ashw_justin

True, tapers might consider going all of the way and just using hand-jammies, which generate less waste per use. I don't mean that as a put-down or anything.

Haha, TROLL! Posting (video) == asking for criticism. But at the very least, the spray means that people are interested.

ps. nice video... it would be fun to see multiple different climbing styles on the same route. Maybe have some of the more able critics 'show how it's done.' Re: taping for handcracks As far as I know, skin loss primarily happens when the hands move/slip while weighted, so focusing on keeping one's jam tight and one's wrist position completely fixed while weighted may (should) eliminate the need for tape (except in extreme cases?). In particular, moving upward or pendulum-ing on thumbs-down hand jams (danger @ ~1:14) is a very easy way to bleed due to poor technique. I think a lot of climbers when starting out develop a bad habit of relying on thumbs-down jams because they feel more secure high overhead (but become useless and painful at about head level). Also, unless your hands are just too small for the crack, then boniness shouldn't really be an issue because the jam should involve a high-surface-area tight squeeze, rather than levering between a couple of bony protrusions. Awesome footwork helps too of course.

Seems that if simply standing on the summit of Denali were that inherently life-threatening to those capable of getting there on their own power, then the casualties would amount to more than 1. Young healthy people experience sudden severe heart problems at sea level on a pretty frequent basis. It would seem that the summit of the highest mountain in North America is as (or less) likely a place to have a heart attack as the soccer pitch. But then I am also already making some assumption as to the COD, so I'll shut up too.

I just assumed that was the logical alternative to expecting existing federal and state agencies to respond adequately to a disaster. But I guess we could also just not try to send aid to the victims.(?) Yes but we get to elect our government and hold them accountable, while a private contractor is further insulated from the will of the people, and seldom chosen with any regard to it.

I understand in theory how private contracting could be effective for things like this (especially when the national guard has been shipped out of the nation they were supposed to be guarding), but the usual lack of accountability, lack of competition, and the obviously corrupt ways in which no-bid contracts are awarded make privatization in general at most a distorted shadow on the cave wall. But I guess the grass is always greener.

Agreed, private contractors should have 'distributed' emergency supplies... "You want the water? You need it really bad, don't you? ... Oh by the way, did you know that the price of water just shot WAY up? ps. Don't hate the player! :wave:"

Hey parents! Forget about feeding your family a full meal on $1 of fat-and-cholesterol-free beans and rice... who has time to cook, anway?! Now not only can you spend 5 times as much feeding your kids unhealthy pre-packaged foods instead of cooking, you can pay even more for medication to counteract the effects of your poor parenting! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008036630_cholesterol07.html I'M LOVIN' IT!!! ... baa (almost as much as the McHealthCare companie$!) No offense to those (rare) young people whose lives may actually depend on such medication... but this reflects an obvious market speculation that children are so broadly malnourished that major profits may be at stake for 'medicating' sitonasscrammingfacewithshit disease. Medication Generation indeed. Spray general's warning: this post may contain hyperbole.

0.3% lower than the average rate on a primary residence? OMG STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! Seriously, how is this newsworthy? Keep digging, faithful muckrakers, but if this is the best you can do, then you might as well bury yourselves while you're at it.

WTF? Just because evil and/or ignorant shitbags want to make one of Obama's names into an issue doesn't mean his supporters needed to play right into it with such a ridiculous overreaction. No, we are not "all Hussein." It's his middle name, and it's not yours, and it doesn't matter to anyone capable of rational thought.

I have a brand new, never used avalung for sale. $73 ($125 new) pm me if interested. Cash only, located in the University district of Seattle. Will not ship.

Uh... that sure is the impression that has been given in this thread, particularly by the poster with whom I was debating. ps. I will argue about pretty much anything that sounds interesting, whether or not you think it is an issue.

To be honest I'm not really sure what 'left' is supposed to mean, but say it means advocating the protection of the weak and oppressed from the strong and empowered, then maybe I am being totally consistent with leftist principles by arguing in defense of the side that is apparently being soundly defeated (churches), whether or not they actually deserve it. But I guess did refer to those rights thingies too. These are the canaries.

Exactly, the meaning of the word 'marriage' is pretty unambiguous. Solution: the government stops recognizing 'marriage,' officially calls it no more than a 'civil union,' and then lets the people call it whatever they want. More freedom, less government, right? And this way judges are never again required to think about the meaning of the word 'marriage' when considering whether it is okay for two people to legally join. However, same-sex couples are capable of child-rearing through adoption, and legal unions would strengthen this capability. Given the typical social and economic qualifications of many same-sex couples, this could be pretty good deal for otherwise unwanted/mistreated infants and children. And no, I don't think they would necessarily all turn out 'gay,' although they would certainly be more tolerant of homosexuality (which could sound like a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who's considering the notion).

