visiter le site web de

News from Magic Wood

Posted on 18. Oct, 2010 by in News

First off, there have been some excellent sends in Magic Wood. Magic Wood is a gorgeous forest of gneiss boulders tucked in a narrow valley in Switerzland. Carlo Traversi, visiting from Boulder, CO has done The Never Ending Story V14. Chris Webb-Parsons has climbed the first ascent of a V15, Believe in Two, which heads right off the classic V13 Steppenwolf. Chris also added a new V14 Tough Times. And American Alex Puccio, also visiting from Boulder has climbed The Never Ending Story Part 1 V12, Octopussy V11, Free for All V11, and The Never Ending Story Part II V11. Finally, Paul Robinson has climbed a long standing Bernd Zangerl project and dubbed it Ill Trill V15. Paul’s ascent has caused some controversy, with the typically reticent Zangerl commenting about Paul on He had this to say:

Congratulation to Paul, for finishing this magic wood project !!! This is a really great problem with
crazy moves. I was also working on this problem for some time and i just get
back in shape, after all my travelling this year. And since you found an easier
solution for the sloper move i am even more motivated.

But i did this problem already as a standstart ( without the
first two moves ) a couple of times. ( i also slipped of from the top out hold
last year; so this is a „special mind project“ for me J ) I named the stand
„WOVENHAND“. I sent you these
infos on your blog……but maybe you never got.

As i am from a older generation, i think it’s disrespectful to give it a new name?? Just
because I do two more moves on an existing problem i would never rename it. This
is something which should not take over in the bouldering community. I have big
respect for all people out there, which are going out and searching new lines,
cleaning problems, looking for new
stuff. This is what bouldering is about…..for myself. Searching new visions
and try to make them real. I had
this visions already years ago and started working on this problem. I would
never go to „Midnight Lighning“ and rename it after making a sitdown. it.

Maybe you never got these infos, so i thought i inform you
this way….and we can keep the name „WOVENHAND“.

Congratulation to this fast ascent !!!! You are really in
best shape right now, and i hope you find a cool line in Ticino, which inspires
other people to try.

All the best


I still contend that even when a climber begins from one hold lower, they have earned the right to name their new sequence, as they have added something new. Bernd’s example of Midnight Lightning is a good one. I would argue that climbers should be free to name the problem if they climb it from a sitdown. This doesn’t change the fact that starting on Midnight Lightning is still Midnight Lightning, and no one is renaming anything. Another example I have used before is Better Eat Your Wheaties. Boone Speed climbed a very unimpressive lower start to this classic Hueco Tanks testpiece and named it Better Build Your Woodies. No one climbs this and Better Eat Your Wheaties remains as popular as ever. Nevertheless, the two still exist. Interestingly enough, Fred Nicole, a frequent partner of Bernd’s, climbed a four move traverse into Better Eat Your Wheaties, calling it (I think it is inaccurate to say rename) Crown of Aragorn. Is Fred from the older generation that Bernd speaks of?

Paul “responded”, although it’s not clear if this was intended to be public, to Jen’s Larssen of 8a with this:

“”In the guidebook it only mentions the climb as a project. There is a picture of the climb, it says project under it and nothing else. I started in the (sic) mosst logical place on the jugs at the bottom of the wall. There is no stand start what so ever to this climb. There is one obvious starting hold at the bottom. I did not rename it as I did not even know it had a name before I went there and to call where bernd started a climb is crazy. No one would ever know which holds he began on.

to which Bernd responded

“I also meet Paul these days, and it seems that he never got
the message on his blog or on his mail . Sometimes the worldwide „data and rumor transfer“ is still
not working. I never wanted to say, Paul did something wrong!!!! …..but I
also took this chance to bring up this discussion, because there are new situations these days in sport,
bouldering, climbing, which can be ( should be ) discussed on a base level of
ethics. Maybe we need no ethics anymore and the sport is just getting a mirror
image of your society? Maybe some people think like I do, maybe some people
think this is „bulls#$%“… here just a few more words to think about…..not
to „battle“ about!!!!!

