iain

having some 2nd thoughts about a few posts today Cavey?

quote: Originally posted by Dru: Im not 100% sure but I think its Clemenceau area? Damn Dru that's right on, N. Face of Tusk on left, taken from Tiger Glacier on Clem.

that's a great idea retrosaurus. That would put the impetus back on the hikers as well. Trails that don't get used too often would not be wasting maintenance money that could be put to the high-use stuff. As some one who detours off trail a lot to get to places, I don't really care or want to pay for a superhighway and related maintenance.

he does demonstrate some remarkable endurance. cheers to you for battling it out scot'terminatorstout.

[ 09-18-2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

rbw here's that pack in action. serious offwidth stemmin' action that is. [ 09-18-2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

quote: Originally posted by RobBob: ... headin' back into the physical world. That's what you think. You guys have nothing on muironsaturday. Nobody throws it down like Scott'door Research. It's at least 45 pages (and due to reopen for the anniversary shortly, I'm sure)

quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: Backcountry is where its at baby. Anyone been on snowdome lately? the dome is a suncupped, speed-bumped, crack-riddled ugly-fest right now.

quote: Originally posted by Muir on Saturday: wtf? the guy at the top is tom stoppard and the guy at the bottom is on of the dr. who's - something baker i think. get it straight all right. Well no shit. I'm just messing with Dwayner's psychotic fixation (and yours, apparently). But check out the doctor's goldline all flaked and ready to go. Dude's clearly a trad hardcore all the way. Fern: I'm still dying over your cartoon.

heh are you referring to the anchors after pitch 3 on SE corner? We climbed the corner on Sat too, probably ran into you w/o knowing. Ran into Erik and b-rock @ the first belay, coming down from pitch 2 I guess. I said I need to stop posting stupid crap on this site now that they know who I am. That area was crowded for a bit there, climbed Jill's Thrills after a wait. Had to battle on those finger jams up top. Where were you? I'm okay with fat webbing through bolt hangers for rap so I don't leave hardware, don't see the reason for girth hitching unless you're using sewn stuff though.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Not fair, Iain. I don't think anyone, especially Bush, WANTS war. Well he's not exactly doing the best job of conveying that, now is he? Every speech I hear from him these days sounds like school yard talk "the greatest nation" this and that will take care of so and so, increased aggression at the no-fly zone, etc, etc. And Rumsfeld's comments when asked if the increased aggression was a prelude to war: "well it can't hurt". Not exactly peace-inspiring, in my opinion.

quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Of course, it may be moot anyway, since it seems that Mr. Hussein is letting NATO come in and have a peek. The funny thing is, the last thing Bush probably wanted was for Saddam to appear cooperative...

If you're a true X-treme alpinist you'll choose the Andinista: "The Andinista expresses the Light is Right ideal better than any other product. It's the most versatile pack for the weight that exists; use it to carry the bulky gear to the base and then compress it down for the route. I used it during an alpine style attempt on Nanga Parbat's massive Rupal Face and on Denali's Czech Direct. I've had an Andinista in my gear arsenal since 1987." -Mark Twight

no kidding this whole site is like some twisted Goodall ape study.

quote: Originally posted by Uncle Tricky: Are we really the only animals capable of logic, and therefore supposedly acting on the basis of rationality rather than some chaotic evolutionary biological imperitive? Whoa dude that's some deep stuff right there but the above is interesting. There don't seem to be many organisms that have developed abstract reasoning. You can see children develop it. When a kid gets a cut and it bleeds he/she doesn't think "it will be better in the future, I just need to take care of it" he/she thinks "this hurts really bad right now and I'm scared, make it go away." Other animals appear to plan for the future, such as snaffles , but this doesn't seem like complex abstract reasoning (getting cold, must gather nuts, getting colder, gather nuts faster). Maybe we are acting on similar low-level, visceral keys like this, but the sheer complexity of our behavior makes it appear as if we act differently. Difficult to analyze your own behavior. Kind of like wrapping your 3D brain around those 4D hypercubes you doodled in calc.

[ 09-17-2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "For MtnGoat, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed." Not only for me, and other Objectivists, but anyone who follows classical scientific method, which underlies objectivism. The scientific method is a tool to explore new ideas and concepts rather than to cast them aside when they are inconvenient or improbable. Scientific method brought the radical hypothesis of plate tectonics to established theory (GPS brings it to fact). This was a radical concept with not so many facts to support it at first, but there were hints of its validity. The method was then used to move from educated hypothesis to supported theory, rather than throwing it in the garbage due to lack of evidence. Why can you not apply this to anthropogenic climate change as many people have done already?

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist. It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! Of course it was much hotter and colder before we were here, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But when we can correlate changes in climate directly to our activity, doesn't that cause even the slightest concern? This is like arguing the concept of evolution or something. If evidence were produced tomorrow that evolution was totally refutable, do think we biologists and geologists would continue supporting it? I think you would agree that's ridiculous, of course. Why are people so resistant to this idea? Do you think scientists like staking their reputations on wild theory? Isn't it worth at least considering with a little less bias? Rather than clog this board with a ton of stuff, here's one paper to start with, a summary of our impact on global climate change. It is a summary for policy makers from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's a PDF on a web server of mine if you want to read it. Yes, there's room for interpretation of course, but I think you'd agree that there is cause for concern. I just want to make it clear that if evidence against human-caused climate change were presented tomorrow, I think many scientists would be overjoyed to drop the whole issue. But you can't drop something as important as this, in my opinion, until it has been disproven. Police still respond to bogus 911 calls, so should we, as a collective group. link here

ah yes, intolerance of differences in opinion and questioning our government. were you making some accusation towards him about being un-american?

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: If there is actual evidence, produce it and send people to jail. If there is not, consider the answer given as truth until shown otherwise. I do not accept "looks like" proofs of malfeasance because anyone with a gripe can make noise. ... I don't blame you. But until real evidence is shown that stands in court, it's all hearsay. I refuse to consider men I don't know liars until I see the actual evidence against them. I know I don't like being called a liar and it is disrespectful to do to others what I do not like myself, politician or not. But these two clips contradict our administration's rationalization for military build-up in Iraq don't they? Yes, Hussein is an awful, dangerous man, but why is the evidence of nuclear arms production not presented first if that is the true threat? If there is a nuclear threat to the US, by all means, we should eliminate it. But please present some evidence that this is so before we commit to such a massive operation. Again, spare us the tired civil versus international law stuff. A liar is a liar around the world, so shouldn't we use the same standards?