Dr_Flash_Amazing

"Nice answer - another sheep being spoonfed by the liberal media." What liberal media? If you're talking about major media, you've gotta be kidding. Most of the major media outlets are part of huge multi-tentacled corporations which are owned by the uber-rich, a group not usually known for their liberal tendencies. If you're talking about actual "liberal" media sources like IndyMedia.org or Mother Jones, people aren't exactly spoon fed that information, because they're not getting bombarded by it. You have to go out and find "liberal" media, and feed yourself. [ 09-16-2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

quote: Originally posted by jon: quote:Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: PowerGel has caffeine in it (some flavors, anyway), and is thus better than GU. Stick your GU up your poo, foo'. GU has caffeine too stupidhead.

quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: oh yeah and who do you think would have handled the osama situation better than bush? gore bwa hahaha freaking ha....uhmm..."ladies and gents of america...we are gonna bend over and take it in teh ass and let our thousands of fallen cohorts die for nothing because my media sources say that war is bad and must be soemthing that only republicans do...therefore we will just live in bomb shelters awaiting the next plane to hit our neighborhoods and the survivors better get used to wearing burkas and turbans..." i think i'll take the alternative thank you very much Dr. Media tool Oh, yes, your great white hero has done a ton about Osama Bin Laden, that's for sure. Hey, wait a second ... where is Osama Bin Laden, anyway? Ah, that's right! We haven't actually found him yet! We managed to cluster-bomb and daisy-cutter a World Trade Center's worth of civilians, yet we still seem to be facing a major terrorist threat. Way to go, USA! Wooooooo! It's OK, though, because we're distracted by the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein, which even Republican elected officials aren't buying. Touché, fucker.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html OK, you smartass meathead. The above two links came from the second item DFA clicked on in a google search on "global warming study". It would seem that while there is some contention regarding whether CO2 and other gases are causing the earth to warm up, there is no contention regarding the fact that things like CFC's are wrecking the ozone layer, allowing more UV to get through the atmosphere. OK, so global warming due to CO2 may be a crock. Fine. How about the well-documented link between UV exposure and skin cancer? Is that no big deal to you? How about the fact that the climate has grown rapidly warmer since the 1920's? You know, around the time we started getting after the fossil fuels? It is clear that the above links are not from some paranoid leftist media source, and the information is about the study of climate, not politics. So, the Doctor will bet that there are a shitload more websites out there with more specific information indicating that man is having a detrimental effect on the earth's climate. DFA would love to provide you with more links, but he's busy, so you'll have to wait. Until then, stick your snotty holier-than-though right-winger attitude up your pasty white ass.

quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: media tools...can you quote the "scientific" bahaha "proof" that you heard Dan Rather spew on his bull shit liberal media propagandist soap box? no...we just said... "scientist (note scientist not most or even lots) said that global warming has had a negative effect on the climate" now back to greenland in case you didn't know...right now it isn't the most fertile region...but it was proved (and i mean P-R-O-V-E-D) that people farmed there in the past when the climate was warmer... now...where the fucks your proof? If you're going to talk shit, then you can fuck off, shitbrick. And DFA doesn't watch TV, so whatever the alleged liberal propagandist Dan Rather may have said on the idiot box is not known to the Doctor. DFA will find you some information, asshole, and if there's none to be found, then he'll gladly admit that he was mistaken.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: Me: "We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it." whoever it was... "well that's an utterly ridiculous position", Preposterous! Rediculous! got any more amazing proofs up your sleeve? Enlighten us O great one. But without the invective, if you can. How about the fact that there is scads of scientific data indicating that our rampant pollution and consumption of fossil fuels (which leads to pollution) is causing the ozone layer to look like Swiss cheese? Honestly, do you really believe that the megatons of chemicals that humans spew into the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate change? Page top, you Republican motherfuckers! [ 09-16-2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

