Peter_Puget

taken from the Seattle M's forum:

This last week has been tough! Too much Beer, BBQ and ice Cream. These two have went overboard:

Is it open during the week?

link Accident between Index and Baring

You are equally free here to laud the exceptional qualities and bleeding edge attributes IB lends to climbing. I don't need to climb a 22 pitches of bolts to make 'value statements' about its existence or the trade-offs of establishing such a route where land managers would take exception to it. Actually, it seems to have been lost on you that not only do I not recommend the route in general [1], [2] but I would support its removal based on the power drill in wilderness argument [3] , as I've already mentioned in this thread a few days ago. We hold the same opinion, only came about it differently. What about Rap Wall?

I can't really remember much about the area but think that it would be a dicey lead with only the last one or two bolts. In any event Blake says it can be safely climbed (ie G rated?)using only the last one or two bolts on the pitch. Go at it CC.comer's. Let's get some onsight feedback! Preinspectors and traversrs not allowed.

Equivocation thy name is Blake. So the goal post has changed…at least a bit. (From Safely to runout) I wonder specifically which bolts are by cracks on Perils that can be safely removed? How did you determine the climbability of Perils? Peter, I think if you re-read the above you will note that in both cases I said most (but not all) bolts on those routes could be removed without making the climb unsafe or runout. I never changed goalposts, I just think that bolts should only be on parts of the wall that don't feature solid cracks. Still wondering....I wonder specifically which bolts are by cracks on Perils that can be safely removed? How did you determine the climbability of Perils? So if the last bolt was the only bolt on Perils would it be runout or safe?

Huh? Undocumented means undocumented. You guys crack me up. And ya I am a tease but an honest one.

Equivocation thy name is Blake. So the goal post has changed…at least a bit. (From Safely to runout) I wonder specifically which bolts are by cracks on Perils that can be safely removed? How did you determine the climbability of Perils? Personal perception on Leavenworth: I hardly climb in Leavenworth. I think some of the stuff is kinda short. Some of the climbing is simply not the kind of climbing I enjoy. I do enjoy the variety of climbs. A handfull of the new undocumented routes are some of the best climbs in the state and put up in very good style.

Perils would be pretty bold without any bolts..if I remember correctly.

I am not surprised. Your outlook is like a religion - no amount of reason can shake your faith. Go back and re-read the imminent threads. Now you write" "Either are a offered as a reason for attacking a nation that is not attacking us, though in the one case we might actually think they are about to. And, in the case of Iraq, we didn't even pretend to believe Saddam was about to." In the "imminent" threads you argued that the US claimed an attack was imminent and now your argument has changed to the point that "[the US] didn't even pretend to believe Saddam was about to [attack]." Yes, you do seem confused - or at least not bothered by an inconsistent argument. In any event I will simply quote from your linked article: "they represent very different strategies." Your inability to understand the difference speaks volumes. That a biased, albiet poorly written article, supporting your viewpoint makes the distinction should give you a clue that it may be important. Spray on!

Check out Matt's link and then go back and read his comments the threads regarding "iminent" and the lead up to the war. Here is a exceprt from the today's link (emphasis added): SO the attack on Iraq was not a matter of avoiding an imminent attack but rather one waged as a preventive measure and this appears fact to be a significant component of the 'Bush Doctrine." I would also point out this warning on the entry: The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.

Must be me then because I had a blast Sunday. Although everytime something touches my knees I cringe.

Sure Oly respond to G-Spot's "Hey Oly" thread but not mine! Anyway the Safe's been a groovy place to be lately. Although it is wrecking my weight-loss plans.

From the article: Was April 2006 a dud? Does an increase of 6% agree with "Stopped buying?"

Seems odd someone would tote a hammer up and do a half-assed job banging on the bolts. Wouldn't it have just been easier to use a wrench?

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't some outraged tradster but rather winter stuff falling and beating them.

Must have still been single in your heart?

Just find a man..any man!

Actually this is starting to come to pass. The nice thing about roundabouts is that you can't run a red light in a roundabout. And with Gas prices now reaching nearly 1/2 of Euro levels (gasp), people aren't buying American made SUV's anymore. linkity-link

Will you be at the Safe tomorrow night? I keep looking for you (sec 116?) but we are never there at the same time.

I thought you might be serious until I came to this!

No change here.

at its finest Sample: '' If the former Massachusetts governor wins the GOP nomination and the presidency, Keller's message added, it will ``ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell.''

Hey Shoes I tried working my magic for you and Knot. You can lead a horse to water......Maybe your name aint the most inspiring for a fling. Girls check out Small Shoes...NO trip reports!