sexual_chocolate

It's not that you have a view and try to support it, it's the tenacious quality of your arguments. It's as if there is no room to breathe! You are seemingly so intent on discrediting any opposing viewpoint that you'll hammer away with no pause, and then when you concede a point, or agree that maybe your viewpoint isn't error-proof, it seems to carry with it such recalcitrance and pompous piety (oxymoron?)! It isn't always about what's being argued about, know what I mean? And yes, you're a smart guy, but realize that you might be wrong sometimes. Humbleness and humility can be wonderful qualities....

Good dog, you are tenacious! Your impersonation of a sophist chihuaha is incredibly convincing, yet your self-serving (complement?!?!?) slipperiness and wearisome rhetoric which you think passes for intelligent debate has become *COMPLETELY* transparent. I doubt you will ever convince yourself of your own intelligence. If you're trying, perhaps be a little less *rigid*.

"I finnally realized that I was takeing it all too seriously." Really? I'm wondering.... Hey I'm not meaning to be an ass here, but here's the way I see it: you felt badly about some advice you gave, you didn't want to feel badly (human nature), couldn't really make sense of it so you opened it up for peer review, got some feedback you liked, some you didn't like, chose to go with the one you liked, and presto, you allevaited some uncertainty and could now go on with a clean conscience. What would you say if the poor bloke followed your "advice" and fell to his death? I mean, it's not like you were telling him/her to take a walk in the park, or to go climbing after getting proper instructions. Your advice carried a clear message, hard to misunderstand: "maybe try soloing." My advice: Soloing is incredibly dangerous! It is not advisable therapy for hypsiphobia! It can kill you! It's a shitty way to die! It can kill you faster than simply getting near TG's ass!

Damn. Almost 3 hours has gone by since Mtgoat's last post on such a contentious topic. How unlike him, not getting the immediate *last word*.

quote: Originally posted by Terminal Gravity: I'm glad you piped up, Shakey. Your views were exactly those that I hoped would be the prevalent ones. I can't say why, but when I read your initial post I was pretty sure you had a depth of experience and felt that my view might be worth the read for you. I also assume that you and everyone else on this board (unless they profess otherwise) are responsible for their own decisions in the mountains. That is clearly the way it should be. Cheers. I thought by the tone of your initial post, you were having some misgivings and/or doubts about previous advice you had given. This post makes it seem as though you knew all along how you really felt, or at least how you WANTED to feel. I personally feel it's kinda lame to throw anything out there, irregardless of possible outcomes, and then try to act innocent, implying everything is really the other person's responsibility. Well, in the end it is, but we're ALL responsible for what we do, and that includes giving dangerous advice. And yes, advising someone to go soloing is dangerous advice. I've soloed alot, but would never recommend it to someone I don't know, especially the context in which the advice was offered. Just my opinion, for which you asked for.

"Anyone know how long those routes were in place prior to getting chopped? Has the installation/chopping cycle been repeated before?" The easier route was there for 3 or 4 years, the harder one about 2, I think. Too bad about the removal; they were really fun. And this was the first time chopped. Maybe someone would like to put in a bunch of monos and bis? Just an idea....

"You know what? I give advice to people who I know are going out with other people. Giving advice to someone who is soloing or going out with other people is NO DIFFFERENCE. Advocating soloing is just as dangerous as advocating to go out and climb Liberty Bell with the Mountaineers. Climbing is dangerous no matter what you do. Even the standard route on Rainier with a guide. Either solo or with a group. I bet each and every one of you has given advice to someone." I've never climbed with the Mountaineers, but maybe you have a point there. Maybe I'll add that to my list: Don't advocate climbing with the Mountaineers! "Fuck. While we're on it. My aunt gives advice to her daughter for raising her two grandchildren. And guess what? The daughter is raising the two grandchildren SOLO. I Guess that's irresponsible!!!!!!!!! " Gee. Changing diapers, or soloing, say, Orbit (which I've done). Unless the kid's got aerosolized E. Coli coming out her ass, I think many would think a little diaper change to be SAFER!

Consider: would you really want someone following the advice that you're giving? I think advocating free soloing verges on irresponsibility, IMO. I've done a bit of soloing, sometimes getting myself in situations that I now feel fortunate to have come out of alive. I doubt I did this because someone advocated soloing, but regardless, I'd never advocate something so inherently dangerous. I think I'd be a bit horrified if someone died due to my "advice". So what are these "wacky" training principles you've used for years, ropegun? I promise I won't laugh, unless they've only taken you to 12d, after years of application!

quote: Originally posted by Jens: PS Anybody seen Alain Robert's website? That guy's got some nuts the size of watermelons. He HAD large nuts. This was the result of brain migration. They are actually quite small now, since he is dead and his balls have rotted off.

In '73, Eddy Merckx won both the Giro D'Italia AND the Vuelta de Espana, but didn't compete in the Tour de France. In '69, '70, '72, and '74, he won both the Giro and the Tour de France (in '73, he didn't race in the Tour). What a bad time to be a cyclist, unless your name was Eddy Merckx. In '72, he set a new 1 hour time trial record, which lasted over a decade. In this age of specialization, his times for stages and such are being topped, but it's highly doubtful that there will ever be a cyclist approaching his domination of the sport.

