ClimbingPanther

Funny, an article just came out in this morning's paper. Seems that area temperatures were an average of 3 degrees F below normal in January! That's including one record-setting high early in the month. How was the west side? Sorry about the excessive picture posting, I just got a case of kevbonitis and became excessively fond of that one

I hope this thread said its prayers.

Butkus didn't like this thread.

Butkus says this thread is dead.

Does anyone know how this January measures up to history, temperature-wise? Tri-cities temps have spent almost no time above freezing all month, which is very abnormal for this area. I have long sought a good weather history page to check out stuff like this, but to no avail. The weatherman on TV can get history stuff, so I know it's out there. Anybody know a good link?

I think I've seen some GPS info on the Paradise to Muir section posted by Mike Gauthier either in an old thread here (use the search engine) or somewhere on his Rainier blog page, www.mountrainierclimbing.blogspot.com link anyone? In all likelihood, the 1' wide and variable depth trail to the top should be enough to get you there in a whiteout, as long as you don't go too early in the season

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying anything about creation or evolution here, but just a word of caution about scientific literature. Peer-review does not indicate infallibility, even in the highest level journals. Recall the S. Korean stem cell scientist who fabricated data in an already controversial subject area, and it made it in to Science! I don't know whether anything about cold fusion was ever published in peer-reviewed journals, but that could be another example of phony data. And that's just data, the most likely part of an article to be true. Conclusions about the data are even more open to fallacy. Anything new and revolutionary should be taken with a healthy dose of open-minded skepticism. This especially relates to the creationist-themed article on carbon dating, which may not even be peer-reviewed.

Maybe if this was in spray it would get more responses on a Friday afternoon... I'll be happy if you just take a sec to post the make & model of your current pair(s) of climbing gloves & whether or not you'd buy them again

Mostly I guess I want to know if anyone has one special combo that they can bring regardless of what they're doing in the winter and be relatively happy. That's what I do anyway but before I buy something new (my old gloves are cracking) I just wanted a feel for what people are happy with. If I'm going to drop $100 or so on something new, I want to get the most out of it, plus as a weight concern, I'd rather not ever carry two sets of gloves/mittens.

I am in the market for a better all-purpose glove system and want the most useful and widely adaptable combination of liner/shell. My current thoughts are an outer mitten, such as the OR Latitude or similar shell mitt, for warmth when the temps dip towards zero. The inner will ideally be a glove so I can take off the mitt and get dexterity without exposing my hand. For the inner glove, I am wondering if a Windstopper might be the best option instead of a generic fleece liner for warmth and usefulness without the mitt. The main idea is to cover the widest variety of temps & weather conditions and only need a single shell/liner combo. What are some of your systems and why do you think it's the best?

Jump in!

it's not polite to spray with your mouth full

why do you ask?

exactly how it sounds

classic, minx. life is so much better with funny people!

Well?

Wow! It's usually the leg that breaks. He sounds like a lucky guy and I'm glad he's OK. Hope he gets mended in time to salvage some of this winter.

dude we killed the thread

OK, you're right foreknowledge does, in a sense, preclude actions which were not known, but you also admit that foreknowledge itself did not "control" the action. Choice controls actions, foreknowledge just knows the choices. Just because the outcome is known to some being does not necessarily mean that being controlled the outcome. Jim, that wasn't mixing science & religion, it was just illustrating that foreknowledge doesn't exert control. It's the LACK of choice which is the illusion

So, this isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it has some validity: If foreknowledge by itself precludes a person from performing a given action, then foreknowledge is, as you say, exerting a controlling force on the person and eliminating free choice. Can foreknowledge actually exert a controlling influence? Foreknowledge of the products of a chemical reaction has no bearing on the result of that reaction. The reaction proceeds according to the physical laws which govern the interactions, with no place for the input of foreknowledge. A scientist who does a certain reaction 100 times will know the product of the 101st reaction, while an ignorant person will not. However, the reaction will proceed the same way regardless of who performs it. The reaction is not free to proceed differently just because a being doesn't know how it will proceed. Therefore foreknowledge does not actually exert a controlling influence. It is, simply, foreknowledge.

correct, I misspoke and didn't edit fast enough

Prior knowledge does not imply causality lack of choice. You are capable of better reasoning than that, I've seen it before. You need to explain how foreknowledge precludes choice before you use that assumption to support your conclusion.

Yeah, no kidding. First, it's quite possibly illegal to repost that like you did, and second, you didn't say where you got it from. I know you can do it!

Why aren't the evolution proponents complaining about their peer's ad hominems? Shoot the 5 arguments down, not the person who proposed them. Nobody's perfect and everyone is capable of both truth and fallacy.