Denali Expedition 2008 - Looking for 10-12 member

lI1|1! · January 7, 2008

Bug · January 7, 2008

btw, what was the stated reason for the locking of the thread?

I didn't write it, but with 1000 post any modicum of serious debate had long since past. Folks needed a time out to reflect on what really mattered at that point which was post count.

Uh oh.

"any modicum of serious debate had long since past" this is now reason to lock a thread.

How many will remain ulocked if they have to pass this test?

0

Bug - you have chosen to invest a lot of emotional energy in this here BB where the "rules", such as they exist are determined by moderators. Moderators, being human, will have a political/religious paradigm that will make it impossible for them to be impartial. Feck is guilty of impartiality, just like anyone here would be in his place - myself included. You made your point a long time ago, Feck unlocked the thread. He has power here - accept it. The moderators here have a decidedly anti-christian slant, and what they permit/prohibit as offensive is a fucking joke. Christianity is fair game, Beckey is not. Get used to it. When I joked about not ever having met Fred Beckey on a thread after it became a name-dropping "I've climbed with Fred Beckey" circle-jerk, it got stripped from the thread almost instantaneously - but hey...those are the rules.

Thank you for your concern about my emotional state.

Bug is an avatar. He is not me. Especially not in the mountains.

While Bug says mean, rude, insensitive things here, it is really just a way to investigate some social trends.

The rules as you present them are not the way we have to accept them. We just rant a little here and there, push stupid people to their intellectual limits and bend things a little at a time.

Even the moderators HERE have changed over the years.

Poor Feck is just a lump with a keyboard.

His actions on this board just illustrate the state of affairs here and help us all to look at our own involvement. Hopefully, something about this thread has lead some people to ask, "Why am I doing this?"

Anyone who posts in spray has too much free time on their hands.

My work here is done.

Jesus loves you Feck.

KaskadskyjKozak · January 7, 2008

The Battle of Borodino, with the occupation of Moscow that followed it and the flight of the French without further conflicts, is one of the most instructive phenomena in history.

All historians agree that the external activity of states and nations in their conflicts with one another is expressed in wars, and that as a direct result of greater or less success in war the political strength of states and nations increases or decreases.

Strange as may be the historical account of how some king or emperor, having quarreled with another, collects an army, fights his enemy's army, gains a victory by killing three, five, or ten thousand men, and subjugates a kingdom and an entire nation of several millions, all the facts of history (as far as we know it) confirm the truth of the statement that the greater or lesser success of one army against another is the cause, or at least an essential indication, of an increase or decrease in the strength of the nation- even though it is unintelligible why the defeat of an army- a hundredth part of a nation- should oblige that whole nation to submit. An army gains a victory, and at once the rights of the conquering nation have increased to the detriment of the defeated. An army has suffered defeat, and at once a people loses its rights in proportion to the severity of the reverse, and if its army suffers a complete defeat the nation is quite subjugated.

So according to history it has been found from the most ancient times, and so it is to our own day. All Napoleon's wars serve to confirm this rule. In proportion to the defeat of the Austrian army Austria loses its rights, and the rights and the strength of France increase. The victories of the French at Jena and Auerstadt destroy the independent existence of Prussia.

But then, in 1812, the French gain a victory near Moscow. Moscow is taken and after that, with no further battles, it is not Russia that ceases to exist, but the French army of six hundred thousand, and then Napoleonic France itself. To strain the facts to fit the rules of history: to say that the field of battle at Borodino remained in the hands of the Russians, or that after Moscow there were other battles that destroyed Napoleon's army, is impossible.

After the French victory at Borodino there was no general engagement nor any that were at all serious, yet the French army ceased to exist. What does this mean? If it were an example taken from the history of China, we might say that it was not an historic phenomenon (which is the historians' usual expedient when anything does not fit their standards); if the matter concerned some brief conflict in which only a small number of troops took part, we might treat it as an exception; but this event occurred before our fathers' eyes, and for them it was a question of the life or death of their fatherland, and it happened in the greatest of all known wars.

The period of the campaign of 1812 from the battle of Borodino to the expulsion of the French proved that the winning of a battle does not produce a conquest and is not even an invariable indication of conquest; it proved that the force which decides the fate of peoples lies not in the conquerors, nor even in armies and battles, but in something else.

