Jake

Right. 9.4 is pretty tough stuff. I wouldn't be too concerned about rocks hitting a rap rope - hopefully you wouldn't be dislodging too much stuff on the way down.

70 meters? Damn, that's pretty weak. Might as well go with 80 It seems a 50m would be fine, cause I would likely be carrying a thin rap cord too. With a full 50m to rap, I'm not sure that an extra 10m on a 60 would speed things up much. Of course, it could be nice to have in some situations, but wtf, a little sketchy downclimbing is always a fun way to get your heart rate up. Do you think rockfall hitting a 9.4mm vs. a 10mm would make much difference. Would the 9.4 be cut considerably more times than the 10 would?

Gonna buy a new rope for moderate alpine routes. Trying to decide on what length to get. I figure 50m would be better than the 60 i've been using cause it would be lighter and an extra 10 meters isn't gonna make much of a difference on a mountain anyway. Thoughts?

Anybody know if the film is gonna be in good ole spokane?

Would be an interesting climb it sounds like, if not a little weird.

Nice. Thanks for the info

Aww. What the hell? So how exactly do you get it to work? I just get some weird garbled wordpad stuff.

HELL FUCKING YEAH!!

I like the group shot and the glissading dude.

This shit is hilarious.

Never mind. Its Alaskan.

Whats the one that says it has "spruce tips" in it? Its pretty good.

Yes, fairweather, I agree with you. The guys in the militias who go out and "train" or whatever aren't really gonna stop anybody who is determined to get rid of em. But, as you say, private citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

Yeah sure a educated officer corps is a good way to keep things in check. I think most people are under the impression that the military wants to go to war. This is generally wrong. Most of the time, the military wants peace since they are the ones that are gonna be doing the dying. As for the second amendement, forget the food crap. That is total BS. Have you ever studied this shit? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is all about the citizens being armed in order to resist a tryrannical government in the last line of defense - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Yes, today, given the substantial technological revolutions that make the military much more advanced than the average citizen, things are different. However, that is no reason to strip citizens of their rights to own guns. If citizens have no firearms at all, that would make it much easier for a crazy government leader/faction (read James Madison for the danger of factions) to take power. Also, it is worth noting that guns aren't necessarily the problem. Canada allows guns and there aren't nearely as many murders etc up there. Is has something to do with the people. Personally, I was raised from day one to understand guns, but also realize that they are very dangerous - so I am careful with them, but also understand how they work and how to use them. I think many people who have never shot or aren't familiar with guns have bad opinion of them based mostly on the media/press. If you know what they are and how they work, then you you realize much more. Make people take gun tests -that is fine. Kids under 18 have to take a hunter safety course, for instance - that is good. I think everyone should have to shoot a gun and take a course on them - they are prevalent in our society and people should understand the basics behind them. People generally don't understand firearms, though. For example, I have read stuff saying semiautomatic firearms should be illegal cause that is what the miliary uses. Of course, too many people don't realize that not only is a regular pistol semi auto, but also a regular shotgun too that people use for hunting waterfowl. The M-16s the army issues these days are generally all semi-auto too, but there is a big difference between a high velocity .223 cal/5.56mm with a 30 round mag and a 5 round semi-auto shotgun. Getting rid of guns is an uniformed kneejerk reaction. Tougher gun control laws (such as background checks for all purchases) and eduaction programs are the answer. Also, if you are convicted of using gun in a crime, you should sit in the cooler for a long time, not just a couple years. It isn't the gun, it is the operator.

Hey where is that thing? I think I may have rigged up a sketchy top rope to climb it once - always wanted to bolt parts, but never got around to it.

Yeah ok. However, when you make a conscious decision to do something, you should be held accountable. If you have no experience in something like climbing or boating etc and you decide to undertake a hazardous adventure, it would be great if those people had to reimburse those who risk life and money to save their sorry asses. That said, however, there is no fair way to decide if someone was acting stupidly or not. So, there can never be a way to bill them for a rescue, as much as I would like to see it done. (And by the way here, I don't want to see climbers getting billed for taking risks and tackling on a tough project etc. I'm talking about the guy in a t shirt and shorts who decides he will hike up to Colchuck at 4 in the afternoon in October to see the fall colors. Of course, he doesn't bring any water or warm clothes cause he won't be out long.) Actually, I would be great if there was some test for stupidness and if you are too dumb, you get sent to Siberia or Iraq or something....

But, it certainly sucks to have to foot the bill for the county to rescue some dumbass cause they had no idea what they were doing and got hurt, lost, scared, panicked etc.

Anbody here work for the CIA and wanna explain this, cause that's the only way anybody is ever gonna get the answer. I've heard from people apparently in "the know" that Cheney would come down to the CIA and ask "what do you have on Saddam?" Of course, not coming up with the right answer could be career threatening. I'm still not convinced that the Standard report is worthless and wrong, though.

I dunno. Something just doesn't jive with this whole thing. I've read the Standard article, and it seems to point out some pretty damning stuff. But then, the DOD says, nope, it wasn't analyzed, it was just stuff. But, they don't say what was wrong with it at all except say it isn't right. So, when the Standard got the letter, was it full of just bad/unanalyzed info? If so, why would DOD send that to the Senate? Or is the Standard misconstruing the facts in the letter? Then again, if all of this stuff was true, wouldn't DOD love to point this out and say, "here is more proof that Saddam was working with bin Laden?" This whole thing is just a little strange. And as for the neocons being the ones in charge of foreign policy - that is generally correct, but I would argue that Bush FP is not really much different that any other president's FP is. Just look at all the Democratic Pres candidates - they all supported the war in Iraq - except for maybe Clark, but his whole campaign has disapeared off the radar screen anyway.

