j_b

not for the tribes that get a quota from the IWC (Makahs have a quota). i guess it means the IWC is more sensible than you are to the needs of native tribes.

yeah the dude is quite some thinker roony for president (demagoguery still works)

porto was the better side, yet i do hate diving. #10 Deco (sp?) was amazing.

Robson St, Vancouver BC, at least nine years ago (ie as long as I have been in this neck of the woods) My top choice is Illy espresso, but my dealer is out of business these days so I just bought some Torrefazione. Want to find a shade grown blah blah blah roast as good, and I'll switch. Had a straight espresso at Starfucks the other day. Bleh!!! i had torrefazione until they were bought by starbucks . illy is great.

yeah, yeah. we know, your extremist buddies can't control the UN all the times so it must be a socialist organization are you sure they have not 'found' a link to al qaeda as well? calling people terrorists is so much more effective these days.

gooooo celtic!

read whatever you want to memorize, put it away, then write an abstract containing all the salient points. repeat as needed. when you become good at it (i.e. whenever focussed enough) doing it once is all that is needed.

not invading other countries would be a start ....

her latest: http://righteousbabe.com/ani/evolve/index.asp

there is no 100% proof. this is where you fail to apply the same standard to kosovo and clinton (about which i did not say one way or the other). there is however plenty of convincing evidence that our own intelligence agencies (including the brit's) did not believe in iraq being a clear and imminent threat because of wmd's or links to al quaeda. there is plenty of evidence that 'documents' were known to be doctored way before they were presented, that impartial and respected arms inspectors did not believe in an active program, etc ...

evidence does not have to be historical to be convincing.

actually, it's misnomer. fence-sitter is nowhere close to the middle. his refusal to say yes or no in this instance is not matched on most other issues (including that of Clinton and Kosovo where he apparently found all the evidence convincing)

feel free to say so whenever you think that lying to one's constituency is fundamentally not democratic.

reality: government=people people=different personality types politicians=extroverts/high need for recognition/exaggeraters how quaint! politicians would lie because they are 'extroverts/high need for recognition/exaggeraters' but never for personal gain .... or because they don't believe in democracy

wow! you guys have pretty low standards. be sure to indicate what you mean when you discuss democracy. democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

the point of having nukes is deterence. if they had nukes they would have given indication of owning them to prevent an attack.

what we should first agree on, is to not support repressive regimes/factions whenever it suits our purpose, then we can talk talk about existing dictatorships.

he wanted nothing short of getting his way (all the way), even if that included going to war as is evident from year old neocon documents and military preparations for such an eventuality only in an attempt to get broad international support for military actions (with us or against us). obviously most people were not fooled. moreover he could have given all the time imaginable, it would not have procured nukes the iraqis did not have.

this is precisely the problem. dubya and neocons argued for clear and imminent danger to our country to justify military agression over diplomacy. nothing that is going to be "found" will be enough to show a clear and imminent threat to the US. IT IS OVER because any future "find" will at best show a low level and decrepit program.

"we need more inspectors" "we need more time" ...... hmmmm! when have we heard this before? the french must have infiltrated the white house.

i am not sure the comparison is valid. Mark and partners were caught (triggered?) by a slide during a period of extreme avy hazard while twight soloed it a different year. how does exposure to potential serac falling on the route compare with soloing extensive crevasse fields?

i haven't read twight's book so i'll ask. was twight on the climb within days of mark's accident? i don't see how speed is really relevant to this case. when Mark and partners bought it there were natural releases on 15deg slopes in the rockies. my bias on this discussion of going fast/solo versus slower is that there is a time for every style; however, my personal pet-peeve is with people who systematically run back to the car at the end of the day. this is precisely when i like to take my time and enjoy being out for the sake of it.

This Europe: Climber from the Low Countries denies telling tall story By Isabel Conway in Utrecht 06 May 2003 A nasty rumour has been doing the rounds among the burgeoning mountaineering community of the Netherlands. Ronald Naar, the most successful mountaineer Europe's flattest country has known to date and who has conquered every big peak, including Everest, lied about his ascent of the Himalayan peak Nanga Parbat in 1981, if two of his fellow expedition members and ex-friends are to be believed. Few sporting feats fire the Dutch – two thirds of whom live on land below sea level – quite like mountaineering prowess. Ronald Naar's solo scaling of the 8,125m mountain in Pakistan at the age of 26 was lauded as one of the greatest sporting achievements on record. After almost dying in the effort – to this day his hands are swollen and disfigured – he received a hero's welcome and became a celebrity, filling lecture halls and writing books on that and other tests of true grit and endurance. But now Frank Moll, the cameraman of the five-man expedition, who did not make it to the top, says his former friend never conquered Nanga Parbat, known as The Naked Peak. "There's no evidence to show he really got there except his word and I find it extraordinary a man who values publicity like Ronald does not bother to take any pictures at the top. After all, he had a little camera I gave him but he seemed to have forgotten to use it," he said. Mr Naar claimed to have found a roll of film lost by a previous Swiss expedition at the top, which helped to show he had been there. But critics claim he picked up the roll at a base camp. The time he claims it took him to make the final ascent of Nanga Parbat has also been questioned by an expedition member, who dropped out because of exhaustion close to the summit. Mr Naar, 48, who is now preparing a four-member exhibition to the Himalayas next year, told the media: "This is all about jealousy 20 years after I climbed that mountain; the thing is I have been more successful than some of my rivals and they are jealous because I sell more books and fill more lecture halls than they do. Sadly my family is suffering from all the rancour. My youngest son who is only ten has been teased unmercifully at school." The bizarre feud between the biggest names in Dutch mountaineering follows years of accusations against another famous Dutch mountaineer, Bart Vos, whose feats in conquering some of the world's peaks have also been publicly doubted by critics within the sport. Prominent mountaineers in the Netherlands are now demanding that sworn affidavits be taken after record-breaking mountain climbs. Until now, the honesty of participants has been the only evidence. But the argument today is that the tradition of ''scouts' honour,'' in a world where commercial success goes hand in hand with such feats, has become outdated, and is making the pressure to "embroider the truth" irresistible. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=403548

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-671612,00.html America's weapons evidence flawed, say spies From Tim Reid in Washington THE continuing failure to find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction has triggered a blame game in America’s intelligence agencies that erupted into public view yesterday. As the hunt continues for Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — the main justification cited by President Bush for the war — carefully placed leaks revealed deep misgivings inside the CIA over intelligence used by the White House to make its case against Saddam. Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons programme and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

good point on using a different descent. if we agree that rockfall hazard increases very significantly later in the morning on clear winter days, what can we say about it during warm summer nights? does rockfall frequency increases only with direct sunlight? perhaps there exists modern data about this route? Mike?