The French historians, describing the condition of the French army before it left Moscow, affirm that all was in order in the Grand Army, except the cavalry, the artillery, and the transport- there was no forage for the horses or the cattle. That was a misfortune no one could remedy, for the peasants of the district burned their hay rather than let the French have it.

The victory gained did not bring the usual results because the peasants Karp and Vlas (who after the French had evacuated Moscow drove in their carts to pillage the town, and in general personally failed to manifest any heroic feelings), and the whole innumerable multitude of such peasants, did not bring their hay to Moscow for the high price offered them, but burned it instead.

Let us imagine two men who have come out to fight a duel with rapiers according to all the rules of the art of fencing. The fencing has gone on for some time; suddenly one of the combatants, feeling himself wounded and understanding that the matter is no joke but concerns his life, throws down his rapier, and seizing the first cudgel that comes to hand begins to brandish it. Then let us imagine that the combatant who so sensibly employed the best and simplest means to attain his end was at the same time influenced by traditions of chivalry and, desiring to conceal the facts of the case, insisted that he had gained his victory with the rapier according to all the rules of art. One can imagine what confusion and obscurity would result from such an account of the duel.

The fencer who demanded a contest according to the rules of fencing was the French army; his opponent who threw away the rapier and snatched up the cudgel was the Russian people; those who try to explain the matter according to the rules of fencing are the historians who have described the event.

After the burning of Smolensk a war began which did not follow any previous traditions of war. The burning of towns and villages, the retreats after battles, the blow dealt at Borodino and the renewed retreat, the burning of Moscow, the capture of marauders, the seizure of transports, and the guerrilla war were all departures from the rules.

Napoleon felt this, and from the time he took up the correct fencing attitude in Moscow and instead of his opponent's rapier saw a cudgel raised above his head, he did not cease to complain to Kutuzov and to the Emperor Alexander that the war was being carried on contrary to all the rules- as if there were any rules for killing people. In spite of the complaints of the French as to the nonobservance of the rules, in spite of the fact that to some highly placed Russians it seemed rather disgraceful to fight with a cudgel and they wanted to assume a pose en quarte or en tierce according to all the rules, and to make an adroit thrust en prime, and so on- the cudgel of the people's war was lifted with all its menacing and majestic strength, and without consulting anyone's tastes or rules and regardless of anything else, it rose and fell with stupid simplicity, but consistently, and belabored the French till the whole invasion had perished.

And it is well for a people who do not- as the French did in 1813- salute according to all the rules of art, and, presenting the hilt of their rapier gracefully and politely, hand it to their magnanimous conqueror, but at the moment of trial, without asking what rules others have adopted in similar cases, simply and easily pick up the first cudgel that comes to hand and strike with it till the feeling of resentment and revenge in their soul yields to a feeling of contempt and compassion.

archenemy · January 7, 2008

Want to ride bikes?

ivan · January 7, 2008

The Battle of Borodino, with the occupation of Moscow that followed it and the flight of the French without further conflicts, is one of the most instructive phenomena in history.

All historians agree that the external activity of states and nations in their conflicts with one another is expressed in wars, and that as a direct result of greater or less success in war the political strength of states and nations increases or decreases.

Strange as may be the historical account of how some king or emperor, having quarreled with another, collects an army, fights his enemy's army, gains a victory by killing three, five, or ten thousand men, and subjugates a kingdom and an entire nation of several millions, all the facts of history (as far as we know it) confirm the truth of the statement that the greater or lesser success of one army against another is the cause, or at least an essential indication, of an increase or decrease in the strength of the nation- even though it is unintelligible why the defeat of an army- a hundredth part of a nation- should oblige that whole nation to submit. An army gains a victory, and at once the rights of the conquering nation have increased to the detriment of the defeated. An army has suffered defeat, and at once a people loses its rights in proportion to the severity of the reverse, and if its army suffers a complete defeat the nation is quite subjugated.

So according to history it has been found from the most ancient times, and so it is to our own day. All Napoleon's wars serve to confirm this rule. In proportion to the defeat of the Austrian army Austria loses its rights, and the rights and the strength of France increase. The victories of the French at Jena and Auerstadt destroy the independent existence of Prussia.

