Bug

Yeah but when you are old and demented like me you will look back at it as one of your favorites. In cases like these, "ignorance is bliss" means you were stupid enough to turn a mellow climb into a grand adventure and just "bad" enough to do it without injury. With epics, life would get boring.

Yeah. I used the orange bombers. Same regrets.

In high school, a friend and I used to get really stoned and go free solo stuff. One time we were on parallel cracks about ten feet apart. We got about forty feet above the talus when my crack ended. I traversed over to his crack which took a long time on very delicate face holds. When I was directly under him, he dislodged a large rock and yelled ROCK!. I reversed my moves in a split second as the rock went right by me. It would have peeled me off and damaged me before I hit the ground. Later that year, we were climbing a peak on some fairly mild halucena genics. I took a direct route up a face into the fog and climbed for about 30 minutes in mountain boots before topping out. When I went back a few years later and climbed it in climbing shoes, it was about 5.9 and I placed a lot of pro. The next spring, we were diving at about fifty feet in Fathead lake with some fairly serious halucino genics starting to kick in. We were cruising along a steep cliff underwater and I cut loose a big rock off a ledge. It bounced out of sight making very loud sounds that must have been heard by every maneating fish we could dream up.But none of them ever got us. When I started using ropes, we were in Ophir cave, rapping into the bottom cavern, free hanging for about forty feet. I had tied an atrie' in a 9mm perlon and put the first loop at the lip. When I climbed back up to it, the rope stretch had put the last loop about eight feet below the cieling.. I spent about two hours standing in the top loop tying a loop in the rap rope, then standing in that loop and tying a loop in the 9mm.When I finally topped out, my grip muscles cramped up and I couldn't help my friends for about fifteen minutes. Then I went to Yosimite. Never mind the muscle bound gay rapist I narrowly escaped on the way there. I was riding in a van with some guys from Modesto. They had some really good weed and I was totally ripped when we got into the valley. I found a bushy little spot and bivied. When I woke up, I was in a ranger's back yard. After a few weeks of climbing, I was doing a variation of the Royal columns that goes up a nice crack to a fixed hex. The crack keeps getting wider until it is rattly fists at the hex. I put my last piece in about half way up and decided to go for it the rest of the way. When I got to the hex, I peeled and fell 60 feet onto a ledge. I landed right beside my belayer and bounced off. I reached up and grabbed the rope and yanked and stopped myself with about a four foot loop of slack. I was pretty much unhurt except for a couple bad scrapes and a gashed knee, and blisters on my fingers where I had grabbed the rope. All of this took place about 800 ft off the deck. A few weeks later, a girl friend and I were up in little Yose valley when a bear wanted to rumage through our packs. I got between him and the packs and yelled at him. He left. Nice bear. Then I went to Alaska. They use really big pots to catch crabs up there. I learned that , even though those pots are big, they can bounce around on a boat deck like dice on a table. We were all lunging and jumping to get out of the way. It landed about a foot away from my feet after my second lunging jump. It didn't help that the deck was awash from the twenty foot swells and we were crossing them diagonally to retrieve our set. Then a drunk tried to knife me for knowing where the grooves were on the pool table in the Salty Dog. That was before I turned 20 and got really serious about climbing.

Eat an elk sausage and report back.

You scare me.

Be careful out there boys. Girl farts have been the worst I've smelled so far. I think it has something to do with all that dieting.

If we put a whopping big lie out here like this and hold the truth in here close.........................

More poo-poo on W's platter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1141401,00.html

Post deleted by mattp

I'm gonna buy another SUV.

Just a few suggestions here. I do not mean to speak for Scott who is doing well on his own. First, a very clear treatment of the question of law vs good works is in Romans chapters 1-12. Second, Dietrick Bonhoffer (sp?) was a catholic priest in Germany during WWII. He took part in and may have master-minded a nearly successful assassination attempt on Hitler. He justified his action based on his Chiristian faith using his theory of the 'five mandates' and the 'ultima ratio'. The five mandates are Family, Church, State, Friends, and Marriage. In normal times, all of the mandates overlap a little bit and to varying degrees. But when one of the mandates steps way over the line and overwhelms one or all of the other mandates, the 'Ultima Ratio" must be enacted to bring the mandates back into balance. The Ultima Ratio is not to be taken lightly but smaller less intrusive actions are needed from time to time to help keep the mandates separate and healthy. These smaller actions must be according to one's own concscience which should be excercised only after much reflection and prayer. Sometimes, this would include consultation with a leader of some type (church or state or family) but often, these are small acts that would be inappropriate to bring other people in on. So you are left to figure it out by yourself according to your own abilities and relationship with God. Another aspect of this is that to love someone does not always leave that person in their comfort zone. Sometimes, the right thing to do is not easy, fun, or painless and we need someone who is willing to risk our friendship to help us do what is best for us. To say that "The Bible says X. Therefor you must always do Y" is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings. He spoke out for the actions of the heart vs actions according to any set code.

How many condoms are you willing to wear at once?

It is rumored that population control was on the agenda for Kyoto but was removed under pressure by those who accept guidance from the Pope. This was certainly the case for the global conference in Rio.

Well I guess I won't be sharing any bivies with you. You SAVAGE!!!!

OK Doc. While I do not stay up nights wondering about it, I have no doubt that it was a vising craft. In fact, from my perspective, I have more proof that it exists than that you exist. Quick. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. No wait. You need a witness to phone it in. It may not have had living things on it but it was not from earth. After hovering over Missoula for awhile, it turned up and south and flashed into space like a streak of light. Pretty cool. I want a ride around Mars but at sub-light please. I suspect that would be like helicoptering over the Amazon and offering a native a ride. Hi. I'm from earth. Is this a space ship?

