JosephH

I wish it were possible to say, "you just can't make this sort of shit up", but clearly you can. The internet gullibility factor is 'skyrocketing'.

None of us has to, too many of us do.

The issue isn't length, the issue is uneven rope ends on rappel. Common sense can and should obviate that risk, but it still can and does happen. I don't know, but it's a total no-brainer from my perspective, but hey, that's just me.

Yep, Ivan, a turkey in every pot...

I'm not suggesting anyone use bicolor as a crutch or as a substitute for common sense, but that it tends to mitigate a certain class of error which otherwise can and does 'slip' under the radar. Coming from back east I've used halfs extensively in the past and buy them and twins in pairs and wouldn't be inclined to be swapping them out for new ones individually. Also most of the time when you are climbing with halfs you aren't doing full pitches, that's more of a singles / twins deal, so losing a couple of meters isn't a big deal and evening them up isn't exactly rocket science. And while I agree the ropes are never 'equal' length at the belay device by definition of what you are doing with halfs, starting out even has a lot going for it as it does when rapping.

Yeah, all my singles are bicolors except my Mammut Supersafes - bicolors are definitely the way to go on singles to help prevent rapping accidents. But on halfs it's not the case and I just don't see a good case for keeping them unequal lengths if you really use them strictly as doubles and use them frequently.

Have a good one, wrap that shite up, and come back safe.

Huh? Deal with it? That would be evening them up. And the rope could be further damaged? Jesus, I hope so, like cut all the way through at the same length. Wrap the spot with two wraps of sport tape and slice it with a razor knife, melt the end, take off the tape, and you're good.

Chop, chop - if you really use them as doubles.

You know you are delusional when you can't bribe the Turks with $36 billion and have to leave one of your linchpin armies stranded on Turkish docks during the invasion of Iraq.

I did. Effecting a surgical cure is much less desirable then dodging the bullet to begin with. Reporting a serious, post-vaccine medical event to VAERS in no way establishes causal link. On investigation almost none of VAERS serious adverse events such as death, GBS, or blood clots could be shown to be a result of Gardasil. Other risk factors with far higher likely causal linkages were almost always present. And in those which weren't the odds as I listed previously indicate the risk involved. So this: Is a totally misleading statement which in no way reflects causality but rather just a reporting relationship to VAERS. Correct, but pointless in any rational discussion - one should obviously be employing both vaccines and smears. What is left out is that warts, and other suspected cancers don't necessarily clear on their own. And being afflicted with warts in the absence of cancer is also not a desirable outcome. Absolutely true and that will remain the case until we all have e-medical records. But Kaiser Permanente did an HPV4 safety study within their system with full access to patient records and declared it safe. the above hpv stats indicate TOTAL hpv incidence (among those tested!!), NOT the strains that gardasil offers (very good) protection for: those strains are less than 5%, closer to 2% i believe. The point is prevalence - as in: that's fine, but make sure you are sharing correct information about the vaccine, and you simply are NOT doing that right now (whether it's because you simply misunderstand, or are willfully "disagreeing" with me (this gets my vote), i don't know). No, I believe you are the one misunderstanding both what Harper is saying (mostly business tactics and public health economics)and how VAERs works. The risks are quite real. ... and understand that the efficacy period is 4-6 years! i believe dr. harper states 5, specifically. don't have the false impression that your daughter is protected for longer. also keep in mind the vaccine does not protect against all types of cancer-causing hpv's, so women still need pap smears (which are more effective than the vaccine in preventing cervical cancer!). The efficacy period has been validated for that period because that's how long we've been tracking it. No one knows for sure how long the efficacy will be for each subtype or when or if boosters will be required. The research to date favors a longer efficacy period rather than shorter at least with subtype 16. We are still entirely comfortable with our decision to have her vaccinated.

We can only hope they keep it up as the one thing for sure the world doesn't need any time soon is another republican administration.

