Guy Waterman's death (full text)
xsky...@my-deja.com
By David Arnold, Globe Staff, Globe Correspondent, 2/18/2000
AST CORINTH, Vt. - At 8:30 a.m. on Feb. 6, Guy Waterman said goodbye to
his wife of 30 years, drove his Subaru Impreza 50 miles east to the
base of Mount Lafayette, climbed to the summit, then sat down and
intentionally froze to death.
Waterman wrote four books that focused on the White Mountains, and had
climbed all 48 of New Hampshire's 4,000-foot peaks - in the winter, off
trail, and from all four sides. So the precision with which the 67-year-
old directed friends to retrieve his body came easily. A meticulous
planner who had been a speechwriter for three future presidents,
Waterman had timed the mailing of his detailed suicide letter so that
his friends would receive it only after his death.
His meticulousness did not end there. His memorial service yesterday,
for which more than 200 people crowded into the cozy East Corinth
Congregational Church, was testament to planning ahead.
Recordings of Waterman performing ''Meet Me Tonight in Dreamland'' and
other tunes on the piano played from a cassette player on the altar.
Friends read a selection of his favorite poems, including ''Song on May
Morning,'' by John Milton.
As friends and family did their best to go along with his instructions
yesterday, they strained to figure out why he did it.
''He had a great capacity to suffer,'' friend Tek Tomlinson said after
the service. Although Waterman had never gotten over the deaths of two
of his sons in the 1970s, Tomlinson said, he had been happier
recently. ''He decided to stop when life was at its best, and he could
not see himself getting old.''
That interpretation was echoed by Waterman's second wife, Laura, who
also was his partner in four books and in a thousand climbs. ''Guy was
never one to hang onto things he believed he was finished with,'' she
said. ''He believed in getting out when things were going well.''
Laura, 60, said she does not pretend to understand the depth of inner
pain that pushed him to death, but added that for more than a year, she
knew it was coming.
''I can't agree with him, but I can respect and love him as an
individual,'' she said. ''He wanted out. And he chose the way he felt
was appropriate for himself.''
Friends said Waterman's story is one of someone who never believed he
had accomplished enough, a man who always wondered if he could have
done more to prevent the loss of two sons, a man who - despite a
twinkling eye and boisterous laugh - had a deep fear of aging. He hid
his gloomy side well.
Asking for emotional help would have been as foreign to the inveterate
climber as asking someone to carry his backpack.
But friends say his story also celebrates the unbreakable bond between
a man and the mountains, and the love he had for his wife and the
friends who inherited the sad, final honor one week ago of retrieving
his snow-dusted body.
''His tradition was to leave no mark of passage on a trail,'' Art Kirn,
a friend, told mourners at the funeral. So it could be said of Mount
Lafayette, where Waterman left only footprints.
He was born to privilege, the son of the late Alan Waterman, founder of
the National Science Foundation and the proud holder of a Maine
backwoods guide certificate. On vacations from private schools, the
father and son frequently visited the New England wilderness to canoe
and hike.
Shortly before entering George Washington University, Guy made a very
big mistake, according to Mike Young, a longtime hiking friend. Against
his father's wishes, Waterman fell in love, eloped, and became a
father - of three sons by the time he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from
college. He divorced his first wife in 1965.
The death of one son and the disappearance of a second are in Jon
Krakauer's book, ''Into The Wild.'' Citing an unnamed source, Krakauer
says the boys were estranged from their father. Laura says this was
untrue. But Krakauer did have the bizarre circumstances of their tales
correct, she said.
Son William posted an enigmatic letter to his father in 1973 saying he
was going on an extended trip, and has never been heard from since and
is presumed dead. Johnny, suffering from mental illness, died in 1978
while trying to climb Mount McKinley in Alaska with absurdly minimal
provisions.
''Guy never really recovered, although he seldom talked about those
deaths,'' Young said.
By night, Waterman played jazz in Washington nightclubs. By day, he
pursued a career as a speechwriter for Dwight Eisenhower, Richard
Nixon, and Gerald Ford during their presidential campaigns. In the late
1960s, he moved to Manhattan to become a vice president of General
Electric.
''`Clearly a fish out of water' is how he described himself there,''
Young recalled. ''Everyone else was eating power lunches. Guy was
eating peanut butter sandwiches and dreaming of a self-sustaining life
in upcountry New Engand.''
Guy and Laura, both climbing instructors, met during an Appalachian
Mountain Club event in 1969. In 1970, they married, and by 1973 had
purchased 27 acres in eastern Vermont. They worked hard to live simply.
Their cabin has no electricity, telephone, or plumbing. For years, they
tended a large garden while maple-sugaring and keeping lists of just
about everything, including the best-producing sap trees, the number of
books they had read aloud to each other after dinner [203 as of 1995],
and the number of pints of Ben and Jerry's ice cream consumed in a year
[156 in 1999].
Waterman also kept up with music on a piano friends had carried piece
by piece from the road.
''It was an incredible place to visit,'' said his sister, Anne Cooley
of Bethesda, Md. ''I would be walking the mile toward the house in the
moonlight, sleeping bag in hand, and know I was getting close when I
could hear Jelly Roll Morton piano tunes slicing through the woods.''
If Waterman's first material love was the homestead, a close second was
the White Mountain National Forest, which draws an estimated 6.5
million visitors annually.
Friends who often hiked with Waterman spoke of an occasionally
introspective man, ''a gloomy dark side we only sometimes saw,'' said
John Dunn, a Vermont physician. ''But to pry would have been an
invasion of his privacy.''
On July 3, 1998, Waterman shocked his wife when he told her he had
thought seriously about suicide during the hike he had just taken. She
realized then that he would follow through.
On the Sunday morning of Feb. 6, temperatures across northern New
England were below zero, the winds fiercely out of the northwest, the
skies cloudless. For a man who had chosen to die of exposure with a
favorite view from a 5,260-foot peak, the conditions were perfect.
By midweek, Laura started making calls to a few close mountaineering
friends, some of whom were just discovering letters in their mail slots
from Waterman explaining his love for them, his hope that they would
accept his actions, and where they would find his body. A group of five
climbers quietly organized themselves and got permission from state
authorites to conduct a private retrieval. Around 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 11,
they started their quiet, slow climb up Lafayette.
Waterman lay where he said he would be, just below the summit on the
Old Bridle Path Trail. A favorite, it was a trail he and Laura had
helped maintain for the past 15 years. Johnny Waterman's climbing
boots, brought home from Alaska, are buried there.
Guy Waterman, never one for fancy wear, was found in old gloves, woolen
pants and pullovers, and a simple windbreaker. By design, he had not
intended to survive long, but he had intended to say goodbye. He lay on
his side, looking northwest,perhaps 3,500 miles over the horizon toward
Mount McKinley.
Globe correspondent Erica Houskeeper contributed to this report.
This story ran on page B01 of the Boston Globe on 2/18/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael E. Gordon
> his wife of 30 years, drove his Subaru Impreza 50 miles east to the
> base of Mount Lafayette, climbed to the summit, then sat down and
> intentionally froze to death.
Do you suppose he had paid the Demo Fee?
CrANkeR
feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
CrANkeR
Jay Kerr
kyrifN...@usa.net.invalid says...
> In case anybody didn't realize, this is the Guy Waterman written
> about by Jonathan Waterman (no relation) in several of his books.
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>
My Partner and I were the last people to see John Waterman (Guy's son) as
he skied up a fork of the Ruth Glacier towars Denali's East Buttress. We
had met him eariler in the day near Sheldon's Mountain House. He was
alone, pulling a sled load of gear, and had very minimal equipment. We
watched him approach our camp, horrified to see him cross several tenuous
snow bridges over huge crevasses, seemingly without a care.
Later that day, he told us that he had just covered the distance from
Anchorage to the Ruth on foot. And not just once, but twice. His stove
had failed on the first attempt, and he had returned to the city to
repair it. He also told us that when he travelled on the glacier, he
sought out those tenuous bridges, and that each successful crossing just
added to his enjoyment of the mountain.
John left camp ahead of us, eager to push on toward the East Buttress. We
followed his track towards the opening of the West Fork of the Ruth,
twice choosing a safer route than John had taken. We soon left his trail
as we continued up the West Fork towards our camp below Mt. Huntington.
