do monkeys pay for sex?

[olyclimber]

dTzM2aHEC7k

[pink]

i really need to by some stock in robotics. a robotic climbing partner would be rad, it could do all the rated X pitches.

[Ron Mexico]

You actually should be more concerned with getting robot insurance. Because robots are strong and made of metal, and when they grab you, you can't get away.

[pink]

i just need a little assurance.

[olyclimber]

SmZt4yEPvq0

[pink]

who is that ,gwarbot ?

Edited January 10, 2008 by pink

[olyclimber]

qqdluIN2Wjo

[olyclimber]

WbFFs4DHWys

[pink]

that would be a lot cooler if that robot started taking everybody out.

[pink]

WbFFs4DHWys

 

i think i just found my new crag hag.

[olyclimber]

careful, you'll go over

[olyclimber]

VXa9tXcMhXQ

[tvashtarkatena]

We're all left wondering, you know, just how fully functional....

[Dechristo]

you boring fucks took a thread with an excellent title and turned it into a robot geekfest

 

SHAME

[olyclimber]

A5A47vzdR9M

[olyclimber]

RkgmU8nvl4w

[tvashtarkatena]

We stripped it of its identity and programmed in a new one.

[Gary_Yngve]

i really need to by some stock in robotics. a robotic climbing partner would be rad, it could do all the rated X pitches.

 

Wouldn't a robotic sex partner be rad, it could do all the rated X scenes?

[Dechristo]

i really need to by some stock in robotics. a robotic climbing partner would be rad, it could do all the rated X pitches.

 

Wouldn't a robotic sex partner be rad, it could do all the rated X scenes?

 

...and another robot-geek-engineer is born

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't be rocsist.

Edited January 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

I love robots. That is, the ones that are more like me.

[sexual_chocolate]

just another angle....

 

so you aren't what you do, you aren't what you write, you are just .... you.

 

how very bonghit bullshit metaphysical.

 

and you are....anger? what happens when you aren't angry anymore? are you still anger?

 

what happens when you aren't writing? how can you be a writer, or a doctor, or anything when you aren't doing that thing? why carry around some concept when the concept doesn't even apply to the current reality? THIS sounds a bit more metaphysical than does the actuality of living in the moment, as things are.

 

the difference is that it is our cultural predilection to label everything, and then associate the label with reality.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

To me in converstations like this I understand identity to simply mean who a person is.

And to me, who a person is includes what they do (in general of course). So if you write code for work, you are a programmer. If you climb once in a while, you are a climber. If you play ping pong on a regular basis, you are lame. That sort of thing.

 

i'm lame, i admit it!

 

yeah i agree that on a relative level, the things we are interested in, the things we do, are sources of connection etc, and on a certain level says to others something about us, but i don't think these are the things we "are". i tend to think these are the things we "do". i guess i tend to think that there is something more or other to us than simply our actions. there's an a priori potential, energy, creative life force, that then expresses itself in the various capacities particular to the proclivities of the individual (oh good lord this sounds wordy).

so before particularization if you will, there is simply the energy of unexpressed consciousness and awareness. it's beyond and before any "activity" or expression of interest or drive or etc.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

To me in converstations like this I understand identity to simply mean who a person is.

And to me, who a person is includes what they do (in general of course). So if you write code for work, you are a programmer. If you climb once in a while, you are a climber. If you play ping pong on a regular basis, you are lame. That sort of thing.

 

i'm lame, i admit it!

 

yeah i agree that on a relative level, the things we are interested in, the things we do, are sources of connection etc, and on a certain level says to others something about us, but i don't think these are the things we "are". i tend to think these are the things we "do". i guess i tend to think that there is something more or other to us than simply our actions. there's an a priori potential, energy, creative life force, that then expresses itself in the various capacities particular to the proclivities of the individual (oh good lord this sounds wordy).

so before particularization if you will, there is simply the energy of unexpressed consciousness and awareness. it's beyond and before any "activity" or expression of interest or drive or etc.

 

yes.

[Dechristo]

To me in converstations like this I understand identity to simply mean who a person is.

And to me, who a person is includes what they do (in general of course). So if you write code for work, you are a programmer. If you climb once in a while, you are a climber. If you play ping pong on a regular basis, you are lame. That sort of thing.

 

i'm lame, i admit it!

 

yeah i agree that on a relative level, the things we are interested in, the things we do, are sources of connection etc, and on a certain level says to others something about us, but i don't think these are the things we "are". i tend to think these are the things we "do". i guess i tend to think that there is something more or other to us than simply our actions. there's an a priori potential, energy, creative life force, that then expresses itself in the various capacities particular to the proclivities of the individual (oh good lord this sounds wordy).

so before particularization if you will, there is simply the energy of unexpressed consciousness and awareness. it's beyond and before any "activity" or expression of interest or drive or etc.

 

The quick answer is that she simply sucks at Ping Pong. Otherwise, she'd know the goodness of the lameness.