counterfeitfake

sounds reasonable to me. do you know where martinis first started out?

here, look: god damn, bacon

Really, bacon will be good on any day. Man, yum.

First Watchless Ascent

Merry Wankmas everybody!

my purple zero is rated for two fig newtons

That must be the OP Link Cam of guitars.

Hey guys I've formulated counterfeitfake's third law of political douchebaggery: For every liberal douchebag on CC.com, there is an equal and opposite conservative douchebag.

Hello, I haven't been paying attention as I have ADD (Awesome Deficit Disease) can someone please tell me whether a consensus has been reached on the tauntaun issue?? Sincerely, Counterfeitfake PS: I don't check the internet so please respond via post-it notes.

Looking forward to this as it will allow my partner to follow routes before I have led them.

TWO WORDS: AIRBORNE LASER

ROADS: BANNED

Jack Daniels is nasty. What is with people suggesting Irish whiskey in response to a request for a good bourbon? Recommended on name if nothing else: Fighting Cock

Haha, yeah, don't wear cotton, but if you do you'll probably be in good company. You see some weird stuff on that route. Like the ever popular combo, jeans and plastic boots. Eat and drink plenty, it's a tall mountain.

I climbed it in July with trekking poles and hiking boots. For the most part I was glad I hadn't brought an ice axe and crampons, but there was about 200 feet of pretty hard snow that was a little tricky. In June there may be more snow for easier steps, but of course the conservative choice would be to bring them. It's not a hard route but is definitely steeper than the route to Muir.

pearly gates

I don't know whether there is something else better nearby, but Red Rocks is definitely not lame. From what I've seen it's a huge concentration of cool routes of every kind.

I HATE

This is getting ridiculous. We do all make selfish decisions. But they are decisions. If it's really in one to give, they will do so. If it's one's habit to go the selfish route then maybe they are a selfish person. I didn't call you that. If you have a plan that will allow you to be more altruistic in the future then I commend you. I am glad you're taking good care of your kids. No irony there. I guess the irony is that I said "I HATE EMOTIONAL STUFF"? I guess that is a technically valid point but I don't think it's very relevant. Well, okay. I still think you're shooting from the hip, you didn't really pay much attention to what Brooks was saying and you don't have any real evidence to support your argument, when you could probably get some. What a rad way to alleviate my concern that you were throwing a term around without knowing what it meant! I totally agree there is more than one way to be charitable. There are many things you can do. Actually if you look back at the first page, volunteering is something covered in the article.

His point is "I can't give to charity because my house is too expensive" is a selfish excuse. I don't see how you can argue with that. If that is an excuse someone uses, they are saying that they prioritized spending on their own home higly enough that it eliminated money in their budget for charity. People who place a high enough priority on giving to charity will do so regardless of other factors.

When you can learn to dance through a room full of spray untouched, THAT'S when I'll be impressed.

OF COURSE I don't think that just because you wrote a book you are credible. But it's a sign that you've put in effort. He has done work and put it into a format that you can read, and come to an opinion about. This alone buys him more cred, in my eyes, than random sniping internet anonym. Right, possible. But, they either were or weren't flaws in the study. And you don't know, you haven't tried to find out, all you're doing is muddying the waters. And, I postulate, that's all you want to do, since the study rubs you the wrong way. Was not a definition, it was a summary of two viewpoints on one issue. And I will stand by it. I used the words "liberal" and "conservative", not "democrat" and "republican". If you really think I'm wrong, come up with a more accurate summary. Tell me how I am wrong. How do liberals and conservatives differ in their opinions of how social issues should be addressed? You get bonus points if it doesn't boil down to "liberals rule conservatives suck". I think that basically what I said IS the entire conclusion of the survey. ... oh yes please. You keep saying "error margin". What does this mean? Where does it come from? Are you using this in any kind of real statistical way, or is this just the colloquial "we aren't sure" meaning? What I am sprayguing about (arguspraying?) is what I hate about political discussion here (and everywhere else)- people have views they have come to based mostly on emotion, without much actual thought. Whenever a topic comes up they want to take potshots at the other side, pick out some small and inconsequential piece of the issue and yell loudly about it, take potshots at the other side. Few seem willing to actually put the work in, analyze situations, consider the different viewpoints, and come to an educated conclusion, or even try to change anyone else's mind. Everyone just wants to post a link to some news article and say "SEE??" because it happens to fall in line with their poorly-thought-out position. So we get more polarized. In the wake of the last election everyone's saying we're tired of name-calling, finger-pointing, partisan politics... I say yeah, right, I'll believe it when I see it. From what I see we'll never be tired of it.

Well, kind of... I'm under the impression that what actually breaks the rope in a fall is the shock force it absorbs once it's elasticity has been exhausted. So anything that decreases the force-absorbing capabilities would be bad. That could be degradation over time or elimination of stretch from recent previous falls. Hopefully someone who actually knows what they're talking about will join the conversation.

Now THAT'S a well-put-together argument.

I think the number is the number of big falls back-to-back that the manufacturer will guarantee the rope to withstand. I've been told by guys who seemed to know what they were talking about that when the rope is allowed to "rest" it regains it's elasticity and is good for that number of back-to-back falls again. I dunno if this is commonly understood to be the case.