Bosterson

Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone make such a blatant connection between alternative medicine and faith healing...

I think there's pretty much zero chance of being able to place gear on an indoor crack, disregarding the durability of the wall surface, just simply based on liability. It's not like they have you place your draws on lead, you know? And placing gear is to placing draws the way clipping bolts is to toproping... or something. Indoor cracks will either be bolted or toprope. I should think that current wall technology should be able to produce pretty decent indoor cracks nowadays though. Much better than the shit parallel ones in gyms of yore.

Like malnutrition in Africa, this is not some sort of inherent problem but rather a problem of policy. The problem of what you are referring to as "western medicine" (should we say "the medical institution?") is that it de-prioritizes the patient. I have no beef with this issue - improved doctor-patient relationships is one of the goals of holistic medicine, and is something that the medical institution is slowly picking up on. If doctors weren't always running out the door and would actually talk to us, we might all feel better after having seen them. Certainly, HMOs included, the whole process could be done better. However, being that this is a policy problem - a problem of how medicine is being carried out - I do not agree that there is some sort of inherent advantage to what "alternative" medicine would have us do - in fact, I think the opposite. Mundane things like diet, exercise, blah blah are not where this is important: no one with, say, a cerebral hemorrhage goes to an herbalist or a naturopath. No amount of acupuncture will fix a deflated lung or a broken bone. In other words, no one with serious medical problems is seeking alternative therapies. It's like certain unnamed people who profess problems with the "scientific method" still going on airplanes: it's hypocrisy. If you have complaints about mainstream medicine's failure to investigate the holistic component of our lives, including everyday health (diet, exercise, general well being and happiness, etc.), blame it on the institution. Doctors used to make house calls; you used to have a family doctor who you saw from when you were born until you were old. Nowadays you get a different doctor each time you go to the office. You only talk to that person for ten minutes. This is a problem of practice. Furthermore, people generally eat worse, sleep less, exercise less, are more stressed, work jobs they hate, etc. etc. Modern life is not all it cracked up to be. It is also nonsense to argue that Chinese medicine is better because it is older. Do you know what passed for "medicine" a couple thousand years ago? The Four Humours? Trephining? A theory of mental illness that explained psychosis in terms of being possessed by demons? Please. It's one thing to have a problem with the way medicine is practiced (eg, insurance companies, drug company sponsorships, and no real personal interaction with doctors), but it is another matter entirely to call into question the scientific basis that underlies our theory of medicine. (Feel free to do so - I'm just saying they're different issues, one of which I will definitely not agree with you on.) I'm not saying contemporary medicine is practiced in the best way possible, but I don't think naturopathy (and all of the made up gluten allergies that seem to come with it) is the answer.

Salient points from the NY Times' earlier retrospective of MJ right when he died: -Neverland was incredibly expensive to maintain so he borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from banks to keep it going, debts I assume he still carried when he died. -He and Sony co-owned a portfolio of songs that included hundreds of Beatles songs that people think would fetch $1 billion at auction. I don't know if I have any strong feelings either way about MJ as a person. He was pretty fucked up, but I think like half the celebrities in Porter's twatter list are as well. (Lindsey Lohan anyone?) In as much as we created "Michael Jackson" the celebrity, I think I sort of agree with Jon that we should at least take a little responsibility for twisting him into the gargoyle he became. Say what you will about his parenting (really, most people should not be parents, least of all celebrities), just remember that he made Thriller. Thriller.

Jesus H Christ. That is a hell of a collection of celebrities, spanning the intellectual range from Linsey Lohan to Ashton Kutcher and back again.

I also see that I am 3 1/2 months late in getting to this thread...

I've never been to PRG, so I don't know how it is there, but the "social" scene is pretty much what keeps climbing gyms open. It's kind of a bummer, especially when that means you have bratty kids running under your feet. But climbing gyms are expensive to build and maintain, and I've never been to one that was populated exclusively by a crew of hardcore regulars. Definitely some have a good crowd, but it's the kids' birthday parties on weekends that keep the gyms in business... That said, if you can figure out a way to open a harcore-only gym that does not cost an arm and a leg, I would be all for it. However, I suspect those two operate inversely: the more yuppies and children come to the gym, the cheaper membership can be. No gym would make ends meet only serving hardcore dirtbags... Anyway, my two cents: I live in southeast, and would certainly not go out to Beaverton or even far SW for a gym. I climb at the Circuit (ack! a boulderer! run while you still can, guys) and have never been to PRG, even though I would enjoy putting a harness on from time to time, because it's too expensive to go to both. I think what other people have said about making sure you have good wall designs, textures, and features is super important. Gyms started out as plywood with holds, progressed to super molded Enterprises system walls, and have now somehow devolved back into flat, shapeless, featureless junk. Good aretes, stemming corners, and texture you can actually smear on are pretty key. Also ditto about the $20 climbing only membership! I think the combined fitness center-climbing gym bit is kind of overplayed (think Chelsea Piers in NYC as the worst example). Most serious climbers only need a minimum of weights/cross training facilities. Same for classes and yoga. I guess figure out who your target market would be - serious climbers or the fitness folks?

