sexual_chocolate

KCMU lost its soul when it went to paid DJs and changed to kexp and developed more of a pre-arranged format promoting bands. Plus, it ain't college radio any more, being miles from the campus. Good riddance. Maybe it ain't owned by clear channel yet, but it might as well be the way it caters to a particular demographic and accepts advertising now.

Das Muzak on Castle Rock comes to mind....

Great. There goes my grandma. Thanks, doc.

Ooh I'd google if I were you, since the above over-simplification misses quite a few juicy tid-bits by our esteemed "economist"!

Way better than the report I heard. thanks!

"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way." I now understand your gift of subtlety and nuanced interpretation....

Mein Fuhrer!

Get it while it's good, cuz the pineapple express is on its way.

You are an irrelevant non-sequitir. Stick to your capitalist theory; at least you sound smart.

Depends on the gym.

I think I might start smoking too.

Anyone remember why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed without tremendous Repub opposition? After all, we're talking about an ex ACLU lead attorney.

gotcha. yeah I'd agree to a certain extent, although I'd caveat with the following: the build-up to 90% of max with higher (5 and 3) reps and lower intensity works more like a warm-up for me, saving pop for the high weights. I think also the idea with the lower weight reps is that you build a base upon which to develop more pop. But I could see having days where one omits the build-up and goes straight to high after warm up. maybe a few week cycle or somesuch. And then apply this to climbing specific work-outs too, such as campusing, system board, bouldering, etc.

I don't understand your classification of the low rep work as strength, not power. Two rep lifting near max is pretty kapow to me...very similar to bouldering and power sequences in climbing.

I should mention that the lifting I did was all weird and adapted to what seemed to me way more applicable to climbing. Lotso core strength, wide grip pulls, weighted type writers, levers, that kinda thing. (I do think 4-7 reps tends a bit towards stamina, not just pure power, especially if you're not recovering fully between sets.) Anyway, I could blab all day about training shit. Soemtimes I think I like training better than climbing. go figure. But yeah, when I've campused crimps for a few weeks, things really went off. Twice a week, but it's pretty hard on the fingers. If you start getting lingering pain, stop.

Probly since pcc sells emergenc lite for $9 with MSM, 36 packets.

Baker opens the 11th. A week and a half!

Do you lift for power? Low rep sets, and tons of them? I mean like three or four reps, often two, and then maybe ten or twelve sets total per exercise. From 60% of max on the five rep sets, working to 90% or 95% on the two rep sets, Then back down again. You see, it's really scientific Rudy. Timed hangs on crimps, then work up to campusing crimps (build a campus board with them; no campus boards I see have small enough rungs). "Wussy wussy finger strength...."? Hah, haven't you climbed 13+? Such a wussy!

Timed laps on boulder problems for power-endurance. Campusing and weightlifting for power and power-endurance.

Dude. Surely you jest. You can't be more than twenty years older than me....

I would guess that the book would be valuable to many climbers. I would also guess that most who are knocking it climb 5.10 or maybe 5.11, and secretly harbor a wish to climb harder, but are afraid to admit it!

2012 is also the end of the Mayan calendar. Also the Egyptian calendar? And the Kalevala.... Hmmmm....

6:30 full north ridge car to car (from Ingall's side?) is fuckin' cruising king missile speed. We did it somewhat casually in 17 hours car to car over ingall's, not complete.

The "left" was quite vocal in their opposition to the Taliban, even back when the Bushies were inviting the Taliban to Texas for the latest business conference on a pipeline through Afghanistan. And certainly the "jihadi" has never been a favorite of the "left", even before Bush's war allowed them to appear for the first time in Iraq. It's just that the Taliban and the jihadi have been replaced with a threat much greater in scale, but an apologist for our current administration would fail to see this. Just for the record, it would seem that you were a supporter of our Iraqi invasion; is this true, or am I projecting assumptions based on your hubristic arguments and reductio ad absurdums?

That's right you guys. If you even discuss the ramifications of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, you're playing right into the hands of this administration, because conservative appointments are simply a SMOKESCREEN intended to distract y'all from something MUCH BIGGER and more important. Hehe.