minx

buy a rope. you bring the rope, let your partner bring the rack. you can try out lots of different gear that way then decide and make expensive mistakes. buy nuts first. hard to go wrong there. i like tri-cams, maybe not a good choice for an early piece though. they can be tricky to place. hard to go wrong with hexes either. just my $0.02

i'm in the mood to fan the flames hey fairweather and whomever else, i didn't ban anybody in question. in fact i don't think i've banned anybody except another avatar of someone who'd already been banned. the fact that you think *i* am systematically banning conservatives is the biggest joke ever. of all the moderators, i am the least likely to ban anybody; edit a post; or delete anything. the only person i've harped on about reading comprehension is harpell. we tolerate all sorts of personal attacks anyway. just not physical ones. no go have yourselves a super ducky day!

ryland- i was going to handle this via PM but it seems that this would be more appropriate given your tone. i'll post in my capacity as a moderator when i think it's appropriate. in truth, i find that spray doesn't need much moderating. no one seems to care about the little bit i do which means it's working right. so yeah most of the time i do stfu and moderate. today, h/e, i am posting on this thread. being a moderator here doesn't require that i don't post. you'll note that most days i don't post much. some days if i have some free time and i'm feeling fiesty i will. deal with it. i try not to engage in controversial things in forums in which i have moderation powers. as for how much and when i'll climb. that's my problem not yours. that's all the justification i'm doing today. see ya.

"after reading this bit by caveman, i'd like to propose to him that there are several facts about the pro ski situation he does not know. " scott- that's exactly what i posted. i don't know why you think i am under any obligation to share any thing with you or further that i have any specific information. perhaps, i just suspect that there is more to the story than caveman has heard. further, some things aren't meant for public consumption. implication or not. i can't discuss it with him b/c he pulled a chickenshit move and slammed me w/o ever even contacting me. my e-mail address is available. that doesn't mean i am going to/or should discuss it you. just b/c you want your gossip doesn't mean you have a right to it. you can go be a little gossipmonger someplace else.

whatever scott-- you were the one harping on my position about caveman. as for the other insider info, can you not get it through your head that it isn't appropriate info for a public forum????

scott- that comment was in reference to gotterdamerung not caveman. again, reading comprehension

rumr- you're right in part. and when asked, there is generally an explanation given for a banning whether you agree with it or not is another matter. a good portion of the time no explanation is needed. i just don't feel that scott personally is entitled to an explanation any sooner than anybody else.

scott, again, babe, i implied that i was pissed at him ok, really minorly annoyed. that's all i didn't imply that there was anything deeper going on. or that i had something on him. man--you really are a drama queen aren't you?

scott since this is spray i'll say it like i think it. you can kiss my lilly white do you have a reading comprehension problem. a)did you read fern's post??? i didn't deal with the caveman situation. do think every moderator handles every forum?? i'm irritated with him over something else therefore i thought i should hold my tongue. b)i did post a brief public summary. frankly that should be enough of a comment. c) there might be something from other people/another person better positioned to comment. frankly, you're lucky to be getting any explanation at all.

scott- do you have a reading comprehension problem???? i said there'd be a public comment on it soon (at least i think there will be) honestly, i stay largely out of the banning talk b/c i only really follow spray closely. i pick and choose my topics in the other forums therefore i miss a lot of stuff that goes on. i think that people who have more specific complaints than i do should make the public statement. if you'd like a brief though: see lambones behaviour in spray regarding moderators/bolts/banning. merv will shout over anybody and repeatedly ruined good discussions on bolting after repeatedly being asked to tone it down and agreeing that he would caveman--i'm pissed right now so i shouldn't comment. gotterdamerung--picked a fight over a personal vendetta. given the sum total of his behaviour call it the last straw.

i think sometime in the near future there will be a public comment on it. i am not the one to do it. h/e i think i've made it pretty clear that it wasn't just one thing for any of the individuals in question.

don't be so sure it was over his bolting posts. and don't think any of this was over one thing recently. many things recently. when caveman has the balls to take up his issues with me personally (my e-mail is available in my profile) then i might have more to say on the subject.

