Bosterson

The 911 Truth movement is like the Flat Earth Society for the 21st century.

Just so we're clear, I do not think there is any store in town that, if you bought someone a jacket as a gift, and they tried it on and it didn't fit, and the tags were still on it (since tags do not inhibit trying a jacket on), and they hadn't decided to wear the jacket to the grocery store and back just to make sure it was ok (since jackets do not fit better outside the house than in), that store would not be happy to accept a return of that jacket and give you your money back or credit or whatever. That jacket would go right back on the shelf for the next person, as it was still new merchandise. What we're talking about is buying a jacket and wearing it for a few months and deciding it doesn't fit, and then deciding that somehow the manufacturer must be at fault and returning that jacket and expecting to get your money back. Caveat emptor. Dude, in no world is Eddie Bauer/First Ascent "local." All the FA stuff is made in China, which I would assume is at least partly why it's so cheap. And if you want good deals, why not shop at OMC where pretty much everything is on sale? Also, w/r/t China, remember back in the day when Arc'teryx stuff was actually made in Canada, and people were willing to pay a premium for that? Well FA is sort of like the anti-that: high end cheapness, looks fancy but cost pennies to make. They're like the Mad Rock of the outerwear market. Also, for the record, I do not think REI "sucks." REI is REI. It's a big box outdoor store. It has good gear for some common outdoor pursuits - it's not Big 5 or GI Joe's or whatever the generic "outdoor" (read: hunting) store is these days. But REI is not a specialty climbing shop, and of course they don't carry super specific climbing gear (though it seems like an ice screw holder would imply ice screws...) or stuff from small companies that don't have the brand presence of TheNorthPataMarm'teryx. (Though employees in the climbing section who've never heard of Smith or Squamish? WTF?) We should be glad for this. It's why small climbing shops are still in business.

Actually, this one is tricky because I think from the perspective of liability they have to do this. Climbing softgoods aren't like other equipment in that you die if they fail. It's too bad they can't give that kind of thing under the table to their employees, but if the harness turned out to have been used and ended up failing, they'd probably still be liable... (It's the same problem with food companies being liable for sickness caused by unsold food they gave away for free. Our good samaritan laws haven't caught up yet with sensibility and conservation.) BTW, took me a sec to figure out what the hell a "dead bird" harness was. I like it.

I don't think anyone here is against warranties per se. Things break cause they're badly designed or cause there was a manufacturing error or whatever. I am totally in favor of companies warrantying their stuff within reason. (Though note that those kinds of problems really should go to the manufacturer, not to the retailer. Most good manufacturers already have reasonable warranties for their products, which makes retailer warranties like REI's redundant. If everyone who had a problem with their gear had to contact the manufacturer and send it back, the dishonest/exploitative returns would get weeded out pretty fast... Also note that no non-retail companies - ie, the manufacturers who sell their gear to REI to be resold - offer the kind of 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty we're talking about. I'm ready to stand corrected on this if anyone knows of one, but can you imagine a climbing shoe company saying something retarded like "We GUARANTEE that everyone will love this shoe, it will fit everyone's foot, everyone will be able to climb 5.14, etc., or your money back!"??) I think for the purposes of the discussion we've been having about return policies, what we're all talking about is the sketchy returns like people who return climbing shoes for new pairs when the rubber wears out (never saw that coming!), or this woman at Patagucci who returned a $200 cashmere sweater she'd been wearing because it made her "look old." Truest statement yet.

If Chevron started giving out free gasoline, that still wouldn't mean we'd be better off driving as much as we wanted. REI's return policy is not some sort of mistake that we're "taking advantage" of - it makes them money, and there are economic, environmental, and social repurcussions for that. One can have an opinion either way about whether or not it's a good thing, but we consumers are the ones who ultimately condone it or not. If it continues to exist, we are the ones who let it. Taking consideration of this is called being a responsible consumer.

@DavidW - amen. Also: most gear (esp. textiles) are made overseas where labor is cheaper. I used to work at a store (starts with a P- and ends with -atagonia) where there was a similar no-questions-asked return policy, and we did indeed have people trying to return fucking 10+ year old clothing (someone returned - I shit you not - some Chouinard clothing!). That kind of return policy is practicable because for them - a retail store, as opposed to wholesale, like REI - anything they're selling in the store is priced 4 times as much as it costs to make and put on the shelf. Even at REI, all those jackets and sleeping bags are sewn by Chinese people who get paid a pittance of our minimum wage. If gear were made in USA, the labor prices would be astronomical and 1) people would not be able to buy gear on their every whim (no Arc'teryx jackets for soccer moms), and 2) no company would actually be able to have a 100% satisfaction return policy. Gear would either be repaired when necessary, or -gasp- would be made properly the first time around. Dishonest returns would be denied. Another problem with 100% satisfaction return policies is that they're sort of a nuclear arms race between competing stores - how many people shop at REI (which, as we've established, has an ice climbing section with no ice screws) because they want to be able to return anything at any time, vs shopping at a small store that can't afford that kind of policy? The Cascade Climbers-type crowd (ie, real users) may not defect to REI, but all the casual users will, and then with the customer base gone, the small shops go out of business...