Very nice

What a great site. Are those people serious?

Yeah this is pretty stupid, but it happens in other situations as well. For instance, protestors against China's policies get sent off to a certain area when somebody like Jaing Zemin comes. Jaing doesn't even see 'em. And, I remember the a similiar thing happening in Spokane when Al Gore came to campaign - all the anti-Gore protestors were put into a special area.

I was at the Veteran's Day ceremony at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery. It was pretty cool and I saw a lot of dignitaries - but there sure are a lot of graves. The worst is when you see a date on a gravestone that shows the guy got killed in Vietnam just before the war ended. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/plab/showphoto.php?photo=2653&password=&sort=1&cat=997&page=1

Forest Service to drop fees at some sites: Northwest Forest Pass will no longer be needed at 400 trailheads, including about 60 in NCW EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - About 400 recreation sites in Oregon and Washington, including up to 60 in North Central Washington, will no longer require visitors to purchase a Northwest Forest Pass, under a new proposal made by the U.S. Forest Service. The downsizing is one of the most significant revisions in the 6-year-old recreation fee program, and comes as Congress is considering legislation to make the pay-to-park program permanent. The Forest Service plans to remove remote, undeveloped and low-use trailheads by next spring from the list of places where cars must display a $5 daily forest pass or $30 annual pass. "These are very, very low-end trailheads with little development - little more than a wide spot in the road," said Jim Archambeault, a recreation planner for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. "Trailheads like those in the Icicle Valley with lots of development, with bulletin boards, toilets, interpretive signs and facilities for horses, will still require the pass," he said. Between 50 and 60 sites in the two NCW forests will no longer require the pass, Archambeault said. Many of them are in the Lake Wenatchee, Leavenworth, Cle Elum and Naches ranger districts. However, about two dozen of those sites are dispersed, undeveloped places where people could camp with the forest pass. Those sites will likely require separate camping fees, he said. The list of sites that no longer require the forest pass won't be released until early next year, Archambeault said. The changes in the forest pass program reflect an effort to bring more consistency nationwide to the types of national forest sites that require recreation fees. They also address public feedback that shows hikers, mountain bikers and others who use national forests are more likely to support the fees at developed sites, including those with restrooms, picnic tables and fire rings, said Jocelyn Biro, Northwest recreation fee coordinator for the Forest Service. "The public has not complained about paying fees when they see their money is being used for on-the-ground maintenance and upkeep for a service that is provided," Biro said. "When you charge a fee and people can't tie that dollar to something on the ground, that's when you have an issue." Forests keep up to 92 percent of the fees to maintain and improve amenities at the sites where the pass is required. In 2002, the pass generated $3.7 million, up from $3 million the year before in 17 national forests in Oregon and Washington. At the same time the Forest Service is reducing sites overall, a bill in the House would make the fees permanent nationwide for the Forest Service and four other agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation. A second bill, before the Senate, would give just the park service permanent fee authority. ----------------------------------- Interesting, I'm not certain what to make of this. Any ideas on what they are thinking?

Here are some more thoughts. 1. When Jews starting moving into Palestine in the 1920s etc, they made offers to buy the land. The guys who owned the land were often rich Arabs from cities who didn't live on the land. However, the poor Arabs that farmed the land did live there. So when the land owners accepted the offer to sell their land, they did so in hopes of only making money and didn't care what happened to to the farmers. And after the Jews bought the land, they intended to farm it themselves, so they booted the farmers out. So, the farmers got mad at the Jews for kicking them off the land. 2. Generally, it seems that Arabs have a history of not reading the international political situation well. (Remember how Saddam was too stupid to cut a deal with the US, refusing to believe that we would actually invade) Instead of totally opposing a Jewish state and refusing even to talk about it during the debate on its formation, they effectively dug themselves a hole. Instead of working out a deal that could have preserved much of their land, they totally opposed it and got cut out because they were the weaker force which could be ignored. Bad choice. 3. If the Israelis are ever going to make any progress in this thing, they have to get rid of all of the settlement, which are all over the West Bank. Saying we will start to take some down and not really doing much is never gonna work. Unfortunately, many Israelis and settlers don't want to leave. This creates a difficult political situation for Israeli leaders. And Sharon, just on the basis of his own views, is never going to get rid of the settlements. Also, the Israelis need to get out of all of the Palestinian towns with all of their roadblocks and searches etc. These roadblocks etc are security measures, but they often just make Palestinians mad. 4. Arafat is nothing more than a terrorist. He does not want peace - he wants to get rid of Israel (what conference was that that Israel gave him everything they - Israel - could ever possibly give and Arafat turned em down cause he wanted the right of return?). So, Israel's refusal to deal with Arafat has been good because it has forced the Palestinians to create a Prime Minister job. Unfortunately, the first PM recently quit because Arafat was impossible to work with in terms of constructively solving issues. 5. Palestinians need to quit living in the past and recognize the current situation. They will never get the "right of return" simply because allowing millions of angry Palestinians into Israel to live would destroy the country. It would no longer be Israel as all of the Palestinians would be in control. Israel would cease to exist. 6. Yes, I think the US should quit giving money away to Israel. It hurts our image with the Arabs and Israel can and should support itself anyway. However, cutting off funding may make it difficult for us to work with the Israelis. But, maybe threatening to cut off the money could force them to act better. At any rate, though, the Jewish lobby is very strong in this country and it wants the US to continue to keep paying Israel - so the odds of funding cuts aren't that good. You could go on forever on this stuff, but these are just some basic thoughts.