Fairweather

Is it just me, or does that matrix look like the old "off the air" pattern from chanel 13 in the 1960's and 70's? All that is missing is that indian cheif in the center.

Wifey is sittin' on my lap and I'm gettin' it right now!.... Hi Trask! ...That was her. She's such an exhibitionist. OW! That hurts!.... I was only joking, darling....come back!

I SHIT YOU NOT..... I answered all of the questions honestly: No Yes Yes No Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Maybe No I guess this test is a little slanted like Dustin said. ...Or maybe I'm more liberal than some of you think. Or maybe some of you aren't as centrist as you think. Or maybe... Another 2.12cm to the left and I would have had to commit ritual suicide.

JoshK, Russian Girly-Man in training, WTF are you talking about, you asswipe? Did you read the posts/replies? Are you truly the moron I always suspected you to be? Here is my source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html Some of the words are kinda' big. This might help.... an early Christmas gift for you: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

"If I were a moderator" by Fairweather: If I were a moderator I would harrass, mock, belittle, and thoroughly humiliate those whom I deemed liberal, or otherwise disagreed with. Leftists would be banned outright. If I were a moderator I would demand absolute loyalty and start a cc.com patriots club. Members would have to swear an allegiance to America, the Republican (or Libertarian) Party, and of course, to me. I would gleefully announce Thursday nights as 'right-wing pub-club night' and Tacoma would host these events exclusively. If I were a moderator I would organize conservative-only climbing trips. Blue-bags would not be allowed on these trips and prizes would be awarded for the foulest stool left rotting in a heavily traveled climbing corridor. All climbers would be required to carry guns. Big, big guns. Dogs would be welcome, but leashes forbidden. Each rope team would carry a boom box.... If I were a moderator......

Wouldn't AGENT ORANGE be more effective for that?

I don't know why bear hunting bothers me so much. As you know, I'm no soft-hearted, meat is murder goof-ball. And I while I have never personally shot a large mammal, I have killed my share of wing'ed creatures, and I have been an armed observer on a few deer and Elk hunts and enjoyed it a great deal. I certainly have travelled armed in Bear country, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot a bruin that was clearly (very clearly) a threat to my party. All that said, I just can't understand why anyone would hunt bears. They seem to posess a higher level of intelligence than most other game animals and I don't see them as anything but a 'persecuted' species much like wolves. Ditto big cats and Mountain Goats.

Secret Service Warns Eminem Over Lyrics Monday, December 08, 2003 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service (search) has looked into reports that rapper Eminem (search) wrote lyrics that said "I'd rather see the president dead," but it doesn't plan a formal investigation, said a Secret Service spokesman. John Gill, the spokesman, cautioned such lyrics can have unintended consequences on others. "The Secret Service has no current plans to open an investigation into this matter," Gill said Monday. But "we are concerned about communications that can be interpreted in a manner perhaps not intended by the artist, and the potential peripheral impact that such lyrics can have on other individuals." The Secret Service made preliminary inquiries because of lyrics in Eminem's song, "We Are American." The lyrics say "(Expletive) money, I don't rap for dead presidents, I'd rather see the president dead." Representatives of Eminem could not be reached Monday night for comment. Eminem's spokesman said recently the song was "unfinished" and that "there was no determination where, when, how or if it was going to be used." Gill said the Secret Service must balance its duties of investigating such communications with its respect for the constitutional right of freedom of speech. He added, however, that it was necessary for the Secret Service to look into communications that could be considered threatening to the president. "The Secret Service takes every potential threat against the president seriously," Gill said. "We don't have the luxury to do otherwise. "

I was talking to a government-official-who-shall-remain-nameless at Copper Center a couple years ago who told me that Paul Claus landed one of his planes on the summit of Blackburn, got out and walked around, then hopped back in and took off! I've also 'heard' that a pair of snowmobilers has summited Sanford in winter, or at least come close.

Strange I haven't read about any specifics, and since Germany relies on nuclear for 30% of its electricity production, and is rich in Uranium, I doubt I will. No doubt they will replace this nuclear generated electricity with more fossil-fuel fired generating stations like the ones that currently account for over 60% of their power production. I would also point out that Germany has yet to ratify The Kyoto Accord.