rumr- thanks for the clarification. i agree with you. as for the caveman stuff. if you want a response to that there's a really good thread in spray for that question.

rumr-- i think he made a good point. i may or may not agree with him but it's a fair point. just as many people champion for roadless areas, some people will go for areas with no change at all to the wilderness from the hand of humans. fair enough. thanks for the post bug.

i'd like everyone to please note that i made the URL after reading this bit by caveman, i'd like to propose to him that there are several facts about the pro ski situation he does not know. as for the powerdrilling stuff. it's the manner not that message that's the issue. hey caveman feel free to send me an e-mail if you've got a problem with me. now go have yourself a really special day!

no dru, proski doesn't advertise. have a look at the bar on your left negative gear reviews don't get deleted. negative posts about shops don't get deleted. people who have ulterior motives with a long history of being malicious and deceptive get banned.

yes people get warnings. the people in question have had MANY warnings. by civil, i mean try not to kick people in the teeth NOT taking off your hat when you come inside or using the right fork. sheeit. once again, before you whine about the quality of spray this season, look at what doesn't get deleted.

you'll note that i didn't write out the whole thing. it's minimally civil no one wants to take the testosterone out of here. i just don't get why some people want to publicly act like morons simply look at some of the stuff that doesn't get edited out spray and then try and tell me that the goal is to make everyone behave like ladies. and as for you iaXX, go put your petticoats back on and quit acting like you've got any testosterone. the quilting bee is that way----->

bug-- you know i like you but in this case stfu. i know this is a troll by pope but i'll take the bait. it's not yes men that are required it's basic civility that's required. that is all. have a nice day minx

*minx dives headlong into the political fray*scary House votes to prevent court review of Pledge By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | September 24, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The House yesterday voted to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a dramatic move meant to thwart what the bill's sponsors call "activist" judges on the federal bench. The measure, approved 247 to 173, is part of an effort by Republicans to restrict the courts' actions on several hot-button issues. In July, the House approved a measure that would limit the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Another bill pending in Congress would restrict the courts' authority to rule on cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments. "This is the beginning of a trend, and it's unprecedented in terms of the breadth of what they want to do," said Terri Schroeder, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the measures. During a heated floor debate, conservatives contended that they had to act preemptively to prevent courts from removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The US Supreme Court this year threw out a lower court ruling that deemed the pledge unconstitutional, but the high court did so on the grounds that the man who brought the case did not have legal standing. So the question of the constitutionality of reciting the pledge in schools remains open. "If we allow federal judges to start creating law, and say that it's wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say 'under God' in the pledge, we have emasculated the very heart of what America is all about," said Representative Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri and sponsor of the Pledge Protection Act. "If we allow activist judges to go there, what's next?" Opponents countered that the pledge bill, along with similar measures restricting courts' jurisdiction, represented a power grab by conservatives that would threaten the separation of powers.

does it really matter if it was 10 or 59 stories w/o pro? you're dead either way. Yeah, I think it matters. It's a lot harder to stay focused for 59 stories than 10 and a big difference in physical effort. On a sidenote. You've got a way of talking over the internet that makes me think you really think you're the heat. So are you? no. but i talk this way in person.

does it really matter if it was 10 or 59 stories w/o pro? you're dead either way.

hey all--lets not get too riled up here. it doesn't even sound like Bug is pointing the finger too much at the parent. any parent knows that no matter how close an eye you keep on your kids, they will do things in a split second that horrifies you. even the children of the best parents out there will behave badly from time to time, including throwing sticks at their brothers. it sucks that meredith got caught in the crossfire. (Bug-sounds like she's a real trooper!) however, before anyone lambastes the parent, think about your own behaviour as a child or the behaviour of your children. kids aren't perfect no matter how hard we try to make them that way. bug, you're right, no one feels worse than meredith...except maybe you it's so hard to watch your kids suffer, i think it might be worse on the parent.

damn not quite enough to get me to alaska but sounds like a cool gig.