeared to confirm what many already believed: that the Second Amendment only protects a collective right to bear arms, and individual gun rights were unimportant to America's Founders. The thesis of the book is that there were few guns in early America and that most of the guns that did exist were old and broken. This October, Bellesiles was forced to resign from his professorship at Emory after a panel of historians built on the seed work of critics (most notably James Lindgren of Northwestern University) and found that Bellesiles was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work." The National Endowment for the Humanities also withdrew its name from a Newberry fellowship awarded to Bellesiles for a second book on guns (the NEH and the William & Mary Quarterly were the first to seriously examine the charges against Bellesiles). Columbia's provost, Jonathan Cole, tells NRO that his school's decision came at the end of a careful process that began in the fall of 2001. Though they were ultimately influenced by the results of the Emory investigation, Columbia's trustees also consulted with outside historians in their deliberations about the fate of Bellesiles's award. In fact, Bellesiles was even allowed to provide his input before Columbia made its decision. Columbia's recent evaluation of Arming America by its trustees, administration, and faculty contrasts sharply with the original review by the Bancroft selection committee in 2001. Despite early revelations that Bellesiles had made many errors in the book, Columbia's prize committee issued the award anyway, as reiterated last Friday, because Arming America appeared to fulfill criteria of "enduring worth and impeccable scholarship that make a major contribution to our understanding of the American past." But did it? Before the Bancroft Prize was awarded in 2001, scholars had already shown that Bellesiles's main probate data were mathematically impossible, and that he had miscounted, misinterpreted, and made up substantial portions of information. When asked by National Review last fall, Arthur Goren, professor emeritus of Columbia, then chair of the prize committee, said he wasn't aware of a public debate or serious questions about Arming America when the committee considered it: "We reviewed 150 books over a four month period. As you undertake that process and seek to recognize innovative work, among other things, it is probably inevitable that some of the books will touch on controversial topics." This, despite the fact that one of the original Bancroft panel members, Rutgers historian Jan Lewis, had been sent a scholarly manuscript detailing most of these problems. What's more, on April 18, 2001, the day that Columbia presented Bellesiles his prize, the Columbia College Conservative Club (CCCC) held a roundtable discussion on the author's work. Not a single Bancroft committee member or member of the school's history department attended. "On April 4, I e-mailed members of the history department and the Bancroft committee with a summary of the case against Bellesiles including some clear cases of fraud. I received no responses," explains Ron Lewenberg, then president of the CCCC. He tried again and was shunned again. "I was not allowed to put the packets in the mailboxes of professors and staff, so with the approval of the secretary, I placed them on the desk. According to a friendly TA, whose anonymity I have kept secret for the protection of his career, Professor Eric Foner, saw the handouts and threw a fit. All of the packets were thrown out." After what Lewenberg interpreted as Foner's attempt to suppress knowledge of possible problems with the book, Foner last week defended the committee's ignorance in comments to the Associated Press: "The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust. We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that." Though relieved that the school's trustees withdrew Bellesiles's Bancroft Prize, Joyce Malcolm, a history professor at Bentley College who has written a book on the Anglo-American conception of gun rights, and who was an early skeptic of Bellesiles's research begs to differ: "The sad part is that if the prize committee had taken the trouble to read the serious criticism of the book before bestowing this award they would never have been put in this embarrassing situation. The award was meant to be for a work of impeccable scholarship, and it was clear before April 2001 that Arming America was not such a book." And what about the book's publisher, Knopf? In the wake of Columbia's actions, Knopf announced plans to continue to publish the same paperback edition that Emory and Columbia found to be the product of "misconduct" and "falsification" — problems serious enough for Bellesiles to lose his tenured position at Emory and the coveted Bancroft Prize but not for Knopf to stop selling his discredited book, and its lies. PP's Editorial Note: The Nation Magazine recently published a defense of Arming America. So much for honest reporting.

Hey Dru I only give those I rate 5 stars. I don't rate everyone! Hey I hadn't noticed that bit about rating volume.

Dru - I just gave you five but your rating didn't move - we need fractional stars!

Good weather in So. California for Xmas and New Years weeks!

O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain! America! America! God shed his grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea! O beautiful for pilgrim feet Whose stern, impassioned stress A thoroughfare for freedom beat Across the wilderness! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law! O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife. Who more than self the country loved And mercy more than life! America! America! May God thy gold refine Till all success be nobleness And every gain divine! O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears! America! America! God shed his grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea! O beautiful for halcyon skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the enameled plain! America! America! God shed his grace on thee Till souls wax fair as earth and air And music-hearted sea! O beautiful for pilgrims feet, Whose stern impassioned stress A thoroughfare for freedom beat Across the wilderness! America ! America ! God shed his grace on thee Till paths be wrought through wilds of thought By pilgrim foot and knee! O beautiful for glory-tale Of liberating strife When once and twice, for man's avail Men lavished precious life ! America! America! God shed his grace on thee Till selfish gain no longer stain The banner of the free! O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears! America! America! God shed his grace on thee Till nobler men keep once again Thy whiter jubilee! America The Beautiful Katharine Lee Bates wrote the original version in 1893. She wrote the 2nd version in 1904. Her final version was written in 1913.

Nope your man Paul W in '78

Allison: What song or writer is this from: "The fools only laugh 'cause they envy you you can do what you want"

While I have been going crazy giving out 5 stars someone has been demoting me! I wasnt in with the cool guys at school or even in here!

Just gave you five stars Greg!

I give everyone 5 stars if I rate them. Even Bronco who hurt my feelings.

Duck! It's arriving! Dru quote: "zzzzzzzzzzz peter. anybody can quote one sentence from a report which says health stats are being well collected, out of context." Well I would agree many people could do so but your implication that I have is certainly wrong. Here I quote the first two lines of the report. I will leave it any interested parties to read about the number of reporting groups audited and the number found with deficient quality standards. I will admit I brought this up as an aside. First two line from chapter 6: Chapter 6 Statistics Canada Managing the Quality of Health Statistics Mixed results in the quality of health statistics Dru quote:" the reason i haven't given you numerical figures of my own is cause i dont need to cause this topic is zzzzzzzzzzzz. if you want them go dig through the back issues of Scientific American colected online. " I seriously doubt that any Scientific American will show that 2% of the US Budget (as yet undefined by you despite a request for clarification) is spent on healthcare and that 70% is on Defense. I also am not convinced that 70% of the Canadian National Budget is spent on healthcare. In short your full of bluster and bombast but nothing of substance.