We kept looking North, trying to catch site of John. We had looked down
on that fork of the Glacier from Mt. Dan Beard a few seasons earlier, and
knew it to be a maze of large crevasses. Finally, we saw John for the
last time, a dark speck against the snow. No sign of him was ever found.
I was saddened to read the account of Guy's death, the final chapter in a
tragic story. I have never met Guy, but know of him from mutual friends.
His son I met but briefly, there in the mountains. He was a wild figure,
likeable, but hard to know. He seemed to us a mystic, on some strange
pilgrimage know only to himself. As a climber who has left a friend
behind in the high places, I can understand Guy's choice of ending. I
know that the time I spend on a high summit, looking out over heaven and
earth, I feel closer to that friend than is possible in any other place.
Jay Kerr
Portland, Or
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Anna V
>>
>> I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or anything but does any body
>> else feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
>
have respect for the strength of the man for making such a hard decision. We
spend so much time and effort in our lives denying the fact that we will all
die sometime that we lose perspective to the fact that in some cases, death
is preferable to the alternative. I would like to be able to choose the time
and place of my own, and why not? It would be better than suffering a
painful drawn-out ending at the hands of a well-meaning, but mistaken
establishment. Perhaps dying in good health and good circumstance is a
better way out than going with only the recent memory of pain and
hardship... It's a pretty personal choice.
Anna V
wabberjocky_NOSP@M_hotmail.com
Pat Caruthers
CrANkeR wrote:
>
> I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or anything
you succeeded on both counts.
pat
Gregory Todd
>
> I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or anything but does any body else feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
Had the same feeling for a while as I was reading but by the end of the
article my only thought was "wow".
I'd say he'd given up on life, but I don't know about the wussing out
part. As somebody mentioned here a while back, if the choice is spending
the last seven years in a nursing home trying to get the food in your
mouth, or climbing Lafayette and Meeting It head on, I'm not sure which
I'd pick.
Andy Gale
CrANkeR wrote:
> I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or anything but does any body else
> feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
> CrANkeR
Wussed out? Wussed out?? Do you think YOU would have the balls to face death like
that? I doubt it.
What business is it of yours anyway?
Andy
--
******************************************************************
Andrew Gale The Scripps Research Institute
ag...@scripps.edu La Jolla, CA
******************************************************************
Andy Gale
Catwoman wrote:
> In case anybody didn't realize, this is the Guy Waterman written
> about by Jonathan Waterman (no relation) in several of his books.
Nooooo!! Reeeeally? Wooow! I don't beleeeeive it!!
Well Kyri, you have now thoroughly established that you know how to read.
Cheers, Andy
Karl Lew
else
> feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
> CrANkeR
Why don't you try what he did and let us know.
--Karl
Geo Day
and not. I think you should understand that it is not the action which
dictates if you "wussed" out or not, it is the way in which you achieve what
you have done. This does not only apply to killing your self but all tough
discussions in life.
Let us use suicide as an example. EX 1) you take a 45cal. and blow your
gray matter all over your mothers nice wall paper. Coward. You face life's
adversities and then after some time of growing old you decide to die a calm
and peaceful at a place you love, before you become a drewling pile of
organic matter the no one, not even yourself can recognize or communicate
with who is a burden to your loved ones.Your decision to die is not because
of the curves life has thrown you but in spite of them. In other words, ON
YOUR OWN TERMS. I say that is a Heroic way out.
If that one is to complicated for your limited mind then think about
this. If your small country is threatened to be over run by another large
one who wishes to make you a slave, you have two choices. One choice is to
fight which means death but for a few. The other is to live and be a slave
for life. If you take the first because you are afraid to be a slave or the
second because you are afraid to die, you are a coward. If you take the
first because you want to try to preserve your country for future
generations or you take the second because you want to fight another day
that is more advantageous, you are not a "wuss."
God's Peace
EXCLR8
"CrANkeR" <climb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000218175036...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Karl Baba
Art isn't always about sweetness and Light.
Guy Waterman painted a bold stroke.
May he ascend into the Light
Peace and Love
Karl
http://extra.newsguy.com/~climbing/
Rockclimbing Guide (remove NOSPAM from the return address)
Bark
in your life you will have something really bad happen to you. Maybe your
children will die too early, maybe your wife, maybe your best friend. That
Mr Waterman lived for so long with such loss is admirable. I hope when my
life sucks I can keep going as long as he did.
$tephen T. ye
friends and loved ones have.
$teve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The TPWD won't be happy until all wilderness in Texas is off limits.
! See the Infant huecotanks.com, temporarily at http://home.elp.rr.com/huecotanks !
(Link to the El Paso Climbers' Club site can be found there)
retrograde
remove4S...@huecotanks.com ($tephen T. ye) wrote:
> This is cool. I DO NOT want to die in a hospital as so many of my
> friends and loved ones have.
>
> $teve
>
I hope I would have the dignity and courage to do what Guy did, if I
were to come to feel that it was warranted. Nonetheless, it must be
very difficult for his widow, as well as for the (no relation) climber
and writer Jonathan Waterman, (mentioned in another thread?) who I
believe wrote at one point that Guy and Laura were like a second family
to him. Those of us who feel that suicide is "wussing out" might do
better to air their opinions in another context.
--retro
Bark
my own life. I only get one, and so far it's pretty fun.
So I would never kill myself, but I do understand how people reach their
limits. We're only humans, so was Mr Waterman. Unfortunately he'd reached
his limit on pain. I do respect - borderline admire how he went about ending
his life. If anything is wussing out it's just doing it and leaving everyone
who cares about you hanging. That way dodges the hard questions they would
ask. It doesn't seem that he did that
CrANkeR
if it wasn't my buisness?!!!
CrANkeR
CrANkeR
end comes for us. God never intended for us to take our own lives. Its sad but
true, Guy Waterman will be judged by God himself for what he has done, I can't
judge him nor anybody else, lets just remember the good about him and let God
do what is just.
CrANkeR
Mike So
> I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or
> anything but does any body else
> feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
> CrANkeR
LoSeR wrote on Sunday:
> Its sad but true, Guy Waterman will be judged by
> God himself for what he has done, I can't
> judge him nor anybody else, lets just remember the
> good about him and let God do what is just.
> CrANkeR
First you say you think Guy wussed out (that is, you judged
him, and shared your judgment with the world.) Then you
state God alone will judge him, lets just remember the
good. Let's see, that makes you a Supreme Shithead.
How old are you anyway?
When did you first hear the name 'Guy Waterman?'
Don't you have an algebra test tomorrow that you need to
study for?
-mike
Eric D. Coomer
wanking off to your own reflection.
Cheers
Eric
CrANkeR <climb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000220175220...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
> God will NEVER give us more than we can handle! We can always
endure till the
> end comes for us. God never intended for us to take our own lives.
shya...@my-deja.com
Karl Baba <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> Sometimes our Life is our Art.
> Art isn't always about sweetness and Light.
> Guy Waterman painted a bold stroke.
> May he ascend into the Light
>
Do not go gentle into that good night
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
---X---X---
Never until the mankind making
.
.
Nor blaspheme down the stations of breath
With any further
Elegy of innocence and youth
-- Dylan Thomas.
(Note: apologies if there are any severe errors)
Sad, sad. People, throw some thought on those who
knew him before you call him names, spew opinions.
shyam
GeoffCJ
has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can
I-nor would I want too-concieve of an individual that survives his
physical death. Let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish
such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life
and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together
with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny,
of the Reason that manifests itself in nature"
-Albert Einstein
I posted this because of the first 11-12 words, because I felt it was
applicable,and was going to post only that but felt it would be unfair to post
only that segment of the quote...make of it what you will...
I have a strong conviction that one of the ultimate powers we have as humans is
control over our life. I think the lack of right-to-die laws and convictions
of doctors like Kevorkian shows nothing but amazing arrogant disrespect for
people who suffer, whether it be due to physical or mental ailments. All too
often, people do make this decision in a fit of despair, and like any decision,
people don't always make the right one, but Guy Waterman had, by all accounts,
considered this fully. It was a decision he made not in an impulse, but
carefully structured and thought out, and obviusly not taken without a full
understanding of the gravity of the choice he was making. To call it cowardice
is arrogant and foolish. To call it selfish is just as bad. Sometimes our
actions hurt others, and that is sad, but I'd guess that those that mattered
most to Guy, somewhere in their hearts, understand.
Geoff
Kevin
Bob Austin
Thanks for a more personal connection to the story and to the man.