Glad to hear you are all on board the (CO2-free!) Nuclear Power bandwagon! Lets fire up those reactors ASAP.

...Or it might be those scabs are interrupting an otherwise normal flow.

NOTHING is worse than getting the shits on a climb. (DON'T drink two big glasses of milk before a climb, especially if you never drink it to begin with!) I got 'em bad during a one-day Rainier climb a couple years ago. I spent the hours of 4am - 9am staggering back and forth between the shelter and the outhouse while my ropemates and little brother made the summit. When they got back down, I think I was more worn-out than they were! What a fucked up trip that was.

The first link doesn't work. The second link just leads me to a form letter and a bunch of hysteria. (IMHO)

I think it would be cool to hang out at Muir, or Leavenworth wearing a "BANNED FROM CC.com" t-shirt...you know, with a big red circle/slash.

Kind of a funny website..... http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=jabba+the+hut+picture&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5a4363e09d756872%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D20%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Djabba%2Bthe%2Bhut%2Bpicture%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.glennbeck.com%252Fnews%252F05202002.shtml%26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glennbeck.com%2Fnews%2F05202002.shtml

I just visited The Sierra Club site and the only link I could find even closely regarding your statement is this: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/106440552699250.xml If the Sierra Club wants to "allow" the clearing of trees near homes (on private property?) and considers this a compromise...well then, that's real big of them. The article, and your statement above, don't say if this compromise involved public or private land so I'll just have to take you at your word. BTW, is the Roadless Areas issue decided, or is it still working its way up through the courts? If the Sierra Club indeed came to a compromise on this issue, then upon what do they base their continued harping about the initiative? They don't like the compromise they agreed upon? It wasn't enough? They're angry that they had to compromise at all? I guess I just don't understand.....

1.) The recent Medicare Bill 2.) Steel Tarriffs Neither of these issues were well received by conservatives, and that Bush thought he could ever placate liberals to any degree just demonstrates the folly of 'compromise'. The Sierra Club's version of compromise .....is not to. I can't think of any issue that any major environmental groups have shown any interest in compromising on. There just comes a point when your adversaries say to themselves, "what's the use in talking to these guys?"

I would like to think it was for that assinine picture you posted of the plane crashing into the WTC as a giant seductress licked the towers. (Although I'm sure that wasn't the reason.) That was just as fucked up as Metalhead's picture. Nevertheless, I hope the moderators will find it in their hearts to reinstate you as I don't believe in shutting down debate/ideas. Besides, you provide a nice contrast to Fairweather's voice of reason and common sense.

Okay, Fairweather. I went and read the report. In all eleven cases for intervention to prevent violence, the outcome was the same, "insufficient evidence to determine outcome". This means they couldn't tell one way or the other for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of studies, lack of necessary records, inconsistent results, etc. This is not the same thing as "no cause and effect" as you put it. Did anyone go read that report? Personally, I think that panel was afraid to reach a conclusion for fear of the backlash that would inevitably ensue. Your juvenile attempts at becoming a pollster notwithstanding, doesn't "insufficient evedince to determine outcome" mean essentially the same thing when the original challenge to The Frasier Report came from you? Would you tighten current gun laws when the evidence you need to do so cannot be produced? The onus here remains on you and your challenge to the original post. Where is the study to demonstrate your position in the affirmative? I don't think you've demonstrated anything here other than your own childish nature vis a vis your "poll".

I was playing outside in the snow all day today. I'm too tired to do a lot of research. If I have a slow day at work on Monday, I'll see what I can come up with. A white flag, perhaps?

I suspect that the internet would end up like Canadian talk radio, where you are free to have any flavor (flavour) you want.....as long as it's govt'-vanilla. Eventually, maybe 30 years from now, places like this forum would find themselves "frowned upon" by the watchful UN eye.

...

