Fairweather

"A commonly mistaken explanation of pressure altitude is that it is the result of centrifugal forces of Earth's spin that draws the atmosphere toward the equator to form an 'equatorial bulge'." I always assumed that this was the case being made for the 22,000 ft Denali claim. As it turns out the varyance is thermally driven. I still question how this would account for a 1700 foot varyance, and this is still not explained in the article, but now I understand I (and others) have misunderstood the premise. Thanks for the link!

If this were true, (it's not) then an altimeter would read 22,000 feet on top of McKinley. (it doesn't) no genius... cause you set it for sea level in alaska not in tibet I believe this is not the case. Even a device set at sea level on the equator would read 20,320 atop Denali. If this were not the case, the rate of increasing altitude expressed on the device as you climbed would be different at varying latitudes to the point that an altimeter would need to be specifically calibrated for, say every 10 degrees. I could be wrong. I'm certainly no atmospheric scientist.

If this were true, (it's not) then an altimeter would read 22,000 feet on top of McKinley. (it doesn't) Additionally, altimeters would have to be sold pre-calibrated for the latitude in which the buyer intended to use the device.

I've already read Fast Food Nation. (On the advice of someone here, I believe.) Michael Moore's, "Stupid White Men" isn't worthy of my time. I never read books written in crayon.

Any suggestions for my enlightenment, Matt? Looks like I'll owe you some balance. Nothing too heavy though!....I'm from Tacoma, afterall.

Tin Tin in Tibet! Good choice! That is an awesome book Dru.

.....gimme a break.

Matt, I don't claim to swim in the mainstream here. I would point out however, that I have never been so "over the top" as to warrant a censored post, and to the best of my recall never have faced the moderators "delete" key. As for anyone wanting to physically threaten me because of my stated beliefs; yes, I see your point. Although in this "spray" forum it is often hard to take anything seriously. I, personally, would not be concerned unless the threat was specific and the person making the threat had knowledge of my location and the wherewithall to carry it out. The Dr, however, should realize that deliberately goading someone who has spent several months in a virtual free-fire zone, where civilized norms are necessarily put on hold, can be a hazardous proposition. (Not an excuse, just an observation.) While I agree with much of Mikeadam's politics, and while I salute Mikeadam for his service, both civilian and uniformed, I would encourage him to retract his threats directed at Dr Flash. Just as I retract my support for those threats. I would also encourage Dr Flash to abstain from supporting or suggesting violence against president Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/international/middleeast/06KHOM.html I find this story incredible. While still a long-shot, there may yet be hope for the region. Is this a small sign of the democratic "chain reaction" that most hope for?

Matt, you're probably right. But I think some of Dr F's posts are well over the top, and often written to elicit just such a response as that brought forth by Mikeadam. My applause is strictly emotional.

why read it? my comment to you is solely focused on your threat of physical violence to somebody on this board. You say people have an isolated view of the world. I say you've got a sorry view of reality if in fact you are over 21 years old and still think bullying people with physical threats is the way to deal with opinions you don't like. If you don't get it, I'm not gonna waste anymore time explaining it anymore. Go slap a Baathist, get it outa your system. RobBob, I think MikeAdams slam/threats to (notreallya)Dr Unamazing are in response to the Dr's previous post (in another thread) in which he asked Mike to "save a round for Bush when you get home". I could be wrong, but threatening the life of the president, or encouraging such is a felony. This is one case where I don't mind Dr Ass-wad seeing the potential consequences of his idiotic posts. MikeAdam, I salute you.

GayBronco, You're not the first person to tell me to place more emphasis on protien intake than on fat & associated worries. I've never paid much attention to it, but I am curious.

Nah, takin' it from a tribe.

Hey Billy, Maybe you could explain how "some six million dead in one year" took place in Rwanda, when the total population of that nation then was only 5.1 million. I believe the best estimate is about 500,000 dead (800,000 according to CIA World Fact Book), mostly Tutsi minorities killed by the Hutu majority. Still a horror to be sure, and I do believe this is a case where the UN really dropped the ball with tragic consequences. How about checking your #'s a little better before you present them next time. But then exagerration of "American crimes" is a cornerstone of most leftist arguments.

I work out about 1 hour per day. With work/family it is all I can manage. Like I said before, I feel I'm in pretty "good" shape now. My Mt Si times are in the 1:13 range now w/o carrying weight, and I get out climbing about 2x month. I know that the "more exercise/less cal" is the key, but I was just curious about the role of fat vs. general calorie intake. ...givin' up the Coke....shit, that would be tough...

Just curious about what you all consider a reasonable sat.fat/total fat daily intake? My weight is a very stable 165-167 lbs (I'm 5'9" 41 yrs old) and I have about 14-15% body fat. I feel I'm in better than average cardio shape vs. the average weekend warrior, but could be superior if I could drop another 8-10 lbs. My best attempts to track my total fat intake have me at about 20-25 grams/day. Does this sound excessive? I drink no milk, eat no fast food. (I do drink Coke and eat pretzels!) Just curious what thoughts are out there re fat intake.... ...or are the carbs the real problem?

Hope your paycheck doesn't come from our taxes....

Maybe some of you dems, liberals, and other superior intellects should read this: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030804_1802.html Joe's got it right.

"The Whole Shebang-A State of the Universe Report" by Timothy Ferris. A great little book that puts the latest comological/physics theories (well, as of 1998 anyhow) into layman's terms....almost. There is some cool/weird shit in this book about the commonly accepted origins of the universe, and where it is headed.

As an "outsider" who has never/ will never attend any "rope up" let me provide my unsolicited, personal observations: Beck is being cast as the proverbial "gift-horse". Seems to me that he took it upon himself to make things happen, but because he didn't toe the vitriolic anti-corporate line that exists here, he's gettin' a good bashing. Since you are all so anti-corporate 'round here, be sure you all cast off your OR Gaiters, and leave your Omega Pacific 'biners at the trailhead. Beck's "fostering stewardship...NOT partying" on the other hand, is a bit over-the-top to be sure. Kind of a mother hen. I'm going back to my book now...Kind of reminds me of this thread... Animal Farm. Seems some animals are "more equal" than others around here.

Are you asking a question, or can you show facts to support this arrogant statement? I strongly disagree.

No. Simply that is extremely unusual for a reporter to get caught, and then called to account.

I believe that NPR reports mainly on stories that are of interest to those on the left. They conveniently fail to report on issues that others might find interesting. I believe that to someone who has been fed a lifelong diet of PBS, NPR, and network news, FOX would certainly seem slanted to the right. As for the NY Times; I think their recent spate of reporters caught fabricating stories speaks for itself. I would also point out that Matt omited a portion of my quote in his reply with "...", and addressed only that. It somewhat changed to the reader what the perception of my positions is/might be.

I ask a sincere question and get a reply full of sarcasm. How typical. Do you really believe that NPR is not biased to the left? Wow! You may very well be a lost cause. Re: gay rights. Please read my position in a very recent thread. I find it strange that liberals almost univerasally decry those on the right as "closed-minded". But I think you have demonstrated that you have no intention of considering all sides. Who really has the open mind Mattp?

I've been there both ways. If you start at Christine Falls there will be no need to rope up before you reach high camp. The scenery is better from this approach and it is still a very reasonable day.