I'm going to be traveling through Washington for a few days next week en route to Missoula, the Tetons/Yellowstone, and eventually Chicago, and was wondering if anyone knew good free car camping spots (BLM land is fine) somewhat proximal to I-90 in the general Snoqualmie Pass or Cle Elum area.

I would give 3-4 days in Yosemite, Bishop, and J-Tree. Two of those are national parks, and if you're going to pay the $20 to get in, get the most for your money. Plus, why would you climb somewhere crappier when you could be in the best climbing spots in the state? Note that there's no water inside J-Tree (unless that's changed in the past few years) so fill up in a convenience store in town before you enter the park. If you're going up the coast and you feel like bouldering and you like sandstone, go to Castle Rock (about 45 min NE of Santa Cruz).

Wow, dude - that helmet cam bit of the lead was unreal. (Is this what the rock climbing video games of the future will look like?) Sweet vid and sweet route!

People are not malnourished in the United States because our "organic" food system is not able to produce enough food. They're malnourished because they don't eat any vegetables. They're malnourished because they eat at McDonalds. People in other countries are not malnourished because the Western world is forcing them to grow food organically when doing so does not produce enough yield. They're starving because their governments are corrupt, their economies are destroyed, or they're refugees. Who is "impos[ing] the same constraints on other people who aren't as well fed?" If we use tariffs and regulations to require farmers in other countries to use organic practices, we do so because we are buying their food - meaning their farming methods have no impact on their ability to feed themselves or those in their country, since they are growing food for foreign, not domestic, consumption. What exactly is your point with all this? You seem to just be making vague skeptical remarks and anwering questions with questions.

You mean after doing that painting, Goya kept running for president as a dark horse third party candidate?

It's so rare to see them captured on film...

(Though the hypothetical chipping discussion would go more like: "Chipping - you don't" and then 99.9% of people would say "Duh," while .1% of people would be smacked upside the head - point being that the issue already seems to be settled.)

That would be super awesome. I'm definitely in favor of a history/literature section where we can read some actual climbing writing from back before the mags were just lifestyle advertisements. With respect to bolting, it seems like the issue is mostly a non-issue to most people. Certain climbing communities have their own bolting sagas (where one person will bolt and someone else will go chop them), but the climbing community on the whole seems to be mostly in agreement that we should compromise - bolts happen, but you don't bolt a crack that can accept gear (with the exceptions being expanding flakes that will pop, etc.). Rebolting is cool to make unsafe/homemade bolts safe for future generations, but retrobolting is not cool - you don't add bolts to a person's line if those bolts were not originally there. The rest of it is a semantic ethics debate that seems mostly to happen behind the scenes. If someone doesn't want to clip bolts, then that person probably won't be a face climber, and if that person's not a face climber, then they really have no reason to go around mouthing off about bolts on face climbs! Really, aside from retrobolting and bolting cracks, this is such a non-issue. (We could have a similar discussion about chipping or something.) It's also funny, re: the Messner article, how we're still getting worked up over the same issues nearly forty years later. (Or make it fifty, what with Robbins vs. Harding in the Valley in the sixties.) Times never change?

[img:left]http://www.maxlifestyle.net/shopimages/rockclimbing/nutsandhexes/7-met0005l.gif[/img] [img:left]http://www.campmor.com/wcsstore/Campmor/static/images/climbing/30272.jpg[/img] (hexed!)

Shouldn't it be "I like bolts and I vote?" And if you like bolts so much, why don't you marry them?

I read his posts, and I understood what he was referring to. I agree with what he writes most of the time. I just didn't quite follow what you said - how the point of headlines was that corporate farming requires pesticides (non sequitur?), not to mention the fact that "efficiency" was not something mentioned in that BBC article, seeing as the study they're reporting on did not appear to study anything actually relevant to anyone. And seriously, if you're talking about "corporate" farming, you're not really talking about food that people eat - you're talking about grain fed to cows. (I guess the surplus is made into corn syrup, and people do inexplicably seem to eat that... and then they eat the cows...)

How on earth did you infer that from a worthless BBC article on nutrition?

The study neglected to mention that the existence of nutritional differences between organically grown and non-organically grown food is irrelevant because Americans don't actually eat the fruits and vegetables being studied. Maybe when they do a study of organic vs. non-organic Big Macs...

Bill, you should have recommended they rename SE 39th Ave, "Trask."

That was like walking into some alternate universe where you're all wearing fake mustaches.

I didn't know PETA had Playboy models on staff...

I'm sure that says something to all the amateur sociologists about the different personality types represented... We just can't help slowing down to oggle? Also, where the eff are all you "I just registered yesterday because I know Josh and have an outside perspective on your highly unimportant internet discussion" people coming from?