I'll just post this for anyone interested....(Sorry I couldn't just post the link, but FOXNews website doesn't seem to allow it.) Critics Balk at Efforts to Place Internet in Global Grip Sunday, November 30, 2003 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos WASHINGTON — A global summit scheduled in December may result in a proposal to put the Internet under United Nations control — an idea that has met solid resistance from the United States. "There are some countries that have been very adamant to get their governments to play a bigger role in Internet management," said Ambassador David Gross, the State Department’s coordinator for international communications and information policy. He is leading the U.S. delegation to the World Summit on the Information Society (search), scheduled to meet Dec. 10-12 in Geneva, Switzerland. Gross said that while the U.S. supports greater access for all nations to the Internet, it will resist any efforts to take the Net out of the private sector. "We will continue to fight hard to ensure that the Internet remains a balanced enterprise among all stakeholders — one of these stakeholders is government, but it is one of many stakeholders," Gross told Foxnews.com, adding that "it must be private sector-led. That is very important to us." The WSIS, sponsored by the International Telecommunications Union (search), the United Nations' key agency on telecommunications, will bring together more than 50 heads of state, along with an expected 5,000 to 6,000 government, business and non-profit representatives from across the globe to discuss in part “the yawning telecommunications gap between emerging economies and the developed world.” The summit’s goal is to achieve consensus on a draft declaration of principles and draft plan of action, which reportedly includes a recommendation to place the governance of the Internet under the ITU or another body created by U.N. member nations, say observers. This is one of several provisions now being debated in contentious preliminary discussions. “Standardization is one of the essential building blocks of the Information Society,” reads the most recent draft of the WSIS Draft Declaration of Principles. “There should be particular emphasis on the development and adoption of international standards.” The effort for global control of the Internet is reportedly led by China, which allows its own citizens online access, but it is tightly controlled by a giant firewall and monitored by government surveillance. China has so far been joined in its efforts by representatives of Syria, Egypt, Vietnam and South Africa, said Ronald Koven, European representative for the World Press Freedom Committee (search), an international media watchdog based in the United States. Other reports indicate that Russia, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil may be on board, too. Supporters of global governance say that the Internet should be administered and managed by a governmental body, with uniform standards for security and better access for poorer countries. They point to WSIS statistics indicating that only one-third of developing countries' inhabitants are Internet users. They say fewer than 3 percent of Africans can even access telecommunications of any kind. Though the WSIS organization does not advocate specific plans for global management of the Net, it does suggest support for global principles. “The summit aims to jumpstart and speed access and adoption of new technologies through active collaboration and commitment from all,” said a WSIS information brief on its Web site, www.wsis.org. Currently, the International Corporation of Assigned Network and Numbers (search), a non-profit corporation with an international board of directors, manages Internet Protocol space allocation, domain names and root server system functions. It does not have content or security control functions. Critics of the global Internet idea say certain nations like China want to take away ICANN’s duties and place them under governmental auspices, along with increased control over security and content, placing freedom of press and individual freedom of expression at serious risk. “Those governments don’t have any democracy or free speech, it’s dangerous and we’re trying to stop it,” said Julio Munoz, executive director of the Inter American Press Association in Miami. “Of course we are concerned they will try to manipulate the free flow of information.” He said his member organizations, which include Latin American publishers and journalists, are nervous about a potential crackdown on their freedoms resulting from any move toward Internet governance. He said they see it as a backdoor for subverting the freedom of the press as a whole. Even if no consensus is reached on the WSIS plan of action, IAPA is concerned that governments back home will use the proposals to restrict the freedoms they have fought for so bitterly. “We’re going to send a delegation there — to try and defend the press,” said Munoz, who recalled previously unsuccessful attempts in the 1970s and 1980s for U.N.-led media standards. Peter Linton, a spokesman for the European Internet Foundation (search), which works closely with the Capitol Hill-based Internet Education Foundation, said he would be surprised if the U.S. and European nations were not firmly against the Chinese-led movement for global controls. “I know the U.S. government has said it would do everything it could to prevent this,” he said. “I cannot speak for the European Commission, but I would suspect it would look at it with a jaundiced eye as well.” Because so little agreement exists so far on what exactly should be in the declaration of principles, much less the plan of action, there appears to be little confidence that a consensus on Internet governance, which currently includes a reaffirmation of the United Nations' Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (search) — the right of free expression — for the Internet, will be achieved. Debate has also centered on new intellectual property standards and special technology funding for poor nations. President Bush is not scheduled to attend the summit, which will be followed by another meeting in Tunisia in November 2005.

j_b = (bi)Sexual Chocolate I don't think so. Sex Choc would fight more. ...just a hypothesis. I have no research to cite, and I have not applied scientific method.