chelle

Interesting thoughts Forrest. It's hard to know if he could have been that creative given that he was dehydrated, probably hypothermic, and likely scared and frustrated after trying to hang on to the stance for so long.

Agree with Rod on this. Harnesses are such a weird thing to fit anyways. Some women have small wastes and developed leg muscles from carrying a heavy pack, some are just tiny all around, some need more rise in the waist and some don't. You really need her to try on several harnesses. Make sure she hangs in it from whatever the shop has set up to check that the waist fits tight enough and also that the distance between the leg loops and waist are good. Arc'Teryx makes a really comfy woman's harness.

All of those things would be very sucky.

Well, maybe you should get a better tax accountant. Obviously you aren't taking advantage of all the benefits.

Car's was sold before the move.

We've had some interesting discussions about marriage in the past. Thought this might stir the pot a bit. From the NY Times January 25, 2004 Single and Paying for It By SHARI MOTRO mid all the heated discussion on both sides of the gay marriage debate, a broader point has somehow gotten lost: why should formally committed couples, straight or gay, enjoy special privileges in the first place? Married couples can receive thousands of dollars in benefits and discounts unavailable to single Americans, including extra tax breaks, bankruptcy protections and better insurance rates. Why, for example, should a married poet whose wife pays the bills get tax breaks that are unavailable to a single poet who struggles to write between telemarketing jobs? Why should all workers be required to make the same Social Security contributions if retirees with non-wage-earning spouses get more back from the system? If we force single mothers off welfare on the theory that they should pay their own way, why don't we require married stay-at-home moms to pay market prices for health insurance? Though most people would agree that these distinctions are arbitrary and unfair, as a society we tend not to notice that breaks for people who are married translate into penalties for those of us who are not. Take Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, two of the plaintiffs in the famous Massachusetts gay marriage case. Because they could not marry, Mr. Chalmers was unable to add Mr. Linnell to the health insurance policy offered by his employer. They had to purchase a separate policy for Mr. Linnell at considerable expense. In effect, this meant that Mr. Chalmers was paid less than his married co-workers for the same labor, as was every other unmarried employee. The Massachusetts court found in November that excluding same-sex couples like Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Linnell from the benefits of marriage violated their civil rights. The court's decision, though, ignored the rest of Massachusetts' unmarried workers. Singles' rights advocates face an uphill battle because their demands for equality are easily mistaken for anti-marriage assaults. Furthermore, because most Americans, myself included, believe that marriage provides a valuable social framework, many are quick to dismiss challenges to marriage-based benefits as a threat to the institution. Though well intentioned, this impulse makes no sense in the face of current realities. Many marriage-based benefits, for instance, are seen as proxies for helping families with children. Yet marriage is no longer a good indicator of parenthood. As of 2000, one in three children were born to unmarried parents. Distributing benefits intended to support child rearing on the basis of marital status gives a windfall to childless married couples while leaving empty handed single parents and their children — who as a group already face harsher realities. Benefits are also defended as vehicles for promoting marriage. Their effectiveness in achieving this goal is dubious at best, counterproductive at worst. Common sense says that couples who are otherwise unprepared to take on the obligations of marriage and who do so for financial reasons only are prime candidates for divorce. Finally, marriage benefits may be seen as a way to reward citizens who take on the weighty obligations of wedlock. But if 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, 50 percent of marriage-based "rewards" are nothing but an expensive mistake. The marriage dole also subsidizes a growing number of unions governed by prenuptial agreements. Such pacts are usually intended to protect the assets of moneyed spouses, effectively undoing the very protections that, in part, make marriage worth defending in the first place. Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of. Advocates for gay marriage have exposed a huge blind spot: married-only benefits also discriminate against America's 86 million unmarried adults. Contrary to popular belief, marriage penalties are far outweighed by marriage bonuses. The concerns of single Americans are urgent and deserve attention. Next time you're filling out a form that asks you to check the box next to "married," "single," "divorced" or "widowed," ask yourself this: Why should it matter?

Any chance you can give us the highlights of the main concerns?

I'll have to check it out next time I'm out there. I'm not sure we're talking about the same cracks. Who knows though. Maybe when you're blowing through it free climbing it feels totally different than when you're hanging out with a bunch of gear standing in aiders. It's been about 14 months since I was on it. I recall one pin that generally has webbing on it about 20' off the deck, up from the flake at the base. When I've aided the route I've gone out right from that pin over to the 1st anchors on Sagitarius. Then back out left to a crack that starts about 6' above the first fixed pin and haven't found the pro in that crack to be hand to fingers. 'Cause that wouldn't have sketched me out. I recall small nut placements that weren't that great and a couple cam hook moves. The crack goes up to a left facing corner that eventually brings you up to the left of the ringing flake anchors. The pin I was saying should not have been pulled is at the start of the left facing corner (which may be your v-slot). If the pin isn't there and the pro below it pulls out to either the Sagitarius anchors or to the first fixed pin, you are risking a ground fall. I need to get back out and do some aid climbing. Anyone willing to show me the ropes (system) for solo aiding? I've been hesitant to get out there and try to figure it out on my own.

lummox - Yes, apples are cheaper than burgers but an apple does not make a meal. Cost out a healthy balanced meal at the grocery store, you can't beat the dollar menu unless you're eating ramen - which is disqualified by the previous statement. Also I believe the argument was comparing eating out. To go to a restaurant and eat a healthy meal is more expensive than to go grab burgers and fried whatever off the dollar menu at any fast food chain. Especially for a family of four.