Bob
Karl Lew
> praised him for his "strength" and ability to remove himself from a world
> that didn't do anything for him anymore. I'm having a hard time believing
> that someone actually wrote that they thought that it was "cool" that he
> killed himself.
>
> Horrible.
> William Stich
Killing oneself is an act of violence, as in
blowing your brains out. Seems to me that
Guy just let go of life when he was done.
Now I don't know him personally or even know
if he just let go or whatever. And yes, there
was sorrow, beauty and pain in what he did,
but I have felt moments in my own life where
it might one day be nice to just let go. As
it is, I happen to be busy right now, so maybe
another day. I do know that he wished to be
at peace. Would you let him go in peace?
--Karl
Andy Gale
CrANkeR wrote:
> God will NEVER give us more than we can handle! We can always endure till the
> end comes for us. God never intended for us to take our own lives. Its sad but
> true, Guy Waterman will be judged by God himself for what he has done, I can't
> judge him nor anybody else, lets just remember the good about him and let God
> do what is just.
> CrANkeR
You know, I try really hard to have respect for people I know who believe in God.
But I can't just listen to such mindless platitudes and say nothing, in particular
when they come from someone who said that Guy "wussed out" just moments ago.
Incredibly bad things happen in this world and if they are something that God "gave
us" than he is one sick puppy.
I am reminded of the time a number of years ago when my brother's very best friend
was killed in a car accident at the age of 22. In a conversation about this and
religion my brother said (roughly paraphrased); If there is a god and you say my
friend's death was His will, then I say "f**k Him".
Of course the truth is that there is no God and the only ones who have any right to
judge what Guy did are his friends and relatives.
retrograde
Mike So <mi...@remove.this.fc.hp.com> wrote:
> LoSeR wrote on Friday:
> > I don't want to sound rude or disrespectfull or
> > anything but does any body else
> > feel that maybe he gave up on life and wussed out?
> > CrANkeR
>
> LoSeR wrote on Sunday:
> > God himself for what he has done, I can't
> > judge him nor anybody else, lets just remember the
> > good about him and let God do what is just.
> > CrANkeR
>
nervous.
Andy Gale
Andy Gale wrote:
> Catwoman wrote:
>
> > In case anybody didn't realize, this is the Guy Waterman written
> > about by Jonathan Waterman (no relation) in several of his books.
>
> Nooooo!! Reeeeally? Wooow! I don't beleeeeive it!!
>
> Well Kyri, you have now thoroughly established that you know how to read.
>
> Cheers, Andy
>
Shortly after posting this I realized that it was actually rather spiteful.
I should not have posted it. I am sorry.
Christian
Andy Gale <ag...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Andy Gale wrote:
>
> > Catwoman wrote:
> >
> > > In case anybody didn't realize, this is the Guy Waterman written
> > > about by Jonathan Waterman (no relation) in several of his books.
> >
> > Nooooo!! Reeeeally? Wooow! I don't beleeeeive it!!
> >
> > Well Kyri, you have now thoroughly established that you know how to
> > read.
> >
> > Cheers, Andy
> >
>
> Shortly after posting this I realized that it was actually rather
> spiteful.
> I should not have posted it. I am sorry.
>
> Andy
Nooooo!! Reeeeally? Wooow! I don't beleeeeive it!!
Christian :?)
a_...@my-deja.com
I find it interesting how many atheists find it
so noble to commit suicide. I hope you find it
just as noble when one of your kids decide that
life is just not worth living. I also find it
quite sad that so many people on this newsgroup
have less respect for human life than they do for
a clean aid line that has some iron pounded on
it.
rick
Next time, snip the full text of the article to save bandwidth.
Then remove your head from your ass.
67 year old guy (Guy,) goes to top of mountain and turns into a pop
sickle. Suicide? As some have said not quite comparable to blowing
your brains out. Yabo and Dolt committed suicide. Tobin S., Bugs M.,
Derek H., et al did not. (Waterman junior was looking for death...)
Waterman senior chose where and when to end it. 67 years is a fairly
full life and better to end it on a better note rather than a slow
decline. (Do you really want to be 106 and unproductive for 25 years?)
As for clean aid war comment-
Well, it is a climbing newsgroup. Clean vs Nailing are more correct
than some other topics that come and go. Obviously you don't give a
shit about tearing up routes. Go drill some boulders, bastard.
"god told me to skin you alive"
-Jello Biafra
rxb...@my-deja.com
Godspeed Guy Waterman.......
-RMB
Hugh McNeil
a_5 said:
>
> I find it interesting how many atheists find it
> so noble to commit suicide.
Many atheists find it interesting that so many Christians find it noble
to support capital punishment. Or even to act it out.
Pop Quiz: What percentage of "Right to Lifers" support Capital
Punishment?
Andy Gale
a_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <88k4op$clc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> xsky...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Climber chose his own path, even in death
> >
>
>
> I find it interesting how many atheists find it
> so noble to commit suicide. I hope you find it
> just as noble when one of your kids decide that
> life is just not worth living. I also find it
> quite sad that so many people on this newsgroup
> have less respect for human life than they do for
> a clean aid line that has some iron pounded on
> it.
>
For the record, I never said it was noble or not. I just stated that
Cranker was an ass and a hypocrite. BTW, you are apparently an ass for
several reasons. One - you quoted the whole damn article in order to
add 3 sentences at the end. What a pain in the ass. Two - you made a
poor logical connetion between a 67 year-old man, who has lived a full
life, committing suicide and a young person with a full life ahead of
them committing suicide. Three, you made piss-poor assumptions about my
and others respect for human life based on our comments on this
particular situation and our comments on the judgements made by
hypocrites such as Cranker.
BTW, it is my opinion that if you attempt to deprive someone of
determining the course of his own life, and by extension his own death,
you are showing a lack of respect for his life.
Tom Rogers
> 67 year old guy (Guy,) goes to top of mountain and turns into a pop
> sickle. Suicide? As some have said not quite comparable to blowing
> your brains out.
Have you ever had a family member kill themselves? I have, a couple of
times over. The loss of one who is older may not be as great as one who
is younger but it is still a loss and often times very great. I am not
condemning the dude but if he did it without his wife's blessing (in my
eyes he is still responsible for her) then he was on the weaker side of
the argument. When someone takes their life who is sick or mentally ill
it is somewhat understandable but when someone does it to end it at a
good point is somewhat lame, in my so humble opinion. It was reported
that he had a bad case of depression because of his former sons. This
could cause someone to be suicidal. I could see myself losing it if my
young son died, but if he was an adult it MAY be another story. But
didn't he have another living son too? I feel sorry for his wife and
remaining family. But the truth is they are the ones who are still left
with the pain and the tainted memories of a husband and father who left
before he was destined too.
> 67 years is a fairly
> full life and better to end it on a better note rather than a slow
> decline.
That's very noble of you. Sort of like a 18 year old charging a machine
gun nest to go down in a blaze of glory.
> (Do you really want to be 106 and unproductive for 25 years?)
If it meant enough to my son and wife to be there with them then -- yes.
>
> As for clean aid war comment-
>
I thought his intent was to show that people are more moved by the
sacredness of mother earth then of human life.
Andy Gale
Hugh McNeil wrote:
> a_5 said:
>
> >
> > I find it interesting how many atheists find it
> > so noble to commit suicide.
>
> Many atheists find it interesting that so many Christians find it noble
> to support capital punishment. Or even to act it out.
>
> Pop Quiz: What percentage of "Right to Lifers" support Capital
> Punishment?
Not to take any side on this issue but the converse statement would be
"What percentage of "Pro Choicers" oppose Capital Punishment?" Think about
it a little bit.
rick
>I thought his intent was to show that people are more moved by the
>sacredness of mother earth then of human life.
god damn right.
Humans should lock themselves in a room and inhale heinous gas until we
are all dead. We have become the single worst life form to inhabit this
earth.
...and for Guy offing himself, I don't really give a shit. For penis
fuck "a_5" and anyone else talking about oh great and noble god, fuck
them. Pathetic little humans who need some all glowing great being to
exist and find some rational in a simple world (and to deal with death,
right or wrong) I feel sorry. Those (you may be included) are just
stuck.
....and living to 106, no thanks. 53, dead in the bed ala Whillans may
be too old yet.
Rick Donnelly
aka "the gimp"
Tucson, Arizona
and any comments about me killing myself first, only after I'm sure
everyone else is dead, bastards.
