sexual_chocolate

"Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization..." Economics do play a major role in any analysis of "freedom", no? Impoverishment doesn't seem to breed "freedom", not within the structures of our "relative" world, no?

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Bottom line is that socialism (in whatever form you choose) inhibits personal freedom instead of guaranteeing it as our Founding Fathers intended. Look at the income tax (extortion) rates in some of these European countries It's bad enough that I don't get to take home all of MY earnings every week as it is. Greg W P.S. MtnGoat s Hah! Now we get to the "bottom-line"! "Bottom-line" is that YOUR supposed freedoms get trampled; who cares about the "freedoms" of the down-and-out, disabled, unemployed, mentally troubled, discriminated against, etc.. These never seem to get too much air-time with the Libertarian trumpet-blowers. It's everyone for themselves! And let the most able survive! Cuz it's about MY freedom, after all! ME ME ME ME ME!

"the gym is where i play in the wee hours of the morning before some people even get out of bed, and i get way more of a workout there than that wussy little wall could ever afford me." Hah! You just don't know how to work it, baby! I've had some of the best workouts of my life at the glorious UW rock. Plus, the hardest bouldering problems in the state reside there....

very true about nader, and most other third party candidates. the debate rules are currently written in a way that ENSURES no third party will get in to ruin the two-party strangle-hold on the limited ideas discussed during the debates (debates? hah. what a joke). mtn. goat: your ideas mirror those of the libertarian party line. They also seem analogous to Ayn Rand's. Was my jab meant as a dismissal? Not entirely, yet I will admit to considerable frustrations with what I see in their/your arguments. It's mainly the assumptions about the "evils" of "human nature", and how it's best to accept them and work accordingly. It's a bit cynical, if you ask me. There's more: "I don't believe it does negate the above, because concern is nice, but it's separate from telling other citizens they shall work to support your own personal values, however nice they may be to you." This happen sall the time; it's part of living with other human beings. we all do things we don't necessarily agree with, yet we have collectively agreed upon certain rules. If we find those rules unfair/unjust, we can work to change them. Democracy. Yes, we have the power to work for change. It sounds as though through your volunteer efforts, you engage in this action quite a bit. BTW, the CFR is placing limits on the donations, if my understanding is correct, and on the timing of those contributions. Of course we are still free as individuals to donate money to candidates and causes!

Straight outta the Ayn Rand-led libertarian think-tank! [ 08-23-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

Where did the idea of government "by the people, for the people" come from? Is this not a direct quote from some source that I simply cannot recall? "True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc." It seems that is ideal is so cynical and empty of any humanitarian values. Not only does it negate the above ideal, it replaces it with "the richer you are, the more power ye shall have", which is about what we have right now. Maintain the status quo? Access to government, OUR government, should not be based on the size of ones campaign contribution, and to not codify and legislate against it is a terrible form of cynicism. Perhaps CFR is an incomplete remedy, fraught with loopholes yet to be discovered, but at least it's a move in a direction that most people in the US seem to want-an attempt to negate control of government policy by those with the most money.

quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: quote:Originally posted by sexual chocolate: Now we're really getting into semantic mince-meat.... "All-around 5.11 climbers" can be shown 5.11s that they would piss their collective pants on. Which begs the question: What does it mean to be a solid 5.11 climber? If'n ya don't can't won't do a certain 5.11, ya ain't a "all-around 5.11 climber"? Well it does beg the question somewhat. What I would say is that those 5.11s one can't/won't climb would be "few." quote: PP: The term "few" places some conditional limits on a given context, regardless of one's peripatetic reasoning.... If I know a "few" climbers, this would limit that sample pool to perhaps 5 in size. Now if a few of those climb X, Y, or Z, "few" would still denote a number which the term refers to: "Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits. Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings." (per www.dictionary.com) So given this sordid state of affairs, ALL of my 5.13 climber buds could be "all-around 5.11 climbers", since the sample pool is but a "few".... Ummmm....so there. Well it is nice if they all are. That still doesn't change my argument anymore than the probability of having "heads" come up the next time you flip a coin changes after it comes up heads 10 times in a row just before the flip in question. But I do question your use of the dictionary. It is not the word "few" that enables you to not be inconsistent by now claiming that ALL your 5.13 friends are solid all-around 5.11 leaders. But your previous use of the word "least". Here it is: at least a few of the 5.13 climbers I know are quite good on trad, with 5.12 gear on-sight abilities. Please less time in the gym and more in school! By the way any volunteers to tow me up Mary's Tears/Crucifx? PP Good God! You've been spending too much time in school, and you're still not getting it right! Either one works! Now cheers, goddamnit.

