Fairweather

I wasn't using my full name but for a couple weeks when the incident occurred, so it seemed logical at that point to assume it would become a problem. Even you should be able to figure out that since becoming "Fairweather" the problem hasn't reoccurred. As for "disclosing my identity about once a year" you are trying to argue your point using a 'non-truth' - a common tactic of yours. I have not revealed my identity in an open forum since taking on Fairweather - ever. I have posted TR's with pics, so it is possible anyone who really cared could identify me in public - and if they had a problem with me they could address it at that point - great. But that's a far cry from one's full name that can be used to access detailed personal information about someone's life. As for the debate: It seems, Matt, that you have big issues with Pope and Raindawg's standards. Right or wrong, it is clear they regularly touch a nerve that you find unbearably painful. That you have used your moderator status to squelch debate on the subject in the past speaks volumes about not only your personal beliefs regarding the bolting topic, but about your own intolerance for (what you view as) dissident orthodoxy.

Matt brings up this subject regularly and predictably when he feels he has been slighted - even though he posts links to his full name in his bio and promotes his vision of wilderness ethics (many with which I agree, some with which I do not) on this very site. When I first began posting here, it was under my full name - first and last. Then I made the mistake of expressing unpopular political beliefs... and began getting nasty emails. Not PM's - but emails at my personal address. I immediately became "Fairweather" and pulled all personal links, not necessarily because I feared for my physical safety, but because if someone wanted to, they could intimidate or embarrass family members, coworkers, and generally disrupt the flow of my daily life. Who needs that shit just because they wanted to engage in discussion? IMO, the debate is actually better and more open when faces and names are shared only with a chosen few. Disclaimer: I am in no way participating in the great bolt debate here. As a bona fide slogger, I am not qualified to do so.

You're kidding, right? JosephH may be the voice of Beacon Rock, but he is hardly respectful of anyone he disagrees with, frequently resorting to name calling, race-baiting, and hardened intolerance. Try again.

Very, very funny. So you're saying that you really don't want your real name associated with your own posts? You do realize you are just validating the argument anyone might make for putting your real name out there, don't you? I'm actually a proponent of allowing people to continue to use "screen names" which permit relative anonymity (though the personalities do come out anyway, don't they?). But what you are saying is that you would rather not have your name associated with what you post (which should stand apart from what anyone else has to say). You're saying that you can't stand behind your own arguments, because you're embarrassed to do so. Maybe thats not what you intend to say, but read what you wrote and think about it. If you don't actually want your name associated with this debate, then don't post. Respect yourself and don't waste your time if it is so beneath you. I don't think this is a valid point. I'm sure Pope would be proud to see his name associated with his beliefs. So would I, mine. But, as in any large gathering, there exists an element that thinks it is appropriate to take the debate outside the forum and onto their perceived antagonist's telephone, doorstep, place of work, etc. All the while "moderators" like Matt pick-and-choose which posters are 'inflammatory' based on nothing more than his own world view. It's a very real concern, and to twist it into an accusation of academic cowardice is just plain wrong.

So the Canadian taxpayer financed your "break"? Sounds like a prescription for national laziness. Good luck to ya.

Sorry, but I am temporarily computer-deaf. Bill Gates' newest version, which I installed last night, killed the on-board sound on my motherboard and now I can't find the FUCKING ASUS DISC to reload the driver. Additionally, I have noticed that my computer now runs ABOUT TEN FUCKING TIMES SLOWER than it used to. All problems that I'm sure I'll patiently work through in good time.....

Good story on the current state of the violent side of the radical environmental movement. http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070718/NEWS/70718001 "I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," Meyerhoff said, in May. "A million times over I apologize ... to all of you hardworking business owners, employees, researchers, firemen, investigators, attorneys and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted, and whose sleep was troubled." Well said.

Porter! I am defending your right to drive your car without the aid of a child safety seat! Where's the love?

Fucking Democrats

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/aspartame-0916.html

Don't be ridiculous, Sky! Their health care is FREE

PLEASE tell me you didn't show them how to use fire!

???? Is somebody dissin' The Bible?

I believe it's being used as a USFS jobs program. And no, I don't believe it's a very large percentage of their budget. The "volunteer" groups you talk about have agenda's of their own. WTA supported the closing of the upper Middle Fork Road.

