Alpine_Tom

Sorry, I was a bit out of it last night. It was a 3rd Tool. Kinda like this

Accidentally left at Camp Shurmann. On the way out from our Liberty Ridge climb, my partner left it behind when we stopped to have a snack and repack our packs. It was bought new for this outing, and if it's found, he would be most appreciative.

I don't object to the employees of REI wanting to keep their jobs, any more than I object to the employees of Nordstrom having jobs. It's just that the store has no more to do with me than Nordstrom does. I'd always assumed that there was something special about a co-op, now I see that (according to the CEO of REI) it's simply a convenient way to finance the growth of this big, high-profit retail organization without the inconvenience of having to answer to owners. As Edward Abbee said, "growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell."

Cindy Lauper also had Time after Time on the charts, so she was at least a two-hit wonder. And The Bangles has several hits, including Manic Monday and Going Down to Liverpool (A Katrina and the Waves song, which they did much better)

I’m surprised that this hasn’t come up already, since REI comes in for “analysis” on this board just about as often as the Mounties. The new Seattle Weekly’s cover story is about REI, and how it’s lost it’s soul. According to the author, REI has turned into an amazing vehicle for the will of the board of directors, but with none of the tiresome overseeing that a publicly held corporation would have. They don’t have to (and don’t) reveal profits, future plans, or even their executives’ salaries. In short, they have a level of secrecy that the folks at Enron only dreamed about. Saddest of all is this quote from a company brochure explaining the new incentive plans: “Hourly employees have learned that not asking for the sales is really a lack of service, as they’re not helping the customer get totally outfitted so they can get the most from their outdoor adventure. Sales in the name of expert service.” (the point isn't to figure out what you really need, but what we can get you to buy.) It’s only one reporter’s story, but unfortunately, the whole thing has the absolute ring of truth. If you haven't read it because you've been out climbing or something, it's at: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0325/news-rei.php

iaXX, I just don't see the humor in somebody getting hurt. you some masochist or something? This from the guy who says he likes chucking beer cans at passing cyclists?

I never heard about that! Can you provide a link to a story or (OH PLEASE OH PLEASE) a picture, because I love seeing Bush making an ass of himself. http://urlgreyhot.com/drupal/node/view/848

Um, maybe it's a little late for this thread, but in general, "bikers" ride Harleys. "Cyclists" ride bicycles.

"Viesturs decided to relay details of the trip to The Seattle Times because he now feels safe on the mountain..." Sounds like they sat on the news until he said it was safely through the hike in. (Not that the Seattle Times isn't a complete rag, only that in this particular case they don't seem to have one anything inappropriate.)

Right. One of the most pervasive myths in the bicycle-vs-car dispute is that "bikes don't pay taxes." In fact, gas taxes pay for roads that, almost exclusively, bicycles aren't allowed on: freeways, highways, onramps, etc. The city streets and county roads are funded by local taxes that cyclists (even cyclists that don't own cars!) pay.

check your PMs

Not me. I always assume that the car WON'T make room for me, won't let me merge, will assume that I'll get out of his way. And, I stop for lights, stopsigns, and pedestrians. I figure that the cyclists I see barrelling through lights, grabbing cars for lifts, and threading between lanes of stopped cars are pissing the drivers off (and it sounds like I'm right) so I take advantage of the lights to be a positive example. That doesn't keep folks in cars from flipping me off, or throwing stuff out their windows at me, (though that happens a lot more often on rural roads than in the city.) And yeah, I wear a jersey. Having pockets in the back is convenient for keys, walkman, etc. Bicycle shorts are clingy to reduce wind resistance, and having had a bee fly up the leg of a pair of baggy shorts while on a ride, and sting the most tender skin on my body, I doubt I'll change from my shorts anytime soon. Sorry if you think they look tacky.

