MervGriffin

Graupel: Your post above featuring the article, "A World of Hurt", is, like, so May 9th. Gronk and his pal say: "Things change fast. Variables different now. Come up with new story. That one belong back in Old Stone Age. We in Neolithic now."

I doubt it. I value his opinion about hotdogs and french fries more than his half-baked political propaganda. (Do you think he prefers the good stuff? [see below])

The message don't bother me, but there be enough stuff bolted to the rocks already.

The negative response to anything religious on this site is very predictable. Thanks, Tomtom, for having the strength to offer your site-link at a place where it is subject to immediate ridicule and mockery by various members of the climbing "community". Hang tough; it's a rough crowd out there! Shalom! P.S. For a lively sample of what you might get into, check out the "Baby Jesus" fiasco of last year: Climbers4Ridiculing Christianity

It seems to me that there wouldn't be much of a problem if you had stuck to the top-roping. Perhaps it would be better if the norm at short-crags such as this was: if you can't lead it clean, then top-rope it. This could apply to all kinds of defiled areas including such places as Vantage and Exit 38. Some nicely maintained top-rope anchors might be a small price to pay for long-term preservation of the crags.

Hey "Flash", you want to slander Thrivent? Here's their web-site. Share your Third Reich comment with them. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans While you're at it, maybe you should go after the Lutheran church establishment, perhaps starting with the organization who's denouncement of anti-Semitism was posted above. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Don't forget to mention you're a climber.

Josh K, say: Hey Josh. I'll see the movie when the crowds diminish although I resent contributing to Moore's income. (I actually agree with him on some things - a good bit of what was presented in Bowling For Columbine, for example - but I find him exceedingly obnoxious and I think his attempts at "journalism" are weak. His movies are more like propaganda films. Don't assume I'm a Bush supporter. Who I vote for is no one's business unless I choose to tell them. I'm certainly not a Kerry supporter at this time. Other than being "The Anti-Bush", I don't see that he has much to offer. There's always the Nader or write-in option. (and yes, I know all about the Nader vote = de facto Bush vote - that's how Clinton got elected the first time, via Ross Perot.) Alpine K, say: Dude. You know me from a handful of pube-clubs and postings on this board. Don't pretend that you really have a genuine perspective on my political belief system.

You're entitled to your opinion; my problem is with your incredibly vulgar responses to those with whom you disagree. Calling someone a fool or a moron is one thing, but this is utterly crass: e.g. "Merv, you are a fucking Motarded Douche. Eat a fetus, windbag." or even more offensive, "babyf*#ker". That's just unacceptable by almost any standard. Is that how you communicate in real life? I doubt it.

You're way out of line, pal. Learn some manners before the moderators deal with you.

Cute Baby says, "My, how articulate!" Interesting way of expressing yourself to those who apparently disagree with you. Feel good now?

I share the same sentiments expressed in the original post, with the exception of the "ass-kicking", which leaves the false impression that members of the military are by nature brutes. A stern verbal reprimand is more legal and civilized, and in my opinion, very appropriate in the situations listed. (Although I would have a very tough time with the flag-burning. I might have to intervene to retrieve the flag.) Have a nice day.

Nice opinion, sparky, and excellent abuse of the term "in fact", to qualify a subjective perspective, "really sh*tty". When are you running for President? And who would vote for you?

Dude. I ain't defending Martin Luther or his bad-boy talk. The man definitely had his faults, while at the same time left a profound, and often positive mark on history. He's only cited above as one who plays a part in the history of the bath-water expression. By the way, most of the branches of the Lutheran Church today have explicitedly condemned Luther's comments about Jews. e.g., here are some comments by the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church: "While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism." P.S. What combative Rabbi Toughguy?

Hey smart guy, read this: An excerpt from,Wolfgan Mieder, (1995), "(Don't) Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater: The Americanization of a German Proverb and Proverbial Expression." De Proverbio 1 When the proverb "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" or its parallel proverbial expression "To throw the baby out with the bath water" appear today in Anglo-American oral communication or in books, magazines, newspapers, advertisements or cartoons, hardly anybody would surmise that this common metaphorical phrase is actually of German origin and of relatively recent use in the English language. It had its first written occurrence in Thomas Murner's (1475-1537) versified satirical book Narrenbeschwörung (1512) which contains as its eighty-first short chapter entitled "Das kindt mit dem bad vß schitten" (To throw the baby out with the bath water) a treatise on fools who by trying to rid themselves of a bad thing succeed in destroying whatever good there was as well. In seventy-six rhymed lines the proverbial phrase is repeated three times as a folkloric leitmotif, and there is also the first illustration of the expression as a woodcut depicting quite literally a woman who is pouring her baby out with the bath water.1 Murner also cites the phrase repeatedly in later works and this rather frequent use might be an indication that the proverbial expression was already in oral currency towards the end of the fifteenth century in Germany. There is no doubt that the proverbial text gained rapid and universal acceptance in the satirical and polemic literature of the Age of the Reformation. Martin Luther (1483-1546) for example changed the proverbial expression in his scholarly lecture about Salomo from 1526 to a proverb by adding the formula "Man soll ..." (One should, One must, or Don't) to it: "Man sol [sic] das kind nicht mit dem bad ausgiessen" (Don't throw the baby out with the bath water).2 It is of interest to note here that Archer Taylor in an article on "The Proverbial Formula 'Man soll' ..." (1930) takes this particular expression to point out that "the formula was used to make nonce-proverbs out of proverbial phrases. In 'Man soll das Kind nicht mit dem Bade ausschütten', the starting point is the phrase 'das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten' and not the proverb. It may be possible to dispute whether the phrase or the proverb was first in any particular instance, but the general method of forming nonce-proverbs from phrases remains."3 While Taylor does not explicitly refer to Luther, he certainly is correct about his statement that the formula "Man soll ..." in general makes proverbs out of proverbial expressions. But even Luther preferred to use it on several occasions in its phraseological form, enabling him to employ the metaphor for polemic purposes rather than as didactic wisdom which the proverb would express." Had enough? Want more?