There is no right or wrong nowadays in this, and no national
problem. At the end it’s always a personal affair, a personal view. But a few
years ago, it would have been „wrong“ to rename a boulderproblem, after putting
up a sit. Nobody in the bouldering scene was even thinking about this. NOW, WE
DO !!! A few years ago, and i
still do, i would ask if i can try a project found by someone else. NOW, IT’S
FREE FOR ALL. I have no problem
with this and if i would have met Paul in Magic Wood and i see, that he can do
it quickly…he should go for it !!!!! I for myself would not try a project if somebody is close to
send it, and i see his motivation which he put’s into it.

For me, finding a line, finding a project which is hard, but
possible is not something you have every day. So maybe this is the reason for my
„ethical“ view…different view. And
less and less people go searching, or cleaning. My friends and I probaly
cleaned 90% of the Magic Wood and developed some other areas in Ticino. Those
places are crowded now, everybody goes there and wants to do some „classics“. Just
a few go out and search new places, new inspirations for the sport. But for me
finding a great line, finding something NEW, checking out the moves is the
creative part in bouldering. This
is still my motivation, after 10 years of exploring and cleaning. So I respect
all those explorers, because they look for something new.

……is this still the right topic?? J i think we can close this now…..

have fun & search a block


It is interesting to see how these types of things are dealt with by some of the top climbers. I think that Paul is totally in the right to name his first ascent, and props to him for putting up one of the hardest problems in Switzerland. I disagree that where Bernd started is “crazy.” People would know where it started if either A) Bernd told them, as it seems he tried to do, or B) it was written as such in a guide book. I like that Bernd is so into exploring and putting up problems, but it seems that closing projects and naming them before they are climbed suggests that he has other motivations beyond sharing. Does this exemplify a difference between the American approach and the European approach, or are these two individuals acting on their own whims and desires? Either way, an interesting topic and one that has clearly not yet been resolved.

46 Responses to “News from Magic Wood”

  1. ian walters

    18. Oct, 2010

    I wonder if one of the difficulties in a discussion like this is the lack of an obvious starting jug.

    It seems to me that each time a debate like this surfaces, we who get involved appear just as frustrated by our inability to define our terms–such as “an older generation,” a “european” or “american approach,” or even “ethics”–than we are frustrated by the person whose actions have directly or indirectly called those terms into question.

    I suppose part of this frustration might be due to the sheer number of highly regionalized discourses that use the same terms–I mean…doesn’t it seem to you like Bernd and Paul are using the same words to say and understand very different things? It feels like these terms have become so bogged down that nobody can use them anymore without appearing polemical. I just have a hard time believing everybody’s as angry as they seem about just boulders.

    I think we’re all just as pissed that each time we try to have a debate about something meaningful to us, we rediscover that we’re arguing around an activity without rules, in the strictest sense. The vocabulary surrounding bouldering doesn’t seem flexible enough to accommodate such a highly personal, not to mention international, activity.

  2. André

    18. Oct, 2010

    I don’t know any of the two climbers personally and all I heard about this is what I read of 8a. I wonder where you get the idea from that Zangerl had closed the project and named it before climbing it. According to him, he already climbed a stand start version of it and he never mentioned he had red-tagged the project.

    So in my opinion, this whole thing comes down to a somewhat different approach in climbing ethics between European and American climbers – and it’s certainly not the first time it caused some trouble. Just think of Sharma calling that route in Ceuse Realization, instead of using the name that was given by Lafaille who had bolted the route. So who gets to name/rename a climb depends on the ethics/rules that people apply. There’s no problem if there are different approaches, but I’d say that the most respectful and appropriate thing to do, is to respect the local ethics and rules. I dont think this is too hard to apply – just ask the locals how they handle these kind of things.

    Ehtics aside, for me personally, giving a new name to a boulder after adding a sit start or making small variations isn’t logical at all but only adds to the confusion. If you have a stand and a sit to a problem X, why not just call it X stand and X sit. That way it’s easy to know for everybody what has been climbed and what’s being talked about.

  3. falco

    18. Oct, 2010

    american approach? very interesting!

    americans: go out and do something.
    europeans: go out and find/create something

    and i dont think you see what i want to say with that…

  4. campusman

    18. Oct, 2010

    Its not bulls#$%, There is two standpoints…both come from learned ethics…

    this has caused me to speak up before, only to be humbled about the fact there are no rules.
    however I still stick with my own ethics
    my ethics call things low starts if its a low start, however if I traversed into the climb I would rename it. Like Apocalypse, thats typical for a traverse.