But then, in 1812, the French gain a victory near Moscow. Moscow is taken and after that, with no further battles, it is not Russia that ceases to exist, but the French army of six hundred thousand, and then Napoleonic France itself. To strain the facts to fit the rules of history: to say that the field of battle at Borodino remained in the hands of the Russians, or that after Moscow there were other battles that destroyed Napoleon's army, is impossible.

After the French victory at Borodino there was no general engagement nor any that were at all serious, yet the French army ceased to exist. What does this mean? If it were an example taken from the history of China, we might say that it was not an historic phenomenon (which is the historians' usual expedient when anything does not fit their standards); if the matter concerned some brief conflict in which only a small number of troops took part, we might treat it as an exception; but this event occurred before our fathers' eyes, and for them it was a question of the life or death of their fatherland, and it happened in the greatest of all known wars.

The period of the campaign of 1812 from the battle of Borodino to the expulsion of the French proved that the winning of a battle does not produce a conquest and is not even an invariable indication of conquest; it proved that the force which decides the fate of peoples lies not in the conquerors, nor even in armies and battles, but in something else.

The French historians, describing the condition of the French army before it left Moscow, affirm that all was in order in the Grand Army, except the cavalry, the artillery, and the transport- there was no forage for the horses or the cattle. That was a misfortune no one could remedy, for the peasants of the district burned their hay rather than let the French have it.

The victory gained did not bring the usual results because the peasants Karp and Vlas (who after the French had evacuated Moscow drove in their carts to pillage the town, and in general personally failed to manifest any heroic feelings), and the whole innumerable multitude of such peasants, did not bring their hay to Moscow for the high price offered them, but burned it instead.

Let us imagine two men who have come out to fight a duel with rapiers according to all the rules of the art of fencing. The fencing has gone on for some time; suddenly one of the combatants, feeling himself wounded and understanding that the matter is no joke but concerns his life, throws down his rapier, and seizing the first cudgel that comes to hand begins to brandish it. Then let us imagine that the combatant who so sensibly employed the best and simplest means to attain his end was at the same time influenced by traditions of chivalry and, desiring to conceal the facts of the case, insisted that he had gained his victory with the rapier according to all the rules of art. One can imagine what confusion and obscurity would result from such an account of the duel.

The fencer who demanded a contest according to the rules of fencing was the French army; his opponent who threw away the rapier and snatched up the cudgel was the Russian people; those who try to explain the matter according to the rules of fencing are the historians who have described the event.

After the burning of Smolensk a war began which did not follow any previous traditions of war. The burning of towns and villages, the retreats after battles, the blow dealt at Borodino and the renewed retreat, the burning of Moscow, the capture of marauders, the seizure of transports, and the guerrilla war were all departures from the rules.

Napoleon felt this, and from the time he took up the correct fencing attitude in Moscow and instead of his opponent's rapier saw a cudgel raised above his head, he did not cease to complain to Kutuzov and to the Emperor Alexander that the war was being carried on contrary to all the rules- as if there were any rules for killing people. In spite of the complaints of the French as to the nonobservance of the rules, in spite of the fact that to some highly placed Russians it seemed rather disgraceful to fight with a cudgel and they wanted to assume a pose en quarte or en tierce according to all the rules, and to make an adroit thrust en prime, and so on- the cudgel of the people's war was lifted with all its menacing and majestic strength, and without consulting anyone's tastes or rules and regardless of anything else, it rose and fell with stupid simplicity, but consistently, and belabored the French till the whole invasion had perished.

And it is well for a people who do not- as the French did in 1813- salute according to all the rules of art, and, presenting the hilt of their rapier gracefully and politely, hand it to their magnanimous conqueror, but at the moment of trial, without asking what rules others have adopted in similar cases, simply and easily pick up the first cudgel that comes to hand and strike with it till the feeling of resentment and revenge in their soul yields to a feeling of contempt and compassion.

great selection - these were the parts of vanya y mir that kept me reading!