$2.7 million. That's maybe possible. Apart from the summit climbs, they also have seminars that cost over $1300, Denali trips that coast over $4,000, etc. They also sell and rent a lot of gear. But consider these interesting quotes from the WSJ article: "...Mr. Whittaker, a mountaineering legend who led the first successful ascent of Mount Everest's treacherous North Col route in 1984." Ask the Chinese and maybe even Mallory and Irvine about that. Big Lou wouldn't make such a claim. No sir! "Superintendent Dave Uberuaga says political pressure on the park to boost revenue has increased in recent years, along with lobbying by companies seeking to cash in on the Camp Muir routes developed by RMI." I guess "developed" must mean building a plywood dormitory shack and taking over one of the old stone huts at Muir, and leaving some ladders and pickets here and there. And developing a trench to the summit?

Gronk and his pals want Snopants to know, "The word "methinks" is so archaic, we don't even use it anymore!"

Now THESE twins will work hard for you! Hotcha!

Cute Baby says: "True dat!"

Cute Baby says: "My, how articulate!"

Proud of yourselves?

Last year at this time. "Miss Normandy" was all the talk of the town. Where "she" go? In the words of Mike LaFontaine, "Wha happened?"

What? The Olsen Twins own a cleaning service that will visit your home. An ad. for their services: Frankly, I found their work to be as sloppy as their personal grooming and mode of dress. Here they are with some paint brushes, which was a REALLY bad idea: A BIG tip from the pro's. DO NOT! I repeat DO NOT EVER LET THE OLSEN SISTERS PAINT YOUR HOUSE!!! Not on the inside or the outside. After they trashed my wood floors by attempting to dust with an iron yard-rake, they sought to soothe my outrage by leaving me these two items as gifts of apology. A horrible video which made no sense to me whatsoever: and this ugly doll which I would have flushed down the crapper if "The Twins" hadn't already destroyed the sewer lines by other apparently well-meaning but nonetheless destructive antics. Note that the doll comes with a cell-phone and a boom-box, both of which received serious use while "on the job". I suggested that they take up some other occupation where they could inflict less physical damage. Something goofy like acting; some sort of bridge between their profound lack of skill and their sincere desire to make a living. Good luck, girls.

"I believe humor is a form of expressing the truth, not necessarily truth itself, but rather points to it." Humor doesn't necessarily point to "the truth". Point in case: "Babysmashers". There is no "truth" there other than that SOME people find humor in child abuse as a reflection of a desensitized violent society or otherwise. On the other hand, there are many who find it utterly vulgar. "Listen to comedian Bill Hicks who tells of trailer trash having 'litters' of babies and tell me again if everyone believes in sanctity." I never claimed everybody believes in sanctity. That's part of the problem. One of the down-sides of a "free" society is that it often seduces the immature into pushing the limits of acceptability. A mature free society and democracy requires some degree of personal moral restraint or it will decay into a confused and conflicted puddle of mud. Plenty of evidence of that today. Little is sacred, values become relative and ambiguous, and there are few standards other than the lowest common denominator. You want to live that way? Go ahead. You have lots of reinforcement. shalom, Merv

Hey freak. Try this on for size:

Nobody questions that it is someone's attempt at humor. In a relatively free society, you can post this sort of stuff. However, civilized people don't find humor in child abuse/murder. One of the complaints foreigners often have with America, which many otherwise might respect, is its cultural propensity for, if not glorification of, violence, and the kind expressed in humor such as "Baby Smasher" is vile. It reminds me of the time I went to the movies to see a David Lynch Film, "Wild at Heart". Near the beginning of the film, some guy graphically gets his head bashed in. The audience was laughing. Same goes for the piece of crap film everyone thinks is so wonderful, "Pulp Fiction". The audience delighted in the extreme violence and I found them even more sickening than the film. I walked out, disturbed that our culture often seems to encourage people to find such things amusing. As movie critic Roger Ebert once wrote about "Wild at Heart", "The movie is lurid melodrama, soap opera, exploitation, put-on and self-satire. It deals in several scenes of particularly offensive violence, and tries to excuse them by juvenile humor: It's all a joke, you see, and so if the violence offends you, you didn't get the joke." I don't get the joke.