Sometimes the correct course is not a maverick one. Note how I have not said leadership demands following, I have also not said that leadership demands maverick action. A correct course of action is independent of either because who follows, or doesn't, or how many, simply has no relation to what is supportable objectively. You're not making a point, here, at least not one that's relative to the Doctor's argument. The fact that Bushie is in bed with the energy industry and is as such heavily influenced by what they want is not supportable objectively. Unless you are going to include Clintons *larger* role in Enron's dealings, this isn't a very balanced view of Enron as they relate to presidencies. DFA didn't say a thing about Clinton, bucko, but if he was campaigning on Enron's dirty dollar, then he obviously had some problems too. The point of what DFA said being that if Bush was accepting such blatant favors from the big E, it's pretty likely his decision making is heavily influenced by their wants, and not his own innate leadership. Also, perhaps you'll enlighten DFA as to what Clinton's role in Enron's dealings was, as this is the first the Doctor has heard about it. Why not? If you don't beleive in Kyoto, why *wouldn't* you put bigwigs in a task force? You'd only avoid doing so if you did swallow Kyoto hook line and sinker. Actually, you might appoint someone besides the corporate pimps who hold your leash to an energy policy task force if you had any interest in the wise use of resources, or at least a balanced approach to energy policy. Given Bush's oily background and his buddy-buddy relationship with the energy ind., it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that his rejection of the Kyoto treaty had a lot more to do with money than any apparent flaws in the treaty itself.

"What the rest of the world thinks is of no consequence when it comes to leading. Leadership is not following what everyone else applauds and agrees on but in charting a course that is correct regardless of who agrees at the time." For a president so far in the energy industry's pocket, GWB hardly stands out as an example of maverick, opinion-be-damned leadership. Doing campaign touring in an Enron corporate jet and appointing energy industry bigwigs to energy policy task force positions doesn't do much to suggest that W's reasons for ditching the Kyoto treaty lie entirely in science and logic, either.

quote: Originally posted by jon: I suppose that is the before and after sport climbing pictures huh. Ha ha. More like: Before sport climbing: "horsecock horsecock horsecock" After sport climbing: [ 09-16-2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

quote: Originally posted by trask: quote:Originally posted by Necronomicon: What do you think of my offensive avatar image? I like Bush, what's your point? Trask, you are by nature offensive, and it stands to reason that you'd like that no-good cretin.

"Kennedys dont need to own the media. The media is very happy to follow these people around and report any action they make including taking a piss in the woods." This is really one of the saddest things about mass media, and probably something both right and left can agree on, i.e. that so much "news" is worthless, spineless drivel. By the time they're done covering the weather in exhaustive detail, covering a couple feel-good fluff pieces, and covering the sports highlights, there's precious little news on the average news broadcast.

Okay, Gag W; correct DFA if he's wrong (like the Doctor has to ask), but: Bill Gates: oops, forgot to think The Kennedys: Don't own any media outlets Ted Turner: Might own some media outlets ( ) Most of Hollywood: Fictional media, plus how many movie studios are owned by larger interests? You may be right that there are rich left-leaning individuals out there, but the Doctor would bet ducats to donuts that the conservative/rightie rich guys outweigh the lefties by a healthy margin. After all, isn't it the Republicans usually saving the fat cats from those evil taxes? [ 09-16-2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

quote: Originally posted by Heinouscling: Do you want your life dictated by islamic fundamentalists? If not, then the anti-war activists out there need to shut that fucking hole in their head called a mouth and realize that war is sometimes necessary to preserve a way of life. And yes, I did serve six years in the U.S. Navy and I did help to scoop up body parts off the USS Stark after it was hit by an Iraqi anti-ship missile back in 1987. -Heinous Your argument goes wrong in failing to look at the situation from more sides than just one, i.e. America's. The terrorists who killed so many innocent people on 9/11 saw their way of life threatened somehow, and engaged in an act of war to preserve their way of life. So is that understandable and OK? Or is war only OK when America is pulling the trigger? Please clarify.

quote: Originally posted by RopeGunHooker: Dr Flash Amazing, You are an idiot. I think it's great that we stormtroop places like Afghanistan. Maybe you should have been the sole target of the airplane attacks last September. It is and always will be inevitable that innocent citizens will perish during war time. To act like it is the intention of the troops out there or blame it on them is a gross overstatement. Get real jackass. First of all, numbnuts, Dr. Flash Amazing never said anything about the troops actually liking to kill, nor does he blame them for wars. If you got that from what DFA wrote before, you misconstrued what he was saying. Secondly, if it's inevitable that civilians will die in war, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an act of war, then why are you so pissed off about it? By your logic, the lives lost are just collateral damage, right? It would seem that your bellicose attitude relies on the severely misguided assumption that American lives are somehow inherently more valuable than other civilians' lives, which, in the opinion of this Doctor, is fucked.