Coldfinger · January 25, 2008

This whole post is the best argument I've seen for allowing handguns back into National Parks: climbers for Christ meet Christ, camp remains undisturbed, rangers get to talk codes=everyone is happy!

ericb · January 26, 2008

This whole post is the best argument I've seen for allowing handguns back into National Parks: climbers for Christ meet Christ, camp remains undisturbed, rangers get to talk codes=everyone is happy!

And you are a good example of what happens when parents are "forced" to keep unwanted children

Coldfinger · January 26, 2008

Hey, wrong again, my daddy left my mommy. And my mommy sent me to Wyoming to be raised by bears and horses.

So you could say it was all because I was so abandoned by my family that I have such a good attitude towards certain folks.

Besides, I suspect this is one of those trips where the "members" might be really what somebody might be looking forward to. :poke:

Bug · January 26, 2008

You are a very colorful guy.

But you missed all the excitement here.

Move along.

Or go out, beat up a gay guy and tie him to a barbwire fence somewhere in Wyoming. That's the kind of hate you are looking for isn't it?

Dechristo · January 26, 2008

Or go out, beat up a gay guy and tie him to a barbwire fence somewhere in Wyoming. That's the kind of hate you are looking for isn't it?

Actually, the fence referenced was a split-rail.

Bug · January 26, 2008

Wasn't there some barbed wire involved?

ericb · January 26, 2008

Wasn't there some barbed wire involved?

twist-ties work better on barbed wire

but that's besides the point because he's really just upset about Heath Ledger and the disruption of his gay cowboy fantasy, and thus looking for an outlet for his anger.

Edited January 26, 2008 by ericb

Dechristo · January 26, 2008

Wasn't there some barbed wire involved?

Not that I recall; the news photos the media showed locally were of a split-rail fence. They tied him to the fence and beat him, including pistol-whipping, then left him there. He was found dead the next day.

Bug · January 26, 2008

Ah. They all did time as I remember. I was surprised at the harshness of the decision that came down from a Wyoming jury.

KaskadskyjKozak · January 26, 2008

FECK LOCK THIS THREAD!

ivan · January 26, 2008

FECK LOCK THIS THREAD!

never! and feel free to cite some more tolstoy, but how about "how much land does a man need" this time instead? it's been awhile since i've read that and remember enjoying it thoroughly...

Coldfinger · January 27, 2008

Nice guys, just make sure to bring a little barb wire with you to Denali. Too bad about Matthew (and Mr. Ledger).

Maybe you should form an Evangelical wing of the Mounties--loincloths and gaiters???? (And then you don't bother the rest of us with your nonsense.)

ericb · January 27, 2008

Nice guys, just make sure to bring a little barb wire with you to Denali. Too bad about Matthew (and Mr. Ledger).

Maybe you should form an Evangelical wing of the Mounties--loincloths and gaiters???? (And then you don't bother the rest of us with your nonsense.)

And how would that bother the rest of you less?

KaskadskyjKozak · January 27, 2008

Nice guys, just make sure to bring a little barb wire with you to Denali. Too bad about Matthew (and Mr. Ledger).

Maybe you should form an Evangelical wing of the Mounties--loincloths and gaiters???? (And then you don't bother the rest of us with your nonsense.)

eat ass, you jizz gargler

Bug · January 27, 2008

Nice guys, just make sure to bring a little barb wire with you to Denali. Too bad about Matthew (and Mr. Ledger).

Maybe you should form an Evangelical wing of the Mounties--loincloths and gaiters???? (And then you don't bother the rest of us with your nonsense.)

Do you get that I am equating your hatred for Christians with the hatred those other Wyoming lads have for gay people?

No such thing as live and let live eh?

All you have to do is stop reading this thread but instead you chose to attack with violent suggestions.

Why have you made this choice?

AlpineK · January 27, 2008

FECK LOCK THIS THREAD!

Not just yet. Lets get another 20 page of religious bullshit then I'll think about it.

Hugh Conway · January 27, 2008

FECK LOCK THIS THREAD!

Not just yet. Lets get another 20 page of religious bullshit then I'll think about it.

I heard MaryLou worships the lingam of KK and Fairweather (its a shared lingam)

Bug · January 27, 2008

FECK LOCK THIS THREAD!

Not just yet. Lets get another 20 page of religious bullshit then I'll think about it.

Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science

ScienceScience Science Science Science Science Science Science Science

Science