willstrickland

For shooting birds on the wing. You know, quail grouse pheasant dove etc. Or speed freaks on a robbery binge.

I am in love.

Hey L, can you elaborate on that a little? I'm probably going to pick up a pair of the "S". Fuzzing around the seams or just in general or what? Did they not leak before and are now or is the seam grip just for abrasion protection?

Which frame? 17, 19, 26, or 34?

Josh, the short answer is that there are existing regulations that "draw the line" so to speak. You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon without a specific federal firearms license. You cannot legally own RPGs. Magazine capacity on shotguns is more or less irrelevant. It only takes one shot from a 12 gauge to put someone down. That said, 99% of the shotguns in the hands of the public have a maximum 5 shell magazine, and most of these have the removable plugs in the magazine to limit them to 3 (certain game seasons in some states limit your mag size...quail and dove season for example). If I need 11 shots at my disposal I can reload or carry multiples. I can't think of any situation where I'd need more than 5 personally. I believe (not certain on this one) that there is also a minimum barrel length that is legal for shotguns to limit "sawed off" type weapons (which is silly because any asshole can buy a hacksaw or cutting torch and do the job in five minutes). Clinton signed a law that limited the mag size on handguns. Before the ban you could buy Glocks that would hold around 17 rounds (depending on model/cal). Now it's 11 unless you can get ahold of some of the pre-ban magazines. There are lots of existing restrictions. NRA uses the slippery slope argument and I feel it's valid to an extent. You need hardcores on both sides of any issue if you truly want a middle ground solution.

Look in Alpinist 4, Voytek got it done.

Malt liquor...'cause it makes you climb sicker. And it's ghetto fabulous.

Just to clear up the "Fat Teddy" namesake dealio, I'm pretty certain that he's referring to Sen Ted Kennedy, affectionately referred to as "fat teddy" by those on the right. And cracked, Josh, and Scott...nobody cares about your test scores...how good was your football team? That's the true measure

TR: Sat: Rode bike in the rain. Drank beer on the balcony watching a hail storm reek havoc on my neighborhood. Sun: Pulled plastic inside while a hail storm wrought havoc on my neighborhood. Mon: Drank beer on the balcony while a hail storm....

Jens tell Nakagami I said hello if you see him again soon.

They had a "negotiated rule making" process which essentially is a bunch of comment periods, meetings, etc to suss out the various positions on the issue prior to an agency making rules to implement policy. The process is ongoing, and the rules have not yet been formalized. This process can take years after all the "negotiations" of the rule making process take place. Director's Order 41 was the directive that set this whole shitstorm into effect. The last info I had was from the end of last year when nothing new had happened. Check with the AF, or the director's office of the NPS or the Sec's office at Dept of Interior.

Hey Luke, you want some cheese with dat or what?

Judging from your "question for the ladies" thread, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Ummm...nah, somebody else will chime in soon enough.

This is an interesting take on the situation. I say this because of all the people screaming about the Abu Ghraeb incident, most of them seem to focus their ire not on the soliders, but on the administration...at least that's my perception. I've written here before that when the arab street is "outraged" over Abu Ghraeb but show no outrage over Berg, Pearl, Quattrocchi, mutilated bodies, etc they have NO moral standing and their "outrage" is an absurdity. Be that as it may, I didn't get this out of the article at all. In fact, I thought is was a very poorly constructed argument attempting to compare conflics that essentially have no basis of comparison. An elective war, in direct opposition to policies of containment advocated by Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Gen. Anthony Zinni, etc is quite different from a war on our own soil or something on the scale of the WWs. I don't find a valid basis of comparison. Zinni's take is worth reading: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50925 I've been in uniform. I have friends in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I opposed this war from the beginning, and I pitched in among friends to foot the bill for kevlar for J who would otherwise have shipped without it. I don't direct any of my contempt for this war at the military, but squarely at this inept administration. I have stated before that I believe Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea are more of a threat to us than Iraq ever was. All it will take in Pakistan is one coup...a coup that has already been attempted on Musharaf twice. One coup, one jihad jerky ascends to power, and they have the nuke. As far as harboring terrorists I believe Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Pakistan are far worse than Iraq ever was. I think this administration was more focused on trying a strategic way to democratize the region than on any clear/imminent/gathering threat. They had ready-made excuses to invade Iraq...and to be honest, Saddam deserved to be swept from power for failing to adhere to the UN resolutions, firing at our planes patrolling the No Fly Zones, etc. The rush, and the criminally poor planning are my beef. When you are the best fighting force in the world, how can you not provide your troops with the equipment, planning, training, and numbers to do the job properly? The administration is the one who have failed our troops, not those who opposed sending them into a rushed, poorly planned war without a broad level of international support and assistance both militarily and financially.

