Kimmo

when you remove your previous comment about 5.6 climbers not having informed opinions about the matter, your position seems, well, a little more informed.

little si- along with many other little sport crags littered around the area- is pretty much a conceptual abstraction, with no actual concrete ramifications from a small user group upon larger public interests. i actually bet that, if polled, most hikers going up little si would respond favorably to what they witness from climbers frequenting the area: continually you see hikers stopping to watch climbers ascending WWI, and for good reason: it's pretty cool! I'd just hate to see one-size-fits-all policy decisions because of antipathy and miscommunication between affected parties. or something like that.

this is a pretty myopic view. the larger context here is public land-use policy. everyone has a right to this land; everyone has a right to this land in a way that allows others their rights to this land. this is where the grey area starts to appear....

this debate might get tiresome for many, but it is still a discussion that isn't entirely pointless. public policy changes through discussion (and action), and even a seemingly mundane and idiotic online sequence of the same old same old has the potential to lead to these changes. in other words, it isn't just about little si, as it isn't just about this discussion being a dead horse.

no, not really. it's simply a convenience thing. nothing more, nothing less. one can clip and remove draws off a route of any difficulty. can you cite the "growing number of cases"? i'm honestly curious, since i do have some concern about this. rock and ice? that sporto rag? didn't read it. what it say?

yea work's a tough one. mama workin away from home and having a baby is i think one of those unfortunate developments of "progress".

I do? I don't think there is much study in that arena, at least that I'm aware of!

Entirely unmentioned in this thread so far? Breast-feeding the baby! It's been shown to provide protection to the baby against various illnesses, passing along mother's immunity.

not sure who your reply was directed at. if at me...i'm not necessarily suggesting anything. just read those lines and they kinda worked their way in and i vibed with them. also reminded me of times that i've gotten pissed at people for something that I have a habit of doing. actually quite amazing, the process, when i step back. anger seems to be a good cue for this kinda thing....

absurd. tonite i will be partying in the ego thread.

only if dee wallace is there in person, autographing your dolls. will there be nice red wine?

plus, i thought you had another big run of ET's coming out?

have you seen the cost of health insurance? only the independently wealthy can afford it.

maybe even a space alien.

and a thank-you.

i'd hope to see evidence in the future, big fella.

i didn't realize your ego depended on the popularity of my threads....

catchy!

can you explain it again?

you two are much too close and co-dependent to have the ability to view each other objectively. plus, see my "ego" thread.

the obvious inconsistencies in g-spotter's logic: many "non-vaccinated kids" get vaccinated later in life; many (most?) vaccinated kids don't get their boosters when adults (especially relevant with the pertussis booster), meaning they are then non-vaccinated adults (at least partially). regarding the california pertussis outbreak, all ten deaths directly attributable to pertussis were in children under 3 months, with 9 of 10 being under 8 weeks old (younger than the minimum age for vaccination!!!). Also, the CDC estimates 50% of all kids contracted pertussis from their parents or caregivers (I betcha it was higher). which means it is important for the adults of new-borns to be vaccinated (also, don't take you new-born to crowded places, or day-cares, perhaps).

Very unconscious people experience their own ego through its reflection in others. When you realize that what you react to in others is also in you (and sometimes only in you), you begin to become aware of your own ego. At that stage, you may also realize that you were doing to others what you thought others were doing to you. You cease seeing yourself as a victim.

The more limited, the more narrowly egoic the view of yourself, the more you will see, focus on, and react to the egoic limitations, the unconsciousness in others. Their "faults" or what you perceive as their faults become to you their identity. This means you will see only the ego in them and thus strengthen the ego in yourself. Instead of looking "through" the ego in others, you are looking "at" the ego. Who is looking at the ego? The ego in you.

are you trying to say tvashtarkatena is not "influenced" by events? events? which "events"? as an entirely impartial observer of events in this here spray forum, i'd say he has a rather tenacious bite on his own perspective, strengthened with a healthy dose of....perspicuity and writing skills. oh, and the sociopathy needed to post some 10,000+ times! did i say impartial? yes, that's right.

single syllable non-sequiters cut to the chase much quicker than all the verbiage one needs to contend with when dealing with, say, robbi.