Hmm... let me see if I can simplify my questions: 1) a) Re: "western medicine doctors" - is there something alternative medicine says we should do that has the same effects as vaccination? b) Also, despite the mainstream medical industry's obvious problems and corruption, is the "alternative medicine" industry, which is completely unregulated (ie, there is rat poop in your Chinese medicine pills) and scientifically unproven, somehow better? 2) If we choose to only treat diseases as they occur, rather than vaccinate, do you think there is a risk that the herd immunity would fall below its threshold, therefore allowing such diseases to spread rampantly, overburdening the medical system (and most likely costing the lives of the young and elderly who have weak immune systems)? 3) Do you think, from an economic standpoint, choosing to treat rather than vaccinate is a more efficient usage of our healthcare money? In other words, is vaccinating upwards of 80% of population P more expensive than treating the actual disease in a much smaller proportion of P, say 20-30%? In the spirit of asking unasked questions and looking at all sides of the issue, these are the questions I have based on what you've said.

You have brought up a good point. If only we were discussing vaccinations from years ago it would be valid. My comments were directed at today’s treatment. Not whooping cough treatment before vaccinations. Still waiting on your response to what I wrote earlier. Whooping cough is not a problem because vaccination prevented it from propagating. If you decide to treat instead of vaccinate, you would then be allowing whatever new disease we're talking about to spread unnecessarily. (Or does non-western medicine have magic beans for that?)

Ok. I was going to guess that he was a nudist bellboy or something, but in the interest of keeping this thread alive, I consulted Google, and it turns out he's too short to reach the 12 button. (Yes, I know, I cheated.) Problem with that is how does he manage to ride all the way up if it's raining and there's no one else in the elevator? I assume he must have a stick or something he can push the button with, meaning that on sunny days when the elevator is empty but he's tired, he might not take the stairs. Loophole! Anyway.... another easy one:

1) "Western medicine doctor" - does this imply some sort of schism where two competing sets of ideas are at war? Cause I don't think that's how it is... And if alternative medicine actually worked, it wouldn't be "alternative" anymore; it'd be "medicine." 2) Inasmuch as this concerns herd immunity and the general welfare of the group, what you're talking about would not be a good idea because lowering the total immunity makes it easier for diseases to spread. So yes, some kids would get sick and some of them would be cured, but more kids would get sick overall, and kids do not have the strongest immune systems, meaning that more kids (not to mention the elderly and people who are immunocompromised - ie, people with AIDS) would die. 3) I would love to see if the data backs this up, but wouldn't you think that immunization is cheaper in the long run than treatment? I mean, especially if we take into account lost productivity, long term disability, decreases in quality of life, etc. etc. This isn't some argument for the pharmacology business, but it just seems like it'd be cheaper to prevent a disease than to try to keep it in check once it's loose.

How about jokes? My job is boring.

I'm sure you guys already know this one: The person who answers correctly should post the next riddle!

Wait, can you call Godwin's Law by proxy?

It sounds sort of like "B@stard Son," right? (Sorry for the self-censorship - I'm at work, and they keylog, and I have no idea what words they watch for. Why do people have jobs? Ugh...) Say it fast, with an Irish-inflected accent. Maybe it's the name of an IRA heavy metal band.

You are awesome. That is expert-level equivocation. Have you thought about going into politics? Also: should I change my username to Basterson? It has a certain ring to it...

What on earth? Where did you find that?

why, are you a scientist? Why, are you stalling?

Mmmm.... deep fried serfs...

This inequity is desirable compared to the government's gloved hand up our collective anus. Why? Other than the fact that if the government were in charge, conceivably there are fewer middlemen, less discrimination, operating and user costs go down, the total number of people go up (ie, coverage becomes equal on a citizen basis, not a financial basis), etc. etc. etc. I mean, if you want to argue that covering more people - especially those with serious, expensive, possibly terminal illnesses - would be significantly more expensive than refusing to cover those people the way the provider system does now, that's technically valid, but then we'd have to discuss, again, what the role of the government is in providing for all, and whether ethics dictate that all who need help receive it (if they can).

Kimmo, if I erred by referring to you as "he" (ie, you are a "she"), I apologize. Seriously, you should trot out some of these arguments against the (airquote) scientific method (unairquote). I am oh-so-curious.

Undoubtedly. But what would you say the purpose of government is? Should individuals be financially responsible for random illnesses that are unbelievably expensive to treat? Should the government spend all its money in wars and coups abroad? Should the soldiers who fight and are injured in those wars have to shoulder their medical costs? (After all, in a volunteer army, they chose to go to war.) And if the government stops wasting all its money on wars and instead spent it on health care, it's the same money - the same people are paying. Ultimately, someone is always paying. Even private insurance companies - their coverage comes from premiums collected from other customers. (Ie, you and I both pay for health care, I go have surgery, the insurance pays for my surgery out of both of our premiums, meaning you pay for my surgery.) This just seems like redistribution of how money is allocated.

*trying to make a joke, but speechless from the hilarity*

We do. Actually, I was being ironic. I don't think we're awesome. Ergo, we'd do an even WORSE job of it! Yes, now I totally see your point. America should not have socialized health care because we are so bad at governing ourselves already. I dunno about you guys, but I feel better now...

? I think people in countries with socialized health care are pretty happy about it. Not true. Great Britain's system is in utter turmoil right now. But we're Americans. We're awesome. I can't imagine you don't think we'd do a better job of it.