dinomyte

DMUJA: I think your post is interesting in that it kinda gets at something that I've been thinking about. (OK, my point is pretty well off subject, but your post got me thinking) That is, what is CC.com's (or the members) responsibility to the climbing community (or other members)? Let me explain. I have seen requests for beta that garnered replies and suggestions that I thought were not always the greatest. Note that I am not saying that this was the case with the Hood accident. To be honest I think I read the request for beta and the responses, but I don't remember much about them. If we have been to a hill recently and someone asks about ut, certainly we can offer current conditions info. But, without knowing comfort levels, experience, etc., should we advise people to either take or leave behind particular pieces of gear or protection? I don't have the answer to that, but in the future I will be careful to say that although this is what I happened to take, who you are and when you go may require otherwise. I would hate to say something like "Oh, you won't need crampons on that hill," and then hear that someone took a spill that might not have had they been properly equipped. Granted, it is the climber's responsibility to adequately prepare (and to take everything on CC.com with a grain of salt) but still....

Just adding my thoughts and prayers. Everyone who's been on the hill is pulling for ya. Hang in there fellas.

HAHAHAHAH! And, that's why I CAN'T say that I don't like bush! Well, I guess I do prefer shaved!

It sucks to be STUCK behind anyone, but perhaps this guy was just saying that the group that he passes was not adequately prepared for the mountain. We've all passed folks heading up Adams or some other popular mountain that, from experience, we knew were underestimating the degree of difficulty. Or, at times, maybe WE have done the same. Plus, I'm not sure 8 hours is that ridiculous. I think it's 5 or so miles in bfore you start climbing, then rope-up time, some breaks, etc. They may not have been trying to set a speed record. In short, I doubt the fellow was trying to talk smack. As far as time goes, he may have just been trying to provide some insight for future climbers.

and if that's the case i'll be the first to give 'em props (well, the 2nd...heh heh)

As I was writing a quick IM, I realized that I could sum up my feelings about all this relatively quickly (which is a good thing for all who have made their way through the 100s of posts in this thread). I have absolutely no problem with folks who are opposed to the current administration. If you truly believe that we should not go to war over oil, and we should do more about global warming, then that is great. But by God or Allah, live what you believe! If you drive an SUV, drink Starbuck's lattes, or wipe your ass with Charmin, I don't wanna hear any bitching! I happen to drive an SUV, drink lattes and I certainly wipe my ass. I also have a decent job, am able to support my family, and I even have a few bucks left over to gas up my rig, head to hills and get in a little climbing now and again. But you won't catch me bitching too much. We all choose the way we live, and I'm guessing that not too many folks on the old CC board are willing to go the distance to support their causes. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they're in it till it hits the pocket book or becomes an inconvenience.

lol....Nothing means I'm not protesting, my good man! I vote.

I don't think we should spend too much time insulting each other. I'm of the mind that there are just as many pretty intelligent people who says stupid shit as there are stupid people who say stupid shit. Folks a lot more intelligent than the majority on this site have been arguing it for a lot longer than we have. And, you have to remember that so much of what we say is opinion anyway. One person says that he hates this administration because they are promoting torture and denying due process. Another says "no, they're not." I say they're not as bad as the naysayers think, and not as good as the staunch supporters think, and I don't really give a shit what they do with terrorists (of course I recognize that they could just call anyone a terrorist....that's the rub). I applaud all who laud the Geneva Convention and the Constitution and all of the documents and values that our country has lived by and that our administration is now (apparently) thumbing its nose at. But, it's probably about achieving some kind of balance. I'm no longer sure that our existing lawa are appropriate for dealing with our current situation. If we granted all the folks we've "detained" due process, we would have probably released 90% of them and, who knows, maybe 50% of those released are actually terrorists and would have gone "human bomb" on us. Is that a good enough reason to lock them all away? I don't know. But, it's tough not to be hypocritical. It's like the folks who wanted to ban logging to save the spotted owl, but sure loved wiping their asses with Charmin. In the end, I'm sure that we'll all do what we always do....let the administration do what they do, and bitch about it when we don't like it. I actually am happy that Jim (in the beginning of this thread) was doing something about it. I'm also doing something to voice my opinion - Nothing. Cause I'm fine with where we're at. Always room for improvement, but could always be worse!