I support the right to own firearms. In fact I just got back from a hike on state administred rec lands where I carried a borrowed Glock 23 in .40 SW. Not my preferred caliber for an anti-grizzly round, but better than lugging a 12 gauge and with the wind we had today there's no telling where pepper spray would end up. Sounds like homer is getting away with one here. I don't know what the Payson area is like, but there are big cats in parts of AZ and I'd certainly want to ability to carry a firearm if I thought it was warranted. Nevertheless, dude fired one shot into the ground in front of the dog...if the dog owner guy then is pissed and running at me for shooting at the dog or near the dog, and I tell him to stop but he keeps charging, he gets at least one ear-whistler or dancer before I put one in his leg. Three to the chest with no real warning is a little excessive to say the least, especially when the guy hasn't produced any weapon. Where I come from the saying is "shoot to kill or pay the lawyer bills" or its corollary "dead men don't talk". Sounds like a nervous geriatric got trigger happy to me.

You chuffer, "E" grades as in "E1" are subdivisions of "extremely severe" which is the adjectival grade above HVS (hard very severe) so it's either HVS or E1, but not both.

Man Commits Suicide After Sex with Hen Fri May 28, 2004 10:50 AM ET LUSAKA (Reuters) - A 50-year-old Zambian man has hanged himself after his wife found him having sex with a hen, police said Friday. The woman caught him in the act when she rushed into their house to investigate a noise. "He attempted to kill her but she managed to escape," a police spokesman said. The man from the town of Chongwe, about 50 km (30 miles) east of Lusaka, killed himself after being admonished by other villagers. The hen was slaughtered after the incident.

OMFG!!!! Tell him to "rock out with your cock out"

Here's a peeve for ya, happened today: Ex's who feel the need to write you a letter to inform you of their recent engagement. WTF? After being incommunicato for a year, you suddenly feel the need to say "hope you're doing well in Alaska"...but go ahead and throw in "BTW I recently got engaged and I hope you'll come to the wedding". Uhh, no I don't think so.

Peanuts are not tree nuts, they are ground nuts, grow on a vine type plant (I'm from f'in Georgia, remember...Jimmy Carter the poor ass peanut farmer and all that shit). Strangely enough, I have a coworker who is allergic to tree nuts, but not ground nuts...I didn't ask her if she was allergic to deez nuts. Peeve: Shitheads who think they are required to yell into their cell phones and do so in the lobby of our office, on public transportation, in the grocery, etc etc etc. Somebody's gonna end up with Nokia enema one day when I finally snap.

Matt I don't want to get into a pissing match with you over this. [insert your favortite lawyer joke here]. I have no interest in debating the route itself. My point is simply that there are people out there who could be greatly beneficial to your/our cause that may be excluded due to the information control tactics. You can make all the snide comments you want and pooh-pooh the concerns as "paranoia", but that only adds to my perception of your pompous attitude. Good day and good luck.

A recent election strategy take by James Carville and Stan Greenberg...it's in pdf, but pretty small file. Good read. http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/20040520_dcorps-stratmem.pdf

If you agree Matt, then who pulled crazyjz's post? He insinuated that it was you. Another point: You presume that everyone here is "uninformed" when I know for a fact that there is at lease one regular poster here who is a professional in the USFS and likley has more insight into and influence within the USFS than you, your buddies, and the Access Fund combined. Not every climber out there agrees with the AF's policy or direction. To exclude these people because the AF presumes to represent all climbers is an affront to the democratic process. And yes, I understand that a united front as climbers is the preferred tact. Your whole "you don't know what's going on behind the scenes, so ask me in private" attitude is frankly pompous. It's conveys an attempt to control the information and the debate by excluding people who disagree. The argument that there is not suffcient information doesn't hold water either because a simple statement of "this is what we know, this is what we don't know, this is what will happen next" is sufficient to inform people and quell the uninformed screaming and conclusion jumping. I wish you luck in coming to a reasonable agreement with the USFS. And I hope at some point you recognize that by attempting to limit the people involved in the discussions you may very well hurt your own cause by excluding those with influence and insight.