fenderfour

Spent a day in the park with a friend's lab puppy. On Sunday I got very frustrated trying to climb the lower wall at Index. Talk about zoo...

"Gear Notes: Double cams from 0.5 to 3...shouda had 4 x #2 BDs" When in doubt, run it out.

Did everything work out ok, or are you still full of shit?

I'm 6'3" I went on one date with a woman who is 6'2" and one date with a woman who is 5'11" Miss 6'2" was a grad student at the U and ate, slept and shat her work. I wasn't smart enough to keep up with her. Miss 5'11" knew too much about me. I was scared. I think she was really satan.

Where do you find those wonderful pictures?

I will be gaping at Index on Sunday. I might go for a bike ride on Saturday if I can pull my lazy ass out of bed. PRE-SLEEP CHESTBEAT BEEEEYOTCH!

? Why not a gravity dump?

How much? What model?

Read Freakonomics for an interesting chapter on baby names.

Fatty McBadass

I was in the same boat last year. I bought some gear - Atomix MX-7 skis - $100 on Steep and Cheap.com. It's a beginner tele/AT ski Dynafit Comfort bindings - $180 on Craigslist, NOS. No brakes Scarpa Matrix - $500 at Marmot Mtn. I've got the big dogs at mondo 32, so I had to buy new. You can get used boots for waaaay less than that. BD Clipfix Ascension Skins - $100 at Marmot My assessment - The bindings are difficult to get in. Not a huge deal for me. Sure, I crash and my bindings release, but I can still get back in them. The boots are great. Thermofit liners with the typical AT flex ankle. My skis chatter a bit, but I doubt that will be too much of an issue this year. I plan to get some Shuksans at the end of the 2007 season. It's nice having a really lightweight setup when you decide to embarass yourself in the back country. I skinned up to Muir in July and tried to ski down. It was a nice day and a lot of folks were milling around in camp. They all waited for me to whip out the Mad Skillz and tear it up on the Gnar-Gnar suncups. I fell. A lot. Goodtimes.

Tied runners are nice for rap slings. My singles are all the 8mm Mammut, my doubles (usually 2-3 on a climb) are tied.

What about the Alp Monster and Little Monster ?

What a dickbag. The stoke is building for my second season.

I've been up Gumby Direct many times, but I stil don't have a haulbag. My thoughts on a crag pack - I prefer top loaders over clamshell designs. The simplicity speaks to me. If you were going to make a clamshell, a rope tarp would be nice. A fat back pad (bivy pad?) would be sweet to sit around and belay on. A few daisy-ish points inside and out Mesh sack or panel to hold shoes outsid the pack Effective rope tie down outside bag

Are there no valid A5 pitches in WA because there is no rock that will yield the route, or is it because there are no climbers that will do it? FYI - My intent isn't to troll, i'm curious.

Typically, TR's are treated with a modicum of respect even by the "hoodlums". Other reasons to NOT post a TR. -It was a lame trip -It was the same trip others have recently taken -It takes work -nothing special happened -...

I've noticed that cc.com defines a climb du jour for the season. Last year, I think it was Liberty Crack in a a day. This year, I'm pretty sure It's Backbone Ridge and the complete North Ridge of Stuart. To pick a crag route, I would go with Thin Fingers. Why do you suppose this happens?

The thing I've been seeing the most at crags are haul bags, very pretty un-duct-taped haul bags. Get with the program, man!

Tape Doesn't sweat Even then, I haven't taped at all this year. Mostly because I'm too lazy.

I'm sorry. I will try to be smaller in the future. In short, work your hands in and pull up past the undercut.

The first time I TR'd it I ran up the thing. The key for me was thumb locks. I have yet to build up the testicular fortitude required to lead it.

yes, actually we do....sometimes it sucks having to TELL the guy how to get it done...its nice having a girl who already knows the tricks... Have you ever noticed that stories involving girls kissing don't describe the situation as "making out", the are always "going at it"

Neat links Alpinfox. I'm sticking with the theory that a 757 hit the Pentagon. There are just as many links that show debris that is from an airliner the size of the 757. Too many of the missle theory links assume that the plane hit the pentagon while it was still intact. More likely it made a glancing blow off the ground, dislodging the engines and wings from the main body, quite possibly twisting the entire airframe in the process. It is entirely possible that some items (Link 2's car) would be spared total destruction by the incoming wreckage. The contractor's trailer (link 2 again) is steel - quite a lot tougher than 99% of a 757. It would get an asswhuppin, but it would still be recognizable. My only remaining question - Where is the wreckage of the wingbox? I bet it's in the Pentagon. BTW - what are wing roots described as? it certainly isn't a term we use.

You know what the densest (and therefore the part that has the greatest penetrating power) part of an airplane is? Well, it's not the stale pretzels and fluffy pillows in the cabin, it's the near solid mass of titanium, steel, and aluminum of the engines. Why didn't the engines punch through the wall? And if the non-fuselage parts of the airplane didn't penetrate the wall, but instead sheared off and just bounced off the wall, why isn't it scattered all across the lawn in front of the pentagon? In the immediate post-impact pictures, there is no airplane wreckage visible. Seems weird to me. If you are really suggesting that the wings and tail folded in towards the body of the aircraft and then went into the 16' hole that you claim was made by the fuselage.... well, you have a poor understanding of physics. edit: Interesting link I'm not great with physics, but I can tell you that the "near solid mass of titanium, steel, and aluminum of the engines" is not nearly so stout as you think. The engines are designed to move air. This means that a lot of air fits inside these engines. They are really nothing more than the lightest tube GE/Rolls Royce could make to house all the needed parts to move the fans and hydraulicly power the control systems. The engines are attached to the wings with five friable bolts. I would think that they came off the wings as soon as they touched the ground. The engines have to be able to break off. If they ever get mis-aligned while in flight it would be nearly impossible to regain control of the aircraft. If an engine falls off entirely, there is still a good chance that a pilot will be able to land. The wings are gas tanks. While I don't have a picture of the Pentagon in front of me to see the rubble field, I wouldn't expect much of the wings to be left in an impact. It's like a flamable water baloon. Structurally speaking, the sturdiest part of the airplane is called the wing box. It's where the wings attach to the fuselage. I would expect to see it somewhere in the photo. The most dense section of a plane is the cargo hold. It is typically full of luggage, cargo boxes and sometimes, fuel.