    A lot of people have the ethics that say well its a new climb because I added a move so I get to rename it…I don’t see any ethics involved in renaming a problem after adding a move- Its like a new age Colorado thing. Props for getting the news out in such fashion Bernd.

    However it sounds like this all has nothing to deal with Bernd and Pauls situation (Thank You Lord!)
    Paul basically repeated Bernds climb and named it something new because he thought it was a project.

  5. Shawn Emerson

    18. Oct, 2010


  6. Dan

    18. Oct, 2010

    For all the controversy Paul has gotten into in the past, I think he is right on this one. In the bouldering world it seems each problem is a race to get to the top and name the problem, whereas in the sport world the lines have a little more ownership and the equipper’s intentions should be heeded. But hey, maybe thats just my American mindset. Paul does seem to unintentionally step on a lot of toes though, maybe it would be best if he just conceded and went with Wovenhand. Its probably not worth pissing off the Euros.

  7. B3

    18. Oct, 2010

    Thanks Mom and Dad! I love you guys!

  8. B3

    18. Oct, 2010

    @Andre But then what if someone starts lower? In Colorado this has happened several times. Each starting hold, where it is claimed to be an FA should be named. That being said I think the FAist should be responsible enough to not call it a problem until it has been done from the most obvious start.

  9. B3

    18. Oct, 2010

    @Dan I think that Paul is in the right, but at the same time I think it would be nice, but not necessary, if there were some consideration of the local ethic on his part.

  10. B3

    18. Oct, 2010

    @Ian I have tried to establish some ethics in this regard, because we see the confusion lack of ethics causes. It seems climbers are still resistant, but more and more of these instances will drive this desire for what constitutes an ascent or defines a boulder problem.

  11. matt

    18. Oct, 2010

    Can’t this be resolved with an AKA for the name in the guide for the standstart or entire problem. I see this in many guidebooks and I’ve used them in several guides I’ve written.

    It’s more work for the author but still gives credit to both parties involved.

  12. Chuckles

    18. Oct, 2010

    Thanks for your posts. I visit quite frequently to add fuel to my fire…bouldering.

    We recently had a boulder problem get an FA; it was a long standing problem. Sweet right? Not according to some jealous locals and some out of staters that have ties to the state. The boulder problem is renamed and I don’t see a problem with it at all. Isn’t the goal of bouldering/climbing is to get the FA and naming the problem? Also, the boulderer had permission to climb the boulder to.

  13. g

    18. Oct, 2010

    Been living 2yrs close enough to fontainebleau to know that here:
    -the general rule is to add “assis” or “bas” to the original name
    -exceptions are exceptions and are usually intended to be some kind of statement.

    i’m not necessarily interested in deciding or stating who’s “right” or “wrong” in this case, or which tradition is best.

    I have more curiosity towards the media/advertising value of a new name VS “original sitstart”
    Is “original sitstart” a weaker choice for some reason?
    If yes, why?
    Hypoteses :
    a) More emphasis on the FA thing. The previous ascent as a standup is not necessarily acknowledged or can be hidden in those lines nobody reads. People will understand that a whole new climb is born.
    b) Sitstarting existing lines is possibly seen by some as a climbing geek thing, something with no interest. “this guy only looks for hard moves, not for the next king line”

    btw the same reasoning could apply in sport climbing for combinations of existing routes and/or other forms of variations.

  14. cj

    18. Oct, 2010

    Robinson said that it was listed as a project in the book. If its in the book then it is implied that it’s free game. Also if the stand was mentioned in the book, then Robinson would have known, but it was not.

  15. campusman

    18. Oct, 2010

    Someone feed you too much troll food but thats okay.

  16. Mark

    18. Oct, 2010

    I’m not going to lie, when this PRob thing came up again, I was sitting here just with my hands over my eyes hoping that this wasn’t another shot at Paul, and its not! I’m glad that everyone’s opinions were quickly put on the table and described generally pretty well. I think its obvious that its two different opinions, but I think, also, that an obvious start is the coveted prize. I’m 6’6″ or so, and I could probably reach good holds on a lot of things that would be obvious start holds, but I think in most circumstances, you have to go what is most reasonable, and if in this situation, SDS start holds are most reasonable, then I’d be inclined to go with that.

