sexual_chocolate

To the folks who believe that we are conditioned to see our fighting forces as a group that can do no wrong: please re-read the above statement. This echos what I hear from my friends who have served as well. These sentiments sound like heartfelt lessons learned under conditions most of us will never face. This is what makes me recognize that the vast majority of our servicemen and servicewomen are just like you and me--people who want the best for their families and their fellow countrymen. And this is the way they believe they can most powerfully ensure that hope. These folks are not archetypes. They aren't movie characters. And they aren't ads in the upper corner of your screen. They are the ones who fight for us--in the wars you personally agree with and in the wars you don't. Personally, I am grateful to them. Don't you see the inconsistency of his statement? He says he didn't agree with the war, but went anyway; he was "told too (sic)", and "volunteered too". I don't want to be harsh, but doesn't the first quote seem to indicate that he felt he didn't have any choice in the matter (he was "told to"), yet quickly covers this with an oh yes I actually "volunteered too" (so as to indicate that he still maintained autonomy, and that no one owned him). But how does one do both? Which one is the primary driver? One must decide if they were forced to or voluntarily agreed. There is no way both could have happened. Furthermore, how can he justify the killing of so many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a war that he admittedly thinks is unjust, and one that he partook in? Does that not set up the worst type of moral quandary imaginable? It's a quandary I would not wish upon any thinking feeling creature. And I do not believe that "they" are fighting this particular war for me. No, the last time anyone fought a war that could be argued was for all americans was maybe the 2nd world war, a war of existential magnitude (and was that one really for ALL americans? What does that mean, really? It seems that some form of myth must be invoked to make this assessment believable, since certainly it wasn't for the jailed child rapist, or the disenfranchised indigenous, nor was it for Martin Luther King, or Thelonius Monk, although maybe just maybe it was for Louis Armstrong.Do you think it might have been for Earl Browder? Maybe it wasn't for a person at all, but for an idea, a principle (as this particular myth might state). Perhaps WW 2 was for the idea of "democracy"? I'm not sure about that one; I think we would have engaged in that war even if Germany was more democratic than us. Would you agree with that one? Was it for the continued survival of the Guiding Light that is our Constitution (you know, the Guiding Light that both George Bush and all military personnel are instructed to uphold)? Doubtful, since the Constitution was fighting for survival against a domestic enemy, namely the architects of the war (as is the case today). Was it a war for the business elite? I'm sure the powerful business elite played a role, even though Fortune magazine ran Mussolini on its cover in 1934, extolling the virtues of his fascist business environment, and other business elites were still kickin' it with Germany until....1940? I can't honestly say what that war was for. I know how it was sold to an american public, a public that initially resisted involvement (I'm sure it was sold to the military in much the same fashion: "Tell the boys we have a duty, a duty to God and country." And the boys believed (because it certainly wasn't about money and gi benefits and a college education, which is the main driver today....or was it?)). No, I'm quite convinced that the idea of military personnel going out and fighting wars for me is rather far-fetched; at best, I would think that this would be the myth they tell themselves in order to justify the slaughter of fellow humans. Or, maybe it's the adrenaline? I've heard that the thrill of war can't be beat.

your point?

Thank you, and I sincerely wish for the best to you as well.

Alright dude, now that's a little trippy....

Are you such an absolutist that you equate advertisements of the army with the support of war and Bush? You might as well go all the way with that line of thinking and connect your internal conflict between Good and Evil with the support of external manifestations. The connection between the former is much clearer than the distinction between the latter, and not only theoretical. As far as v7 goes, it's much more enjoyable reading something a bit free-flow and thought-provoking than the predictable drivel of who? oh i don't know, perhaps jclark, feck, you know, the usual side-liners who can't posit a cogent argument (although feck at least has an excuse).