Glenn Dowdy
>
>a_5 said:
>
>>
>> I find it interesting how many atheists find it
>> so noble to commit suicide.
>
>to support capital punishment. Or even to act it out.
>
"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human
life" Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
--
Glenn Dowdy
"You really need to urgently learn the lesson that
civilised debate demands that you recognise that
others may sincerely hold opinions contrary to your own."
Keith Willshaw
Tom Rogers
> For the record, I never said it was noble or not. I just stated that
> Cranker was an ass and a hypocrite. BTW, you are apparently an ass for
> several reasons. One - you quoted the whole damn article in order to
> add 3 sentences at the end.
Does that really make him an ass or is it just harder to read?
> poor logical connetion between a 67 year-old man, who has lived a full
> life, committing suicide and a young person with a full life ahead of
> them committing suicide.
Again does this qualify as ASS worthy?
>
> BTW, it is my opinion that if you attempt to deprive someone of
> determining the course of his own life, and by extension his own death,
> you are showing a lack of respect for his life.
Please explain this. I respect peoples lives as others but if we were
to object to general concept of suicide (for a healthy person) how does
this show a lack of respect for his life?
Tom Rogers
> Many atheists find it interesting that so many Christians find it noble
> to support capital punishment.
Not to contribute to this mess but once again we have people speaking
for what Christains believe or don't beleive.
Hebrew teachings, thus the resulting Christian faith, suppport capital
punishment because they are taught that "thou shall not MURDER" not KILL
as is translated by some later languages (Greek). The Hebrew's God
(God) condoned rightist killing as punishment for some crimes. So we
have the rest of the story.
tom "history is a good thing"
Emily Coomer
>I find it interesting how many atheists find it
>so noble to commit suicide.
I find it so interesting that religious sheep -oops, followers
can't think for themselves.
Instead, they turn to some magical, mystical God for every decision.
This is the same God, mind you, that prefers to help Superbowl quarterbacks
and Grammy winners over dying children, and plagues His herd with locusts
and disease just for kicks.
Emily
(standard disclaimer - these are my opinions and definitely NOT Sun's)
Ken....@alumni.cs.cmu.edu
> Not to take any side on this issue but the converse statement would be
> "What percentage of "Pro Choicers" oppose Capital Punishment?" Think about
> it a little bit.
OK Andy,
I've thought about it and don't get it.
Ken
Andy Gale
Tom Rogers wrote:
> Andy Gale wrote:
> > For the record, I never said it was noble or not. I just stated that
> > Cranker was an ass and a hypocrite. BTW, you are apparently an ass for
> > several reasons. One - you quoted the whole damn article in order to
> > add 3 sentences at the end.
>
> Does that really make him an ass or is it just harder to read?
In my opinion, yes. Perhaps your definition of the term "ass" in this
context differs slightly from mine. Note that the term ass and the term
asshole are not one and the same. (Websters: ass - A foolish or stupid
person)
>
> > poor logical connetion between a 67 year-old man, who has lived a full
> > life, committing suicide and a young person with a full life ahead of
> > them committing suicide.
>
> Again does this qualify as ASS worthy?
Again, in my opinion yes.
> >
> > BTW, it is my opinion that if you attempt to deprive someone of
> > determining the course of his own life, and by extension his own death,
> > you are showing a lack of respect for his life.
>
> Please explain this. I respect peoples lives as others but if we were
> to object to general concept of suicide (for a healthy person) how does
> this show a lack of respect for his life?
You say you respect people's lives but you try to tell them what they should
and should not do.
You are trying to deny him his right to self determination. You are, in
essence, saying that you are better qualified to determine what is right for
his life than he is. That devalues him and therefore his life. Devaluing his
life is essentially showing a lack of respect for his life. I feel that one's
right to self determination extends to his entire life, up to and including
his death. I am not a philosopher so I may not say this very well. But this
is my opinion.
Andy Gale
blyslv
SNIP SNIP
>CrANkeR
Beware of people who speak for God.
You know nothing of Mr. Waterman's relation, if any, to God. If
God speaks to you, so be it. Do not impose your conversations on
anyone else.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
blyslv
My grandfather shot himself. I remember the pain it caused, how
it affected my mother and grandmother. Would that pain have been
any less if he would have talked it over with his wife and
family before doing it? Perhaps, in fact probably. But there
still would've been pain. I guess that's unavoidable in this
life. Mr. Waterman did all he could to mitigate the pain. He
was in a place where pain was unavoidable so he did all he could
to minimize it. In effect, ending his own pain spread it out to
the world, to be shared by his family and friends.
My little brother attempted suicide, more then 20 years ago. To
this day the thought terrifies me. What if he gives up. I don't
really know what I think about the whole thing, but I am
extremly sad.
blyslv
Steven Cherry
>Ken....@alumni.cs.cmu.edu wrote:
>> Andy Gale <ag...@scripps.edu> writes:
>> > Not to take any side on this issue but the converse statement would be
>> > "What percentage of "Pro Choicers" oppose Capital Punishment?" Think about
>> > it a little bit.
>>
>> OK Andy,
>>
>> I've thought about it and don't get it.
>Well, that's not my fault. Hugh got it.
Hugh may need another class in logic as well. The opposite of "all" is
"some not", not "all not". In other words, pro-choice folks must support
some death (e.g., the death of some fetuses) not all death.
-steven-
--
<ste...@panix.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dear Santa, Before I submit my life to your moral scrutiny,
I demand to know who made *you* the master of my fate? -- Calvin
Steven Cherry
>Have you ever had a family member kill themselves? I have, a couple of
>times over. The loss of one who is older may not be as great as one who
>is younger but it is still a loss and often times very great. I am not
>condemning the dude but if he did it without his wife's blessing (in my
>eyes he is still responsible for her)
Responsible *to* her. Without going the full political correctness route,
let's at least join the twentieth century as the twenty-first begins.
(What a difference a preposition makes.)
It's astonishing to me how easily people proffer opinions on lives they
know only from a newspaper story. I never had the honor or pleasure of
meeting the Watermans except from reading Yankee Rock and Ice, but
that wonderful book displays their considerable charm, warmth, and love
of climbing and all the outdoors.
Guy Waterman's thoughts and ghosts, his his personal demons and desires,
his relationship and understanding with his wife, his memories and sadness
regarding his children, these things are all unknown to almost all, if not
all of us. It diminishes the respect his life is due to suppose we can
judge the way he ended it.
-steven-
--
<ste...@panix.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
There are a few things on the wane in world that will be sorely
missed. Two of these are humility and respect.
-- James Ellers, rec.climbing
Biterbit
"A permanent solution to a temporary problem"
"The ultimate act of self-centeredness"
Musing about right & wrong:
"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not
sure that we are doubly sure."
---Reinhold Niebuhr
I'm sure Niebuhr's statement applies to both the religious & secular True
Believers, i.e., those that worship god and those that worship
science/academia.
About the existence of God:
Zen master to questioner: "God? God?? What do you know about God? God is dried
shit on a stick."
and
"Opinion is a flitting thing,
But Truth, outlasts the Sun--
If then we cannot own them both--
Possess the oldest one"--Dickinson
If you think you're no more than brainmeat and a walking septic tank, find the
courage to make a further investigation. Contempt prior to investigation is
true fundamentalism and the worst kind of sanctimony.
Biter
Requisite sig line:
Preaching about the "laws" of life accomplishes what? It's the Bible-Thumping
Syndrome. Boorish to the max. The Net itself seems to stimulate this type of
linguistic narcissism
---Kent
CrackBoy
> Zen master to questioner: "God? God?? What do you know about God?
> God is dried shit on a stick."
Keep count Karl Lew.
This "dung-wiping stick" mention
now makes number two!
Crack "grasshopper" Boy
Andy Gale
Biterbit wrote:
>
> "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not
> sure that we are doubly sure."
> ---Reinhold Niebuhr
>
> I'm sure Niebuhr's statement applies to both the religious & secular True
> Believers, i.e., those that worship god and those that worship
> science/academia.
>
I will also assume that Niebuhr's statement was "fanatic" rather than "frantic".
>
> If you think you're no more than brainmeat and a walking septic tank, find the
> courage to make a further investigation. Contempt prior to investigation is
> true fundamentalism and the worst kind of sanctimony.
Good point. But don't assume that the investigation has not already taken place or
is not continually ongoing. Also don't assume a contempt that does not exist.
