j_b

retreat does not occur uniformly (a major landslide here, nothing over there, etc ...). but i'll call it a draw: http://www.geog.sussex.ac.uk/BERM/project/cliffretreat.html

yes, the craters are temporary but the retreat rate is probably much less than meters per year (cm?). we don't get meters of cliff retreat in puget sound where the material is overall much less cohesive than chalk. my guess is that it would take a number of years for the craters to disappear. it's all speculation on my part of course.

a well-put column about limbaugh and espn http://www.courier-journal.com/cjsports/comment/031003forde.html

i haven't been there so i don't really know, but i'd think it's probably not too stable (blocks on the beach) yet it looks fairly compact (not too many cracks and such). the impact of crampons and tools must be pretty obvious even though people probably tend to use the same placements. people have been climbing there for ~20years and i don't believe there is an unusual number of accidents, although, it may be because few people do it.

hey, hey. don't get carried away, i still mostly agree with the ideas expressed in the original article.

bush did not let congress and the commission see the intelligence reports for august about bin laden (daily brief reports). i tend to not believe in a conspiracy to let it happen, but the evidence seems to point to, at least, a serious lack in judgement.

oops. i am with you now. this is what i use as well. i guess i'll have to reconsider my use of the terminology is yours really the size of a piton hammer?

They’re not designed to be great on glaciers. They’re designed to be barely sufficient on glaciers to get you to the base of the rock. Once on the stone, they kick any ice tool’s ass in the placing pitons/cleaning aid nuts department. a specialized tool, to be sure... but considering that they weigh the same as a super-light ice axe, they're a lot more useful on technical rock routes i understand the logic but i think i have perhaps used mine a total of twice. mostly for the reasons already mentioned by specialed.

imo it's hard to justify the extra weight considering how poorly they perform on ice.

my worst were probably single piece anchors and unhealthy looking bushes but you seem to have quite a varied collection. does it mean anything?

http://tvmountain.com/gmhm/craie.php short movie on chalk cliff climbing

The following was contributed by Douglas R. MacAyeal to the IGS mailing list. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Vaughan writes: "...Second, a new giant iceberg has calved from the Larsen Ice Shelf. The iceberg measures 78 km x 37 km, an area of 2400 km2 (roughly the size of Oxfordshire) and around 200 m thick. It will probably be designated A25 by the America Joint Ice Center in Washington who routinely name icebergs..." I'm glad to see that we Americans are demonstrating our vigilance and keeping up with our British colleages in science by coming up with *yet another* creative name for an iceberg that so aptly captures that special majesty that accompanies a great "calving event". Who could have suspected that "A" and "25" could have been united to form such a splendid name: ... so much... packed into so small a package: "A25".... Well, I say to you, my world-wide internet colleages, that should the world ever collapse into the great spasm of Global Warming... a great catastrophe that could descend upon ice shelves worldwide (not to mention the other problems that would accompany such a calamity)... you can then count on your American colleagues to "step up to the plate" (as they say in baseball) and provide that special creativity needed to name each, and every, berg that should grace the satellite Ops photos for years.... Yes, there is much more to be found where that apt phrase "A25" came from... You can count on us! http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/ice_names.html

too funny

if this is indeed your preferred analogy to describe the iraq situation, it is no wonder we have a problem communicating.

almost none. the military is composed of healthy individuals who are pretty much only subject to accidental death. 2.3 casualties per day (16 per week) on average since march, plus ~10 wounded per day who in all likelyhood will bear the 'scars' for life. these numbers do not include the huge numbers of 'syndrome' victims who invariably crop up in the decade following conflicts. 365 coalition casualties to date in iraq alone. err ... it's not the media that lost vietnam, it's the unability to convert military victories to political control of the country. short of killing many more millions of vietnamese it would never have happened. this 'media is the culprit' is bogus. you are very naive if you think the iraq opposition relies on fickle, easily manipulated and often ignored public opinion in the us to kick us out.

just pretending to operate in a magical vacuum where suddenly saddam appears to be a problem in 1991 without considering all that we did to prop him up beforehand or a consideration of what our continued mid-east policies, is delusion. i told you already: let the international community deal with iraq, i.e. deal with the real problem which is that of democracy for the people of iraq and their ownership of their resources. not that of a bogus military threat to us. you'll find the answers to these questions in my previous responses. yeah right. we are going to ignore bankrupt policies that are the source of the problem just to entertain an artificial construct: "we have an evil guy that needs to be eliminated, but let's not consider how we did not think he was evil as long as he did our bidding". until you acknowledge your contribution to the problem, you cannot be credibly part of the solution. on the contrary, it points to your wanting to perpetuate the status quo and strictly replace the puppets.

until you provide evidence that what you call 'my retroactive reality' is not historical fact, my answer stands. your use of put downs without providing support for your case is evidence enough of the vacuity of your rhetoric. also note, that i was kind enough to answer your question, which had nothing to do with my answer to trask's post. you could at least bother to refute my argument cogently. your failure to do so , undoubtedly points to your being unable to counter my points.

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo. and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it. That's nice - very moving - but what is your answer to the original question? i thought it was obvious. not create and perpetuate the problem. there were plenty of opportunities to derail him during his 30 year in power and there would have been many more ... short of creating this mess and killing ~30000 iraqis.

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo. and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it.

they were destroyed during ealier inspections. you were offering no proof before the conflict and you keep spreading rumors. won? and soldiers, and civilians are still dying? we can't even stay in the cities at night. we were divided before the conflict. in fact, a large majority of americans wanted the un to continue inspections. unfortunately the bush administration had decided much earlier to go to war and refused to listen to the international community and a significant fraction of folks here. again there was not unity before the conflict and people only rallied becasue they were deceived. the problem is that you refuse to see that terrorism feisters on unfairness and you continue to believe that the issue can be resolved militarily. treating the symptoms without dealing with the cause is hopeless. 'terrorism' is not disconnected from conditions in the middle east. even the central command now talks about "classic guerilla warfare". fighting a war under false pretense is the dividing issue you have tunnel vision. let iraqis rebuild their country with help from the international community. giving away their wealth and access to their market without letting iraqis decide will for certain lead to much chaos in the region for decades.

your post is actually worthy of a response, but in a different thread. you are off topic.

excellent piece on the use of pr/propaganda http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/index.html

12 Meter Roof Crack Free at 8b+

...

you mean, something like this: you'll have to wait for the parody on this current event