selkirk

wtf? Bad Bob!!! Were going to have to take the gloves away, unfare advantage and all.

I would say McCain gets both. And interesting side note is that this would only apply post party nomination. Prior to party nomination. All Republicans candidates would display some degree of R, with little or no importance given to D, and the nomination would be based primarily on the degree of R and actual issues, with little importance placed on cross party attraction. (vice versa for the Dem's) I think in a straight election McCain would win against say Hillary, Kerry, or Gore, in a landslide, but his degree or R, and his stance on certain issues may not be sufficient to get the Republican nomination. The opposite would also be true for Dean against Bush, Cheney, Condi, or Dole, since he displays many of both. However he was a bit too weak in D. to get a nomination, and the level of R was considered unimportant. I've heard from a few Repulicans who considered him a very serious threat before the Dem's nominationed Kerry.

Or how about Local Politics Gary Locke: D and weakly R Gregoire: D but not R Rossi: R but not D No bites? No nibbles? How about suggested or floated candidates so far? Hillary: meets D. requirements but not R. Dean: meets D. and weakly R. Condi: Meets R. weakly Cheney: Doesn't meet either Jesse Ventura: Meets R. and D. weakly Arnold: Meets R. and D. weakly Others suggestions? Throw out a few potential candidates and I'll put a poll, see who comes out in front.

As of last weekend the flagship store in Seattle still had most sizes. Might be worth a phone call ahead to check though.

Kind of depends on who's working that day. Jim and Collin though, and all the gear kicks ass. Had one guy tell me that hex's have absolutely no place on the rack of someone learning to lead while I was asking about the differences between the types of hexes available. (I was putting my first rack together last spring), and instead of buying a set of hex's I should just buy a cam, all with a very holier than though attitude . Needless to say, I ignored him and went with the Wild Country's which kick butt!

more than likely since the birth of nations.

I've mentioned this here before but thought I would throw it out again... So my idea is that "entrance requirements" for different portions of the voting public are vastly different, to a high degree along party lines. Most of the democrats i've talked to seem to want candidate who are: articulate, and thoughtful, primarily with the belief that even if the candidate doesn't agree with their stance he will at least attempt to understand and account for their stance. In the end they don't necessarily need to agree but, there needs to be a mutual level or respect for the thoughfulness of the positions reached. So the Democratic candidates entrance requirement is that the candidate will listen to their opinions and come to an intellectual solution, based primarily in logic and reasoning. For the current republican voters, they seem to desire a different set of qualifications. 1. Someone who can empathize with them, and whom they feel they can relate to. 2. Someone they feel they can "trust", which boils down to having very straightforward direct principles and ALWAYS sticking to them. Looking at these requirements, the people who as a group seem most likely to fullfill the Dem. entrance requirements, tend to be eloquent in thought and speech, tend to want to explain their stances thoroughly and with nuance, so that even if you don't agree, you can understand their decision, . The flipside is that these people tend to change stances on issues as their understanding of an issue changes or as the needs of the constituency changes. For them the world is very much grey, as opposed to black and white. This seems to favor people who are polished and highly educated and end up having a bit of an aristocratic air. The Rep. entrance requirements favor people with a certain, for lack of a better term, "down home" feel. Simple direct stances, always sticking by their guns, never wavering in their beliefs, explaining their stances in very direct terms. Something that the current Bush displays in abundance. For them the world is very much black and white. For the cases where the candidates meet one but not both sets of requirements the elections are close, and actually do come down to swing votes and small margins. However if one of the candidates meets one set of requirements sufficiently to get a nomination, but still meets the other set of requirements it ends up as a landslide. So.. looking back over the last few presidential elections G.W. Bush vs J. Kerry : Very Close Bush: Meets Rep. but not Dem. requirements Kerry: Meets Dem. but not Rep. requirements. G.W. Bush vs A. Gore : Very Close Bush: R but not D Gore: D but not R B. Dole vs B. Clinton : Large Margin Dole: almost neither, More D than R Clinton: meets D and R G. Bush vs B. Clinton : Large Margin Bush: Meets R and weakly D Clinton: Meets D and R G. Bush vs. Dukakis : Large Margin Bush: Meets R and weakly D Dukakis: Meets D but not R R. Reagan vs. W. Mondale : Large Margin Reagan: Meets R and part of D Mondale: Meets D but not R R. Reagan vs. J. Carter : Large Margin Reagan: R but and part of D Carter: weakly meets D and R So, what do people think? Am I completely off base here? And if not, how do the current set of potential candidates being thrown around stack up?