  17. the believer

    18. Oct, 2010

    cj, only believe whats written in the book….!!!!!!
    i have an old guidbook from cresciano. there is listed a project on the dreamtime-boulder. a big dagger-like compressionline. Hopfully i get the FA soon.
    i think i will call it “the dagger” and its for sure 8b+.

    it´s not always true (or up to date) what is written in the book

  18. William

    18. Oct, 2010

    Your comment @ Andrea “I think the FAist should be responsible enough to not call it a problem until it has been done from the most obvious start”. Does this mean that Esperanza should not have been named until Daniel added V5 into it, or what about your example of crown of A or Moffats ascent of Dominated?

  19. B3

    18. Oct, 2010

    No I think Esperanza is a fairly obvious start, as is the Dominator. Perhaps this changes with difficulty, although it probably shouldn’t. Tim Clifford did the Singularity from one or two move higher than the obvious start, but if that is the best we climbers can manage then so be it. I was thinking of Dave doing a good link on Suspension of Disbelief for example and not naming or grading it, until he had done the full line. Dave had done the “stand” start, but realized that it wasn’t a full problem from an obvious start. Other climbers went back after Dave and did “Suspension stand”.

  20. matt

    18. Oct, 2010

    I think this is going to be an ongoing issue and ultimately will be decided by the person or persons who wants to include or exclude certain names from the guide. I personally would add all names out of respect to the climber or climbers.
    However, I think it would save on the printing costs to ask the climbers if it was ok to go with one name on a problem even if it has a sit and stand start.

    At some point it becomes redundant to have different names for a sit start /low start/stand start in guidebooks.

  21. cj

    18. Oct, 2010

    @ the believer, good call, i just assume the book is up to date. Well anyways, i guess its apparent that there can be ethics involved when it comes to publishing a “project”

  22. BA

    19. Oct, 2010

    I believe it really just depends on the problem. There cant just be a confirmed “rule” that must be followed by everyone.

    Whatever name is used to describe the boulder’s most logical start, i believe should be the problem’s main name.

    For instance:

    Mandala – The problem from the higher, more logical start (even though this problem’s start is debatable, whatever it is, its more logical of a start than the sit) gives the problem its main name. There is the mandala, and then the mandala sit.

    Butterfinger – Even though the problem was FA’d from a higher start, it seems (if the lower start is indeed more logical) that a new name for the new start could be acceptable. Also it adds a significant amount of new moves.

    In the event that there are multiple places where a start could be logical as a higher and lower start, then probably whichever was completed first and decided upon as being a problem should retain the name, and all variations be given a similar name. (Desperanza, Dominated, From shallow waters to the riverbed, Suspension of disbelief stand)

    Even given the loose guidelines above, it is still quite fuzzy to really have a solid opinion on this issue, but I believe Paul is in the right for giving it his own name if his line is the most logical start.

    I mean, thats like someone asking Fred to change the name of Diaphanous Sea to “Flake Magnet Sit.”

    However, I do believe Bernd has handled this situation fantastically given the fact that most people just dont think like he does anymore. Paul’s bluntness in his response was also a bit uncalled for i think…

  23. Chuckles

    19. Oct, 2010

    @ Campusman: no troll food, just an opinion. FA’s from the climber/boulderer should have the right to name it as he/she desires. They contributed to the area and by doing so, provides a new established line to climb.

    Also, a few climbers/boulderers want the glory w/o ever putting out effort such as cleaning the area

  24. campusman

    19. Oct, 2010

    @the believer

    There is a difference between doing something on accident and doing something on purpose. Accidents happen, and they are also not a sin. However, when someone is joking you cant always tell if they are serious or not. And its confusing to tell weather or not a troll is being serious or not always, the best way is to fake it until you make it. PSYCH

  25. Jacob

    19. Oct, 2010

    When visiting a new area, I believe it to be a good thing to be open and genuinely interested in understanding the cultural and historical background that define those areas. While a category such as ‘Europe’ or ‘Euros’ is too broad to say anything meaningful, maybe there is such a thing as Swiss climbing ethics? If Bernd is a real or just a self-proclaimed spokesperson for this I have no idea.