Karl Lew
> > God is dried shit on a stick."
> Keep count Karl Lew.
> This "dung-wiping stick" mention
> now makes number two!
> Crack "grasshopper" Boy
(with apologies to the original Zen master...)
"Now that you've wiped your schtick,
have you cleaned it?"
--Karl
CrANkeR
any messages to this ng! Lets get back to climbing, I am so sick of looking at
this stupid ng, I'm going outside to climb, keep typing if you really care
about flaming on and on to stangers across the US who you don't even know. (
LAME )!!
CrANkeR
Bob Ternes
#aaaaaahhhhhhhh!! I am so sick of reading all of this, I regret ever posting
#any messages to this ng! Lets get back to climbing, I am so sick of looking at
#this stupid ng, I'm going outside to climb, keep typing if you really care
#about flaming on and on to stangers across the US who you don't even know. (
If you can't stand the heat...
BTW, if you piss on an electric fence, is it the fence's fault?
Bob Ternes
rte...@u.arizona.edu
Ken....@alumni.cs.cmu.edu
> aaaaaahhhhhhhh!! I am so sick of reading all of this, I regret ever posting
> any messages to this ng! Lets get back to climbing, I am so sick of looking at
> this stupid ng, I'm going outside to climb, keep typing if you really care
> about flaming on and on to stangers across the US who you don't even know. (
> LAME )!!
> CrANkeR
Is this the same climb...@aol.com who wrote to asked how to beat
"Fortress" on his school computer, how to break into his school's
server, and where to get an IP spoofer in alt.hacker, how to
perpetrate credit card fraud in alt.2600.cardz, offered the "FREE
MONEY$$$$$$" scam (violation of postal lottery statute) in
comp.security.misc, and then, DUH!!!, were surprized when contacted by
the feds?
Here you ask silly questions, write callous things about a dead
climber, and assert Gods morality. Unhappy with your reception?
Think of the newsgroup like a mirror. If you don't like what you see,
there's a good chance it is your own reflection.
Think about it.
Ken
Dave Andersen
>> aaaaaahhhhhhhh!! I am so sick of reading all of this, I regret ever posting
>> any messages to this ng! Lets get back to climbing, I am so sick of looking at
>> this stupid ng, I'm going outside to climb, keep typing if you really care
>> about flaming on and on to stangers across the US who you don't even know. (
>> LAME )!!
>> CrANkeR
> Is this the same climb...@aol.com who wrote to asked how to beat
> "Fortress" on his school computer, how to break into his school's
> server, and where to get an IP spoofer in alt.hacker, how to
> perpetrate credit card fraud in alt.2600.cardz, offered the "FREE
> MONEY$$$$$$" scam (violation of postal lottery statute) in
> comp.security.misc, and then, DUH!!!, were surprized when contacted by
> the feds?
But Ken, how can you forget such great CrANkeR quotes like:
"if I use a anonymous email account and mail bomb someone, can they trace
it, or do I need an ip spoofer. Please tell me what I need. also, is
this legal? (I'm playing a prank on my friend)"
Yup, he's a mastur-little-hacker, right in our own newsgroup. CrANkeR
from Orem-near-Provo. Or, excuse me, was that CrANker, 1935N 270 E,
Orem, UT, 84057-2286? ... or maybe that's the poor sucker next door, to
whom our generous pal wanted us to send lots of cash.
*snort*
> Here you ask silly questions, write callous things about a dead
> climber, and assert Gods morality. Unhappy with your reception?
> Think of the newsgroup like a mirror. If you don't like what you see,
> there's a good chance it is your own reflection.
> Think about it.
> Ken
--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/
Climbhimtns
GeoffCJ
>Was he famous?
Does it matter?
Geoff
CrANkeR
RELAX!
CrANkeR
GeoffCJ
What info would you hope to find? Llists of all the climbs he did? A
biography? Why does he become interesting to you now, when before he wasn't?
Because he killed himself?
Geoff
Bob Ternes
#I was asking if he was famous so I could look into him and maybe get some info.
#RELAX!
#CrANkeR
Sorry if we were less than sensitive regarding your overtly superior,
top secret research project.
wANkeR
rte...@fuckoff.com
Michael E. Gordon
> Why does he become interesting to you now, when before he wasn't?
> Because he killed himself?
Dead people are infinitely more interesting.
Gotta go off myself now. Bye.
Dan Goodman
> Of course the truth is that there is no God
You sound as thoroughly convinced as those who believe in
God, only in the other direction. Do you have conclusive
evidence or a formal proof I don't know about, or is that
just your opinion? Just wondering ...
Dan Goodman
Dan Goodman
>
> (with apologies to the original Zen master...)
> "Now that you've wiped your schtick,
> have you cleaned it?"
What is the sound of one hand clapping? -- ancient Zen
riddle.
One hand being moved quickly, then stopped in the instant of
a clap, in hopes of cleaning the stick -- ancient Zen
answer by Master Wu Flung Poo.
Dan Goodman
Karl Lew
> > "Now that you've wiped your schtick,
> > have you cleaned it?"
> What is the sound of one hand clapping? -- ancient Zen
> riddle.
> One hand being moved quickly, then stopped in the instant of
> a clap, in hopes of cleaning the stick -- ancient Zen
> answer by Master Wu Flung Poo.
> Dan Goodman
Is that the schtick waving or your Mind?
8*) Karl "Brownian motion"
Wm. Bees
it still is on better logical and empirical ground that those who assert
that god exists and they know something about it.
The nature of truth as stated linguistically can be confusing, but
restating what Andy said is that there is no proof that god exists/ and
/or that the proof supports the non-existence of god, so therefore it
doesn't exist.
I'm sure that Andy and the great majority of us atheists will be glad to
reconsider our negative judgement of the existence of god if and when
more evidence comes up.
Do you have a better standard? Would you care for a more dogmatic
standard of truth such as most religions use?
Bill
Bob Harrington
>The nature of truth as stated linguistically can be confusing, but
>restating what Andy said is that there is no proof that god exists/ and
>/or that the proof supports the non-existence of god, so therefore it
>doesn't exist.
>
>I'm sure that Andy and the great majority of us atheists will be glad to
>reconsider our negative judgement of the existence of god if and when
>more evidence comes up.
>
>Do you have a better standard? Would you care for a more dogmatic
>standard of truth such as most religions use?
How is your assertion that there is no god less dogmatic than a
religious person's assertion that there is a god? They seem equally
unprovable and unsubstantiated to me.
Bob
Wm. Bees
existence of a god. So I don't have to prove anything but the evidence just
doesn't support the existence of such a god. Therefore, I am fairly safe in
asserting that there is no god. Give me some evidence, and I'll consider it.
To the group, I'd really rather focus back on climbing here. I just couldn't let
this religious nonsense pass without challenge. For anyone who doesn't get it
yet but wants to discuss this, please contact me via email so we don't waste
bandwidth in this newsgroup.
Most here would rather be climbing, and talking about climbing seems to rate a
close second with many.
-Bill
Bob Ternes wrote:
> In article <38B760B9...@idt.net>, gfw...@idt.net wrote:
> #Just to drag this still further away from the main focus of this group, I
> #would say that since the 14th century some philosophers have considered
> #that the existence, or non-existence, of God is not a matter of logic.
> #Logic does not permit either a proof or disproof of the existence of God.
> #William of Ockham and Blaise Pascal were both men of great logic, who just
> #said "forget it, it won't work" to go the logic route.
>
> Think about it. Faith is the volition necessary to sustain an unprovable
> belief. Without 'faith,' all measures of substantiating God's existence prove
> worthless.
>
> As an aside, take any argument designed to reason the existence of God.
> Replace the (suspiciously capitalized) 'God' in each instance it appears with,
> say, 'Jellyfood.' Once you take that theistic sting out of the arguments, you
> realize that the arguments used to prove the existence of 'Jellyfood' as a
> spiritual being reveal themselves to be not only semantic and circular, but
> highly entertaining as well.
>
> Bob 'I fell into a burning ring of fire' Ternes
> rte...@u.arizona.edu
Gregory Todd
"Wm. Bees" wrote:
>
> Although the logical form that Andy stated appears to assert a negative,
> it still is on better logical and empirical ground that those who assert
> that god exists and they know something about it.
>
> The nature of truth as stated linguistically can be confusing, but
> restating what Andy said is that there is no proof that god exists/ and
> /or that the proof supports the non-existence of god, so therefore it
> doesn't exist.