The question of wether or not "aliens" exist is, for me, similar to the question of wether or not God exists. If you have had a direct experience or were influenced by a parent at an early age, you will probably believe. If not, not. So before anyone decides for themselves, they should take a quick look at where their family leaned and then decide if they are going to follow that path blindly or be willing to branch out. Just an opinion.

So why hasn't anyone offered the obvious possibility of us being planted here by beings from another planet? I saw a UFO once. Totally serious. My whole neighborhood was out on the street watching it for twenty minutes or so. It was about 1963 in Missoula. There was no doubt in anyone's minds about what we had just seen. It went away and never came back as far as we know. I would have a very hard time beleiving this if I had not been there. So, if there are intelligent life forms travelling the gallexy, how does that effect our cosmology? Our science?

The hard sell is a poor living. But you are assuming a fundamentalist interpretation of that parable. Taken in context, "turn the other cheek" is more likely to mean "do the unexpected and make them think." Lucky for you, the hard sell is typical of fundamentalists.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear? Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,....................... No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM Thanks Bug. I would never presume to lay into the theory of Evolution as I know it takes years and years of studying to understand. Likewise, I would suggest you at least read the 'theories' you are trying to refute...Generally a good idea. What theories am I refuting? I personally think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species. I suspect humans evolved from some other species. So far there is no absolute proof. Regardless, the question and answer have no bearing on the pertinance of religion nor on the existence of God unless you are holding fast to a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Oh, I guess I did say that there are numerous Biblical passages that warn against a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Bible. Is that what you are referring to? If so, start with Romans chapters 1-12. Again, I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else on the board. These are my beliefs after having studied physical anthropology, social scientific anthropology and religious studies. I also had a few classes in geology and a few in astronomy and physics. The only people I find myself disagreeing with are the people who say science and religion do not mix. Mythologies have always been based on emperical evidence. Before "science" a society's knowledge was stored in it's mythology. It was the source of hunting knowledge, plant knowledge, spiritual knowledge etc... Science is just a secular manifestation of the same desire to know why things work the way they do. The methodolgy is not all that different from the way mythologies were created and changed over time. What really changed our perspective on science vs religion was literacy. With literacy, everything is frozen unless the interpretation is left open. That was the value of parables. They read the interpreter. If it is atheism that you choose to follow, at least read the person most people hold to be the most brilliant atheist ever. Nietze. Using science to refute religion or using religion to refute science will only illustrate your lack of knowledge of one or both. Sorry if that pisses you off. It isn't an original idea.

I thought that was your other avatar.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear? Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,....................... No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM

Sheesh. You guys are all screwed up. If you are going to be atheists, at least read Nietze's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. That way you won't sound so lost. There is no scientific explaination for the existence of God or the non-Existence of God. Same is true of the beginning of our world. What is infinity? Where did God come from? Neither one can be explained except through convoluted philosophic girations. And if you are going to insult christians, know which ones you are insulting. Getting to heaven through good works is Mormon. And God used to be a man like us and so we can become a God like him - also Mormon. We will get to heaven through grace and we can acknowledge our love for our saviour through the intercession of priests and the pope - obviously catholic. The strong arm of social injustice was as prevelant as humans are imperfect. It doesn't matter wether religion ever existed or not. Man would still fight and kill over percieved differences. We are saved by grace alone and can bring others to the truth by establishing a relationship with Christ and allowing ourselves to be used as instruments of His good works. Protestant We don't know where we came from or how we got here but based on our faith in science we are going to refute all faith in religious doctrine. Scientific atheist ala CC.COM. Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind. Seriously though, if you want a good read about why we should be atheists, read Nietze' 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. No one says it better.

Last time I checked, you were right. This country was not founded to uphold the practice of religions and I did not say that it was. This country was founded by christians who had a very christian stance on questions of world view. This made for a very different society than had our founders been Hindu or Buddist. Having gone down that road for 200 years, you and all natural US citizens, will be hard pressed to remove all christian dogma from your world view. It is where our world view comes from. This does not mean that we should doggedly stick to a fundamentalist view of things. On the contrary, the Bible says a lot of things that completely contradict most fundamentalist views. I sum it up by asking,"Who would Jesus bomb?"

The amount of wasted energy expended on the debate over evolution vs creationism is rarely if ever exceeded.

Some things in the article Should This Marriage Be Saved? By LAURA KIPNIS are not clearly addressed. Has marriage ever been a "happy" or "blissful" state of affairs? Hardly by my studies of ancient history through the current time. The institution is not there "just to make us happy". It is supposed to be "For better or for worse, through sickness and through health until death do us part". These are VERY tough words. My marraige was hell for a few years here and there. Both of us had to do a lot of changing and both of us thought about divorce now and then. Hopefully, not that many go through our trials but all will be tried hard at some point and only a respect for the institution will hold them together. Or not. Of the happy married couples I know, none would say their first year was easy nor a few here and there after that. All of them, myself included, had a very hard time around the seven year mark. those who make it to fifteen and beyond seem to have a little more communication going on. If not they bust up at around 18 years. After that, the fights still come but the resolutions are easier to come by. I asked a friend at his 50th wedding anniversary what the secret to keeping his marriage alive was. He just laughed and said, If you ever hear a good secret about that, pass it on. It just plain takes a lot of work and a lot of forgiveness on both sides. As far as I can tell, it has been this way for thousands of years.