Good god

Who's been over-rating that damn UW rock again? WHO?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Off White - Dr. K would be Dr. Kubiak, i.e. Eric (Erik?) Kubiak, Seattle-based hardperson (i.e. 5.14s) and loudmouth extraordinaire. Actually, he's in NY now (I think), but I swear I hear him screaming every now and then....

BTW, PP, 12c trad onsight, yet only V3 bouldering? Those are lopsided enough numbers to make Dwayner jealous....

Now we're really getting into semantic mince-meat.... "All-around 5.11 climbers" can be shown 5.11s that they would piss their collective pants on. Which begs the question: What does it mean to be a solid 5.11 climber? If'n ya don't can't won't do a certain 5.11, ya ain't a "all-around 5.11 climber"? PP: The term "few" places some conditional limits on a given context, regardless of one's peripatetic reasoning.... If I know a "few" climbers, this would limit that sample pool to perhaps 5 in size. Now if a few of those climb X, Y, or Z, "few" would still denote a number which the term refers to: "Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits. Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings." (per www.dictionary.com) So given this sordid state of affairs, ALL of my 5.13 climber buds could be "all-around 5.11 climbers", since the sample pool is but a "few".... Ummmm....so there. [ 08-22-2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

I only know a few 5.13 climbers! [ 08-22-2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

PP, maybe sport-climbing is the only thing that interests them? Take the average 5.13 sporty, teach him/her some traddie techniques, and I bet quickly they would be able to lead 5.12 trad....Sport-climbing gives the same athleticism required on harder trad, don't you think? BTW, at least a few of the 5.13 climbers I know are quite good on trad, with 5.12 gear on-sight abilities....

I did say "fairly fit", not 15 lbs overweight. And in a few months, "fairly fit" becomes "very fit" with proper training and diet. And yes, I do believe his name was Gene, and he would hit the rock with just the drill, over and over until the drill would finally stay in the hole he had created. Then he would hammer.

I believe Popeye said "I yam what I yam and that's ALL that I yam". I also would completely agree with whoever said 5.11 is closer to 4th class than it is to 14c. I don't think there's any question about that one. Most anyone fairly fit could climb a select 5.11 in a matter of months with proper coaching and training; 14c? Years.... if....

I think he realized the evil of his sticky rubber ways, and he's polishing off his hobnails!

Yes, yes, I've seen the cheap crass knock-offs inspired by the original, yet knock-offs they will always remain. Nice try. Now where did Dwayner go? We were having such a nice discussion....

The Moondance is not a technology, it is an art. Due to its complexities, it may at times seem technologically advanced, yet it is important to always bear in mind the fact that it is an ART.

"...you can theoretically make the shoes ever-more sticky and pretty soon that long featureless slab of 5.13 becomes a no-hands route." But the bar gets raised every time! Technology is a product of our mind, our reasoning mind, which is a product of our evolutionary ability to survive. It's not necessarily a bad thing! So what if a 5.13 slab becomes a no-hands route! (Won't happen!) Then we move on to the next challenge! I know, I know, "but climbing is sacred." Well, "I believe in everything, nothing is sacred. I believe in nothing, everything is sacred."

quote: Originally posted by Goat Boy: Zeus smote many a sketchy pilgrim drilling a bolt ladder up to the heights. Here’s your enlightenment, sport. It's funny how Luddites use the very technologies they decry!

"The point I was trying to make is that if you change the "rules" and, for example, allow unlimited rehersal, hanging off of gear, etc., then we are all ultimately 5.14 climbers if we choose to spend our lives that way." Possibly, yes. Similar to an archer practicing day after day the sport he/she loves, or a sprinter running intervals, or a chess player studying moves. Your point, again?

Pope, that is.

Right on. Wish him luck.

And upon reaching the summit of Olympus, Zeus (?) said to them, "why the hell didn't you just clip some bolts on the way up? You can't find wisdom if you're DEAD before you find it!"