PowerGel has caffeine in it (some flavors, anyway), and is thus better than GU. Stick your GU up your poo, foo'.

Hmmm ... it's not 1938. Maybe those of you on the war wagon wouldn't be so pro-war if the shit happened in America a little more often, and it was your family getting ripped apart by mis-targeted cluster bombs. The fact that what we see and hear of war is what the military allows the news media to see keeps us far removed from the images of slaughtered innocent families. We wouldn't want the public to actually know what was going on and stop supporting our military campaign, now would we? After all, what's a few poor brown people compared to good numbers in the public opinion polls? Wake the fuck up.

You motherfuckers are all dirtier than dirt.

D'n'B? Dance 'n' Blues? Dogs 'n' Biscuits? Dogging 'n' Beta? Page mothafuckin' top, mothafuckas? (that's twice today, yo) [ 09-13-2002, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

quote: Originally posted by Winter:

quote: Originally posted by sk: But why dru???? I get a new shell this winter, And I need to pick one for all around everything, from goofing arround in a down pour to my first snowboard and iceclimbing lessons. why soft shell? why hard? come on help a girl out. Soft shells aren't going to keep you dry, but they are windproof (or at least resistant, see manufacturer's overly optimistic information for details), and you can beat the living fuck out of them without hurting them. Regular (i.e. "hard") shells are your typical (or not-so-typical) fully-waterproof, stand-under-a-waterfall-and-stay-dry garments, made of less bomber materials (i.e. don't expect to get dragged behind a truck and not wear a few holes in your jacket). The Doctor has been wanting a soft shell type jacket for days, but they're way too spendy and not all that practical for DFA's needs, i.e. sitting around at Smith for hours freezing balls in late Fall. Thank God for down jackets!

quote: Originally posted by jkrueger: I carry DFA's calendar around for inspiration! Ah, yes, as does Reinhold Messner! It's truly inspirational, if the Doctor may say so himself, which, of course he does. Perhaps you might run into DFA at the park and he can autograph it for you. "To JK - May hanging in your harness never cause your foot to go to sleep! Best wishes, Dr. Flash Amazing"

quote: Originally posted by Paco: Winter, you failed to include the 5 gallon bucket of chalk that is often seen with said sport climbers. You're thinking of boulderers, wanko. They're the ones with the crash pads, boom boxes, chalk troughs, Red Bull, and an affinity for shitty techno "music."

quote: Originally posted by Winter: quote:Originally posted by thelawgoddess: quote:Originally posted by Dru: nononono - second week of october is Leavenworth; second week of November is Smiff Rox Tuffy-tuff. i'll be there the first weekend of october. someone with an emt or wfr certification might want to be on hand at the bottom of the pope in case i never make it to the first clip. If you were a true sport climber you would be wearing two crash pads on your back with a dozen quickdraws and a boom box shoved in the middle, sandwiched around a case of red bull, a cheap digital movie camera and a copy of "How to Climb 5.12."Ugh, you've got it all wrong. Sport climbers don't want to haul all that shit around; it'll overdevelop the leg muscles, causing extra weight to tug to the anchors. And also, BBQ the Pope is the worst route at Smith Rock. Slabs are death, and to be avoided at all costs.

Gotcha. We'll just assume that Rob wants your knob, and call it freaky. [ 09-13-2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

Sierra DesIains? MountIain Hardwear? PIaintzl? Black DiamIaind? TrIaingo? MetolIains? NalgIain? PatagonIain? R.Iain.I.?