Was Lance pacing him? It seems as though he owes him one....

"semi-literate typo-plauged..." No one is immune....

I appreciate your post, and your opinions, and I think you present the complexity of the situation well. I find myself frustrated at times, thinking about some of the particulars, and the extremes that are represented by the different groups involved. I also think we need to be careful as we think about these things, and try to understand how and why there might be so much anger directed at us, specifically. Could it be because the average middle-easterner feels powerless within their political structures, and then sees US officials shaking hands with their oppressors (the Sauds)? Or the historical alliance the US has had with Israel, always favoring them in any dispute within the region (and arming them to the teeth, with equipment then used to kill arabs)? Perhaps it's the talk of Democracy, but then no such talk when it serves our interests, such as the support of Musharref, a military dictator, or the Sauds again, or the tacit approval of an overthrow of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected president, Hugo Chavez? (The list is long for this one! You know this too. I'll just list a couple.) We can't gain too much respect with tactics like this, don't you think? Seriously please, answer this one. None of this excuses any acts that have been directed towards us, but I think it goes a long way towards explaining them! BTW, I read a really interesting stat recently: During the early 90's (between 91 and 94, if I remember right), when such great efforts were made by both sides (Israel and Palestine) in the middle east, when humility and decency replaced anger and hyperbole, that region experienced the LOWEST rate of terror bombings in the WORLD. Arafat and Rabin, shaking hands! It was a time of great hope, for both sides. (Opinion polls have shown that both sides want peace, with the number going down during periods of violence. How predictable. Again, violence breeding violence.) I think this example illustrates my point rather well, that it's only by stepping out of the cycle of violence that we'll create a safer world in the long run. I know I've stepped a bit into the territory of sound bites a bit; I apologize. But my sentiment and reasoning is sincere, and one that I believe in. I think an objective analysis would indicate that violence breeds violence, anger breeds anger. But, I have to go. Ciao.

Of course during an attack itself, one might defend oneself. Someone jumps me on the corner, I'll defend myself, if I can, and depending what the situation presents to me (I was held up at gun-point once. Didn't have much of a chance to defend myself!). But after I've been jumped (or held up), my immediate response wouldn't necessarily be a movement towards revenge (it wasn't after i had a gun to my head)! Now, if the perpetrator was planning to jump me again (Please mr., don't jump me again!), which is kinda what we're facing now, I sure as hell would want to find out what the cat was all about, damn. I wouldn't go shooting up his whole family, thinking that would solve the problem. Everyone's got relatives (we're ALL related) and I know my violence would come back to me, especially if it's the self-righteous kind (Read: GW Bush). I can't CONTROL the world; no one can, although we try. So hopefully I would have the humility to go beyond my anger and pain and hurt and actually try to talk. I know this isn't a very popular position, but that would hopefully be my response. Our leadership's indignant self-righteousness makes for great pomp and fanfare, but I'm afraid it does nothing to secure our future. I fully believe that it will make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come, ESPECIALLY if we want to travel (plus, you CAN'T keep "them foreigners" out. Look at Israel, for god's sake, and they are a TINY country of 5 mil). [ 09-18-2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

"It's a very good question. Basically it comes down to the fact that while it it not permissible to be an initiating aggressor, once one is attacked it is permissible to defend oneself even if this means offensive actions." There's a problem here, of course. Who attacked who first? Hatfields and McCoys. Violence is the most naive response to violence; it just keeps the cycle intact. But I think that's what alot want, anyways.

Hey thanks for that info. Based on that info, it seems like a mistake that was bound to happen, sooner or later. I think her fear is understandable, anyone's fear regarding an attack is understandable. My thinking with the whole "terrorist" attack thing is knowing that fear and anger are going to happen, sure, but not letting those instinctual reactive emotions make our choices for us when we respond.

I took the time to look. I couldn't find the "he said/she said" (I think that's what this has turned to). Oh well....

A side-note: I've often found that messing with self-righteous humanoids is rather fun, but counter-productive. It usually simply intensifies their self-righteousness.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: She made no mistake, the dumbsh*ts messing with her made the mistake. Would *you* simply allow someone to go on their merry way after hearing comments like she heard? I wouldn't. If they don't like what their shitty comments get them, they should be more careful. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what they say. In this one however, it does and if they're not cognizant of that, they're not as smart as they look no matter how they come across on TV. Your veneer of civility is fading! But, you didn't answer the question: What is it they said? I for one haven't heard.

