JayB

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=452808336 Not sure the Greenspan Put is going to materialize this time. Should be interesting to see what the carnage in the secondary markets is going to to do loan originations in Q3 and Q4....

Rumor mill traces the said footage to Melbourne, Australia. Might account for the absence of gunfire.

Your sorry record of Alaskan clip-ups disqualifies you from commenting here...

Yup. P.O.T.D.

There is nothing "on-going" and "the bet" was childish. Here's the story which directly relates: A few years ago, there was a discussion about hang-dogging in which I described it as "siege climbing". The old school philosophy is that you climb from the bottom up, and if you fell, you were lowered to the ground and started over, or you trained on lower grades and worked your abilities higher until you were good enough to address the climb on its own terms. Hang-dogging...hanging off your gear to rest, falling repeatedly while rehearsing the moves, was considered weak free-climbing, essentially aid, and bogus. It demonstrated that you weren't ready. So let's say the climb is 5.13, and someone thrashes their way up this thing after weeks of hang-dogging and rehearsal and than pulls the rope and "red-points" it. Is this person really a 5.13 climber versus someone who has worked their abilities to the point where they can actually lead it on-site? An analogous tradition can be seen in the expedition vs. alpine tradition in mountaineering where alpine-style climbing is considered a stylistically superior means of obtaining a summit. Reinhold Messner epitomized this by advocating and demonstrating the concept of climbing the mountain by fair means, not beating/sieging it into submission. I also made the analogy on cc.com about a piano; something to the affect of: You may not be able to play the piano today but rehearse it enough and you'll be able to play a Beethoven sonata. This, by the way, does not mean that you have the same skill level of someone who has worked up their skill level to the point where new music can be set in front of them and they can play through a sonata without falling all over themselves. I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission. It might take them months or a year or whatever, but put up rules like that, and it opens the door to all kinds of faux-accomplishments. I picked 5.13 because a lot of folks see that as a BIG NUMBER! and it seems to be a usual number for when the on-sight leading often ends and the sieging begins. Some folks chimed in saying 5.13 wasn't such a big deal anymore....it's what 5.12 was 20 years ago or 5.11 25 years ago. They're all over the place now...Whatever, I was making a theoretical statement apparently lost on many. Then the usual cc.com taunts began, and a few of the usual and predictable blow-hards came out with frat-boy challenges to collect a bet that Dwayner couldn't possibly climb any kind of 5.13 no longer how he tried. It was utterly childish. One major moderator on this site told me that it would be impossible for me (to which I replied that I hope he doesn't spread his crappy attitude to children). The school-yard buddies delivered their usual lame clichés: "put your money where..." and my award for the most pathetic of all time: "don't cash a check your *ss can't deliver" Believe me, if I had a convenient crag nearby, the interest and inspiration, and importantly, the time (none of which I have), it would be very satisfying to engage in such a challenge myself....it's not an excuse...it's reality...(on the other hand, I don't have an inclination to respond to juvenile bets, but if I ever do, it will be on my own time and terms). Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct. Now wasn't that fascinating? Hi Dwayner. How have you been? Long time no speak. ok enough chit-chat. It's easy to say "Oh I could do that." I know, because I do it all the time. It's a confidence I have, but the time eventually comes when I step on to that which I have almost blithely dismissed, and thank goodness occasionally get my ass kicked. This is good for me! It smacks me of my arrogance! It lets me know that I need to try if I want to do something, and that nothing is given until it is actually accomplished, and also takes me to what I love about climbing: figuring stuff out. Let me re-state that: until one has climbed something quite specific, well, they haven't climbed it. Rather self-evident, yes? No amount of rationalization, equivocation, explanation, prognostication, hubris, or ventriloquism can change this fact. You should know this: before that dinosaur bone is in your hand, it isn't in your hand, and you don't know whether or not you will find it. Perhaps you have a good idea that a specific location might contain dinosaur bones and eggs and mummies and stuff, but since you haven't climbed even a 5.12, what makes you think you will find a mummy in your closet? Until you actually step out from behind your excuses and attempt that which you so arrogantly dismiss, you will be nothing but an archaeologist lost in your closet. Did you know that Andres Segovia spent most of his time practicing scales and etudes? Very simple stuff, rehearsing and rehearsing. Many artists do this. Personally I'm more pulled by the spirit of things and not just the mastery, but I admire mastery also. You, Mister Don, need to be less arrogant and climb more, instead of always complaining about the state of climbing. Having Sexual_Chocolate back on board, even for but a single post, has redeemed this entire thread...

I am the moderator in question. Leaving the matter of the bet aside for a moment, I'll address the matter of "passing along a crappy attitude to children" bit. Dismissing the accomplishments of others that are quite beyond your demonstrated capacity to reproduce is a far worse ethic to instill than one that requires that you must be, at the very least, far superior to whomever you are criticizing in whatever discipline it is that is under discussion (which you both participate in) before you open your mouth. To use your example of astronauts, if Buzz Aldrin wants to talk shit about other astronauts, he's earned the right to do so. The guy who never made it into the program doesn't. I'd say the kid who goes through life knowing that if he runs marathons himself, for example, he has no business making ridiculing anyone's time unless he's bested that himself. He'd do still better knowing that even if he is in a position to make disparaging comments about slower runners, he should have the class to refrain from doing so. I have a hard time imagining any circumstances in which learning these ethics and living by them would do anything but benefit a child, but I can think of plenty of circumstances in which a kid who conducts himself in a manner that's contrary to them will suffer as a result.