>
> I'm sure that Andy and the great majority of us atheists will be glad to
> reconsider our negative judgement of the existence of god if and when
> more evidence comes up.
>
> Do you have a better standard? Would you care for a more dogmatic
> standard of truth such as most religions use?
>
Bob Ternes
#would say that since the 14th century some philosophers have considered
#that the existence, or non-existence, of God is not a matter of logic.
CrANkeR
thing as fact. How do you know that climbing rope is going to hold you? YOU
DONT. There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
use it is because you have faith in it. Another thing, even the United States
believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
Steven Cherry
>Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There is no such
>thing as fact.
STEP.... AWAY.... FROM THE .... KEYBOARD.
Anytime you find yourself saying "there's no such thing as an X," where
X is something there obviously is plenty of, you're in the the grip
of some theory that implies and obviously false conclusion. It's time
to work backwards and find what's wrong with the theory.
If you can't do it alone, find your neighborhood epistemologist and make a
fee arrangement not unlike the one you might work out with Karl the Baba,
since you're about to go on a similar adventure. Or, just skip the
theorizing and work something out with Karl himself, you'll find it
equally enlightening.
-steven "former neighborhood epistemologist"-
--
<ste...@panix.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can't turn back the clock.
But you can wind it up again. -- Bonnie Prudden
Grant
> Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There is no such
> thing as fact. How do you know that climbing rope is going to hold you? YOU
> DONT. There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
> use it is because you have faith in it. Another thing, even the United States
> believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
Let me guess... you have a poor grasp of the scientific method? Try this simple
test: go to your kitchen utensil drawer, find a good all-metal fork and bend the
tines to allow insertion into a suitable electric outlet. Pour a glass of water
on the floor directly underneath it, then stand in the puddle while holding the
fork handle in your mouth. Now carefully guide the fork tines into the outlet
while having faith that God will keep you from harm and electricity is only a
"theory".
What's that? God won't comply? You'll get electrocuted? You don't *know* that
for a fact, so prove me wrong... G- a shocking lack of intelligence.
GeoffCJ
>believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
>
This is one of the more moronic things that has been said on rec.climbing. In
this instance, please explain who or what the United States is. The entire
mass of people in the country? Clearly not true.
The Majority? Little comfort, by definition half the people taking an IQ test
will score less than 100, and if you've talked with someone whose IQ is less
than 100, you probably wouldn't be so eager to lump your beliefs with theirs.
The founding fathers? The same guys who thought black people only counted as
fractions of people?
While I am fully aware that the word GOD does appear hundreds or thousands of
times in governemnetal documents and buildings, who is this United States that
believes in God, exactly?
In any case, what kind of arguement is that anyway? Simply becasue an entity
(here, the US) believes something to be true, doesn't mean it's so. I could
spend a lifetime pointing out examples of cultures or countries that believe
something, that by definition, not all can be true, because they contradict.
=>
geoff
Bob Ternes
#Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There is no such
#thing as fact. How do you know that climbing rope is going to hold you? YOU
#DONT. There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
#use it is because you have faith in it. Another thing, even the United States
#believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
It's just too easy to mutate CrANkeR to wANkeR, so I won't.
I mean, not after that last post. It's pretty much been obviated.
Bob 'I just wanted to say obviated' Ternes
rte...@u.arizona.edu
Bill Zaumen
> Just to drag this still further away from the main focus of this group, I
Shouldn't the discussion be moved to alt.religion or
alt.philosphers.cocktailparty, now that the discussion no longer
contains comments in bad taste about a climber?
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Greg Todd
> >Greg Todd wrote:
> > Just to drag this still further away from the main focus of this group, I
> > would say that since the 14th century some philosophers have considered
> > that the existence, or non-existence, of God is not a matter of logic.
>
> Shouldn't the discussion be moved to alt.religion or
> alt.philosphers.cocktailparty, now that the discussion no longer
> contains comments in bad taste about a climber?
Thanks, Bill. I succeeded in dragging it over the edge.
--
Greg Todd
Law Office of Gregory F.W. Todd
888 Seventh Avenue, Suite 4500
New York, New York 10106
Tel: 212-246-5151
Fax: 212-246-5454
retrograde
climb...@aol.com (CrANkeR) wrote:
> Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There
is no such
you? YOU
Uh... I'll take 3-Sigma testing over the Bible any day. But, hey, YMMV.
There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
> use it is because you have faith in it. Another thing, even the
United States
> believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
>
Read the Constitution. It says some things about separation of church
and state. The U.S. is emphatically NOT a theocracy. FWIW, I believe
that slogan has only been on currency since the 1950's, though my
memory is fogged and I may be wrong.
--retro "time to go reread my DevilClimber's Handbook"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Grant
> Sounds to me like a statement of a great belief in one particular
> ideological orientation...so vast is the belief that it influences your
> very methods of critiquing your conclusions...overall and pervasive faith.
> Here's one for you to beat over the head with your scientific method and
> rock hard facts: why EXACTLY did he kill himself? What was the REAL reason
> behind the reason?
Neal, science never attempts to answer the question "why", only "how". It's called
cause and effect. Reproducibility is the foundation of good science- anathema to
religious doctrine. No "belief" involved in science. Theory is as close as it
comes to that, but theory is open for revision based on controlled experimental
results, unlike religion which touts itself to be the unquestionable word of God.
Funny thing is that most of the scientists I know (which number in the 100's) also
have a belief in "God". The two aren't mutually exclusive, but sadly, some
fanatics would have us believe that because it interferes with their myopic and
self-centered world view, much like mr cranker seems to assert. G
Ian Manger
> Neal, science never attempts to answer the question "why", only "how". It's called
> cause and effect. Reproducibility is the foundation of good science- anathema to
> religious doctrine.
Minimum falsifiability, as it were. Producing a better model of the
world. 999 times out of 1000 you will electrocute yourself in the
experiment discussed above. But try it during a powercut, for example,
and you will obtain different results. Better model...IF I do this while
the power is on, I will get electrocuted.
> Funny thing is that most of the scientists I know (which number in the 100's) also
> have a belief in "God".
Funny, almost none of the scientists I know have a belief in "God". I'm
curious to know what area you're in. Maybe biologists are less hungup on
the anthropic principle than say physicists, though we do get socked
with design argument stuff. 'Something as complex and useful as an eye
couldn't possibly have evolved by chance yadda yadda'
I guess I'm off topic. I was very saddened to read of Watermans death.
Since we really know little of the context in which it occurred, can I
leave it at that?
lol, ian
Bill Zaumen
<gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> Einstein felt that a universal intelligence was implicit in his
> observations in phyics.
And Murry Gell-Mann once used the title "The Eightfold Way" for
discussion of particle physics. Lest anyone
think that he *really* thought that Buddhism and elementary particle
physics were related, Gell-Mann once jokingly called "Reviews of
Modern Physics" "Refuse of Modern Physics". I guess he liked to
make wisecracks and use clever titles :-).
> When I'm very gripped on a climb, I give God the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, under similar circumstances other climbers have been known
to take His name in vain :-). Then there was the classic story about
how some frustrated climber said "God damn this climb" and Bill Feurer
(aka "the Dolt") said, "I will consider it."
Enjoy,
BIll
john R baker
Bob Ternes wrote:
>
> Without 'faith,' all measures of substantiating God's existence prove
> worthless.
I can think of one that has value -- direct experience. It
wouldn't help you prove it to the other guy, but it might work
on oneself.
jb
Andy Gale
CrANkeR wrote:
> Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There is no such
> thing as fact.
At this moment there is an ACCO 50 stapler on my desk directly in front of me.
That is a fact.
> How do you know that climbing rope is going to hold you? YOU
> DONT. There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
> use it is because you have faith in it.
No, you use it because it is safer than not using it. I understand that it has a
finite measureable amount of strength and resistance to cutting. I understand
that a vast majority of the stresses that I will subject it to will fall within
those limits. I understand that there is still some chance that it will fail.
Therefore I use the rope to minimize the chances that I will die while also
understanding that the chance has not been entirely removed. Faith has nothing to
do with it.
> Another thing, even the United States
> believes in god, look on the dollar bill. (In God We Trust)
Unbelievably nonsensical and irrelevant statement.
In regards to Geoff's comment in another post with regards to average IQ, I am
fairly certain which side of the average this guy falls on.
