Greg_W

Whatever...i see red when bush gets brought up...

I was addressing your interpretation of the First Amendment or Constitution, not faith or God. You appear all too ready to abandon the tenets upon which this country was founded, and by which our freedoms are secured. Greg...you can continue this pseudo-logic argument until you are out of air...its clear bush wanted this war for his own purposes and it had nothing to do w/ AlQuaeda or an "imminent threat" or WMD...now either he isn't coming clean on the real reasons or he is using his concept of "faith" to justify this war...FACE IT...the reasons he gave INITIALLY have nothing to do with the reality of why he started this war...he flat ass lied to us, flat ass lied...and its american boys and girls that are bleeding for his reasons, which aren't clear to me yet, and iraqi people are bleeding as well. Everytime that asshole opens his pie hole he pisses off 90% of the world... and you know, the funny thing, he has MADE an AlQuada connection because they are there NOW fighting w/ the insurgents...now how about that????? Way to dodge the entire discussion of your lack of knowledge regarding the First Amendment and individual rights. You know, I'll restate that you appear all too ready to abandon the the founding concepts of this country simply to throw a parallel that you made back at you: One of the first things Hitler did when he became Chancellor was to systematically abandon the current system of government and laws that Germany had in place...Gee, so did Fidel Castro...hmmm..who else? Pol Pot? I'm sure we could go on if you wanted. No? Then stick to bridge design, where I am sure you are an expert, cause you are clearly not one on this subject.

So, no basis? Good, that's what I thought: you have no grasp of the issue or the Constitution. Thanks for playing, but show up with a few more marbles next time.

You may be mistaken here. Let me throw this out there: the First Amendment guarantees against the Federal Government establishing a "national religion" (i.e., Anglican Church in G.B., Catholicism in Argentina, etc.). All this implies is freedom to worship as one chooses. You seem to be inferring that this means that citizens in positions of government cannot utilize their set or morals and standards to make decisions about policy. This is all we are talking about. We each have a belief system (whether that means you believe in God or choose not to believe in God) that we call upon when we make difficult decisions. What it appears you are trying to do is impede an American citizen from exercising his rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment to worship as he chooses simply because of the position he holds. Greg_W Fuck off greg... Great comeback, Rudy. Man, the way you counterpointed me there, shit, what was I to do? You're a fucking debate god! Phew! That was some real next-level brainiac debate-type shit! You trying out for the Olympic Debate Team? 2008? You should.

I was addressing your interpretation of the First Amendment or Constitution, not faith or God. You appear all too ready to abandon the tenets upon which this country was founded, and by which our freedoms are secured.

Iain, please give me examples (plural) of why my interpretation of the First Amendment is ridiculous. I know you want to discredit what I am saying by slamming it, but I'd like to see something concrete.

Actually, Hitler never claimed a religious basis for his actions. He USED religion to lend legitimacy to what he was motivating the German People to do. There's a difference. I can't speak to Mr. bin Laden. If I may be so bold as to offer a possible interpretation to what Mr. Bush means: He may be saying that based on HIS moral belief system (which in this case encompasses a relationship with God), he feels he is acting in the right vein. I only attempt to do this because I have spent a lot of time around Christians and the Christian church and have heard this statement made by others with that intent that I just offered. Food for thought. Greg_W

You may be mistaken here. Let me throw this out there: the First Amendment guarantees against the Federal Government establishing a "national religion" (i.e., Anglican Church in G.B., Catholicism in Argentina, etc.). All this implies is freedom to worship as one chooses. You seem to be inferring that this means that citizens in positions of government cannot utilize their set or morals and standards to make decisions about policy. This is all we are talking about. We each have a belief system (whether that means you believe in God or choose not to believe in God) that we call upon when we make difficult decisions. What it appears you are trying to do is impede an American citizen from exercising his rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment to worship as he chooses simply because of the position he holds. Greg_W

You know Rudy, the ease with which you abandon logic and reason really puts us other engineers a bad light. Please refrain, or start telling people you are a hotdog vendor. Thank you. Besides, where were all you liberal anti-religion/God fuckers when Bill Clinton was talking about how he reads his Bible before making big decisions, or praying, or going to church, or meeting with Billy Graham and other religious leaders?

He's obviously trying to reach a specified word count in the first essay. Overall, I like his imagination.

Good. Stay downtrodden and defeated, you miserable fuck. I'll keep working hard, getting rewarded for my efforts and live the lifestyle I desire. Keep digging ditches or living off public assistance you worthless piece of trash.

No surprise there, sugar. You're like the new Dan Larsen of cc.com...the next generation.

Nobody likes you, you tool.

Are you ever going to shut the fuck up about bouldering?

Thanks, Muffy. (Someone actually asked me that the other day.) What are you doing posting at that time of the morning? Don't you have a job you're supposed to get to? Me? No, I'm unemployed, 14, and irresponsible. How do you think I got so many posts?

Sport-wank bullshit. Figures.

Thanks, Muffy. (Someone actually asked me that the other day.)

Enchantments Plateau

No Slayer this time, Ben: Lacuna Coil, Nevermore, Hell Promise, Strapping Young Lad, and more... jja - Prusik looks good. South face routes were dry. West Ridge was looking good; might be some icy spots back in the cracks or in shaded areas.

Fuck 'em. Whatever you do whilst leading or following is what it is. If they take offense, they can say something or move on.

Thanks, Radon. That's a cool site. Definitely, it was Sagittarius smack dab in front of us.

An additional note: Does anyone know what Sagittarius looks like and would it be in the Southern sky right now? As we were waiting for dawn, I was looking directly at a constellation/collection of stars that looked just like a horse. Low in the sky. Anyone? Muffy?

I know, personally, it has to be life-threatening before I'll say something. Case in point: I arrive at the belay on "Classic Crack" a few weeks ago to find the TR anchor a couple gumbies had set. In my view, it was unsatisfactory and unsafe (I wouldn't have climbed on it). I said something, my partner brought up some of their gear and reconfigured it. These guys learned something about anchors AND climbed safe that day. When I am led to address something, I always ask if I can provide some input or advice: "Could I make a suggestion?" or "I noticed you <blah, blah, blah>. Would you mind another opinion on that?" People are usually open to that. I also gauge the party to see if they ARE open to suggestion. If I don't think they are, I say nothing. Greg_W

I just had this idea for inserting the 9/16: Use a stout monofilament line (20# test fishing line?) with a chunk of lead sinker material and pass that through the 1" first. Then, attach the 9/16 to the monofilament and pull it back through. Good luck.

You know who you are...