j_b

allright, I apologize it was not clear. It's the way I found it and thought it was good enough. first paragraph is fine. They first climbed the 8 ice routes, then they had to go to Cham. for a day to deal with Magnin's frostnip. When they returned, they climbed eight rock/mixed routes on the pillars on the italian side. Everybody was surprised at the accomplishment. Berhault had already done a traverse of the alps in 2001, along with Magnin (for part of it) but this trip is of another dimension."He is in a different world" says Gabarrou who put up 6 of the 8 ice routes done by Berhault and Magnin. "With Berhault, one never knows what he will think of next to surprise us". Berhault would rather underscore the esthetics of the trip. "I thought of doing this for 20 years. At first I was struck by the beauty of these eight granite pillars, which point to the top of Mt. Blanc. Then in the early 80's, the ice routes were climbed for the first time. They became part of the project. Finally, I decided to do it in winter, but as an enchainment, like an expedition to Mt. Blanc and using the Eccles bivouac hut, a true eagle's nest, for our basecamp". That's probably ~10000m of hard, winter technical climbing. Apparently, during his 2001 trip, he went from late August to early February without mechanical support for 1200km, 140000m of elevation gain, of which 22000m were on 22 historical alpine classics (including the classic north faces, marmolata, etc..).

"Lastly, I had the idea to carry them out either in a winter, but in the same movement, like a forwarding towards the Mount Blanc with the eyrie of the Eccles bivouac like base camp." i think he is saying he wanted to do them in one go as if it were an expedition to Mt. Blanc while using the Eccles hut as basecamp. "then, after a 24 hours pause in Chamonix where Philippe Magnin was made look after engelures with the hands" they had to go down to town for a day to take care of Magnin's frostnip

do you mean to say, you don't think it is amazing? or are you trying to show how well you picked your handle?

I suspect as much, but they may claim to be paying for it via another blm program?

I believe you are right Matt the major rain on snow events occur in late fall; however, after an extended period of warm rainy weather, the snowpack is isothermal (which it is often to start with at mid-elevation) and saturated which would prevent its acting as a sponge? that's not work, that's fun!

so who pays for grazing cost?

it is (twice as big I think) if you don't include the columbia below the border interesting, I thought that rain on snow was the cause of biggest flows like in western washington. I understand your point about different climatic province now.

true, though being very large it also drains plenty of mid-elevation terrain that is now above freezing. Is the flow controlled anywhere? in the meantime on the nooksack: http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nws/hh/basins/cgi-bin/data.pl?nok+nfnw

it'll be a little more difficult to get replies from the 100,000's who died during the last gulf war as long as there less costly ways to address the problem, war is not a reasonable option pretty weak! let's compare the experience of the population of an entire continent through 2 world wars to that of extremist upbringing, very credible. when the effect of the rhetoric settles, the question remains. Which is it? are they a protectorate or are they free to do as they please? options that don't involve the mass killing of people but why iraq now versus, say, palestine? yeah right, we supported and armed Saddam when it was our stategic interest despite his murders, and now our strategic interest means getting rid of Saddam, so we say we want to save the iraqi people. Sorry, but it is not a compelling argument, because it lacks credibility, especially since it involves killing many people.

you are right about one thing, he will not rule many of them because they'll be dead you are not considering the humanitarian cost of war by oppostion to another mean of reaching democracy for iraqis and yet here you are assuming we'll bring them the promised land with our bombs well, living in horror for years and losing many relatives has a tendency to do that you know (you know of course but choose to ignore it) as if ethics were derived from anything but life experience, i.e. 2 world wars in your home you have to get your story straight. Once you claim we never told them to do anything (post above), then you declare them a protectorate. don't you assume you have made a plausible case for the urgency of going to war over another means of dealing with the problem (what's the problem again? saving the iraqis or protecting ourselves, I am totally confused now) give me abreak we would never had gone to bosnia if it had not been in our geopolitical interest. We did not prevent Rwanda, timor, etc, etc, I congratulate you on seeming so high minded in the defense of the oppressed worldwide (a rather new experience for me coming from a conservative). I expect you to argue with as much conviction the interests of populations of kurdistan, saudi arabia, palestine, etc , etc...

100-year flood? what's the stage on the frazier doing?

Henry, If that means going in hat in hand to countries with absolutely no stake in the matter like angola and cameroon, and saying pretty please can we defend ourselves - no thanks. what in the world makes you think these countries have no stake in deciding the legality of preventive wars?

let's hope this is enough of an avalanche cycle to get rid of the deeper unstabilities in the snowpack.

I don't know. I have read a number of figures which don't make much sense either, but here is what the department of state has to say about it: "-- The population of EU member states is more than 375 million and the EU's combined GDP is $7.9 trillion. By comparison, the U.S. population is 270 million and GDP is $10.1 trillion." Jayb: If you reread my previous posts you'll find that I am not saying the french political class is motivated by high moral principles. What matters to me at the moment is the fact they are not planning on dropping 1000's of bomb to further their interest. Let them argue for the high moral ground if they wish and they'll be accountable to their people and the rest of the world who believes in their motivation. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation. Anyhow, my basic point, is that whatever truly motivates the french, it is no argument to sustain our own position. Pretending so and deriding the french for their lost empire, is just another tactic to muddy the waters and rally the silly behind our unprincipled stance. by the way, i think you fail to account for the euros own experience during 2 devastating wars to explain the feelings of people over there on how to deal with this situation. I don't think anyone is arguing for sustaining Saddam's regime.

you are right! especially since we keep using natural resources as if there were no tomorrow. who said principled objections? I was only observing that having the same person telling another what to do all the time generates bad feelings. Is this too difficult to understand? is this the kind of relationship you seek out? The french attitude toward africa has been truly terrible at times, but in the latest case of the Ivory Coast they seemed to be genuine and were caught offguard by gzabo (sp?), or so it seems. Anything beyond that, would be reaching, which you are doing of course. well, to be frank I am not sure what else I could say when reading your rhetoric about the french 'naked desperation to restore a long faded glory'. For one thing, it is the same nonsense we have heard from conservative commentators for month now. The french are yearning for their lost empire, the arabs are jealous of our wealth, the germans are closet nazis, etc ... can you think of anymore excuses to explain why these people are upset with us?

hogwash, they just don't like being told what to do, which everyone with half a brain can relate to.

here the US and Europe's gnp is discussed w.r.t. to UN dues which means the euros have no reason to inflate their worth. http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/nytimes10-00.html

not according to what I read. I'll have to look for a ref., perhaps you could provide yours. i think it depends on your economic model for the future. There is simply not enough wealth to sustain unlimited 'growth' for several continents. It's downright suicidal, and I am not sure it's a bluff on the part of the hawks.

The french (and the germans) are the first proponents of Europe, an economic entity which at the present is bigger than us. An independent, economically mature europe would be a serious challenge to our current monopoly on power. That's the real reason. The media version is they are ungrateful.

but the opposition to war is also about whether everyone has to bow to our will.

wrong analogy, which is surprising because you have plenty of practice at choosing 'the lesser of two evils' (assuming you are right about the evil motives of the french)

I don't think anyone is suggesting you should wave the french flag but perhaps you should not be annoyed at other people for not doing what we want them to do, especially if you think that our true interest is in them not doing it.

as far as I know they are not putting the lifes of 100,000's at risk to further their interest, we are. What it actually boils down to, is whether everyone has the right to do what is in their interest. I can tell, the media soundbytes are having their intended effect.