Nice one indeed. Seems like all you were missing were the butterflies (real ones I mean - not in your stomachs). They were all over the place a couple months ago!!

From what I've read, most doubt the North Koreans are capable of developing a warhead small enough to mount on a missile. Remember, our first ones were pretty damn big. Not that it means they're not a threat.

Aren't most climbers leftists? LOL

My cynicism again....I am not sure that there is a silent majority that disapproves. I think that there is a silent majority that doesn't give a rip till it impacts them heavily. I guarantee you the families of the victims of 9/11, the folks from New Orleans, etc. - they have taken a side! Many of us see very little personal impacts no matter who is president. I think I got a little bit of a tax break with Bush, but my great-great-great grandchildren will live in a world where more species are extinct, and it's 10 degrees warmer. Our society is rather apathetic (as demonstated by voter turnout), perhaps because we don't feel personally impacts. Obviously, folks can say that we are all personally impacted (and we are), I'm just saying that we don't think about it every day.

Here's a list from Bush's first term, Jim. http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Bush.htm As one would expect, every "accomplishment" is debatable, just as it would be under a Democrat. For example, many groups would say that banning partial birth abortions was a good thing. Many would say it was not. And, as you know, it's always tough to come up with positives. We always concentrate on the negatives. I guarantee you that every "diehard Rep" can come up with a great list of Clinton's inadequacies, and could probably shoot down every accomplishment. Each party always provides us plenty of ammo! Finding a list of accomplishments for any president is pretty easy, as is the "why that's all BS" from the other party!!

And, with this post, I've hit a nice even 80! I'm done arguing!

Dammit....assuming, of course, that time travel is impossible!

From Meriam Webster Online - "Cynic - 2 : a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest." So, I am a cynic. I believe that our current administration is motivated by self-interest, and I believe that, for the most part, so were their predecessors. And, yes, I believe that most humans are the same. I'm sure that definitions of economics vary in the exact wording, but this is the one that I was taught in my economics classes in grad school. To once again turn to our friend the internet, go to Yahoo, type "economics definition" and hit enter. Click the #1 result: "economics Definition The study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources" Hmmmmm.... Once again, incorrect. I concluded that we are currently not at risk from an event that did not occur during the last 35 years. It is pretty tough to argue with the logic that there is zero chance of something happening in the past, when it didn't happen. I wasn't arguing that there was not a risk at the time. Certainly there was. And the risk at that time was certainly greater than our current risk of a terrorist act. Still, right now, the probability of a nuclear holocaust happening in the past is zero. Back to the dictionary, for your sake: Nihilism 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless. I certainly don't believe that existence is senseless and useless. In fact, I think "self-absorbed nihilist" is an oxymoron. I may be self-absorbed, but hardly a nihilist!

I think we could probably go on arguing many of these points forever, and I am sure that many will. So, while not trying to put words in your mouth I'll just say that you seem to find the current administration lacking, and I (in my typical cynical way) find them not much worse than many predecessors. I am confident that we'll always be fighting "wars" - they'll just go by different names. And, we'll have just as many problems as we've ever had, regardless of who is in the White House. Interestingly (and you may find it hard to believe) I still do what I can - adopting families in need, helping out at Meals on Wheels, etc. But, I'm not a big protester. Living in P-town I must just be tired of it! But, I will comment on two of your points: Economics is the study of the allocation of resources and how supply and demand influence that allocation. (Not trying to be condescending.) The use of "economic incentives" does not imply a drive to the cheapest fuel source. Instead, I am talking about establishing some motivation for companies and consumers to conserve. Can administration policy help? You bet! I am just talking about using the market to encourage change. Second, the statistics thing. In reviewing my posts and yours, I missed what you saw. I was not intending to imply that we are more at risk now than we were during the Cold War - simply that we are at risk. Perhaps you understand this....we are currently at risk of a terrorist act, we are not currently at risk of a nuclear attack during the Cold War. I just jumped on the flaw in your argument, and perhaps you see this now: Actually, nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 0%! It did not happen. It's kinda like the probability of my winning last night's lottery. It didn't happen. Oh, and I guess one more point. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth, though it's all to easy to do in such a forum! We're probably both guilty of that one.

