dinomyte

OK, I'm not gonna read this whole thread to post my favorite, so sorry if it's a dupe. On the back of a jacked-up truck in Utah, "I (heart) Mormon Pussy!" Gutsy to have a sticker that pisses off 99 percent of the local population.

I've got people.

If the snow stays as unconsolidated as it was Saturday, and you fall, just spread your legs and you'll come to a nice stop within about 5 feet! Unless you fall headfirst! (This reminds me of a little joke we came up with while climbing on Saturday, which refers to a CC troll - "Can I glissade with my crampons on?" The answer - "Sure, just go headfirst!")

dmuja: I can't confirm for certain, but we were up there Saturday and it looked like there was indeed still a step. We didn't actually get right under it to look. From what I've heard, most folks were going old chute so far. Check the photo in my TR of South side - the narrowest part of the gap on the right looked to be where the ice is.

Trip: Mt Hood - South Side Date: 2/10/2007 Trip Report: Billbob, Kevin_Matlock and I ventured up Hood on Saturday, starting at 2:30 am, aiming for the West Crater Rim. When we got up to Crater Rock and looked up at the Rim, we didn't like what we saw. It looked like a crack had formed, maybe fifty feet across, and just a bit down from the rim. We'd been trudging through a foot and a half of fresh at times, and just didn't wanna chance it. Prolly nothing, but best to be safe. We decided to cruise around the right side of the rock and up to the Hogsback. We thought we'd do the Old Chute instead. We took a rest there and pondered on whether to continue. The trudge had sapped our energy pretty good, and we didn't relish the thought of the "technical" stuff with a foot of snow over a crust. So, we decided to save it for another day, maybe when the snow is a bit more consolidated. Here are a few pics for those planning on heading up. Kevin and Bill slapping on the crampons at 9600 feet. Looking up at the Hogsback. It doesn't really lead to the Pearly Gates too well this year. Kevin and Bill on the Hogsback. They're both actually standing up! Hah! Me with the clouds rolling in below. It got pretty white. With no vis, we actually pulled out the GPS. We knew to traverse left - in fact we overshot by a couple hundred yards. My personal thanks to the partiers at Silcox who left the unopened Mirror Pond by the picnic table for me. It went down well when we were done! Feel free to add some details fellas!! Gear Notes: Hell, we had 3 pickets, a couple of screws, rope and harnesses - none of which got touched!

Sk8t: Obviously only you know your limitations, but most do the marathon North to South. That pile of rubble that is North Sis is not to be underestimated, and many prefer to do that fresh.

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.

make it 2500, you can buy that Westy van!

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.