Fairweather

It should be whom do you hate. I believe you are incorrect. I'll check my style guide. Who is appropriately used after my listed choices. "Which" would have been better.

of course! wtf's the point of living if you can't piss on the graves of your enemies? about the only reason i go to the gym... "for every one of us - living in this world means waiting for our end - let he who can achieve glory before death - when a warrior is gone that will be his best and only bulwark" 1. 100 years from now Dr Falwell will live on as a somewhat obscure footnote in history books. You (and I) will be forgotten. Your mountain exploits amount to dust. 2. I don't consider any of you my "enemies". Just hypocrites.

This is really fucked up. I understand why the Rooskies are pissed. Too bad, because we could have been allies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6658633.stm

Whom do you blame? Muslims? Arabs? America? Western Values? Religion in general? Who do you hate? And should I celebrate when you and Alpinfox one day both fall to your deaths?

A great demonstration of liberal love and tolerance. All the usual suspects have come out for eulogies. Revealing. You all have much in common with the good reverend.

Foes. Unless you climb only Cougar, Tiger, Si, Bandera, Mailbox, and, just maybe, Granite Mountain. Also, hikes to Lake 22 are da shit.

I attended the early meetings in North Bend - and I even behaved! Despite my best efforts, I was never placed on the USFS mailing list re this issue. Strange, eh? I believe the outcome was decided by Lord Harvey long before last November. You're right though; the meetings were loaded with MidForc supporters and greens who had their shit together. And dumbasses who regularly shot up the (lower) valley, dumped derelict cars, TV sets, and garbage gave the road-closer cadre all the ammo they needed. Sad. But opening the Middle Fork trail to mountain bikes was a good call.

You should understand that budget is the secondary reason for NCNP's decision re this road closure. The primary reason is that the management of this particular National Park unit happily does the bidding of environmental groups like the somewhat radical North Cascades Conservation Council and the late Harvey Manning. Just read Harvey's rantings in his 100Hikes in the North Cascades. This is also the place where local rangers are reported to be busy tossing summit register boxes down the sides of mountains and other personnel are busy slandering local climbers in a Bellingham newspaper. Their "wilderness for the fit and educated only" plan has been clearly spelled out for years. It is not a secret. And yes, the eventual closure of Cascade River Road is among their many goals. http://www.northcascades.org/public_html/summer03.pdf See pages 6 and 7. Just stay home and watch TV. NCNP is a country club for a very select few.

I believe the Yakima Nation does not allow access to that area until July 1. Don't forget to procure a permit down in Glenwood.

FearGreed, MattP, and Viendra7: Is there any thread into which your all-consuming hatred of Bush cannot be woven? A topic about garden pottery or shag carpet perhaps? Are you even capable of functioning at work or carrying on an apolitical discussion with another human being? I think a new topic is at hand: "How my all-consuming media-driven hatred of George W Bush so distracted me from everyday life that my wife, boss, clients, and even my dog all now hate me"

I had a hamstring graft to replace my ACL about 8 years ago. Also some minor muniscus damage that was cleaned up. Dr Robert Yancee in Gig Harbor. A somewhat arrogant Harvard guy that is a fantastic surgeon. He does only hamstring grafts - but will do allografts (cadaver) on sedentary or overweight patients. When I asked about a patellar tendon graft he replied that he considered it old-school with unnecessary compromise. I was running straight line after about 4 weeks post-op, and went climbing in Alaska about 6 months post-op. Certain sports like tennis or basketball still caused minor swelling until about 1 year post-op. Today, I can't tell there was ever an injury. I would rate my strength in the repaired knee at about 150% of original. Rock solid. The hamstring tendon he took still goes unmissed. I think the early part of your summer is shot. Sorry. Keep your weight/diet under control while you're down and your return to fit will be very, very short. Focus on rehab and plan on some moderate late season trips that don't involve descents down 5000-foot talus slopes. Ski poles will help too. My two cent.

One of my favorites is a certain outdoor company that encourages us to boycott GM foods/products and write our representatives here in the US to encourage banning them altogether. I see the responsible development of genetically modified agricultural products as a way to help feed the very people for whom you claim advocacy. Are we still on the same page, sir? ...I didn't think so. Whose rules apply here? The outdoor/travel industry is under no obligation to directly infuse the profits they realize into any particular region or cause. None. The fact that they help bring tourists to a given location who, in turn, spend money is enough. The myriad jobs they provide, from manufacturing to retail to travel to publishing - both here and abroad - are enough, IMO. But if the shareholders/members of company X or foundation A wish to distribute their profits in a non-traditional manner then all the better, of course! But being bullied or shamed to do so - or doing so and then being told "not enough!" is, at the very least, counterproductive. The word extortion comes to mind, but that is likely a bit too strong. I'll tell you what - if I ever gave you $10,000 and then read on some blog that my gift wasn't appreciated, it would be the last 10k you got outta me. Gift horse. Mouth. I'm sure your causes are worthy, but you do come across as ungrateful. If I had a big check to donate I would likely hand it to one of your underlings and request I be kept off of your mailing list. Try appealing to peoples hearts - not just their consciences. Seems to me you'll find more success. Maybe I'm wrong. To your point, though: Outdoor Industry disingenuous? Absolutely. I sure roll my eyes when I hear their chest beating. But they're certainly not under any obligation to donate to you - or to have any organization like yours dictate the terms under which they'll be "allowed" to produce a profit or provide services in a given country. Last time I checked, Nepal peak fees were keeping up with market tolerances pretty well. If those $$ aren't going where they're needed then your issue is likely with the Nepalese govt?

