tvashtarkatena

Lighten up, Mike.

Ahem...well...that was an exploratory foray for a later ascent of the Triple Couloirs, my good man.

Shouldn't you be busy organizing the Resistance?

I wouldn't know much about any of this, having never retreated from an objective.

Lesbots. Cool.

Perhaps if you talk to it softly it will drop where you need it to. Personally, if there are any horns or trees on the route (never happens), I like to make the bulk of my rope clears them. That almost always requires a hefty throw.

Dru might learn to DROP a subject now and then. And, I agree with JH: standard procedures are often anything but in the field. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Just don't tell your HR person at work that you've got to run home to hunt some coons.

Strike five. Using a stuff sack is essential to manage a pull line for single rope rappels. You can't throw a pull line; way too delicate, light and tangly. If you don't know how to do a single rope rappel with a pull line, I'm sure teh interwebs can help.

i think 2 people in in harnesses hanging out at Smith Rock shooting the shit, although considered climbing, is not.

Yes, if you are worried about not knowing how much rope you have left, and about potentially rapping off the end of your rope, then putting the ends of your rope in a sack where you can't see them or see how much rope is eft below you is a grrrreat! idea Strike four. He mentioned tying a knots in the rope before rapping. On a related note, using a stuff sack for the pull line is standard procedure for single rope rappels...for all the reasons already mentioned.

YOu haven't let CBS cook with yours I see....

After your first stuck rope, you might view the issue from a less academic viewpoint.

Take a hint from Pepe le Pew and broaden your idea of what constitutes a cat.

I tie a double overhand a couple feet up from each end. It's been a while since I tied both ends together; I seem to remember it tended to kink up the rope somehow. It's hard to throw two ends of a rope separately (preferred in an alpine environment, particularly if windy) if they're tied together. My partner recently had this discussion on a climb before a short rappel. We were running short on time and couldn't afford to get a rope stuck on a rocky face we couldn't see, so I rapped first and tied the knots for his rap. In my mind, in windy conditions on a rocky face the objective hazard of getting a rope stuck if knotted outweighs the subjective hazard of biffing it and rapping off the end. In other situations, probably not. I would never tie the two ends of a rope together in any situation. You're just begging to get the rope stuck with loop and huge knot like that.

Does anyone know what this woman's trying to get at? Is it that she has a deep seated need to invent her own secret language?

Metro also plans to add 175 buses over the next decade to carry 60,000 more riders. The increase in ridership in recent years has outstripped population growth by a wide margin.

Rules are for the Important.

Drop Chili Mac from the Congressional cafeteria menu.

That's silly. Conservation isn't about stopping use (you don't conserve water by not drinking it at all); it's about using the resource more wisely than we do now. Carpooling is a big part of that.

Not true. Maybe you can name a country with univeral weapons ownership that has had issues? Perhaps you are thinking of places having a civil war, maybe Nicarcua when the US was supplying one side, or El Salvador. The government of Guatamala was able to terroise the population and murder thousands of innocent civilians because only the govenment had weapons. They are still digging up people in Chili, Ecuador and Brazil due to similar circumstances. Some of those countries have some, but not even close to all, opposition armed, Uruguay and Peru: for instance, which causes a whole differnet set of problems with normal - not able to get armed -people getting slaughtered by both sides. The shining path in Peru has weapons, but they are running around a country devoid of them outside of the military. The sides doing the slaughtering know that the side with the most effeicient and biggest weapons will rule the country. And control the media too. Which is why they don't want assholes like us having weapons. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments put forth here so far. In essence, it's nothing more than an adolescent beat-off fantasy probably stemming from too much TV time. When a company of highly trained professional soldiers shows up at your doorstep with fully automatic weapons and grenades, you don't reach for that pea shooter you've got hidden away in the closet somewhere. You know, the one you practice with maybe once or twice a month...if you're an enthusiast, that is? No, you say "Yes sir, no sir, of course I'd love to suck your dick, sir." A population of 'well armed' weekend warriors is nothing compared to a full time, trained military force...even a shitty one. I don't care how many pump action 12 gauges you've got in the closet or how many times you've seen "Red Dawn". In your fantasy world, you might imagine yourself organizing a resistance, maybe with Kurt Russel as a partner, training, blowing things up...but you won't. Few populations in history do. Most just obey the regime, try to get on with their lives, and avoid trouble. Now, in America, which is after all the society we're talking about, the gubbamint doesn't just show up with guns...it shows up with tanks, choppers, IR vision; all the very latest from the OverwhelmingForce.com. But mostly, it shows up with nothing more than a carefully crafted soundbite, which you swallow whole...just like the NRA's beat off fantasy of citizen's armed resistance you're trying to foist on us all here.

Make friends.

Cheney's from UrAnus

Poo won't shoo a bot fly.

I'm drivin' up to Everett to fill up on cheap gas.