Andy
--
******************************************************************
Andrew Gale The Scripps Research Institute
ag...@scripps.edu La Jolla, CA
******************************************************************
Greg Todd
> CrANkeR wrote:
>
> > Think about it, you have to have faith in everything you do. There is no such
> > thing as fact.
>
> At this moment there is an ACCO 50 stapler on my desk directly in front of me.
> That is a fact.
>
> > How do you know that climbing rope is going to hold you? YOU
> > DONT. There is no way to gaurantee that it will hold you, the only reason you
> > use it is because you have faith in it.
<snip>....
> In regards to Geoff's comment in another post with regards to average IQ, I am
> fairly certain which side of the average this guy falls on.
Curiously, a lot of learned and very smart people have spent a good deal of time
holding forth on either side of the above propositions. Hume thought there was no
way to prove a cause and effect relationship, all we could do was make reasonable
predictive assumptions about the way something was likely to behave in a given case.
At some point he might call those assumptions "faith", and he would agree that we make
thousands of common sense assumptions in our daily lives. I think I do have "faith"
in the rope not breaking, and it's one of the things that a new person does not have
-- how do they "know" the rope will not break? They fall several times, it doesn't
break... and they have faith that it won't. Their knowledge about rope tensile
strengths etc. might be the same before and after getting that change of attitude.
--
Greg Todd
Grant
> Grant wrote:
>
> > Reproducibility is the foundation of good science- anathema to
> > religious doctrine.
>
> Minimum falsifiability, as it were.
Ok. The only "laws" I know of are physical definitions.
> Funny, almost none of the scientists I know have a belief in "God". I'm
> curious to know what area you're in.
Immunology/biochemistry
> Maybe biologists are less hungup on
> the anthropic principle than say physicists, though we do get socked
> with design argument stuff. 'Something as complex and useful as an eye
> couldn't possibly have evolved by chance yadda yadda'
Einstein once stated "God doesn't play dice"
The scientists I spoke of largely believe in a more abstract notion of "god", not
necessarily some old guy hanging out on a cloud, but rather closer to a basic universal
force. I think there is much room for discussion when you try to figure out what lies
beyond the Big Bang. G
Steven Cherry
>of time holding forth on either side of the above propositions. Hume
>thought there was no way to prove a cause and effect relationship, all
>we could do was make reasonable predictive assumptions about the way
>something was likely to behave in a given case.
No, Hume said that all he could find in cause and effect was constant
conjunction. Enough already. The only thing worse than reading about
philosophy instead of climbing is the crap versions of philosophy
running around here. If you're going to pursue this, please get it
right. And do it elsewhere.
-steven-
Bob Harrington
>Thanks Bob (Ternes). And to Bob Harrington, I'm not the one asserting the
>existence of a god.
Nor am I.
>So I don't have to prove anything but the evidence just
>doesn't support the existence of such a god. Therefore, I am fairly safe in
>asserting that there is no god.
No, you're not. It's an error to think that an absence of evidence supporting
a hypothesis proves the contrary hypothesis. I'm not talking religion here,
I'm talking scientific method. "I cannot prove jellyfood, therefore I have
proven anti-jellyfood" is an erroneous conclusion.
>Give me some evidence, and I'll consider it.
I certainly don't have any. Positive assertions regarding god, both those of
religious people and those of atheists aren't testable -- they're based on
faith.
Atheists citing logic and science in support of whatever it is they believe
are somewhat akin to creation scientists sorting through the fossil record
to find support for whatever it is they believe.
>To the group, I'd really rather focus back on climbing here. I just couldn't let
>this religious nonsense pass without challenge. For anyone who doesn't get it
>yet but wants to discuss this, please contact me via email so we don't waste
>bandwidth in this newsgroup.
Good grief, this is hardly the place to worry about wasting bandwidth.
Bob (Harrington)
GaryFike
not through the slightest partition
shut out from the law of the stars.
The inner-----what is it?
if not intensified sky,
hurled through with birds and deep
with the winds of homecoming.
...Rilke
god enuf for me, 'though 'shit on a stick' works well too.
Hey, now that we're on this slippery slope how about you science-types
weighing in on the extravagant implausibility of the 'miraculously' balanced
forces unloosed at the Big Bang. Gregg Easterbrook says "the ratio of matter
and energy must have been within about one quadrillionth of 1 percent of
ideal." How utterly improbable unless someone/thing pulled the switch?
It's nice to know you climber types are more well-rounded than you appear.
Next let's talk about presidential politics.
Gary
"The idea of God is slightly more plausible than the alternative proposition
that, given enough time, some green slime could write Shakespeare's
sonnets."....Tom Stoppard.
CJ
conveniently snipped that part.)
In article <89fe6s$457$1...@panix3.panix.com>, ste...@panix.com (Steven Cherry)
wrote:
>>Curiously, a lot of learned and very smart people have spent a good deal
>>of time holding forth on either side of the above propositions. Hume
>>thought there was no way to prove a cause and effect relationship, all
>>we could do was make reasonable predictive assumptions about the way
>>something was likely to behave in a given case.
>
>No, Hume said that all he could find in cause and effect was constant
>conjunction. Enough already. The only thing worse than reading about
>philosophy instead of climbing is the crap versions of philosophy
>running around here. If you're going to pursue this, please get it
>right. And do it elsewhere.
>
> -steven-
--
Christopher Jain
Lake Forest, California
c j a i n @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m
c j a i n 1 0 0 0 @ y a h o o . c o m
http://www.netcom.com/~cjain/
***My return address is valid****
Michael A. Riches
<gra...@armchairscientist.com> wrote:
> I think there is much room for discussion when you try to figure out what
lies
> beyond the Big Bang. G
> Hey, now that we're on this slippery slope how about you science-types
> weighing in on the extravagant implausibility of the 'miraculously' balanced
> forces unloosed at the Big Bang. Gregg Easterbrook says "the ratio of matter
> and energy must have been within about one quadrillionth of 1 percent of
> ideal." How utterly improbable unless someone/thing pulled the switch?
> Gary
O.K....I was almost convinced to become an atheist and denounce all
religious ties until you guy's brought up this....Really now...do people
honestly "STILL" believe in this theory??? Come on guy's get with it
...you're twenty years behind the times...How can the stars be older than
the force that supposedly created them???
Simple answer...they ain't, there was no cataclysmic focal point of
creation...any scientist that believes in the big bang is just as closed
minded and grasping for straws as the creationists...What's next??? the sun
is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies are the spirits of the
dead??? Helloooo...is anybody out there????
--
The Rockrat
Grant
> O.K....I was almost convinced to become an atheist and denounce all
> religious ties until you guy's brought up this....Really now...do people
> honestly "STILL" believe in this theory??? Come on guy's get with it
> ...you're twenty years behind the times...How can the stars be older than
> the force that supposedly created them???
>
> Simple answer...they ain't, there was no cataclysmic focal point of
> creation...any scientist that believes in the big bang is just as closed
> minded and grasping for straws as the creationists...What's next??? the sun
> is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies are the spirits of the
> dead??? Helloooo...is anybody out there????
> --
> The Rockrat
The information I have comes straight from the source, delivered to me one night
in the early '70's in a multicoloured, synesthetic mind-fuck. God is the sum
total of everything- pretty good description of it in the Bhagavad-Gita as
Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna. 'Cept there is no unified intelligence to the
system, more like it's the result of a massive synergy.
You're right, there was no single focal point for "the big bang", rather it may
have been akin to a process akin to precipitation in a supersaturated solution.
The energy released at that time is what drives the expansion of the universe.
Now back to our regularly scheduled climbing discussions... G- we're ALL at the
center of the universe!
Dingus Milktoast
I was trying to tune my little desk top radio the other day,
reminded me of this thread. All I could get was static!
After much thought, a lot of conjecture, and no direct
evidence whatsoever, I concluded this static, which appeared
to be the same intensity no matter what direction I pointed
my antennae, must be the afterglow of a "Big Bang" explosion
that created the universe. I then began trying to make my
mathematics fit my theory and when I couldn't do it, I
dreamt up more theory to explain why I couldn't exactly
explain my theory. It all seems so patently obvious to me!
You religious cranks must be real dolts to believe in
something as ephemeral as god when such solid evidence as
STATIC so convincingly demonstrates the folly of your ways!
Then I retreated to my computer, constructed using, in part,
some of the same theories used to try and explain the
unexplainable, and wrote this post.