Nice Trip. Give me a call one of these days before you head out. Where is the snow line in the SE Olympics these days? Looked a little chilly up there. Oh yea - nice improv gaiters!

Is anyone else having this problem? I can't log into any USFS sites with either Mozilla or Explorer. Until a few months ago I had no problem and I actually just thought USFS had taken down their sites temporarily. I've messed with with my internet option settings, disbled my firewall, allowed all cookies and popups, but still can't log in. I don't have problems logging onto any other site - anywhere. This is frustrating, because I use the Mount Baker, ONF, and GPNP recreation reports regularly. Anyone else having this problem with usfs sites? Here is the message I get: SERVER NOT FOUND Firefox can't find the server at www.fs.fed.us. * Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com * If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection. * If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. www.fs.fed.us

Funniest reply you've ever posted. Shit; I had Diet Coke coming out my nostrils when I read that.

Strange. I can't get it to work via a search, refreshed link, my work computer, home computer, friend's machine, Mozilla, Explorer, etc. If you are actually able to access it, great. What's your secret?

It's been down all year. Anyone know why? You'd think the Adams/St Helens fees they've imposed would - at the very least - help maintain a website with semi-current info. www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/

Try to stay on topic, foraker. Your Bush-hatred need not be woven into every thread. It is well documented.

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons. (1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and (2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one. Meanwhile in Olympia, WA: The Dems have a mega-majority in the state house, a solid majority in the senate, the governorship, five US congressmen and two liberal US senators to help promote the concept.... what are they waiting for!?!? Just ban guns in Washington State! ...Well, there's that pesky constitution again...and the fact that gun control is p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l s-u-i-c-i-d-e...even in this otherwise liberal state. I guess holding on to power is more important than imposing the will of Seattle/King County elites, eh? Smart move. Those on my side of this would love to see the Washington State Dems lead the way....to a new Republican majority here.

...usually by accepting arms from an outside party with an agenda of its own, and adopting the most brutal tactics imaginable.

You think I don't agree with that? Explain it to Ivan, not me. I say, But if you think that small arms will protect you from the tentacles of a tyrannical government, you're not thinking clearly. The masses will have surrendered their weapons the first few steps down the path to serfdom. Nonetheless, it is comforting to believe that a future tyrant might have to pay at today's prices.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol. As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was. Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable. Big Ben had no part in crafting the right you so cherish (guns) - as you no doubt know, the bill of rights wasn't created in philly. and to say locke or montesquie or the others weren't present at the drafting of the american goverment is pretty goddamn daft - clearly they weren't there physically, but the ideas they articulated resound throughout the constitution and declaration (jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a near total plagariasm from locke, the seperation of powers from the frenchie, etc) "essential" in "essential liberties" is a most ambigious adjective - what's essential to me is not going to be the same for you - you clearly care about guns, where i'd be happier seeing them a whole hell of a lot harder to come by - i think the right to get fawked up 4 ways to sunday is pretty damn essential, but you don't and that's not acceptable to me either. i guess you at least sorta have it in writing in the 2nd amendment, but you know as well as i that it can be read to mean merely that the people in the form of their state militias have the right to bear arms. we have no absolutely unrestricted freedoms - we must accept limitations to them all - again, the question is the balance - to what degree will we part with specific rights? i think folks oughta be able to have guns, but nothing more than single shot, slow to reload ones - you can hunt and defend yourself just fine w/ those, but yes, they will be inadequate if you choose to iniate hostilities against a larger force (say a french class at 9 AM). its a compromise - you can still plug bambi or the uppity-negro crawling through the bedroom window for your daughter. now watch me compromise - legalize pot and you can keep the freak'n blow illegal. or legalize it but only sell it in packages w/ a big american flag on it and a picture of jesus crying If European enlightenment had been progressing faster than a snails pace, the American Revolution (revolt) would never have transpired. But this is a digression, as is whether Ben Franklin was a promoter or supporter of the final version second amendment. My posting of his quote was to illustrate the mood of the times - re personal freedoms - and the folly of your position. Feel free to quote any free-thinker you wish, but preferably one directly involved in the politics of the time - and a patriot. As for your proposition - neither of us have the power to 'make deals' in this argument, but I probably would accept your terms if it were in my power to do so. No matter; I believe the gun control debate is "more settled" now than at any time in the last 100 years. I don't believe we'll see any dramatic changes to the status quo in the next 30 years.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol. As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was. Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin