selkirk

...sure Are you saying it should be "what's right with this picture"

Would have to agree with Dru. Just climb faster! Have often does the weather got to shit fast enough that you can't sprint out the last 1/2 pitch to the anchors and rap off?

So 2 more questions then.... How steep is the learning curve for Tele? (I was reasonably good at downhill before I stopped, comfortable/competent on pretty much any in-bounds terrain) And does the increased force on the front AT bindings that iain mentioned, when skinning, and shuffling often cause problems or failures? Or is it just something you need to be aware of?

Ok, so i'm pretty much a rank newbie in terms of backcountry and am wondering what the relative advantages of Tele, Randonee, or Split board settups are for backcountry turns and/or ski mountaineering? The only skiing i've done was downhill on fixed heels, it's been 2 or 3 years but I didn's suck terribly. I imagine I could pick up Randonee pretty quickly, but since i'm out of the loop and don't have any gear right now thought I would consider Boards and Tele settups as well. So what's better and why? Thanks

Another vote for the Rockcentrics on Dyneema. Lighter, Stronger, and if you pull the sling through and clip both ends they don't sound like cow bells

Boy she's got a nice rack, biggest of the bunch!

Says the man from the wilds of British Columbia where the population density is lower the NZ by a factor of 3

It's all about New Zealand baby. Good alpine, good backpacking, good sailing! Anybody now about the Rock Climbing? Of course I guess you could always head to Australia or Asia for that? I've been told I should never go because I wouldn't come back!

Did you read the article? A Bi-partisan coalition is going to try and change that so instead of being US-born, you'd need to be a naturalized citizen for 20 years. (no illegal aliens, but the Governator and CPB would be in).

The republicans are greasing the wheels for Arnold in 2008! Polish Bob gets my vote though! Article

I honestly couldn't give you the example your looking for. But that doesn't really surprise me. I don't think he would ever do anything to undermine the president or his decisions regardless of his personal beliefs. My impression is that given his choice Powell would never have made that presentation to the UN. But I think there are two competing values there; his loyalty to the President, not as an individual but as the Commander in Chief, and his own principles. My impression is that given the choice between upholding his own beliefs and upholding the chain of command, he'd choose to uphold the chain of command, even if he didn't agree with the orders. If he had a dissenting opinion, I think it would have only been expressed in private and off the record (i.e. calling for more planning, more troops, as the generals requested). But once the course of action has been set he would do everything in his power to see it through successfully, since the choice of what action to take isn't his, it's Bush's. In my opinion that doesn't make him less than respectable, or impune his integrity or dignity. It means he was given two bad choices, disobeying and order and undermining the administration even further, and presenting false information to the UN. You would rather he have refused the order? I think as a military man, that's not an credible option. It doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile, other than letting the wider public know of his dissent, and undermines the presidnet which ultimately hurts the administration, and inderictly the country as well. It's a choice of two evils, and he made his own decision. I'm still glad he was there as opposed to say Condoleeza. Again, there are no smoking guns I can point to for my opinions, there are no instances of him directly contradicting the president, but again, I don't think he ever would, that's not an option. I think his integrity is just as strongly tied loyalte and to following orders as it is to honesty. You value honesty more strongly, I think he probably values loyalty more (to the country and the office of the president). Granted all of my opinions are based on his reputation prior to the administration, and second hand information through a coworker of my wifes, who is distantly related.

left wing weanies huh? Actually have very little interest in gun bans. I think within reason I don't see an issue with ownership. Now background checks, mandatory licensing and training, trigger locks or gun safes, I'm all for those, and haven't heard any arguments against them. Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals are rabid or limp wristed, just like not all gun toting conservatives aren't trying to compensate

nice cover...

I don't know... there's still basalt to be had and this is two dry weekends in a row!

Did you mean cretin? If so than you should probably crawl under your own rock or go back to high school for civics and spelling.

I'll second that. No need to ban gun ownership, but we should at least require training, licensing, and a certain level of safety. Mandatory training and licensing before you can purchase and operate a deadly weapon (i.e. cars, private airplanes, motorcycles, semi trucks, forklifts, guns). Require either gun safes or trigger locks (no different than a set of keys for the car...). though insurance might be a step too far

So you would have rather had Powell resign on the spot refuse to serve the administration and the people due to his opposition to a war that was going to happen regardless of his presence or opposition? And then what, promote Wolfowitz, or some other chicken hawk? Then we'd be completely isolated instead of almost completely isolated. I could be completely off base but my gut says he hated presenting that information to the UN. I doubt he thought it was any thing but BS. However, i'd guess his orders from the Chimperor were, 'present our case for wmds to the UN and get us some allies'. So he took the information the administration was relying on and presented it, even if didn't agree with it. I'd be willing to bet that he also recognized that a completely unilateral war, unmoderated by the presence of strong allies would allow Bush co to be even more unchecked, but if the UN or European Union could be brought in, their pressure might be enough to tone down Bush a bit. I don't think his intentions were ever to thwart bush's plans or prevent the war, that would have been pointless, but if he softened the stances of administration even an inch, or forced them to consider their actions things even a second longer, than i'd say he was as successful as could have been hoped for. I'm sad to see him go, and more than happy to say the Condoleeza Rice, however educated and bright, is attack dog. If she can garner us even a single ally in this conflict through anything but intimidation and bullying, which seems to suit Bush co. just fine, i'll be shocked and amazed.