BULLSHIT, I SPENT 3 YEARS AS A MESENGER HERE W/O BEING SURIOUSLY HURT. IT'S NOT THAT BAD. It's funny that it's not at all unusual to hear on the traffice reports on the morning about a slowdown because of a fatality accident, but no one says "gosh, the freeway is too dangerous to get to work on" but something like this happens, and friends and coworkers all hear about it and say "how can you take such a risk, bicycling to work?" I've been bicycle commuting more or less constantly around King County for a good 15 years or so, and have never felt like it was inordinately dangerous. I felt more exposed on my motorcycle than I normally do on a bicycle.

Then I will say it for you. Fuck the Pigs. That is the biggest crock of shit I have heard in a long time. Giving a bike a ticket for not wearing their helmut on a fucking bike path is retarded. Well, bike hemets are required by law in King County (though not, currently, in Seattle.) Is there a reason that a helmet ought to be less necessary on the trail? Or is it just a "freedom-of-expression" thing? I haven't ridden on the BG trail in years, myself; it's always crowded with dog-walkers and inline skaters and macho guys riding next to their sweet li'l girlfriends. It's far easier and quicker to ride on Stone Way/Lake City Way.

The technical difficulty is not the issue. Climbing it car-to-car in one push is our goal. Coleman.demming is a reasonable one-day climb; I've done it twice. I've actually never been on the south side of the mountain, but the N. side is breathtaking, it feels totally alpine and hundreds of miles from civilization. I'd expect the snow would be in better condition for the descent - harder, anyhow - than on the south side. Plus, probably, lots fewer people.

you could save even more weight by just carrying titanium salt and pepper. Pre-mix the salt and pepper, then you only have to carry one shaker.

A friend of mine asked me how I'd go about researching information about this particular mountain: "This is the one in the Selkirks (I believe) and I haven't had much luck finding out anything. It may be more like a high ridge rather than a pointy peak. Where would one look to know if its a walkup deal or a rock climb? Are there trails? I sent emails to guides in the area but haven't heard back. I stopped at the National Park that is close but they didn't seem to be able to say much." bivouac.com has no useful information about it, aside from the coordinates (it's 5k from Fairy Meadow Hut!) I guess he's got interested in climbing it because his last name is Stickle, and it's named after a member of his family. Dru or anyone have any insight about this? Thanks in advance.

Try Second Ascent.

My understanding is that Ti is preferable for bicycle frames partly because it fails more gradually than aluminum -- aluminum snaps with no warning, with Ti and steel both deform gradually before failing. I'd guess the same thing would apply to biners. Seems like I remember reading about Messner using titanium crampons during his solo ascent of Everest way back when.

Depends whether he was helping her move in... or out.

Can't you just do it in cubits?

The ironic thing is that the snails that are busy chewing up the gardens in California aren't native, they were brought into the country by a french chef specifically for eating! And the small slugs that are busy in your gardens around here are also (accidental) imports. While I do think it's important for people to minimize their activities outdoors, it seems like the public is quite ready to tell climbers to keep off those rocks because you're hurting the moss (or the snails, or the birds), but when it's the Zebra Mussel, West Nile Virus, SARS, or gypsy moths, the response is, "oh, well, that's commerce. Nothing to be done about it."

It seems to me, you're just as dead if you die on the "non-technical" part of a solo route as on the technical part. Muggs Stump and Renatto Casotto both died, soloing, on non-technical ground; Messner fell into a crevasse on his solo of Everest just as he was starting out and, according to him, it was nearly fatal. None of these would have been a problem had they been roped. I've soloed stuff that maybe I shouldn't have, and if I'd twisted my ankle or a rock fell (or handhold failed) at the wrong time, I'd have been a goner. Juan and I are both older (over 40), and with age comes an understanding that death and disaster can in fact happen. If I were as good as Colin (which I'm not) I doubt I'd attempt a solo of Triple Couloirs or Greybeard, partly because I've got a wife and kids expecting me to come home. It was one of the Whittakers who said "there are old climbers and bold climbers, but there are no old, bold climbers."

gib ledges is not an option unless it is very cold. and even then beware of direct-sun loosened rocks (rockfall). Thanks very much. That about sums it up for the conditions, huh? Except, maybe, like, the actual conditions on the route. Like, say, snow? or ice? Whether it's seen much activity this spring?

What about Gib Ledges -- any idea how that looks?