Someone should overdub the soundtrack from the "Black Knight" scene in Holy Grail on the footage...

Not so sure about that. Of course, the true meaning of "Jihad" is a "peaceful inner struggle to improve onself," and Kafeel and a handful of others have woefully misunderstood both the spirit and the words contained within the texts that they believe have given them a divine mandate to shred as many Infidel commuters, club-goers, pre-schoolers, shoppers, etc as possible with a cocktail of nails, ball-bearings, and explosives - so perhaps the bar is a touch lower than you think. I can only imagine how upset he'll be after doing all of the plotting and setting himself on fire and whatnot only to find out that the dude chilling next to him got the three-score and twelve babes with nothing more than the "peaceful inner struggle" thing.

"A man critically burned after allegedly crashing an explosive-laden Jeep into Glasgow Airport died of his injuries Thursday..." Maybe an expert on the relevant texts can chime and clarify whether or not setting oneself on fire and praising the appropriate diety at the top of one's lungs qualifies one for the 72 virgins, or if there's some kind of honorable mention for those that intend to slaughter as many civilians as possible by detonating themselves amongst them but don't actually succeed in doing so. If it turns out that Kafeel qualifies for the eternal shagfest in the sky for his efforts, the sincere pity that I feel for him will of course be terribly out of place.

No virgins for him... "Glasgow terror suspect dies from burns By TARIQ PANJA, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 2, 6:57 PM ET LONDON - A man critically burned after allegedly crashing an explosive-laden Jeep into Glasgow Airport died of his injuries Thursday, Strathclyde Police said. ADVERTISEMENT Kafeel Ahmed, 27, had been in the hospital for a month with burns from the alleged attack on June 30, which followed a day after two failed car bombings in London. The other man in the car, Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah, has been charged with conspiring to set off explosions. "We can confirm that the man seriously injured during the course of the incident at Glasgow Airport on Saturday June 30 has died in Glasgow Royal Infirmary," said a spokesman for Strathclyde Police, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with force policy. Ahmed, an Indian national from Bangalore, was burned on 90 percent of his body and had been in a coma throughout his hospital stay. He had been kept under armed guard at a burns unit."

Just wondering if the mop being passed through the security glass was intended for clean up or to continue the beating.....

I think that there should be a separate prize for longevity. Seems like a sub-category for sporadic-but-longtime posters like AlpineDave, Philfort, Robertm, etc should be in order. We've had quite a few flash-in-the-pan types that rack-up a couple thousand posts in 0-6 months and then dissappear. I've always kind of wondered about folks like that.

I'm amazed the guy didn't dump a 64oz slurpee on the dude's head then follow with some Tito Ortiz grave-digger pantomimage after the last bit of the beating... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=403_1185268268 [Contains footage of punk catching a massive MMA style ass-whupping after a failed attempt to rob a convenience store of some sort. Don't click on the thread if you don't like the idea of a young hoodlum trying to terrorize a convenience store clerk by pretending to have a gun getting his ass kicked in a Chuck-Norris fashion by some dude hailing from somewhere between Egypt and Sri Lanka...]

Yeah. Anything that takes years of disciplined effort and determination to build the various capacities required to accomplish it is pretty bogus. I'd be much more impressed with all of those Olympic atheletes, concert pianists, etc if they hadn't seiged and rehearsed their way to the top. [gvideo]-200477265572892748[/gvideo]

Wow. Impressive.

This isn't a software fix, but if it were me I'd send a mass e-mail to all of your clients asking them to include their names and a short description of the attachment in the business e-mails that they send to you, along with a brief description of why it is that you are asking them to do so. I think that there are a few commercial programs that scan attachments for malicious code as well, but I'll leave that part to the IT wizzes that frequent this site.

Cool. Some very impressive shots in there. Thanks for sharing.

You could probably also find out how much the claim would affect your rates if the tickets weren't there and have this person pay that amount, but it sounds to me like this particular person didn't offer to pay anything after wrecking your car, and you had to broach the subject of her paying the increase in your rates, so nothing short of some sort of legal action would do much good.

Yeah - I guess if someone doesn't offer to pay, and you still think that despite this, their other qualities make ongoing friendship something that you want to maintain, then sucking it up is the only option. I guess the person's situation would make a big difference with regards to the kind of judgment I'd make about them and their character if I was in your shoes. If the person was making decent money and could pay but just didn't want to, that would be way different than if I was dealing with someone who was strapped for cash and struggling to pay the rent, going through a major transition in their life, etc. I'm not sure that anyone that fell into the first category is someone that I'd want to keep around as a friend unless they had a lot of previous credit on the ledger in terms of loyalty, favors, sacrifices, sins/shortcomings/mistakes of mine that they'd forgiven, etc.