Every administration has left us unprepared. When the next democrat is in office, we'll be just as unprepared, but you won't be as vocal. It will reach new highs, as our government has virtually never brought in more than it spent. I'll give ya that one! In 5000 years, we failed to even start.....tough to blame it all on Bush. I was gonna dispute every one of your comments, but my personal opinion is that people would have bitched no matter what the response was to Katrina. I agree that many Republican policies exacerbate global warming, but I personally believe that only through economic incentives will we begin to deal with that issue. Whoa, Tiger. I misspoke. How 'bout "relatively weak" in relation to the US. We still are a superpower and (ignoring outside impacts for a moment) could nuke them back to the stone age. You mention that "once we withdraw" Iran will be the dominant player in the Middle East (which is true) but that indicates that they are not currently the dominant player, which I assume means we are. Interesting argument here. I guess my thought would be that you are comparing the risk of something that happened (which = 100%) with something that did not (0%). When something is in the past, there is no "risk" or "possibility," it either is or is not. I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the one that happened than the one that didn't. I'll ignore the rest of your post, as it's a bit more disrespectful.

My social group - Pub Club My environmental group - I'm a climber!

Live Consume Bitch incessantly, with no result Die

A THREAT far more serious perhaps, but the fact is that terrorists have struck, and nukes have not. Of course we pose a threat to them. The weak often puff themselves up to appear more threatening. Do you expect them to actually just cave and say "You're right, we'll do whatever you want"? It appears that you are blaming the present administration for global warming, natural disasters, etc. You are probably blaming current policies for doing nothing to help global warming, and blaming them for inadequate response to natural disasters, but I'm not convinced. There are a lot of problems out there, and no administration can address them all. Blaming the current administration for the things it is ignoring is all about partisan politics. Fortunately for those who like to bitch, this will always be an option!

My list of things that you should do to make the world a better place: - If you see a Clif Bar wrapper on the trail, pick it up - Don't cut switchbacks - Yell "rock" when you dislodge one, even when no one's there - Camp at least 100 feet from lakes - For God's sake, dig a hole or pack it out!! Feel free to add to my list!

It's funny, I initially posted in this thread just to fuck with people, but giving it a bit more thought, this occurred to me: Too often, people do not protest injustice, they protest the people that they deem responsible, and just as often they protest along party lines. Think about it, homelessness, poverty, etc. are a big probelm regardless of who is in the White House. This equals few protests. I doubt that the Seattle thing will be a "Torture is wrong" thing, it will be a "Bush is wrong" thing. Fortunately, drinking and climbing (though not necessarily at the same time) are my escapes, and I don't think about this shit that often.

If Jim is right, then our duly elected leaders, who represent us as their constituents, passed this law. Thus, the people passed the law. But, then I suppose you'll come back with some kind of "he's not my president" BS, thumbing your nose at the same sacred documents that you say Bush is.

Interesting, though I'm not sure I would compare this to women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. And, call me a cynic, but I doubt these protests will accomplish anything but pissed commuters. While I agree that it's easy to sit back and do nothing, or point out all the other causes you are ignoring, I think it comes down to this: No "cause" is perfect. Some homeless people are homeless becuase it's their fault. And some people probably deserved to be tortured. If some asshole blows up ten people, I don't have much of a problem with someone shoving bamboo under his fingernails till he tells 'em what he knows. Obviously, no one wants to hurt innocent people, but not everyone is innocent.