Probably amongst posters here, but I'm sure you've noted the opposition amongst both active duty (a bit limited due to their situation) and former military, including a variety from general on down. I'd hardly call my opinion piece "virulently vocal". I just made a couple of points, sincerely felt, and instead of a substantive reply from you, I only received ad hominem attacks. How about actually responding to the points I make? Heh. I don't need widespread support to hold the ideas I have, but in this case, I think the sentiments are rather widely held (at least amongst those who have spent any time studying domestic propaganda). This line of argument is starting to feel a bit familiar. Haven't we talked about this before? The myth of the ancient warrior archetype. There are times when this archetype plays a fitting role, but usually in today's society, it's nothing but an advertising scheme to get people to commit their lives to the idea so that they can be manipulated for the most nefarious and un-noble ends. Case in point: Iraq. How does one such as you reconcile the nobility of the warrior with the uses that such a warrior is put to? You yourself have said that we had no business going into Iraq; how does a military man completely reconcile himself with this quandary of trying to be noble, yet being forced to live a lie by un-noble powers that be? You must agree that if we didn't have any business (business: how ironic! We DID have every business to go in, but you know what I mean) going into Iraq, then every death is tantamount to unjustified murder. My apologies if I came across as somehow elitist; it wasn't my intention. When I first started climbing, the ones doing it seemed to be mainly free-thinking anti-violence types, non-corporate, etc etc. I realize it has changed, or perhaps never was exactly as I have romanticized it. Of course they can, but that doesn't keep any one of us from calling bullshit on their actions (unless they ban us). Do remember though that they wouldn't HAVE a website without the people who visit; they don't live in a hermetically sealed environment, protected from the opinions of those who frequent the site. The advertising is geared towards the young and impressionable. Plus, having the advertising sitting there in front of people day and night tends to inure people to having the military be an acceptable part of culture; I strongly believe that in its present form, it isn't, and is in every way more pornographic and vulgar than the most obscene sexual content available on the web.

The army spends millions on these types of advertisements for one very simple reason: they work. A reason why they work so effectively is because they are given avenues of exposure by individuals who are either victims of the propaganda campaign themselves, or are doing it simply for the money. I expect that most are a combination of the two (although the owner of this website seemed to indicate he did it only out of monetary concern). Another reason certainly is that the advertising itself is sophisticated at least to the degree that is needed to affect the target audience in the desired way, meaning the young; the ones most ignorant of the consequences of becoming servants to the latest ideoligical agenda being foisted on an ignorant public by whichever businessman/actor/lawyer etc. has purchased the latest pass to the white house. Every one of us that supports this type of advertisement absolutely supports atrocities such as the Iraq war, for the very simple reason that without an all volunteer army, such an atrocity would be nearly impossible (can you imagine Bush selling us this war if the armed forces were comprised of drafted citizens? Young kids, your kids, your neighbor's kids, dying in a faraway desert over....over....wmd's? democracy? regional stability? which one is it, please? can someone please say oil? even greenspan does). The fact is that it's this type of advertising that allows the military to function in a largely unaccountable fashion, simply because we collectively do not end up sacrificing. You know and I know that if the politicians' children were exposed to war through the draft, capricious warmongers such as Bush etal probably(?) wouldn't get such easy passes for their personal wars.

I suppose if the owners of this site have no qualms about army recruitment in general, then taking money for their advertising is no big deal, right? I suppose if the owners of this site are ok with the way the armed forces are used, then advertising for the army is no big deal. "get the special forces game cd FREE at goarmy.com" I suppose if the owners of this site are ok with kids being targeted by army recruiters, then it's business as usual, right? (At least with Joe Camel (as nefarious as it was), the victims didn't generally go out and kill others.) I'm personally saddened by this website's owners' decision to accept money from the US army. I'm saddened to see advertising, manipulative advertising, anywhere, but to see it at a website devoted to the climbing culture (maybe I misunderstood this website's mission?) makes it harder to stomach.

ok guys, it's been fun. see ya in a couple of months!

done Hee hee Way to bring this thread down to the sophomoric level. Is there even a point to this anymore? oh come on man, was there ever? i think you're the one being sophomoric here, and yes i'd love a beer, as long as it's a Kaliber.

Sakes alive! Where does one even begin? 1. I hope you never fell, hung, or aided, since it's a friggin' 10b! It would have been a bit more bold if you had chosen a grade that you actually might have trouble with! (since you're into hardman action figure worship etc.) 2. So you didn't use chalk? You know, on those overhangs, it rarely gets washed out completely in the rain. Plus I heard you squeezed one at the crux; if that isn't a mess, I don't know what is. 3. one could argue, but that would be silly, wouldn't it? As far as being "out of (my) league": I'm not bragging, nor am I much of a solo afficionado, but I've hopped on a few things before sans rope, including Orbit onsite (scary), St. Vitus Dance 15 years after doing it (11a or so, and no you don't want to fall, and it felt like an onsite), and various other climbs onsite to 11a. No rehearsal! So I'm probably not out of my league when entering into a conversation with Mr. Rehearsal about these things....(btw, this information is NOT meant to one-up you; soloing for me is kinda personal, but when you make these silly Mr. Football ego claims, it kinda gets to me....) What else? Oh "trivialized 5.13". Should 5.13 remain on your ancient pedestal to be worshipped for all of eternity? Are you sore that kids and grandmas climb the grade, yet you and dwayner never have? I don't get it.... Who's bragging? The only "bragging" I heard was your solo bragging (which I thought was originally kinda fun); plus, what is the term for the equation x=x? Reflexive something or another? We can argue if this can ever be true; I personally think that only nominally can it be true, and beyond signifier, it loses all meaning, but in this case, if one climbs a 5.13 (your mythic number) then by definition, that person now can climb 5.13! I don't know what sort of nonsense you are talking about above. Of course it doesn't mean they cn climb all 5.13's at that point in time (or ever), but they can climb "5.13" since they just did! Silly Mr. Rehearsal!