"Still, some great thinking on your part." Dare I accuse you of sanctimony here? I certainly hope you wouldn't become so uncivilized, after holding up so well under your own scruples for so long.... "But I really find someone believing we cause more extinctions than any other cause to be a pretty big statement." Ahhh, but you did not read my post carefully! Either that, or your intention is lost, due to some vague word usage. Clue: We are free to consider the correlations as we desire, yet I believe it would be silly to dismiss perhaps the most obvious possibility. I would think this to be the dominant paradigm in scientific circles.... "But what about weeds, trees, frogs, ants, birds, etc now with us? They survived too, without any of the qualities you describe as necessary for ours. The constant of the earths climate is *change*. I see here defenses of an idea where the climate is static. IMO this is not supportable." My bad. I neglected to reply in completion. Yes, indeed, many organisms have survived, many have not. Those that survived simply did, because the changes in the environment didn't kill them. Quite simple! Of course we will ALL cease to exist, but sheesh, I think understanding our role in the continuation of environmental viability is of paramount importance, don't you think? A higher calling, if you will.... Why do we get to assume this causes harm and suffering, a-priori? How do you know the temperature isn't "supposed" to be 5 degrees hotter or cooler? The idea that the earth is "perfect" now is *itself* a construct that must be defended and explained before one can make a case against warming, and I don't see any of that here yet! I have never said anything is "perfect". I think sometimes the notion of perfection is a construct of our limited awareness. But I think it to be self-evident that a lack of stewardship towards the earth will result in harm to ourselves and our environment. Do you not think that we have created many casualties due to our lack of foresight and episodes of greed? " ...when the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, a place where they later starved to death when it got towards todays "normal" temperature, wouldn't they consider the future cooling to *now* insufferable?" I believe they might be a little more pissed if they saw that they did it to themselves, especially if they ignored a ton of clues along the way! "This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist." For me, the argument isn't about optimal setpoints, it's more about the potential or actual consequences of our actions.... It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! Some changes are readily explainable, others not. In the case of climate change, obviously some disagreement exists, yet did not a major scientific organization sign off on a statement indicating their opinion to be in accordance with the idea that we are indeed raising our temperatures due to greenhouse gases? I flew to Thailand not too long ago, and realized that we live on quite a small planet! Then, flying into Bangkok and seeing the smog stretching out into the horizon, by god, and all the millions of cars churning out burn by-products 24/7, and the factories with their attendant pollutions... I'd have to be a fool to think that this wasn't affecting our environment tremendously! I think "setpoint" debates become secondary at this point, yet this is a problem with science: to argue a point, one needs objective criteria with which to argue, yet many of these criteria are only indicators, small pointers easily manipulatable and argued about endlessly. The forest is burning, yet we argue about individual trees! But, I think I see some of the points you are making, and in many ways I have no disagreements with some of them. I just think we see a different forest; mine is green, yours is blue.

"Is this belief *true*, or just commonly held? I don't care how many people believe something in a factual case." Well, I would certainly say the "belief" itself is true, since there are many who practice it. Yes, the belief does exist! It is also commonly held, from what I understand. And the reason it is commonly held is that most indications at the disposal of those making the observations seem to indicate a validity in the hypothesis. I understand you to be a clinical rationalist, and as such, I would be led to think that a preponderance of observable phenomena indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis would sway you towards that hypothesis, no? I think we have it, in this case. "You still are not answering the question, how is it we survived all those earlier events, along with all the flora and fauna we see now, in spite of the fact that the climate has varied more than some project it varying in their worst cases?" Certainly we survived because we are adaptable creatures. We have been imbued with intelligence, foresight, communal caring and compassion, along with other qualities we might call greed, selfishness, viciousness, and brutality. I tend to think that on some level, all of these led to our survival. (Interesting reading exists about life in survival situations, such as in gulags or concentration camps.) But, is survival the bottom line? Why would we want to make life difficult for ourselves, if we know better? I think we can use these qualities of intelligence and foresight to notice trends and patterns in our behaviour, and work towards the elimination of behaviours that create harm and suffering. Let's not force insufferable conditions on our progeny, a progeny still without a voice! Their liberties must be considered also, no?

"In addition, I'd present the fact that we still exist, and all the flora and fauna here today, and made we all made it, through all the cyclical changes in the last few millennia." The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth. This is coupled with the FACT that humans have never affected their environment to even nearly the degree to which they have affected it in the last hundred years (I think this is pretty evident to anyone, no?). I know the topic (hah!) was global warming, but global warming is only one aspect of our effect on the environment, although potentially the most serious in the long run, unless our current foreign policy brings us even closer to the precipitous edge of nuclear warhead usage.

quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: [QB] If they want to fight then bring em on and "let's start a war" as quoted by The Exploited. QB] Who was Exploited quoting? Fear?

quote: Originally posted by Jarred Jackman: I think it's funny that those who want to enjoy the land and the climbing tell others to fuck off, or to be wary, while those same folks were once in the exact same position of wanting to climb at that new place where there aren't many people and the rock isn't all chalked up like a home gym. Seems as though there's some hypocrytical bug out there biting people, maybe it carries West Nile virus too, better look out, you may be the next victim. Hey, I'd love to tell everyone about the climbing there, and other areas too. I think it'd be rad to organize a bouldering and climbing trip out there. If it was up to me, I would. But part of the deal for me is respecting the desire of the same individuals that keyed me in to the climbing out there in the first place, and that desire is to keep the area pristine. Do I personally think it would ever be over-run? No, it's not that great, nor that big. But that isn't for me to decide; it's their land, after all! But seriously, it isn't THAT great. If it was, I'd be hoofin' over more than once a year, which is my current rate of visitation.