JayB

I believe the honors go to the phrase: "Jizz-Gurgling Cock-Monkey."

One more... http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1767317

Another... http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556

Hahahaha. Awesome.

Not quite the thread I was looking for, but captures the essence of the discussion... " Mad Dog View profile More options Aug 21 2001, 5:05 am Newsgroups: rec.climbing From: Mad Dog Date: 21 Aug 2001 04:36:42 -0700 Local: Tues, Aug 21 2001 4:36 am Subject: Re: Sliding X - Good or Bad Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author Zaumoron works the Drone Therapy: >Mad Dog wrote: >>Bill, Melissa didn't specify that the sling had to be cut, she said "fail". >With people mostly using sewn runners, the most likely sling failure would >be due to the sling being cut. You just don't get it. One could easily extend your argument and more closely approximate the truth by saying: "With many people buying high-tech sewn runners (such as Spectra) which are very cut-resistant, the most likely sling failure is due to a failed water knot on a tied sling." Again, it would be hard for you to argue with this, since you personally have been involved in sling failure when a knot came untied, eh? >[about shock loading] >>John Long disagrees. >I'll disagree with respect to short falls of about a foot. If you >go 3 or 4 feet, it's a different situation, which is probably what >John was refering to. Then you would again be blatantly wrong. From page 59 of "Climbing Anchors": "No extension means that if one of the anchors in the system should fail, the system will not suddenly become slack and drop the climber a short distance, shock-loading the remaining anchors." Bill, don't try to tell me you know more about anchors than John Long. You have said in this thread that short extensions do not cause shock loads but I have shown clearly that a leading expert and respected technique author clearly is in disagreement. How did you manage to fit that foot in your mouth when it is so far up your ass?"

This thread is crying out for Bill Zaumen of rec.climbing fame. I remember reading a mega-thread there about core vs. sheath loading dynamics that would put this sucker to shame.

What position is that, exactly? The US and its citizens have deprived themselves of chance to work for long hours in settings requiring little or no skill or capital, for low wages, while some 300 million Chinese have lifted themselves out of a grinding poverty far more severe than anything that the worst off amongst us has to contend with by saving us money by selling us goods that they can produce more cost effectively than we can? Edited to add...that "when [the benefits of] cheap labor become outweighed by the risks" is when the alternatives are *literally* starving, prostituting oneself or one's children, scavenging amongst trash-heaps for food, etc. Depriving desperately poor people of the one competitive advantage that they can use to improve their lot in life so that their overfed counterparts in the first world can make a marginally higher wage hardly seems like the more moral course of action to me.

Far be it, indeed.

Actually - both their average hourly pay and their benefit payments are higher than the retail average in pretty much every sector that they compete in, with the exception of unionized grocery store employees. I personally don't want to pay higher prices for my groceries so that someone with a GED can forcibly extract a higher wage than their skillset warrants via coercion, but the existence of Walmart isn't preventing anyone who wants to pay more for their food from doing so. The small stores that you bemoan not only were likely to pay their employees less and offer fewer benefits, they were also likely to charge higher prices for the same goods - the benefit of which was confined to their personal balance sheets, and certainly didn't benefit the customers who had no other options available to them. Or the effect that paying less for essentials had on their ability so save, spend a new car, remodel their homes - etc.

Supply follows demand. Speaking of which, if American consumers were to demand toys manufactured in the US and were willing to pay the requisite differential - the toy manufacture business never would have gone offshore in the first-place. Ditto for any other manufactured good of your choosing. Instead, most manufacturing that still goes on in the US does so in industries where the US still enjoys a comparative advantage. Typically this occurs where requirements for capital and expertise are higher and/or there's a substantial barrier to entry. We're much better off allocating our capital into industries other than those for which the primary determinant of competitive advantage is cheap labor, but I don't expect you to understand this, much less why this is so.

"Yeah but moveon.org doesn't poison any children's toys with lead paint." Yes. They were manufactured by Walmart and wound up exclusively on their shelves. Their logistics capabilities, shipping/distribution infrastructure, and generosity didn't put substantial quantities of relief supplies into the epicenter of Katrina days before the government got its act together, either. Glad it makes you feel better, though.

What is it that makes you a fiscal conservative while a social "liberal," in the modern American parlance? How does such a being approach questions like welfare reform and the like? Edited to include: In you conversations with your compatriots in the ideological majority, have you found a broad sympathy for your views on the various entities - Builderburgs, The Illuminati, etc - that you have claimed both exist and exert a significant degree of influence over the course of history?

Kind of like when I shop tax-free at the Walmarts in NH.

