gregm

i gave you 5 stars chuck but it didn't make any difference. i believe a statistician such as yourself can see that it is kind of inevitable that everyone will end up with 3 stars. on the other hand chairman mao would be happy.

cool. he even has a climber bum goatie. the expression on his face even seems to say "heh, gnarley dude". re: disappearance of baby rocco- dave spent all that time trying to amuse us but if people just want to rag on him why shouldn't he take it down, eh?

bd cobras

winter makes visit climb snowy slopes and descend on wings of p-tex

bring it on!!!

hitler, he had but one ball goering had two, but they were very small himmler had something similar and dr goebballs had no balls at all

wahoo! go uli. uli is cool.

quote: Originally posted by j_b: we can all feel better now: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/offbeat.bush.not.moron.reut/ glad that's cleared up. this has to be the best "genuine" url in recent memory: ...bush.not.moron...

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "I'm still wanting to know if you think fuel efficiency standards should be federally mandated, since you seemed to agree with the principle of better fuel efficiency." I was working on it, cool your jets! I've never really decided how I feel about this one for certain. On the one hand, it might be useful, on the other it indicates a huge amount of coercive power used to meet a goal that could be more morally jusitifable when reached by consumers *proving* they value what they claim to value via their actual choices. I see lots of fuel efficient cars around today, and yet still someone is making non efficient ones very, very popular, indicating it's real easy to claim to care about economy, but a heck of a lot of someones aren't actually choosing it. I suppose some middle ground is acceptable to me, federal standards for efficiency that creep up a percentage point every few years to reduce impacts on manufacturing and design. Still, federal oversight is a hard sell with me and I'll be upfront about that. I'm glad you're so keen on getting evasions answered, I'll keep that in mind for the future. mtngoat- here in spray it is important to revel in your pagetop. a simple will suffice. thank you.

23370 today [ 11-20-2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: gregm ]

FOOLS! it will never work. enclosed bike tunnels with tailwind ventilation are the only solution. The Future of Mass Transportation

quote: Originally posted by Jens: I would have to agree with Dr.Ben Krazy. The route would include steep snow ice aid mixed skiing free rock And you'd get Brownie points for chopping a swimming hole in Lake Serene and taking a skiiny dip. i think hardman route status should include hellish approach factors; serious bushwacking, be it long or vertical. the pickets come to mind. has anyone mentioned nooksack tower yet?

quote: Originally posted by chucK: And speaking of descriptions of the Toothe and internet beta and Scott E. Rix, I noticed that his recent Toothe report (compare and contrast to Toothe report BTW as Dru has suggested) recommends a rack of a .5 and a #2 Camalots and a bunch of slings. What do you guys think about that!! philfort on the tooth:

(screwed up edit) [ 11-18-2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: gregm ]

if you are skiing a lot of backcountry and therefore deep powder brakes can be a bad idea. you can loose (i.e. not find again) a ski in deep pow. it has happened to two people i know. my $.02 p.s. at rainy pass yesterday. [ 11-18-2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: gregm ]

quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: quote:Originally posted by Son of Caveman: Ya want to talk about love loss, they 86'ed trask . Likely a database corruption issue. more corruption! first all those ceo's, now this. what's happened to america!

well, i think we've gotten into some fine philosphical back and forth and big word usage, but maybe we should keep the topic focused on what this thread has drifted into: should snowmobiles be allowed in parks? we've focused on the different types of users of parks, maybe the discussion should be of the land itself. what do we want a park to be, a wilderness or a playground?

barry blanchard (?) rings a bell.

mtngoat your basic argument appears to be that environmentalism equals hypocrisy. you support this claim by saying that anyone who rides a motor vehicle cannot honestly be an environmentalist. i would say that environmentalism is just another way of saying "don't shit on the carpet". to which you would reply, "do you not shit? you are a hypocrite". to which i would reply, "shitting should be done on a toilet". there are simply different uses for different areas, the john is used for shitting, the living room carpet for lolling about, and we want to keep it clean. most of our land is designated to be used by motor vehicles. small patches of land, national parks, are set aside to be preserved in a more natural state. i think it's that simple. am i wrong?

KLAGENFURT, Austria -- Restoration work on an Austrian church has uncovered a 700-year-old fresco that some say bears a striking resemblance to Mickey Mouse. personally, i think the church should sue disney for copywrite infringement.

quote: Originally posted by RobBob: But I'm disappointed in the dumb pro-business stances, like caving into the ski-doo lobby. did bush cave into a business lobby or did he cave into the rural demographic? the electoral college and u.s. senate give sparsely populated states like montana and wyoming a lot of voting power. the rural vote put bush in the white house in the first place why should he turn his back on it? snowmobiles and the like are big with billybobs, most environmentalists live in the suburbs.