If you read the article the spokesperson from McD's said they sell nutritious food. I think he/she was implying they believe it is healthy, because making a statement like that about McD's menu is a pretty big stretch of the definition for nutritious. Sorta related. Back in Dec. ABC (Peter Jennings) did a special on the American diet and how the government subsidies to agriculture have set up a food system that encourages obesity. We grow so much corn we have to use it somehow...corn syrup in just about everything, corn fed to beef to fatten them up. Fast food is cheap; healthy food expensive. Anybody see it?

Veggie - my comment about being off base is related to his views on why people have been banned or have been asked to tone down the aggressiveness/personal attacks. I guess my primary question for Fairweather, Sisu, and the others who are so vocal in complaining these days is: What is it that you get out of participating in cc.com? If the answer is having a place where they can anonymously view (and/or participate in) the bullying of other posters, generally make your avatar a pain in the ass by trolling just for shock value, read endless strings of insults and put downs, and look at Trask's pron... Then by all means Contrary to the vocal minority's belief, last time I checked that is not the purpose of this site or even of spray.

No. People have not been banned for posting their political views. It's too bad IMO that people with diverging views (like Fairweather) believe that they don't have a place here anymore. Many of the people who are "walking" out the door have some pretty skewed views of why people have been banned or asked to tone it down. It has been explained to death in other threads, so I guess there is no hope of getting them to understand. Maybe things have changed a bit in the last few months...change is part of life. Get over it. I do not believe that cc.com is becoming some liberal/socialist Seattle climber's virtual playground. Fairweather, Sisu, et al. Your views are just a little off base.

The only comments I have seen Bush make about jobs going to foreigners was about illegal immigrants who are domsetic help and agriculture workers. He wants to make their presence here legal since no one in the US really wants many of those jobs. I have not read or heard anything about how Bush is planning to keep the good paying blue and white collar jobs that are going over seas here at home. Minx and Roark - I'm curious what makes you think that you will end up with a smaller bottom line if the rich (individuals and corporations) pay their fair share of taxes.

Trask is free...to spray all over any other site on the web. You dependent people should just start a group ICQ with him.

The NYT put the Eiger Sanction out there as a movie where the climbers climbed and thought it was pretty authentic, and put the Simpson movie in the same league. Touching the Void set a new standard for climbing movies IMO. CBS is completely right that the actors hired to do the reinactments did look like climbers and the film did the whole story justice. And that idiot from the Stranger should never have been allowed to review the film. If you haven't seen it yet, get out there and check it out. In the Eiger there were so many continuity problems with someone being on lead, then toprope, then jugging up a line while being belayed. I know a lot of you think the Eiger Sanction was a work of genius... Personally I thought it blew other than as a spoof on both climbing and spy movies.

bbc news on pbs when I'm around to watch it. NYT daily. You can register for a free daily email. The Economist, I like their coverage of world stuff and business. Used to love the WSJ, but I don't get it for free anymore...

Get sick...but make sure you don't epic or get your mug on TV. A friend of mine called in "sick" to go on a trip many years ago. It ended up snowing about 8 inches that July in the Sierra and the guy was dumb enough to allow himself to be interviewed by the local news team at the trailhead. When the boss saw the coverage... This weekend, I'm going to see the Simpson movie, visit a friend, study, and climb in the gym. I love nursing school, but it is seriously cutting into my play time. Have fun out there everybody. I'm living vicariously through you for the next few months.

Damn. I almost stayed up to watch letterman, but actually felt like I could fall asleep before midnight. I wish I'd known he was on.

Someone once told me that they have seen someone pull their small nuts in the thin seam above the first fixed pin and below the next fixed pin on the first pitch of Iron Horse. This would mean high probability for a ground fall. If that 2nd pin is now gone, I think it could make for a pretty scary aid climb. I remember being pretty happy when I clipped that second pin last year. Is this the same pin below the ringing flake that you guys are talking about? That first pitch 5.9 pitch of Narrow Arrow is fun to lead on aid, especially the traverse from the two bolts on the slab when you're a shorty like me. The only mandatory free climbing on it is to get to the first ledge about 12 feet off the deck which was really interesting when it was all slimy. maybe you could use hooks on the little ledges, but it only felt like a v1 boulder problem with boots on. Probably one of the funnest pitches I did last year.

I think you're right and it is a short engagement when it is shown. I think in Seattle it is only playing on Friday.

Glad you're enjoying the place, Dryad. Matt, last time I was there a liter of beer was between 2 and 3 bucks and definately the most expensive thing on the menu. A plate of pad thai was only about $1.20 so the beer price didn't matter so much.

I thought the primary topic of the Beckoning Silence was his climb up the Eiger. Since Touching the Void, he always incorporates his addiction to climbing and the friends he's lost. He's had some interesting points about how high altitude ethics have/are changed/ing (e.g., people only helping others from their own team and stepping over dying people so they could tag a summit.)

You guys down there are pretty trusting with your party locations. Make sure to let us know if the general public stops by for a sampling of TG brew. Have fun. Wish I could make a trek south but it's a school night.

The homeopathic remedy Zicam has worked for me when I've just had a cold virus. It's just a zinc gel. This last one was more than a virus...

Tried that too. Hope it works for you.