sexual_chocolate

goddamnit people, take your ludicrous speculating elsewhere. I'm conducting a very specific poll here.

Badass. Fred Nicole gets second ascent. link

geeosh dude, not whether or not he would do it, but who would you prefer nuclear bombed you? Osama bin laden or Kim?

how hard would it be to build a snow fort without a shovel? do some of you out there think you'd be all right if you were stranded out there without a shovel?

so this means you would favor or not favor kim attacking instead of osama bin laden?

i think pregnancy tests should be mandatory at all climbing areas.

no passing allowed, my friend. there is no choice, the end is imminent, and you must choose. now choose, my friend.

I always carry wet-ones for just such occasions. nothing ruins romance like the smell of fresh feces or three day old urine. Also, check the panties for racing stripes, a good indicator of general hygienic habits.

dude, you have some serious inferiority problems. i would suggest to let it go and seek counseling! (imo, so it seems.) seriously! like every time i post something, you're lurking around, ready to pounce with some bs of yours. get out and get climbing or see if your wife has time for you or something! maybe i was a little harsh. i just get touchy when i'm posing a serious question and people make fun of me. So JayB, which one of those two would you choose? Now no side-stepping, please!

I don't know if your question is serious, but I really don't see how climbing would weaken your ankles, unless you're in plastics 24/7 without any range of motion. if anything, rock climbing would seemingly strengthen them.

Do you have the qualifications to label someone "retarded"? Hypocrisy, with serious undertones of repressed vulnerability issues.

dude, you have some serious inferiority problems. i would suggest to let it go and seek counseling! (imo, so it seems.) seriously! like every time i post something, you're lurking around, ready to pounce with some bs of yours. get out and get climbing or see if your wife has time for you or something!

shit, there was a time when i was out hiking and didn't wash my hands FOR A WEEK STRAIGHT! I even ate and stuff too. Horrible.

that's badass. moving like 25 knots what with a double reefed main and a storm trisail? yessssssss

I posted this somewhere, and also wanted your opinion: If there was a nuclear attack on the US, and everyone got killed, who would you wish was the guy who did it, Osama bin Laden, or kim jong-il? I'm not saying I'm wishing for an attack, mind you. Just if one was inevitable. I guess I'd have to kind of wish it was Osama, because that Kim fellow seems like an egomaniac, and Osama seems pretty mellow, and you gotta hand it to him for his bravery and surviving in caves and where-ever for what like 5 years now while the biggest meanest country has been out looking for him with a 50 million(?) bounty on his head. Plus, he talks about feeding the poor and all that too. So my vote would be for Osama to bomb us (if it had to happen). What do you think?

everyone knows that a woman's place is in the kitchen. and the bedroom.

pp, i'd have to agree. if you're gonna get prego, take care of the baby. but then again, she was on 5.10, and she's an accomplished climber. 5.10 is pretty benign if you've climbed 5.13, especially if you know the route. what's a mother to do?

nah you hit some good ones. threaten a strike.

well pp, how do you feel about pregnant females climbing up rocks and things?

hey that fatty wasn't meant for you, noob.

you're a paid staff writer here, aren't you?

nobody ever understands me. i wish i could have a cherishable forever moment. nah! just kiddin'

yes of course tvash! i would never try to take yor values away!

shitbag?[old confused emoticon cuz the new one sucks] case closed? dang yer a good dick! yes, there are thousands of people working, with principle, conviction, and a sense of altruism, towards bringing into this world the qualities that sometimes seem so dismally lacking. and i'll even say gw has this thread in him, no matter how terribly expressed. but when "values" are spoken of in a context with obvious self-interest involvement, the distinction between expressed "values" and (often not expressed) "interests" becomes difficult to ascertain. politicians will use the "value" aspect as propaganda for furthering their "interest" aims, as i believe has happened in the current iraq crisis, and has certainly happened so many times with such ample documentation that it hardly needs mention (do you think our current administration is blind to the deep history of effective propaganda and its uses on the domestic (and non-) populations? if you do, then i think your "value" bias is perhaps affecting your analytical assessments?) so anyways, when the contradictions between "values" and "interests" become as great as we have witnessed at times, then yes indeed i believe the distinction (in practice) becomes moot.

i think in many of the cases spoken of previously here, we can use "interests" and "values" synonymously; there is no need for distinction. Completely disagree. We separate the two all the time in our foreign policy. Example: Value: Human Rights. Interest: Oil supply. You can do the math on that one. Another: We have few or no real interests in Africa, yet we at least pay lip service to dealing with AIDS there. Interest? No. Value? Yes. oh if it were so simple. call me cynical but i tend to think W's statement more clearly defines the interplay between "interests" and "values" than a rockwell painting.