JayB

The "defer to the judgments of the guy who has the hardest free-solo" argument is rather odd one forward given that the number of climbers who are superior in this respect to both the Pope of twenty years ago, much less the Pope of today, who have no problem with bolted sport climbing is greater than zero.

Not sure what he saw, but from what I can recall it was just BMC shooting the policeman.

I'd give yourself a few days to think things over before you make any permanent decisions. I know from experience that when you see or you, or someone else that you care about, is on the receiving end of something like that it can take days before the adrenaline and anger settle down to the point where you can think rationally. One rational step would be to see if your neighbor would like to press charges, and volunteer yourself as a witness. Another might be to get an alarm system for your home. I'd also find someone who provides firearms training for a living and have a serious talk with them about your motivations for wanting a gun, then get extensive training on their operation and use if you decide that you are a good candidate for gun ownership.

Sort of OT - but there was a case in New Hampshire a few months ago that's somewhat germaine to the topic. Evidently there was some bad blood between a local cop and one of Bode Miller's cousins that had been going on for a while. Cop sees BMC speeding (I think), pulls over BMC, BMC says call another cop when he sees that it's the cop that he's got the bad blood with and drives off. Cop in question pursues BMC into lot where he's now stopped, rams BMC's car three times while BMC is showing hands. Cop then gets out, walks over to BMC's car and sprays mace on BMC through window, walks back to car, and BMC pulls out handgun and kills policemans with several shots to the back. Ex-marine happens to drive by, sees shooting, exits vehicle, grabs policeman's service revolver, points it at BMC and tells him to drop the gun. BMC refuses and/or does nothing and ex-marine shoots BMC twice in the chest and kills him. No charges are filed against ex-marine.

Let's get back to the part of the conversation where the two of you attempt to define a set of ethical criteria in bolts used to establish and protect slab routes are acceptable, but those used to establish and protect face climbs are not.

Zu2Qqi9bzkc

Me and pope should create a coloring book explanation for the likes of you. Or should it contain flow-charts? When you figure out a way to use the "substance of the means," argument in a manner which excludes bolted slab routes, feel free to make use of whichever of these two methods you're most comfortable working with and accustomed to conveying your ideas in.

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could. I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means. Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks. This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control. So now on routes in which the bolts "will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle" and so as long as the bolts aren't close enough together to aid from one to the next, the bolts are no longer provide "the substance of the means." This includes the majority of sport routes. Thanks for clarifying.

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could. I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means. Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

Per the BMI table, at 5'10", I am currently 1-2 pounds shy of falling into the overweight category. Now I have a goal. Becoming overweight will be a piece of cake, but making it into the obese column may be beyond my capabilities.

How about making this the "Videos that Will Appeal to Dave-underscore-Schuldt" Thread. oBJ4zJkc9Eg

Lecture in Seattle as part of his tour to promote his book, "God is Not Great." Many here will probably appreciate the manner in which he eulogizes Jerry Falwell. Video 2 of 5: OgS-YJDVF6E Remainder of his lecture available on youtube.

Not sure where you're applying but I got the impression that at Uw getting into PA school without ~ 3 years experience as a PA, Navy corpsman, Army medic, paramedic, or some other type of day-in-day-out hands-on medical background is fairly difficult. It also sounded as though they value life experience, so there weren't many folks that got into the program straight out of college. This is all second hand stuff and may not be accurate, so hopefully someone who is working as a PA will chime in and correct it if it's not accurate.

If you like the products that an independent business sells more than those sold by a larger operation, if you find the service more attentive, the selection more to your liking, purchasing the product or service provided by the said operation makes you feel good about yourself, etc - then this is a matter of your preferences at work and/or the smaller operation simply earning your business through excellence. This is not altruism, and any business that actually depends upon altruism to keep it's doors open will not last very long. The difference in total compensation between Starbucks and local shops is also probably negligble and, if anything, probably tilts in the favor of Starbucks. There's also the fact that Starbucks can be credited with creating the market for gourmet coffees that the small shops now operate in. The Catholic Church of yore sold indulgences to the faithful to absolve them of their sins and re-establish their standing in the eyes of god and did pretty well at it, and evidently the boutique coffee shops of today are doing pretty well serving the same impulses through a different market, although the deity in question here is clearly the consumer's self-image.

Cafe Brit from Costa Rica is pretty decent, and you can get the stuff shipped to your door direct from CR for $7.50/lb if you buy it in sufficient quantities.

I only drink Starbucks when there's no McDonald's coffee available.

If only I could buy a cup of Starbucks Coffee while shopping tax-free at the various Walmarts in NH...

I'm amazed that thus far no one has felt compelled to add a LOL to a RickRoll'D post...

It's strange that - unlike Joseph Healy - these two champions of boldness and ethical conduct are so reluctant to have their behavior and commentary on this site associated with their real names.

Frass Canyon.

Bill - don't distract them. With every post you coax out of them you're depriving them of a morsel of time, energy, or concentration that they'll need so bring about the closure of all sport climbing areas in the Northwest.

I'm still waiting for the ballot initiative that will outlaw all future ballot initiatives.

Just to insure that I am even less welcome in Phinney.... Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):19-24.Click here to read Links Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green? Williams CM. High Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, School of Human Nutrition, School of Food Biosciences, University of Reading, UK. c.m.williams@reading.ac.uk Consumer concern regarding possible adverse health effects of foods produced using intensive farming methods has led to considerable interest in the health benefits of organically-produced crops and animal products. There appears to be widespread perception amongst consumers that such methods result in foods of higher nutritional quality. The present review concludes that evidence that can support or refute such perception is not available in the scientific literature. A limited number of studies have compared the nutrient compositions of organically- and conventionally-produced crops, with a very small number of studies that have compared animal products (meat, milk and dairy products) produced under the two agricultural systems. Very few compositional differences have been reported, although there are reasonably consistent findings for higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables. Data concerning possible impacts on animal and human health of diets comprising organic or conventional produce are extremely sparse. Data from controlled studies in animal models, particularly within single species, are limited or poorly designed, and findings from these studies provide conflicting conclusions. There are no reports in the literature of controlled intervention studies in human subjects. Comparison of health outcomes in populations that habitually consume organically- or conventionally-produced foods are flawed by the large number of confounding factors that might contribute to any differences reported. If consumer perceptions regarding potential health benefits of organic foods are to be supported, more research of better quality is needed than that which is currently available. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46(1):23-56.Click here to read Links Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature. Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A. Laboratory of Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, 70 El. Venizelou Ave, Kallithea, Athens, 176 71, Greece. Consumer concern over the quality and safety of conventional food has intensified in recent years, and primarily drives the increasing demand for organically grown food, which is perceived as healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence, however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound. Although there is an urgent need for information related to health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, generalized conclusions remain tentative in the absence of adequate comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, inasmuch as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins. With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements. Also, results for mycotoxin contamination in cereal crops are variable and inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this area of research are warranted. At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food. PMID: 16403682 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Since there are now more deer in the continental US than at the time of Columbus's landing, the only realistic alternative to culling via hunting is culling via starvation. In Iowa deer are so numerous that they have set up a program that encourages hunters to kill more deer and donate their excess venison to food-banks.

Maybe you can take revenge on your lot-hogging neighbor by surreptitiously adding wavy-fiberglass carport covering type motifs to his property.