selkirk

Cross posted from the Mounties website and the NPS report So it appears that 2 people were simul-rappelling and assisting the initially injured person who was suspended between them, with a 4th person tied into the rap anchor, and the combined weight was too great for the anchor.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit callous and insulting?

nah, it's just the ADD that goes with being a climber.

I surprised no one mentioned opossums! Wouldn't it be great to have two wieners!

Yes but she wants two! you know, like a possum.

Glad I got a good foundation for becoming an elite climber. Should this be combined with the bad date thread?

yep, that's us.

You do mean flocks, not groups, don't you?

Everyone ok I hope?

Just think, now for societal cost we can always tell people, well, our other option is to be criminals or junkies! They cost the tax payer way more than climbing rescues! As climbers we support the entire outdoor industry instead of stealing peoples mail and commiting identity theft!!

The Cave route isn't bad. Just be prepared for the 5 ft section of flaring, bottoming, slightly horrifying off-width on the first pitch . Where the first set of cracks traversing up and to climbers right ends, you need to go up and slightly left, to access the second hand crack (which is pretty nice), but the transition between the two sets of cracks is a bit interesting. I distinctly remember looking around, thinking there must be an easier way. Then reaching into the offwidth thinking, there must be a handhold in here somewhere. Followed by the realization, as I kept stretching, that my feet were no longer good, and I still didn't have a hand hold . Ye olde, jam yourself into the crack and wiggle technique seemed to work out OK though. And it protects at you feet, so not too sketchy. After that it was very pleasant

Tell that to Idaho.

There are still worthy athletes in every sport. (Cal Ripken, comes to mind, but didn't he retire?) However they're just not newsworthy, it's the a-holes and roid monkey's that get the spotlight. Besides, even if he is juiced (which is seriously debatable, as he may well be the most chemically scrutinized athlete history), the elite field is still level, since

Shaved Somebody's Envious

Somebody's Envious

I can't speak to all of them, as I haven't heard the rest speak publically, or debate besides (excepting Clark). Someone else care to weigh in? Wesley Clark: moderate D and weak R. (I think he would have been a more feasible overall candidate than Kerry, but didn't meet the Dem. requirements as well as others, so wasn't able to get the nomination.)

Nope, I'm an Aero. Engineering student ;-) The only psych I've had was Human Factors stuff, which is all about how to design human/machine interfaces. Just some random ideas I've been mulling over since the election. Took a little philosophy as an undergrad but I haven't done anything but Aero. or Mech. Engr. in 7 or 8 years. At the time of the election it seemed to me that the whole voting on Moral/Religious by the right was an insufficient reason, Bush had done plenty of things that were antithetical to accepted Christian teachings, while Kerry is a devout Catholic. The biggest religous difference was that Kerry attempts to keep his religion out of his politics. Almost every reason I heard that people voted for Bush seemed insufficient in and of itself. As if there were some more fundamental reason that was being overlooked and that the reasons most people cited where manifestations of it.

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?