I've talked to people who burned the inside of their nose to Were talking blisters here. How much would that suck?

Thanks. I guess i'm just used to seing accident discussions here.

Just got the guide book and it's actually called Double Trouble. The "5.5" finish goes straight up the crack on the left, i'm guessing to a gear anchor, but with a redirect the bolts on the 5.9 just to the right make a nice top rope anchor. It still gets a big 5.5 my though. Oh, and First Blood is not a fist crack unless your 6'4", 250 lbs with hands to match! That thing is offwidth more than anything else.

Posted from Seattle Times I'm amazed this hasn't been brought up yet. On the upside it looks like everyone will be ok.

You might actually see if there are any friendly Seattle Mountaineers running around. They actually put out a DVD a couple of years ago that goes over their standard crevasse rescue method. (Pretty much the same as discussed in FOTH) That said, sounds like you've got a good handle on it. Doing it in the backyard or at a park is a great way to start, but actually taking a team out to do reps, either on a relatively benign glacier under heavy supervision, or if the snow is sufficient i've even heard of people doing it off the overhangs in the Paradise parking lot. Going through the full scenario in a mountain environment, while actually getting a feel for the hauling etc really helped things sink in with me.

I believe the more eloquent is expression would be Come on, one more post you freakin lightweight

Poor thing, you'll be an official Newbie in no time! And any belief in any sort of God is an A Priori assumption, just like the belief that there isn't a God. All aspects of the universe are entirely self consistant when either one is assumed, but fundamentally both beliefs are based on a leap of faith. Agnosticism just avoids the decision all together, which is also self consistant and who says "God" has to be a deity? Should read some Taoism.... Trying to name "God" or assign charachteristics or motivations to "God" is rather pointless. And work is for Wussies who have real jobs!

hey, aren't you married? marriage is the cure for drooling? And fucking? Only if your married to a "perceptive" man.

Don't forget your

Darlin, not unless your more flexible than I am.

The greater question is, does God/goddess/the gods exist? And would he/she/they give a flying fuck that earthlings are bashing each other? It's people's belief of who God is, and their "relationship" to God that causes the trouble. We'd all be better off being agnostics, like me. You don't see me going around blowing up buses. Although I occasionally feel like punching someone in the face. Actually we'd probably be better of as Buddhists. All you freakin agnostics are screwing up the environment with your self indulgent Hummers

The new testament is meant to supersede the old you wanker.

See, trying to do the whole reading subtle signals into his actions thing again. Your leaving had no bearing what so ever on whether or not he paid the tab or thought it was a date. If he thought it was a date that decision was made before he got dressed, or met you for dinner and 99% chance that whether it was a date or not is utterly independant of whether or not he was going to pay the bill.

Huh? I've never heard that. A lot men are just trained to always try and pick up the tab in all situations, especially for women. Not necessarily a date from my perspective. Half the issue is that women seem to think that men are "complex" creatures capable of both understanding and sending subtle signals . Silly girls. Trust me, if he's straight, chances are your "signals" aren't getting through on even a semi-conscious level. Blunt, I mean, 2"x4" up side the head blunt, is typically the only thing that gets through with any degree of consistancy.

Didn't we already invade Texas? Isn't that how we got it in the first place? Maybe we should finally end the occupation and give it back to mexico.

Enough with the flirting already.