Bill_Simpkins

I've considered a chipmunk in a pine forrest...never thought of a porcupine...I'll think about it

I still want to be a duck.

Why an ant?

Still better than traffic.

Pretty simple life. Just paddle around in ponds, fly south for the winter, paddle around in ponds, fly north for the summer. Seams pretty laid back.

duck.

Ahhhhhhhh....The Lustful Libido....

no doubt. and people who perhaps didn't look so hot look much hotter when they treat you well. Or when you're drunk.

The "hardest" part of Ruth Mt. is the steep section close to the pass when its icy. The rest is a breeze. Sahale is easy. You can avoid the exposure by going directly up the face. There is an old but solid piton half way up in a crack for pro. A rap to the piton then to the snow(or close to it) can be done with a 40m rope(did it with 30m but had to scamble down a little on the 2nd rap). If I went back I'd leave the rope at the car. Tomyhoi has a nice easy scramble and a really short walk on a glacier. Great veiws.

People don't look so hot after they treat you like crap.

Many truck stops have showers. They run about 5-6 bucks and they supply towels, soap etc.. Just look for a lot of semi's parked outside. Remember this for road trips.

I think what sucks is that they accept them. If there is one group of people who don't need to be given stuff, its them. Why can't they auction it for donations or request that the gift-baggers do something more useful with their tax write-off givaways. Because they arn't rude and accept gifts. We can afford to go climbing and spray on a computer. Should we sell our gifts to benefit the less fortunate? We should not envy others. Celebrity folks aren't rude? And to prove it they accept obscenely expensive "gifts"? At a charity event? (maybe I misread the article). I don't magically "afford" to climb. I work. And at my company, no one can accept a gift valued over $400 from a client. I agree with not only the ethics behind that rule, but I believe that it saves on wasteful bs. To benefit the less fortunate, I am an active board member of a local nonprofit. I donate a couple of weekends each year to help fix homes that the elderly or infirm owner cannot do themselves. I donate money and clothes. For Xmas, I request donations to be made to charities I have a particular affinity for (in addition to asking for new climbing gear). I feel like this is a good start. And the thought of envying a "star" is laughable to me. Please. There are no more rude celebrities than rude people you meet anywhere else. If you're not envious of them, then why do you have issues about what they do with their own money? Just curious, not trying to put you on the defensive. Why do you make such generalizations about people you don't know personally? Every celebrity or person with power is picked apart and criticized. Either because of jealousy, misinformation or just lack of understanding. You see them getting these gifts, but you have no clue what they actually do with them. You just assume you know.

I think what sucks is that they accept them. If there is one group of people who don't need to be given stuff, its them. Why can't they auction it for donations or request that the gift-baggers do something more useful with their tax write-off givaways. Because they arn't rude and accept gifts. We can afford to go climbing and spray on a computer. Should we sell our gifts to benefit the less fortunate? We should not envy others.

I've bounce tested a #1 stopper on several occasions with no failure. I weigh 200 pounds. Must have been a bad nut or weird loading.

If you treat people nice all the time, you have nothing to worry about when you go on a date. Open doors for everybody whenever appropriate. Push in the chair for her, or your mother, or a work partner, it's just nice. Get the bill whenever possible, whether it be for a friend or your date. The rule here is to also let people be kind if they want to get the bill, whatever. Just stating the obvious.

I was set up with this girl in Bellevue. Her girlfriend set us up and thought we would be a good match ( I dont know why). She was a cheerleader for the Sonics or something. She was used to dating rich 7 foot tall basketball players. It was a double date and my friend was a total pig to the women. Me and her had nothing to talk about and I projected a relationship with her would involve going bankrupt. It was a very awkward day. Although we did have fun playing pool, we both knew it wasn't going to happen.

I've worked with MANY famous musicians in my previous line of work. I can tell you that most of the fluff comes from the people around them. People give them gifts to draw attention to themselves and leach off the artist's popularity. Many of the people you speak of are down to earth like you and me. The event producers and television producers fluff everything up also. You only see what they put up on the screen. That is a small fraction of what is going on.

I have an old guidebook that has some of the routes in it. Published in the 70's. Got it at a used book store.

I've used trees and bushes down to 2 inches. Sometimes in the mountains around here you can get stuck girth-hitching slide alder. I top rope soloed off two equalized 2 inch diameter trees at Squamish a week ago. A 10 inch tree, if it looks healthy would probably hold

I do something everyone here might kringe over: I put mine in the wash machine.

speaking of braces....

"Bring out your dead."

pm me if you ever have any question.

... which makes everyone happier.

So since any part of the universe could be considered "local" by it's inhabitants, none of the Universe is expanding? More like: The Laws of Physics are valid anywhere in the Universe, and the only "point" with "zero expansion" is a single point. The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases. So the "Space" between the Earth and the sun is in fact expanding. Or: You don't know shit. The universe does not have many inhabitants, or matter, or anything else but space. So, yes for the inhabitants, their local space is not expanding, but it is the distance between these local spaces that is increasing. To make your argument true, matter would also need to expand. Since the space just above earth would also be expanding, which would cause an increase in circumference just above earth, but the earth itself is not increasing (unless mater expands as well). Somewhere in there the expansion of space has to take into account matter, which what is considered 'local'. If I remember right, physicist consider 'local' to be the milky way galaxy, not just the solar system. I also know shit, he is a good friend of mine. Matter is, indeed, expanding. Or rather, the space between each teeny tiny particle is growing b/c each is moving away from the other. This is not true. If the amount of space was increasing between particles the wave lengths given off by particles changing quantum levels would be changing also. This has not been observed and doesn't fit any theory. It also conflicting because more and more energy would be needed to expand the distances fo each level when in fact, the universe is experinecing enthropy. Clusteres of matter are increasing distance from each other in space. We can observe this by using the doppler affect. Each cluster is generally a galaxy. Just think of an explosion and each galaxy is a chunk of debris. As far as every particle, thats just not true.