Ursa_Eagle

now THAT's a sport!

Car1 broadsides car2: car2 takes collision in side impact beams Car broadsides suk: car totalled, and occupants screwed up, SUK flips, occupants screwed up suk broadsides car: bumper goes through windows, car occupants killed, and suk driver hopefully gets sued for all she's worth While I've definatly seen bad car drivers and good SUK drivers, I tend to see that the SUK drivers are worse. I like what Dru said earlier, the safer you think you are, the worse you drive. By buying an SUK you're forcing everyone else to buy an SUK (which also tend to be roll-o-matic specials... why do Suzukis and Mistubishis need roll-meters if it's not an issue) to be on the same level of "safety". Not only is it selfish, but then people can't buy small, fuel efficient cars because they actually care about the environment if they want to be safe.

Back on the east coast, it was always the people in SUKs who would drive too fast, tailgate, and pass when it was snowing and icing out. They were also the ones that were spun out in the ditch. People think that 4WD = 4 wheel stop. If you don't improve the friction between the tire and the road, 4WD doesn't slow down any faster than 2WD. I have seen AWD give you better control, but still doesn't help you stop.

"Can you hear me now" I thought that was verizon....

Boston -> PNW is a good move. I did the same thing over a year ago. I decided I was on the wrong coast when I couldn't find any glaciers, and I hiked a significant amount of the alpine area east of the rockies in one day. I came to Portland, and haven't regretted it yet.

My friend probably saw one of the best examples of morons buying SUKs. He was at Cornell in the winter (with snow), and saw a person get into a Exploder and procede to try to get it out of the parking spot. The car would go forward a little bit, and the back tires would spin. They would put in reverse, move back a little, and the back tires would spin. Back and forth, back and forth, it took a long time for it to get out of the parking spot. It never occured to the driver to put it in four-wheel drive, despite the large "4X4" on the side of the vehicle. If I was there, it'd have a sticker on it by now.

I'm ordering my stickers right now. re: muscle cars... it's all about numbers. SUKs/trucks comprised over half of the vehicles sold in America last year. That's a significant amount of vehicles used to drive to the malls and soccer games. I'll make it a point to tag nadgraters and suckalades, as there is absolutely no valid reason for buying these other than convince people you're an idiot. Also SUKs with large rims, those are high on my list too. There is something wrong with a scratchless, spotless SUK with large rims. Do SUKs have different emissions requirements than cars? I'm under the impression that they do, but I don't want to start ranting unless I know for sure.

Then why didn't you say SEA KAYAK Is that so hard?

re: message board for kayakers... yeah, boatertalk is a nationwide one. There's the Northeast Paddlers Message Board ( http://www.npmb.com/ ), but as one might guess, it's for the Northeast. I know that a store in Hood River, Outdoor Play has a great site and a classified page where you can find decent used boats for a good price. They also have a page with links to many different forums and a conditions page.

That's like saying that you can't do a backpacking trip with plastic boots. You can if you really want to, but it won't be comfortable, and that's not what it's designed to do. I'll be the first to admit that kayak designs are getting outrageous, but more and more people are just interested in "park and play" boating, so that's the trend of the boats.

Actually, kayaking is a hell of a lot cheaper than climbing. The amount of gear needed is much smaller (boat, sprayskirt, paddle, drytop, wetsuit, neoprene gloves and booties, helmet, PFD, throw bag). You can get all of this for well under $1000, and keep paddling it all the way up to class V whitewater. Tent, sleeping bag, pack, goretex, boots, rock rack, ice rack, etc. amounts to many thousands of dollars. I'd like to see someone get into climbing for under $1000 and use only that gear to lead some of the routes we climb.

What you're saying is, if you don't support the war, you should go over and be a human shield. But then you say that if you support the war, you don't have to go over and fight???? And this is still shrubs little vendetta, do you think that Gore would have attacked Iraq? I respect people who support the war for valid reasons, but you're no more bullheaded than any of the other mindless sheep I've talked to who support this war. You're just like the flag-burning violent protesters.

My friend has a Forester, and not only does it fit 4 adults (and climbing gear) comfortably for trips up to the North Cascades, but it also has enough ground clearance to handle some pretty nasty roads. Two people can sleep in the back without getting too friendly (I'm 6'2" and can fit fine). It also handles much better than any SUV, gets twice the gas mileage, and is a lot safer. I've gotten rides in Explorers, and it's a lot less comfortable, even on trips that are only a few hours.

Don't forget the Lincoln Navishitter!

If you get hit by large SUV while in a car you have a chance of not dying, unlike some other modes of transportation listed here... But I guess headphones are still better than cell phones (can you say "Darwin Award"?)

Because we don't support a war started by a president that I (and the majority of the country) didn't vote for? And if you support the war so much, why are you not over in Iraq fighting? It's not that I don't support our troops, and I by no means wish them harm, I just don't support what we're doing over in Iraq. (This was already posted on another thread, but I thought I'd at least include a link: http://www.orwelltoday.com/peacenik.shtml I've had that conversation many times with people who are convinced that Saddam himself would walk into their house and shoot them if we don't take him out first.)

Bush: "May God be with our troops" And damn those Iraqis for actually wanting to defend themselves! How dare they attack the people invading their country!

is this because we removed the word 'French' from the menus in the government buildings in DC?

here's the link the story I mentioned earlier: Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

Interesting, that's the way I view Saddam's treatment of his people. I was speaking strictly in terms of what we're doing to Iraq. As I said, I don't necessarily think he should be in power, but I think this is the wrong way to go about removing him. I'm not saying that I know what we should be doing, I just feel that what we are doing isn't right either. (Last I checked, it took three wrongs to make a right, not two. )

At this point, any girl who makes me choose between her and climbing is going to be disappointed. I packed up my car and drove across the country so I could climb, not be with anyone specific. I tend to spend all my free time outside climbing or hiking, so if she didn't enjoy being outside, we'd spend very little time together. I've got plenty of years left to find someone, but I'm only young and stupid once (now).

Well, you all heard about the guy in Albany, NY who got arrested for wearing a "peace" t-shirt in a mall that he bought in the same mall, right? He was a district attorney too! It made the news back there and the next day, hundreds of people were walking around with "peace" t-shirts. The mall has since dropped all charges, but he was deciding whether or not to sue. I might be able to dig up a link, but it will take me a few minutes.

Personally, I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet about how we are defending our country. IMHO we are attacking another country, and trying to tell them that they can't live the way that they are. People are saying "they're killing the POWs" and "they're not following the laws of war". I see it as a large 250 lb bully attacking a 100 lb weakling. The weakling is gonna kick the bully in the nuts (not following the "laws") if he wants to have any hope of not getting killed. Also, I seem to remember a certain president who demanded that Saddam, without any decent evidence, had to get out of his country in 48 hours or be attacked. How is that not breaking any of these so-called "laws"? Where is the justification for attacking someone because we think they're doing something wrong? We pride ourselves on the "Innocent until proven guilty" principle, yet we seem to be doing the exact opposite over in Iraq. What comes around will go around, I'm half-expecting another potent world leader (or coalition of them) to make the same demand of Bush. (I guess that Saddam already did this, but Bush, being the typical arrogant bastard that he is ignored it.) I'm not so sure that Saddam should be in power, but this is not the way to fix it. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

in English? Some of us don't speak freedom

Not yet, but I think I may plan on it in a few years though! Nice pics!