Because the amount of land that is in wilderness already is a very tiny percentage of the forest and it consists mainly of the rocky ridges and high elevations which does not create a cohesive natural eco-system where diverse form of wildlife can thrive. If they are countering extremist developers who are spending millions of dollars to lobby our law-makers to use our tax dollars to destroy pristine areas that are vital to wildlife, YES. It costs more to maintain roads than trails and motorized travel has a far greater potential for negatively impacting wildlife. Example? Example? Example? When I worked for the Forest Service, the amount of dollars spent on timber harvesting was greater than the amount of money spent on all recreation combined by a factor of over 100. That was 20 years ago and that factor has radically increased. To counter the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually by developmental extremists to destroy wildlife habitat and limit our access to natural areas. 1) Not a "tiny" percentage, but rather substantial. I agree there should be more...but under a new set of rules as yet to be defined. I am a big fan of the "National Recreation Area" concept, but that might be taking things a bit too far. 2) Define "developers". The timber rapists are only a small fraction of their former selves. Maybe mining? I'm not up to date on any recent controversy vs PNW wilderness. 3) Your reply didn't even attempt to address the point. 4) Wild Sky Wilderness. 5) Every single wilderness area created in this state during the past 30 years! * Boulder River * The Brothers * Buckhorn * Clearwater * Colonel Bob * Glacier Peak * Glacier View * Goat Rocks * Henry M. Jackson * Indian Heaven * Lake Chelan-Sawtooth * Mount Adams * Mount Baker * Mount Skokomish * Noisy-Diobsud * Norse Peak * Pasayten * Salmo-Priest * San Juan WA * Mt. Skokomish * Trapper Creek * Washington Islands WA * Wenaha-Tucannon * William O. Douglas * Wonder Mountain 6) Back in the 1970's and 80's an arson campaign to eradicate all "man made structures" (public/trailside shelters) on The Olympic Penninsula within the boundaries of ONP was undertaken by a new breed of wilderness zealots bent on setting things right with nature under the protection of the WA of 1964. Only with the public outcries of good people like Dick Pargeter (of Pargeter's Maps fame) were these jihadists forced to stop their nonsense. 7) Again, you don't address the point in any way. Trails and roads were subsidized by logging back then. Now that that funding has dried up the USFS needs to change its mandate to recreation that is balanced and meets the needs of diverse user groups. I need to believe that my Trail Park Pass is helping to fund my activities and not paying for the newly installed gate and sign that reads Road Closed.

Why would we want to create More wilderness areas? So extremist environmental attorneys can file more lawsuits? So we can be locked out of our favorite trailhead because a washed out road grade can't be moved 20 feet? So more magnificent valley roads like Snoqualmie or Stehekin can be locked up? So former clear cuts can miraculously be called old growth? So mountain bikes can be kicked out of their well established haunts? So 50 year old rustic public use shelters can be torn down or torched by public servants? So limited USFS dollars can be stretched yet thinner? Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

I'm curious if she hollered out for joy...or quietly hid the "winning" ticket in her dresser drawer and prepared her husband a nice dinner laced with some cardio-stopping substance.

Wow! The grand tour!! Great pictures too. That picture looking toward Sagittarius and into the galactic center is stunning. I've never tried my hand at night photography, but your photos are inspiring me to try. CC.com TR of the summer so far, IMO. Looks like your parents had a good trip too! Hmmm: SA Age = (2007-1980)??

Amazing video!! Future Viagra candidate.

I'll eat the occasional steak or any whole-muscle beef, but until Canada and the United States start taking that nasty little prion more seriously, I won't eat any ground beef - especially since 35% of samples tested had brain/spinal tissues included in the mix. skull Whirlwind has some great points too. Other than the "old" carbon used by trucks that ship beef to market, we're talking "new" so-called greenhouse gasses, ie: methane. The fact that this is not mentioned in the "study" wreaks of an agenda and invalidates the work, IMO.

"I WASTED HALF MY LIFE ON CascadeClimbers.com AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT"

Even a righty can appreciate fine art. Those are some magnificent pieces, Off. The picture of the good police captain offering up a cup of joe to his new VC friend is a bit over the top though.

What happened??????? Hey; did you get to hear Senator Byrd's speech on the Senate floor? I'll try to find it on YouTube...absolutely stunning. And, BTW, does the bill actually call for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq? No. So why you gettin' so excited, Crux?

...4 pages later - I guess not. Try to stay on task, Matt. Who's slandering Reid? The Wa Post? I don't get it. Are you giving Reid a pass on this one? Take your meds. I found this quote from your article interesting: "Cheney and Lundquist also met with Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of "The Prize," a history of the oil industry. Yergin recalls discussing energy efficiency and natural gas data, which were then showing that increased drilling had for the first time not raised U.S. production." ...all this time you've been propagating the lie that Cheney never met with naysayers like Yergin - only those evil oil execs. What's up? And please spare me the reading comprehension bit...I've seen "The Prize", and Yergin is no friend of Big Oil.