Wings of Steel

12K posts, HEEEEEEEEERE WEEEEEEEEE COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOME!!!!!!!!!

What interests me about this story are the basic fundamentals of drama and storytelling. Controversy, conflict, human achievement, hardship and unrelenting desire are the tenants of this story, not clipping and hauling. Please wait for the film and then you may bash away at it, but swinging at the air is ridiculous.

ETHICS concerns how a climber treats the rock itself. An "ethical" climber recognizes that "the rock is a non-renewable resource" and so "treats the rock with respect."

I know that you are confused on THIS point, as the nature of your post to which I am responding signifies that YOU think that "ethics" has something to do with how "climbers" treat OTHER CLIMBERS! That is a very noobish mistake, which is how I recognize you for the noob you are. ETHICS has exactly NOTHING whatsoever to do with how people treat other people. "GREAT climbers" are often very unconcerned with their behaviors toward other people. They have learned to put the emphasis where it really should be: how they treat the ROCK. Their understanding of the real object of "ethics" is what makes them "great!"

Da_Dweeb

I'm not reluctant at all to read the thread, as a matter of fact, I've continually read through the entire thread as it has progressed.

My, "I'm not reading that" post, was a comment to Richard (whom I respect) that I'm not going to take the time to read a War And Peace sequel in the middle of an ongoing conversation. Should each person take the time to assert their own complete and exhausting interpretation on ethics in this thread would be an overwhelming waste of space and only become a massive library of mental posturing which would deter most from trying to wade through this train wreck of diametrically opposed and galvanized opinions. Or maybe that's what he was aiming for?

I felt that to show my support for Richard, I'd be as long winded with my explanation to you as possible.

The widely accepted defintitons of the word/concept of ""ethics"" are meaningless as redefined conveniently by The Philosopher King Richard of Hindsight as he minces merrily down Obfuscation Lane Take away his sacred quotation marks and most of his arguments lay naked and dead on the floor.

"ETHICS has exactly NOTHING whatsoever to do with how people treat other people." Jibberish even for Bwana Dik but then virtually all of western philosophy is mistaken in his royal view.

Like I said, nice try.

The Blather is mindnumbing and fully intended to be because the poor king's castle is acually vacant and haunted. He's talking a lot but he's not saying anything...obfuscation at its finest.

Unfortunately we are left with little but loyal Dweebs here at the Intermezzo so back to my ONE LITTLE QUESTION!

Richard or the far more forthright Mark, were you guys planning on finishing WOS on the Aquarian or did something go very wrong...atop the Great Slab?

Yes.......................................or No?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?