Dr. Harper's main complaints are around business practices, public health matters around the interplay of HPV vaccines and Pap Smears, and with how long the vaccine will have efficacy. Issues around cancer prevention are epidemiological and public health issues. All her concerns taken into account, along with understanding the HPV rates in the US (HPV prevalence was 24.5% among females aged 14 to 19 years, 44.8% among women aged 20 to 24 years, 27.4% among women aged 25 to 29 years), and we had and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about having had our daughter vaccinated. Add to that if she only gets a decade of efficacy that still gets her through to age 26 in our case. With regard to the myofasciitis circumstance of Dr. Ratner's daughter, as tragic as they may be, even if there were ten cases reported that would make an incidence rate of 0.00000043 for the number of Gardasil vaccinations. The incidence of U.S. female auto fatalities is 0.000053 - should we keep our daughters off the road as well? Similarly, even if there were any association shown between Gardasil and ALS and there were ten cases instead of two that would again be an incidence rate of 0.00000043. The female incidence of MS is 0.00006 to put that risk in perspective. With regard to the speculation of Gardasil deaths: Again, all things in the balance we are entirely comfortable in our decision and would make the same call today.

The bomb squad has been sitting around just waiting for something to do.

Those Mt. Wilson approach gullies are such a delight...

For humans as a species, and as clustered large populations, the totality of our response to infectious disease is absolutely no different than the massed evasions of a school of Mackrel being attacked by Amberjack or of a flock of pigeons evading a Peregrine. No different in any way - someone is inevitably coming up with the short straw. We do get lucky on occasion as we have with Smallpox, but for the most part, and at least for the moment, we confront many diseases like Flu and Malaria with fast mutation rates which, despite our best efforts, will always 'take' a percentage of us. All our best efforts can mitigate that 'take' to a degree, but again, all our mitigations are no more than a collective evasive response to predation.

what are you rambling about? put the 1950's national geographic down and come back, joe. come back to 2012. Dude, if you can't figure out the essential, unyielding truth in that statement and acknowledge it you are completely adrift in any discussion about infectious disease in general and vaccines in particular. Completely adrift and lost, babbling without the slightest grounding in reality.

As opposed to corporations getting RomneyBucks?

Or adopt the infertile approach of the Ten Attendants and otherwise leave looks and charisma intact.

The individual risk is "near zero" only because of the societal vaccine coverage - and that's exactly what makes the anti-science / anti-vaccine point of view and focus on individual risks of adverse reaction so irrational.

Nah, it was just a public service banality alert. We now return you to your regularly scheduled spray.

I do know how technical terms fly over your head and that 'herd' is your new meme, but a shred of investigation and critical thought might serve you better both in terms of intelligent discourse and more injurious invective hurling.

Exactly. In medicine and public health there are always folks who end up with the short straw and if you dwell on the fate of those individuals' tragic circumstance you'll end up in paralytic state which will prevent you doing what is necessary for society as a whole - i.e. don't run the theory of the game from the measure of individual outcomes, rather run it from the measure of the outcome of the whole. I know as humans tend to view ourselves as apart and above nature, but with regard to actions in the face of infections we as a society are no different than school of fish, flock of birds, or herd of gazelle confronted by a predator - there will generally always be a sacrificial cost of individuals to save the whole. It's a cruel world in that respect - but that's living - and our frontline responses to infectious disease will always come at an unavoidable cost of some lives being adversely affected to one degree or another. And if enough folks focus on the effects on a small number of users, and respond by not supporting what's necessary to protect the whole, they may change lessen their odds with regard to the risk of adverse effects, but they greatly increase they're individual odds of being the target of the primary risk and also decrease the defense of the whole. It's a fear-driven, irrational perspective.

Except now in a modern world it's a recipe for complete clusterfuckage on every front - especially infrastructure. And rights? Corporate lawyers play state law like a fiddle. And what rights do I have? California rights, Alabama rights, New York rights, or Texas rights? Rights are sort of ala carte by state which I wouldn't call optimal.

I dunno, the whole affair casts serious doubts on a couple of guys who are the go-to crew for counterinsurgency. For them to have missed a low-grade conflict in their own beds and emails seems like a degree of incompetence and points out how easy it is to get blindsided by friendlies when you get in bed with them.