KaskadskyjKozak

seems climbing is down in general... see other threads on Rainier attempts, etc.

As I said before, no rock anchors. It doesn't take a genius to girth-hitch a tree. A basic student isn't going to have a clue what SRENE means. bullshit. they teach more than girth hitching a tree. and they teach SRENE

They teach belay anchors, and from there you could graduate and take the crags course or the intermediate course, or just buy John Long's book, and learn with other, more experienced climbers

I just moved to shorten my commute, and plan to start biking soon myself. No more driving to and from work and then the gym. kill two birds with one stone. I'll just bring deodorant to mask the sweat. Maybe people will bother me less if I stink?

Remember people talking about Clinton Fatigue? Well, I've already got Bush Fatigue and Iraq Fatigue. Guess that's another thread though.

You could take the mountie's basic course and then just go off an climb whatever you want w/o worrying about "graduating". Graduation is geared towards continued participation - in advanced courses, becoming a volunteer/leader, etc. But many people just take a class to learn what they can and move on.

Which is the most glaring example of this that you see in the anti-invasion/war camp? monomaniac

software people have poor hygiene anyways, so who cares about the sweat?

nice troll there are people on both sides of the Iraq debate who are clueless with their oversimplified positions based on ignorance.

another back-seat driver with no kids, talking out of his butt

I mean it's easier to kill them, ignore suffering and injustices in their countries, and be just indifferent to it all, if you know nothing about them. It's also easy to oversimplify relations with those countries and solutions to their problems.

it's easier to care less about people and countries that you know nothing about

Many Americans wouldn't be able to find the US on a map of the world. no.

Consider climbing the Emmons route. It's still a dog route, but there are half as many as on the DC, and it is the least technical.

HOLY SHIT!

did you chase it down with Mountain Dew?

I suggest you start drinking heavily.

slander!!

thread drift is cool

on the contrary, CBS rarely falls, and does his best to never pendulum

there are things we know we don't know

so, don't rope up?

nobody here climbs

Yeah, right. The opponents of this war opposed the number of soldiers that were sent as it was. And the cost would have been greater too - "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". I deleted a bunch of stuff that I actually agree with - and you didn't get in to hysterics, so you never lost me. :-) Yes we do. We are there to fill the vacuum left by Hussein, with a stable, pro-American (quasi)democracy (little d). It's part of a geo-political strategy in that region, which will pressure the governments of Iran and Syria to move in the same direction. I'm not saying this will work, but that is why we are there at this point. Nope. I wouldn't agree with that part at all. As for the war, just to be clear of where I stand. I only supported it based on the premise of an "imminent threat". There was no imminent threat, so hindsight, I have to say that going in there in the first place was unjustified and wrong. But, let's spread the blame here - Saddam didn't help his case much. You don't play chicken with a hawkish administration after the largest terrorist attack against the US ever. I also must say that I have problems with the growth of presidential power to deploy military forces without a declaration of war. This precedent was terrible to set, and has been exercised far too many times since WWII. I would prefer some type of constitutional amendment to prevent this in the future. And again, the blame is to share here. Congress is run by a bunch of self-serving cowards who simultaneously don't want to be on record for voting *for* a declaration of war, *nor* voting against funding military operations like this. enjoy your evening folks... I'm outta here.

You've got to be kidding! We bend over backwards not to violate human rights and cater to the sensitivies of our islamic opponents. In WWII we called the Germans Krauts and the Japanese Japs, and didn't bat an eye. Human rights? We interned 1000s of US *citizens*, confiscating their properties and depriving them of their rights. On the battlefield, there were incidents of what today would be called war crimes (shooting prisoners who surrender, knocking out teeth, you name it). In WWII we executed saboteurs on the spot. Talk to some veterans while they are still around. The Leage of Nations? A great success! I'm glad we sacrificed over 50,000 lives for that! All WWI got us was... WWII. Yeah, the Treaty of Versailles was a great exercise in our moral leadership and idealism.