I almost got desperate enough to pick up tele-gear while exiled here in the East, but decided I'd rather ski switch, ride my snowboard switch, or hit the park whenever the boredom became intense enough to consider tele gear. My advice to anyone who gets bored on alpine gear is to ski steeper lines at higher speeds.

Buckaroo - if you're going to read mattp's mind and channel his unfiltered thoughts via the keyboard, at least make the proper attributions.

The same old, tired, cliched response. You guys are laughable. Fox news (which I don't actually watch you dickweed) is biased. Why? Because you say so. It's a tautology. The NYT is, of course, NOT biased. How dare anyone make such a ridiculous claim. After all, everything in the NYT is true! Obviously! Because the bias in the NYT conforms to your world view. But wait, that's essentially what you just accused all the "fox news" watchers of doing. And that's what you accuse them of doing repeatedly, over and over, as your favorite knee-jerk response to any skepticism of any story in the news that threatens your fragile world view. Just ask Jayson Blair. He'll personally vouch for the NYT.

What are you proposing here, with regards the presentation of "fair and balanced" coverage on broadcast media?

The correct term is "Dolero."

Edited some video from the previous weekend... [gvideo]-4856212843990916623[/gvideo] [gvideo]-41503302513739403[/gvideo]

You either are a masochist or an aid climber. Nobody else could enjoy that kind of pain. I suppose you floss with Devil's Club as well? skull As for Viagra, my buddy calls it his little blue friend. You must be joking! Take the following; ""The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful." ""The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince." "Antoninus diffused order and tranquility over the greatest part of the earth. His reign is marked by the rare advantage of furnishing very few materials for history; which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." ""The frequent repetition of miracles serves to provoke, where it does not subdue, the reason of mankind...." ""A being of the nature of man, endowed with the same faculties, but with a longer measure of existence, would cast down a smile of pity and contempt on the crimes and follies of human ambition, so eager, in a narrow span, to grasp at a precarious and short-lived enjoyment. it is thus that the experience of history exalts and enlarges the horizon of our intellectual view. In a composition of some days, in a perusal of some hours, six hundred years have rolled away, and the duration of a life or reign is contracted to a fleeting moment: The grave is ever beside the throne; the success of a criminal is almost instantly followed by the loss of his prize; and our immortal reason survives and disdains the sixty phantoms of kings who have passed before our eyes, and faintly dwell in our remembrance." And multiply by a gazillion.

Now that's some honest-to-goodness aggression. Excellent. Still confused, but I sense that my work is done here.

Examples? Not terribly familiar with what sets them apart from Intrawest, American Ski Company, etc.

I didn't realize that the (Chuck - Al_Pine) connection was a secret. I couldn't imagine the motive for channeling the hippie-woman under male-sounding-avatar that was known (I thought) to belong to a long-time male poster, instead of under a new, hippie-womanish fake pseudonym if the intention was to give the impression that the person posting the message was actually the said hippie-woman. Seemed strange enough for me to post the four hypotheticals.

My point with regards to the example of sildenafil and the long list of drug discoveries was to counter what seemed to be your implicit argument that in the absence of government compulsion, the pharmaceutical industry will fritter away valuable research money on trivial maladies and ignore serious diseases. If that wasn't what you were trying to suggest with your statement that "Market competition generates new medicine for erectile disfunction...," then you didn't do it very well. The fact that - after side effects of sildenafil became evident - drug companies would exploit this discovery discredits the entire pharmaceutical industry? What, exactly, was your point there, if not this? This also seems to imply some kind of grand moral failing on the part of the afflicted men for spending money to restore the most intimate connections they have with the people they love the most instead of donating the money that they spent on viagra/cialis/whatever to Oxfam, and on the part of society for not insisting that their government dictate which choices they make concerning their medical priorities are permissible and which are not. As for the addenda below: "Second, I didn't say that there is or should be "government compulsion" but I DID say there was and should be government and other "coordinated" funding and this has proven central to most pharmaceutical research that actually produces real breakthroughs. (I could be wrong, as I acknowledged, but I have read this steadily for many years and I believe it is likely true.) I DID say that public health advances have come about in large part through government-directed programs. You have not even tried to refute that. I did suggest that many of the "services" offered in modern American medical practice are not really linked to any "therapeutic target" as you say, and you didn't refute this. You and I can differ as to whether private insurance companies and the research department at Pfizer are more likely to be looking out for yours and my interests in living healthy lives than might be the National Institute of Health or whatever but, if you want to "debate," please answer the argument." ...these points seem to be only tangentially related to the "thrust" of the argument embedded in your statements concerning the existence of drugs to treat impotence. These are separate matters, I didn't address or refute them, because - for the most part - I didn't take exception to them.

If it's done via the internet, and includes the "more-or-less" qualifier, then yes.