Our theories will one day be held up to ridicule, much like
we might smile at a world supported on the backs of
elephants (doesn't mean we shouldn't try though). Many
people, scientists and preachers alike, seem to forget that
it's the quest for enlightenment, not the details, like so
many cards in a deck, that is the true path. When we stop
asking questions and start insisting upon giving answers, we
have succumbed and our learning has stopped.
Open eyes, open mind and a big question mark; it's all this
reality modeling computer we call a brain has to work with.
Use it or lose it.
DMT
Karl Lew
> asking questions and start insisting upon giving answers, we
> have succumbed and our learning has stopped.
?
--Karl
Duncan Watson
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:25:48 -0800, Bill Zaumen <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
> In article <270220000753585432%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com>, Karl Baba
> <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> > When I'm very gripped on a climb, I give God the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Of course, under similar circumstances other climbers have been known
> to take His name in vain :-). Then there was the classic story about
> how some frustrated climber said "God damn this climb" and Bill Feurer
> (aka "the Dolt") said, "I will consider it."
I used to have a very devout Catholic partner. Unfortunately I am a PK
(preacher's kid) and as a result I tend to take the Lord's name in vain when I
am about to pitch. I aways felt bad for my partner because it must have worn
on him. He was a nice guy and never complained.
/Duncan
--
Duncan Watson ||| Climbs I've Done - The Flake 5.1, The Trapps - in The
IS/IT at large ||| Gunks - 1998
Linux/Climbing |||
cli...@io.com |||
Portland, OR |||
Dylan Sutton
snip
G- we're ALL at the center of the universe!
I'm not!
Dylan
Michael A. Riches
<dsut...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
Yea...well, you could be...for only $19.95 and a real "good" photo of Kori
in the shower...
--
The Rockrat
Michael A. Riches
wrote:
It's o.k. Karl... you can put that thing back where it belongs....we know
you haven't succumbed, and...uhhh...well, o.k...we know you haven't
succumbed...!!!
--
The Rockrat (duck and run...)
-N.
gra...@armchairscientist.com wrote:
> Neal, science never attempts to answer the question "why", only "how".
Perhaps these inhere in one another at a deeper level than scientific
method consciously considers.
It's called
> cause and effect. Reproducibility is the foundation of good science-
anathema to
> religious doctrine. No "belief" involved in science.
I find that hard to 'believe'. Generally, when people claim 'to know',
they don't really know at all, they beleive. That is what I beleive.
>Theory is as close as it
> comes to that, but theory is open for revision based on controlled
experimental
> results, unlike religion which touts itself to be the unquestionable
word of God.
Applied science doesn't need to ask such questions, indeed, it is likely
hindered if it does. The philosphy of science, however...
> Funny thing is that most of the scientists I know (which number in the
100's) also
> have a belief in "God". The two aren't mutually exclusive, but sadly, some
> fanatics would have us believe that because it interferes with their
myopic and
> self-centered world view, much like mr cranker seems to assert. G
Grant,
I was thinking more along the lines of belief or faith, say in scientific
method itself (...or, for ex., the metadiscources which underlie
science)...or to go in another direction, a deep rooted fetish of the
number One, a quest for singularity, which has engendered a great deal of,
but not all, science and religious practice in the west. Deeper
cultural/ideological beliefs. Faith in reason....as a means to...
I suppose I devote my time to less varifiable practices: I'm an artist so
the exceptions intrigue me greatly, things that occur once and never
again, that cannot be reproduced or proven, let alone communicated.
However, I would stand behind my experiences and they make up the main
currency of my mind (if mind exists...cough) and for me they have
tremendous value and construct my reality principle. I'm an aetheist,
however, I find no fault with religious sensibilities or scientific ones,
a similiar belief seems to be at the bottom of it all.
I cannot know what it is to freeze to death as Mr. Waterman knows this
experience, but from what I have gleened such a death seems a good choice,
amongst the possible spectrum of choices. It seems to have particularly
suited Mr. Waterman, and I think in this respect there is an elegance and
correctness to the death...that is the vibe I get from it. I was just
rereading Into Thin Air, and I think it was a Messner quote refering to
some deep shit he had managed to get himself into while soloing prompting
reflection on death by freezing vs. death by exhaustion. According to
Messner they're both good [purely speculation, of course].
Into Thin Air also got me into the realm of morality, as I think this
thread in its earlier phases was focused upon. It was refreshing (living
in NYC as I do) to read of mountainers who stated very clearly that above
8000 meters was no place for morality (curiosly, I often experience this
very effect at sea level).
Several of the climbers represented in the book seemed very casual and
detached about death as it occured around them (but this also happens in
NYC).
On a different topic Breashears emerges as the hero of the book. Placing
the lives of climbers before his own climbing goals (representing the
position voiced by many, of the living's, in this case Mr. Waterman's,
responsibility to friends, family, etc.).
There was something determined in the death of this Mr. Waterman.
Determination for the summit drove so many of the characters described in
Into Thin Air, and this determination had a tremendous effect on their
behavior and morality (people eagerly climbing around other climbers who
are dropping dead, every crumb for himself, goal oriented). There are just
so many personalities and ways of relating to death, Mr. Waterman gives
expression to one pole of the dialogue, and from his unique proximity to
death via his sons. There is something steadfast in the manner that he
executed his death, and there is something in there, I am not ashamed to
say, that I respect and admire (is this the climber in me speaking? hard
to say). Was there the similair disregard for the responsibility to and
impact upon others as is evidenced in some of the climbers featured in
Krakauer's book? Was Mr. Waterman's a "climber's style death" in more ways
than meets the eye? Was it on some level some sort of miming or replaying
of the classic involuntary climber's death in the mountians, yet with the
summit drive and focus displaced into the details of planning and
following through a rigourous agenda?
There is something symbolic in this death as well which is very important
to keep in mind. Symbolic, and perhaps even heroic. After all,
technically,he could have accomplished the same thing in a meat freezer,
or a walk-in freezer, bringing along some family momentos...accomplished
the same physical death, but not the same symbolic death. No one is a hero
in a walk-in restuarant freezer...
There is something much more and nuanced going on here at the level of
symbol, and I think it is within this that he has left a final legacy, and
crafted a more complex message to the living he left behind.
Yes, unquestionably, there are the aesthetics to dying on a mountain vs a
freezer, but people desperate to die have very often ignored aesthetics
and all manner of elegance and grace, leaving big disgusting messes
behind. Again, there is more here than mere death, there is a complex
statement created and left behind (from a speech writer no less, a
manipulator of metaphors and symbols) and I am somehow touched by it in
ways that I am not at all clear about.
Idle speculation, no offense meant to any of the living or the dead.
Cheers,
-Neal
PS: Whatever became of Ian Woodall (the psuedo-African asshole from Into
Thin Air)?
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
John Chivall
> Hey, now that we're on this slippery slope how about you science-types
>weighing in on the extravagant implausibility of the 'miraculously' balanced
>forces unloosed at the Big Bang. Gregg Easterbrook says "the ratio of matter
>and energy must have been within about one quadrillionth of 1 percent of
>ideal." How utterly improbable unless someone/thing pulled the switch?
Anthropic principle anyone?
Consider an infinite selection of universes, each one with different values of
the fundamental physical parameters. Most of them will turn out to be flops -
they might never form matter, or they may just curl up and disappear without
going anywhere. By pure chance, one of these universes happens to have the
right parameters such that stars are able to form and produce carbon, some of
which eventually ends up as a vital part of organic thinking beings who are
able to wonder about how exactly the universe is just right for them to be
here...
We observe a universe that is 'just right' for the possibility of the human
race to evolve, but this does not prove that the universe was created for this
very purpose - imagine if the dust cloud the sun condensed out of was a
slightly different shape and formed say a binary star system instead of
conveniently forming a planet in the liquid water zone - the universe would
still be here, ideal conditions for us to evolve, except we wouldn't be here
to see it (this doesn't mean that there aren't other intelligent beings in
other galaxies thinking exactly the same things though).
I'm not trying to disprove the existence of God here, just saying that 'cosmic
coincidence' isn't a rational argument for His/Her/Its presence.
Bye.
--
John Chivall
john.c...@physics.org
http://welcome.to/johnslife
Homeopathy: Value-added water.
Karl Lew
> you haven't succumbed, and...uhhh...well, o.k...we know you haven't
> succumbed...!!!
e pluribus succubus?
--Karl