Can you hook with that or is it for offwidths?

granted.... but if you only jug up fixed ropes and don't hump any of your own loads, does that count as climbing it? Sounds like toproping to me!

That's a very valid point, but I think he most likely felt that his duty was to the duly elected president. Voicing dissent, and getting himself fired may get his voice heard, but that's all. By doing as ordered, and expressing his opinions whenever possible he still has the potential to at least influence the foreign policy of the US. Once he's been fired, or resigned, now he is just a voice, although a respected one, of dissent, and there are all ready plenty of those. From the inside he can at least try to mitigate the damage done by the presidents foreign policy. I think it really comes down to him placing more value on his loyalty, and the desire to do what is best for the US, for Iraq, for the rest of the world, than on his own "integrity" though I don't think that's quite the right word, as I think his loyalty and good intentions are definitely aspects of his integrity. I've actually run into this in other places as well. I've talked to a few gov't employees who feel this way. By working for an administration they vehemently disagree with, they can still accomplish some good. They can mitigate the damage, and remain as voices of reason, even if they disagree with the policies they have to implement. I think this is ever bit as respectable, as an intelligent voice of dissent. There are plenty of people whining about what's wrong, and plent working to fix it from the outside, but without people like these still working on the inside I think the damage done by this administration would be even worse than we've already seen. Heres to all you civil servants sticking it out and fighting small battles for small steps in the right direction

I think he probably is the voice of reason. I also think that as a good soldier his loyalty to the Pres. take precedence. He may disagree with a course of action, but it's his job to do it in the best way possible, and to mitigate the effects as much as possible. A great man working for a crappy administration.

pulls out soap box, steps up, looks around to see if there's an audience today... If people are hoping that outlawing anything they see as "immoral" is going to fix all the screwed up people in this country they're at best sadly mistaken, or self deluded. Legislation is not capable of lowering the divorce rate. It hasn't been successful ending polygamy. It's not capable of ending cycles of domestic violence. It's not capable of ending cycles of sexual abuse. It's not capable of preventing women from ending pregnancies when they're sufficiently desperate. It's not capable of preventing the increased sexualization of young people, or preventing underage sex. Teaching only absyinance is not capable of this either. (does anyone thing that a single thing a teacher in highschoolsays about sex will slow down the process one iota?) It's not capable of preventing people from forming same sex couples. It's not capable of preventing people in positions of authority from abusing it. (Weather it's catholic priests, christian ministers, or teachers, or cult leaders) It's not capable of making everyone think and believe the same things you do. It won't make everyone like you. It's not capable of preventing your wife or husband from cheating on you. So what are we left with? It is capable of seperating people who are harmful to society from society. It is capable of punishing people for anti-social or dangerous behaviours. However I get the impression that what most people are hoping for is that if they legislate against something that they're going to prevent it from happening in the first place. I just don't think that's possible. The law is only capable of punishing people who've already done something wrong, or making something more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive to come by, while creating another black market. If people want something and are willing to pay for it, then someone will provide the service. End of story, no if's and's or but's. Laws and enforcement didn't get rid of drugs, and they won't. Laws and enforcement haven't gotten rid or prostitution, and won't. Do you want me to keep going? If you want to prevent all of these bad things from happening, then you need to start with individual families, by fixing the problem at it's source. You want to end violence cycles? You should probably start with social programs, give women and children a support structure and a mechanism to get away from it. Provide everyone involved with counseling and a way to grow in positive directions. You want to stop teens from having sex? You had better start teaching them to think for themselves and think clearly, give them enough confidence to avoid peer pressure and a safe and stable home. You want to cut down on the number of abortions? Cut down on the number of pregnancies, by getting young people to realize the consequences of their choices, and making contraception available, and understood. Treating a symptom has never solved anything, even if it does make you feel warm and fuzzy, and that's what arresting someone and/or fining them is, it's addressing a symptom, not the fundamental problem. (Save homosexuality, in which case I think the symptom is the intolerance shown by others towards it) You know what's it's going to take to solve all of these problems in our society? Personal responsibility, and civility towards others. So, either you as a person need to begin supporting those social programs that you think are valuable and worthwhile and educate people effectively, or and god forbid this, if you want the government to solve these problems, then were going to need more money for social services and social programs, which I have never heard a conservative or republican support. It's your choice, but passing more laws, and trying to "legislate morality" isn't going to fix a damn thing. thanks for putting up with me ... steps down of the soapbox.... Someone elses turn?

Thats freakin great! I can't seem to break 800 though!

I've stated this before, but on questions that are so morally cloudy as abortion or gay marriage, (and regardless of everyone's opinion as to their own rightness, these issues are morally cloudy in the sense that a broad spectrum of intelligent people disagree about the basic tenets of the decision) that the government should err on the side of personal responsibility and personal freedom, so long as it doesn't impose itself negatively on someone else. That seems like one of the basic tenets of this country.

is it antisemitic or anti everyone?