Or did you pull out your "brass balls" and send onsight? Is this one of those activities that you have no right to comment on because you haven't done it yourself? So pope, did you go and rehearse it? jeez, what poor form. it's unfortunate we are in a public forum and your buddy dwayner will see what you've been up to, you know, rehearsal and all. pfft.

So pope, did you rehearse Brass Balls before you soloed it? heh.

I call bullshit. It's staged.

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.

They're in good shape. $50 each, obo.

who's that? and what route?

I have a used grigri and a barely used Sum for sale. Grigri is familiar to everyone, and the one I have is in good shape. Sum, by Faders, is a grigri-like device, but bomber on small diameter ropes. I also have a Cinch that I am considering selling. $50 obo on the grigri and Sum. PM if interested.

that climb's rad, starting in the back of the cave! i love that area. and all the crimp shit just left of there! beautiful tonasket!

gmail is this email service offered by google which scans all your email content for marketing purposes.

Went up to goldmeyer a few days ago, and decided to check on the handiwork. i suppose it was inevitable that it would get chopped sooner or later. raindawg, was it you?

yeah climbing training books can be a turn off, but there can be some decent info too. i'm wondering though if you are doing an easy warm up, then working on boulder problems that you can't do moves on, maybe you aren't getting any serious training stimulus? i think of andre segovia of all people: 70% of his practice time was spent doing etudes and scales (easy stuff). or power-lifters who do way more reps or sets at 70% to 80% than near their max at 95% or 100%. if you climb v4 max, then maybe do lots and lots of v2's and maybe some v3's, but in good control, and get 'em wired and do them over and over again for a few weeks. volume i think would help more than pounding away at something where the moves are nearly undoable. it's kinda like trying to bench a certain weight: you don't try that weight over and over again, having it fall on to your chest and not move; it might be better and more fun to do lots of benches at a weight you can do at least a few times, then rest and do it again, with future workouts then using a higher weight, as fitness and strength improve, finally leading to the ability to do the max weight. oh and rainy day women is a sport climb at little si. the grade's a little controversial at 12a, with some thinking it's a bit soft, but whatever. it's a fun climb and a lot of the local's entry into the 5.12 region. nothing harder than v2 or v3 and good rests. you should get on it when you're in seattle in the fall.

Jesus people, the world is a RICHER place since he brought what he brought to it! Quit yer bitchin' and whining. He lived wayyyyy longer than he ever thought he would.

i had this issue with my forester. they sold me a new front pair, and said coupling with my older rear pair was fine (subaru awd is supposedly the most tolerant system out there). then later i heard the tolerance is 3/32 of an inch. since my difference was way more than that, i was worried i had ruined my awd. but when i went in, they checked my differential and said everything was fine (scoped it for bad noises). i put probably 20,000 miles on it with different sized fronts and rears. in the future, i'll stick to tolerance limits, just so i don't worry about it!

this could definitely be a factor. i wonder how tall you are.... if you really want to climb 5.12, i think you can do it. just cuz you're bouldering a few hours even consistently doesn't mean that it's necessarily helping your climbing very much, though. there's something about learning how to pull hard; there's definitely a mental aspect, being able to try really hard. i'd check out some books on climbing. one that comes to mind is Performance Rock Climbing, written by udo neumann and dale goddard. if you follow the recommendations in that book, and maybe develop some stuff on your own, and really STICK TO IT for a few months, i betcha you might surprise yourself. the thing about picking a hard route above your head that i'd be cautious about is the potential for frustration. if you get on something that's just too hard, it might just fuck with your motivation. if you want to break into 5.12's, i'd recommend starting on Rainy Day Women! i bet you could get it, especially if someone is there to give you beta, and it would psych you for your next 5.12.