tvashtarkatena

Cool. So now we know Tvash is a bear. GRRRRRRR....

I bear sprayed my girlfriend inside a tent in the St. Elias Range. I accidentally sat on it, heard it go PSSSST, and yelled "Get out of the tent!". Stung our eyes a little bit, but we got out in time...to catch the pouring rain.

You'll climb faster and more adeptly in leather boots, regardless of terrain. Plastic boots suck ass, and they're heavier than hell, unless you prefer that clumsy Frankenstein feeling. You can stretch the temperature range of a leather boot significantly with overboots, which can be had cheap if used. I've climbed Rainier in Feb with leather tely boots and overboots. If the temps dip much below about 10 F, however, plastics come into their own. So think about how much climbing you'll be doing in those temps vs higher temps to make your decision.

Bush isn't publicly anti-muslim. That is true. However... I've debated several law enforcement officials who've been through federal anti terrorism training (so they can participate in JTTFs). I've also debated a former deputy director of the CIA (under Reagan) who keeps up with current policies in that agency as an ongoing advisory board member. All debates were in front of a live audience, not online forums. All had the same schtick: radical Islam is to blame for our terrorism woes. Not specific political agendas, but literally a cultural war to overthrow western civilization and impose strict sharia upon us. I shit you not, I couldn't believe the hyberbole I was hearing, but that is what these agencies are preaching. Say what you will about Bush's speeches (since he never tells the truth, I would argue that they are essentially irrelavent to the actual workings of government); this federal government has a strong anti-muslim bent that is heard loud and clear across the Arab world.

Where do you think that thumb's headed?

Aye loi jeou.

In Washington, they don't even require proof of driving ability! "Turn your blinker off. Turn your fucking blinker off."

You're a rodent. That gives you at least 50 IQ points over Kevbone. And 100 over ToasterBrain.

You might try flying LAN to Santiago, then taking hops up to northern Chile, then over to La Paz. Having said that, I'd probably pay the $1300 and foggeddaboutit. I'd rather kill myself with the dull side of a butter knife than ride a bus from Lima to La Paz.

Thanks for restating the both the obvious, and what I said. Point out where you've already stated this. I can't seem to find it anywhere. Perhaps you forgot the type it in.

An irrelevant distinction constitutionally and/or by statute, as I've successfully argued. Uh...yes, there are many restrictions on this, with damages as penalties, as I've successfully argued.

Yes, and many Persian muslims, and I've worked with many over the years, are very similar culturally to Americans and get along quite well us. So?

First of all, the Constitution does not proscribe any specific punishment for violations of the Bill of Rights. Private companies can, and have, been found liable numerous times for civil rights violations, with litigation being the mechanism by which complaints are addressed. This includes being tolerant of creating a hostile work environment for protected classes, such as women, for example. In this sense, such free speech (catcalls, for example) is NOT protected. Criminal penalties are not required to enforce this, nor need these penalties be levied against the actual individuals responsible. A corporation as a plaintiff is all that's required for enforcement. In fact, most civil rights cases take the form of litigation against organizations rather than individuals, not criminal cases. You're confused, but nice try.

Those are hot air balloons, you stone stupid motherfucking insect brain.

Its real, took 2nd runner up in Darwin awards. Hey, lay off SeaCocks. It would be pretty easy for a couple to...crawl...inside an...inflated...helium balloon. Uh.... Wait a minute.... I think 'toaster stupid' no longer applies here.

I realize that much of what I say is quite beyond you, but I can't be responsible for that. I didn't say artists, etc. were the ONLY persons granted a bye. Stick to my statements and you'll have a smoother ride. My list was not all inclusive, just representative. Yes, college students also have that right, as you pointed out. That wins you, ah, let's see here, zero points in this debate. Rather, it was you who attempted to provide carte blanc free speech, including mockery, etc. to the entire country based on the 1st amendment. I provided appropriate examples where that was not the case. Do you have a logical on/off switch in your brain that gets accidentally tripped in the downward direction at times?

I'd say you're stretching this analogy a bit far. Let's take, for instance, the case where 3 Muslim clerics were on a flight (United?) and they prayed before getting on board. They passed all security measures in the airport and again at the gate. But passangers were "uncomfortable" with the way they looked, and some got quite vocal. The clerics were asked to leave the plane prior to take off. I'd say this was discrimination less related to their religion than that they were by culture and skin color lumped into the islamofacist category we've created. The three largest airlines (United, Northwest, and American) lost a lawsuit for just such practices. Out of the lawsuit came an agreement between the TSA and airlines to train their screeners to look for specific behavioral profiles of terrorists, (appropriate) not religion or race(discriminatory). Bigots may find this abhorent, but it actually results in better, more focused security practices without degrading our basic American value of equal protection under the law.

You've apparently never been in a management position. As I've clearly stated above, the Constitution does not offer carte blanc protection against criticism for any group. However, any employee of any corporation or public entity who openly engages in the kind of offense or mockery you speak of at work would first be counseled to stop, then fired. Otherwise, the corporation is open to a civil or civil rights suit because it is, in effect, condoning that discrimination. What happens outside of work, of course, is a different matter. The 'arts' also get a bye on this. Case law has consistently sided for free speech in these cases involving entertainers and artists, publications, and private persons acting on their own time. I'm not going to waste my time fixing your naivete by doing your Googling for you. It's your misunderstanding of the Constitution, not mine.

Yessuh, Mr. SE-gahl, I fin' dat O-ffens've mahsel'.

If the college paper had taken a pot shot at Christianity, I assure you the reaction would have been even greater. You've missed a central point here. Discrimination based on religion is every bit frowned upon by the constitution (that would be the 1st amendment) as discrimination based on race or gender. Along a similar line, discrimination against gays, which is certainly based on behavoir, not just genetics, is also increasingly illegal under state and municipals statutes. Your dividing line of 'choice' verses 'birth' simply doesn't wash in this country. Certain forms of Islam (Sufism, for example), as practiced, are no more intolerant than certain forms of Christianity, which can be incredibly sexist, homophobic, and, in some sects, racist. In any case constitutional and statutory protections trump discriminitory religious practices when put to the test every time. As for satirical free speech; that's a toughy in any arena but entertainment. Private entities avoid it to avoid 'hostile workplace' or other discriminatory legal action. Government violates the constitution when it engages in it. But, for the most part, entertainers get a free speech ticket to take pot shots at anyone they want. On the flip side, the audience is free to react in kind. I would guess nearly all universities receive some kind of public money, which would ostensibly be cut off if they allowed discriminatory practices under their tutelage. Personally, I'd vote in favor of a totally free speech student publication, satire and all, but I can also see where an administration in this litigious society would feel nervous. Kids these days.

Nauh, dis fuhnney. Befo you tellin us you'z 'n Atheis', 'n nauh you tellin' us you da Lowahd. Don' you b'lieve in yown self? Is you sum kinna Exstenchlis' o sumthin', o do you jis gotta self assteem probl'm? Hey Hey Hey, this sounds like Fat Albert. Nauh, hol' on dey, Route66 o' whutevuh yo av'tah iz. I LAHK me sum lumps in mah Cream-o-wheat.

"If I hadn't been wearing this Shakespeare thing around my neck I might have seen that 'Bridge Out' sign!"

WILL SOMEONE HELP? I HAVE THREE CHILDREN ON BOARD!

CAN I RENT OXYGEN AT THE RAINIER PARK HEADQUARTERS? IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS THIS SERIOUSLY, FINE. REMEMBER: climbingsilosoftheheartland LATER.

YOU'VE PROBABLY NEVER CLIMBED HOOD, EITHER!