builder206

I will take a look. Thanks for your courtesy. As I wrote earlier, I just skimmed the site.

I go for Cross Fit porn. But, how's this?

Yo ho ho I'm up at 4 and out the door It's the climber's life for me

Some qualities are obvious, but can they kick steps?

AND it's a standard!

I thought the French have a 35 hour work week? WTF? That's the parasites they keep in-country. The crazy ones they send overseas.

Yeah, try that with French bosses. Less than 60/week is shirking. 45/week is practically half-time.

As little as possible.

WTF? So all that money that I have clients spend on MasterBuilders AE-90 is just going to waste? Shit, I'll never spec air-entrained concrete again. Ever! You know, I wrote that then thought, "except for...naw, no one will bring up air entrainment." But still, the "pores" are too small for epoxy to enter. Spec Sika. Their schwag is cooler than MB's.

Some of you take highly-engineered industrial products and, like monkeys, turn them over in your hands and fabricate your own personal theories about how to use it. Why don't you log onto the websites of the manufacturers and actually read the instructions? The technical data for all this stuff (and data about what *not* to do) is extensive. When epoxying bolts into concrete, not only do you want the hole smooth-sided, you want it as smooth as you can get it, and then you clean it out with flowing water and dry it with compressed air. There are no "pores" in concrete and most assuredly no epoxy molecule is anywhere near small enough to "seep" into any space around either rock or cement crystals in a way that is mechanically meaningful. On the contrary, you want the hole sides to be as smooth as possible to maximize continuous contact area for the epoxy mass. A rough hole, or a hole that hits spaces in rock or concrete, is subpar because the epoxy is so thick it will just cover over the void, creating a bond-breaker. Expansion bolts work by the expansion mechanism. Epoxy bolts use epoxy. They are different tools for different uses and materials. They shouldn't be mixed HOWEVER you can glop epoxy over the nut to assure it will stay fixed. You can also use paint; the purpose is to keep air and water from seeping down into the treads. Think Loctite. There are materials specific for every application. The key is to use the right tool, rather than arguing over what must always or never be done with a narrow, limited tool kit.

Can we go back to bolting now?

jenkem

Yep, it's all good.

There are some "straw man" arguments against CF that get repeated over & over. One is this idea that CF is all you need. On the contrary, CF senior cult leaders have *always* said that if you play a sport, CF is only a foundation---general physical preparation they call it. No one in the CF command bunker has ever said CF substututes for sport-specific training, only that a base of general athletic fitness created by CF training gives you a big boost in your sport. If you follow a seasonal sport the programming would be mostly CF in off-season, then lighten up on CF as spring training starts. Once the season is underway, maybe very little CF conditioning or limited, specific CF evolutions that target weaknesses. If you rely on CF exclusively and only pick up your stick on game day, sure you'll be crushed. Being dumb has always been a quick way to lose at sports.

Helping me stick some heinous 5.7 sloper.

I'm interested in hearing what you intend to do. Post a TR here when you get back. It's an area I have read a lot about and I'm very interested in several peaks there and nearby. For an air approach from the U.S. side, there's a long-established service out of Yakutat. The name escapes me just now. I will see if I can find some notes when I get home this evening. Will PM you if I turn up something.

Maybe the website for Wrangell-St. Elias National Park? Maybe something on the Canadian side? Their weather service or the RCMP? NOAA has zone forecasts for many areas. That is pretty remote for them to devote resources to but you might look at their website. It is not dead easy to navigate, but not impossible like, say , the USGS site. At NOAA's site you can also find aviation forecasts. If you know a bit about meterology you can make some inferences from those reports, especially the data and patterns for winds aloft and wind currents at high altitude. Flights: I think like any national park, aircraft are prohibited in the boundaries of the U.S park. However, I do know the Canadians allow aircraft to land in Kluane. So maybe you could fly as close as possible from the Canadian side. Then you would have to do the RCMP gear & radio drill, but that would probably beat having to spend all those days skiing up the icefields from the water.

What happened to CF?

Becasue he already said his own parents used to strike him?

This was all the rage in the late 60s and early 70s. Much (but by no means everything) we are going through now is just history repeating itself. Some of the current news and pronouncements are spooky that way. You can bet that your guy "of an older generation" remembers those days too.

Pink: rescuing another thread.

I know his position. There is no way (in that line of thinking) to support the troops if you oppose the activity in which they are engaged. In other words, if what they're doing is wrong, you are prima facie opposing the troops. Seems to me that about the only logical wedge to drive there is that the soldiers are following orders. The orders are wrong and the people giving the orders are wrong, but that doesn't or shouldn't interfere with a person's belief in or respect for the soldiers themselves. (I am stating a response one could make, not neccesarly my opinion) No matter what tack you take you end up in a framework of inferring that the troops are following illegimate orders. In that case, the troops themselves have to be in the wrong. This is how a person will come to say that if you oppose the war, you oppose the troops. The argument seems valid and logically defensible. But, how and where would that person make a distiction between the illegimatcy of (say) the bush crime family and the legitmacy of officers giving the orders? Are the generals legit or are they also complicit in the lies? How about the colonels, who don't get to voice their opinion to the president? In other words, if you oppose the war but support the troops (or think you do), at what level of responsibility do you make the distinction between the illgitmacy of the orders and the men giving the orders, and the legitmacy or acceptability of the men following the orders?