Looks like your only option is to compare the total costs of paying out of pocket yourself - including the interest/return that this money will no longer be earning for you - versus the lifetime increase in insurance costs that will result from filing a claim. Sounds like your best bet is to let the insurance cover it and prepare to deal with higher premiums. If I was your friend, and responsible for wrecking your car, then if I couldn't cover the costs of the damages out of pocket, I'd at least offer to cover any increase in your premiums that resulted from the accident for as long as they affected your rates.

What happens if your friend pays the claims out of pocket (no claim filed with your insurance? Would it be possible to have your friend pay the claim directly, and then seek reimbursement from his insurance? If your friend doesn't have that kind of cash, do you have enough cash lying around to pay the damages out of pocket, then have your friend pay you back later, whether that's with insurance money he gets, or his/her own money? Might be worth asking your insurance company what happens in the event that they don't have to pay a claim for the damages.

Don Ryan: you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously. If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make. Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?" JayB knows what he was doing, he is smart, and he is perfectly capable of firing back on his own. He doesn't resort to the kind of character attack, innuendo, and clown pictures that you find so entertaining. Those statistics are cumulative for arms purchases between 1973 and 1990, but anyone who observed the weaponry that Iraq put out in the field in the first Gulf War would have noted the fact that everything from their aircraft, to their artillery, to the weapons that their infantrymen carried were not of US origin. There's no question that the US sided with Iraq in the war against Iran, but the nature and extent of the support needs to be viewed in light of the support provided by Russia, China, France, and other weapons powers - and doing so will not support the conclusion that the US "armed" Iraq. As for the other claims, the nature of the materials that US corporations exported to Iraq under license from the commerce department are an odd means of supporting the notion that the US was actively engaged in a clandestine program to provide Iraq with chemical and biological weapons since: -Providing them with the materials through covert means would be much more efficient if the objective was to provide them with weapons that would impact developments on the battlefield. Translating precursors into functional weapons isn't trivial, and can take several years to develop this capacity, by which time the war could have been lost and the materials could have conceivably fallen into the hands of the Iranians. -Exporting them to Iraq via publicly searchable export licenses granted by the Department of commerce is hardly the conduct one would expect for a covert program of this magnitude. -Some of the bacterial strains and other pathogens cited in the reports were provided by *The Centers for Disease Control* and again, shipments were part of a public record. Unless you are suggesting that the physicians and the scientists at the CDC were engaged in a clandestine program to provide biological weapons to Iraq - then you may wish to reconsider this claim. Et - it hardly needs to be said - cetera. Here's more from your Wikipedia reference: "n December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. [12] By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13][14] On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic" (meaning disease producing), "toxigenic" (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[15] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program." To answer your question, though, I do think that supporting Iraq against Iraq was the right call to make at the time, as was furnishing Arms to the Afghanis against the Soviets - but I don't have the time to argue those points at length tonight.

You, JayB, aren't qualified to comment here. But your statement is so incredibly stupid, I feel obligated to remind you that never in any of my posts (including this one) will you find me stating that climbing ability carries weight in ethical debates. Yet the number of times wankers on this site have stated that we should defer to hang-dogging 5.13 climbers regarding the legitimacy of sport climbing is......"greater than zero". This beer-induced, late-night post was simply a reaction to the notion that pope's peers are convicting him. Again, I ask, "What peers?" BTW, the summer I soloed 30 pitches before lunch (up to 5.10c at Castle Rock, Snow Creek Wall and Givler's Dome) was not twenty years ago (more like 12). Regardless, these climbers you mention who are superior to pope.....you ain't among them. Not today, not twenty years ago (if you were even out of diapers). I can out-climb you on your best day and I could out-drink you right now. Yes, but climbing is but one measure of a man, and I have no doubt life provides you with no small number of rather stark reminders of this fact rather more often than you'd like.

"Just as where we armed Saddam against Iran..." Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 Country $MM USD 1990 % Total USSR 25145 57.26 France 5595 12.74 China 5192 11.82 Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 Poland 1681 3.83 Brazil 724 1.65 Egypt 568 1.29 Romania 524 1.19 Denmark 226 0.51 Libya 200 0.46 USA 200 0.46 South Africa 192 0.44 Austria 190 0.43 Switzerland 151 0.34 Yugoslavia 107 0.24 Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 Italy 84 0.19 UK 79 0.18 Hungary 30 0.07 Spain 29 0.07 East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 Canada 7 0.02 Jordan 2 0.005 Total 43915 100.0 Did Quitney analyze the massive program that the US undertook to arm Stalin in WWII? Taking secondary effects that may or may not materialize at some indefinite point in the future into account is sensible, but these things have to be weighed against the magnitude of the primary threat, and the probable consequences of inaction. It's not inconceivable that in an equal number of cases the consequences of inaction will be at least as bad or worse. In some cases the analysis may argue for inaction, but I hardly think that a careful analysis would support the conclusion that inaction and neutrality ought to be the default policy of the prudent statesman. Rwanda, the ethnic slaughter in the Balkans, and the ongoing carnage in Sudan demonstrate that inaction is not without costs, or secondary consequences.

Proof: A War We Just Might Win By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK IEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference..... Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.