So you think government-approved churches are the way to go, eh? Kinda like...China? No, on the contrary, I am suggesting that if there is a civil option by which a church can preserve its own religious freedom, then this might be a good option. Any special consideration in the eyes of the government, such as tax benefits or faith-based initiatives, makes a religious organization specially subject to government scrutiny and potential control. It seems like a church that were really serious about protecting its beliefs would be looking for a way to avoid having to become thus dependent, and hence vulnerable to being considered a public institution. On the other hand, if some other religious organization doesn't have a problem saying some magic words and declaring a male or female couple 'married,' I don't see why the government should have a problem with this, or deny any rights normally granted to married couples.

Oh alright then, marry gays or relinquish your 501©3 status.

Is anything stopping intolerant churches from declaring themselves not-open-to-the-public? Honestly I'm not comfortable with this gray area between religious and public. Something must give. What is a church? Is it a private, exclusive religious place of worship? Or is it a public community center? It seems the problem is that we want it to be both.

If I were black I sure as hell wouldn't be demanding to be let into KKK meetings. Not necessarily because I would be afraid of what would happen (although mistrust is natural and often healthy), but because these would be the most disgusting people on the earth to me, and their palace of intolerance would be a hostile, despicable place. I guess this might explain why I might want to get get them humiliated and shut down. But should I have the right (and the legal empowerment) to do that just because their club scorns me? More importantly, there would be nothing that a KKK meeting could offer me. What can the church give that same-sex couples can't have? Do we really need to turn all churches into essentially government-controlled community centers?

NOT!!

Oh right, thanks Bug. The problem I see with this is that in fact, as you point out yourself, new interpretations of the law are being established expressly to construe church exclusivity as a violation of civil rights. This makes you guilty of a circular argument. Personally, I find it confusing that someone would want to get married in the kind of church that would try to exclude them. I'm left with the impression that the motivation to do this is more adversarial and spiteful, than it is an expression of a desire for civil justice. I do believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights under the eyes of the law as anyone else. I'm just not sure that churches are the right 'battlefield' for this occur. Frankly I don't think churches shouldn't have anything to do with it. This is why I said in the first place that calling it 'marriage' is a problem, because 'marriage' is/has always been an inherently religious term/concept. In fact, from my point of view I am merely agreeing with you that religious principle should have no place in government. (And I'm not talking about those many inherently non-religious principles that get 'claimed' by religion.)

I am surprised that you are not willing to address this comparison. I might even accuse you of being closed-minded for thinking that there is some fundamental difference between a 'right to join in holy matrimony in a place of God' and a 'right to smoke.' Or did you mean to imply that the government's restriction on a church's freedom to marry who they please is even less legitimate than its restriction on indoor smoking, because there is not even a health issue involved? No, probably not. ...except for the freedom of religion part. You didn't really address the idea that forcing a church to accommodate the marriage of someone that they don't want to is a denial of that church's freedom of religion. I am just thinking fairly here--if we are talking about constitutional rights, this is fair game. As much as I despise the hand of religion in politics and government, I think it is important that we do not over-correct.

My point is that the government shouldn't be involved in conflicts between sexual orientation and religion in the first place, as long as the religious have their freedom of religion, and those with alternative sexual orientation can have the same legal status and rights in regard to civil union/domestic partnership as anyone else. As long the government is treating people equally and guaranteeing them the same rights I don't really care what it is called, and neither should the government. I guess it is a bit like the smoking ban here: many people argued (and voted) that they would prefer to go to a non-smoking establishment, but that this was impossible because few if any establishments would voluntarily accommodate nonsmokers in any meaningful way. Although in a perfect world, there would be enough tolerant churches around that few would feel the need to legally force an intolerant one to accommodate them. After all, this is another example of taking freedoms/rights away from private establishments by declaring them public. Doesn't this erode the churchs' freedom of religion? And should the government really concern itself with whether or where two people legally join on private property, as long as the legal status of the union is the same?

It is easy to argue that marriage itself is a specifically religious ritual. This is a good way to explain why a lot of people have a problem with 'marriage' occurring in terms that don't fit inside the original framework under which the concept of marriage developed. A logically correct solution to all of this is for the government to remove the word 'marriage' from its vocabulary. Religious fundamentalists can call it whatever they want. 'Gays' can call it whatever they want. The government recognizes only what it will call a civil union, with eligibility to anyone interested in a domestic partnership. Anything beyond this is not the government's business. The people are free to call their civil unions anything they want, and the classically religious no longer have to feel that 'their' marriage is being desanctified.

don't fall wear a helmet start early know the weather forecast understand your vulnerabilities have fun

Is there no limit to how far the hawks are willing to stretch field warfare terminology in order to hold onto their 'war' powers? Supporting the declaration of the entire world as a battlefield in order to suspend widely accepted human rights principles is begging for it to happen domestically. They would just as soon declare this country a 'battlefield' under any circumstance that suited their purposes. That is, unless somebody starts calling their bullshit.