    But in my opinion, when naming a sit in Switzerland or an extension in France (Realization), it is not very important what the average Boulderite thinks–it is important what the French and the Swizz climbers think. So why not just ask around and figure out what the local consensus is on these things and then show your appreciation as a guest by complying with such a consensus?

    I mean this as a general thing. I have no idea if Bernd is just pissed off because somebody snacked his lunch…

  26. Mark E

    19. Oct, 2010

    It’s important to realize that it’s actually the climbing community, not individual climbers, that have control over the naming of problems.

    Let’s say I add a goofy sit start to an established problem. If the sit doesn’t add to the difficulty or aesthetics of the problem, I could spend all the time I wanted spraying about my new sit start and its name … but no one would care and the suggested name would fade into oblivion.

    However, if the new start is accepted by the community as a significant addition, there’s a chance that the community will also endorse a name change. Or, climbers may accept the new start but not the new name.

    In either of these cases, the person creating the new moves only has the power to suggest a change in the name. It’s the community of climbers that ultimately accepts or rejects the naming suggestion.

  27. William

    19. Oct, 2010

    If Paul says, ” There is no stand start what so ever to this climb”. Is this not for the FAist to determine, which is clearly not him. Unless Paul wants to be the standard for defining if a problem qualifies. What about Pauls ascent of Suspension and Disbelief which he has recored on his 8a scorecard. Dave clearly says there is only the full line and not a stand. One a similiar note what about Charlie Brendsens claim to Rasta Man Sit yrs before Paul, I guess, Paul decided it did’nt qualify. It sounds like when I play games with my 5 yr old nehew, we modify the rules so he doesnt cry. Have some morals and ethics

  28. Jim

    19. Oct, 2010

    I find it interesting that Paul noted the guidebook as calling the climb a “project.” If it’s a known project, I think it would be most respectful to try to figure out who’s project it is before assigning a name. It could occur that a project gets climbed without being added to the guidebook. Guidebooks are only published so often and FA’s happen at a much faster rate. In that case, show courtesy and try to contact the project owner/cleaner (if possible).

    Regarding sit start/stand start variations, the person who sends the second variation (i.e. not the originally established start) should get recognized as doing so while the climb retains it’s original name. This ensures that the person who made the FA (and possibly discovered and cleaned) the original line maintains credit while still sharing some with the person who established a the variation. If the climb is allowed to be renamed, the original line gets lost and with it the person that developed it. IF, however, the variation is so drastic and changes the climb (multiple moves, grade increase, etc) then the person establishing the variation should still contact the person that developed the original line before adding a new name.

    Perhaps this all seems like a lot of work in tracking down the person who made the FA of the original line, but it’s the least you can do to show respect for them.

  29. Adam M

    19. Oct, 2010

    Way to go Bernd and Paul for just chatting about a rock climb! Nice work you two.

    Fact: Paul would not deliberately do these things. If you think he would, you do not know him and are merely speculating.

    I’m with Jamie here too. Paul was not in the wrong. Just found what he believed to be a project, climbed it, named it, got psyched, moved on. Oopsy, Bernd did a piece of it already. I did the FA of a long-standing project near Vail that already had been named “Juliette.” Whatever. I may add “Is a whore” to the end of it, but i’m keeping the original.

    Bernd, sorry man, but problems have been renamed when done from sit starts for a LONG time. Including by your friend, the man the myth the legend, Mr. Fred Nicole, who put sit starts to most of John Sherman’s lines in Hueco and subsequently RE-named them. Oopsy. BA hit that nail on the head with his Diaphanous Sea line.

    People are crushing, people are climbing, people are sending. Now a large portion of the world knows this problem exists and will go out and try it because no matter what you feel like calling it, the movement is always there, and it’s hard.

    This message has a light tone! I have enjoyed reading the posts and been happy that no one has really used the “sarcasm” font yet.



    19. Oct, 2010

    ” I mean, thats like someone asking Fred to change the name of Diaphanous Sea to ‘Flake Magnet Sit.’ ”

    i appreciate counter points that include specific references. thusly, i like this ^

    i also like the comment about how the obviousness of a start can sometimes be dictated by the strength of the climber. very true. but is this a bad thing?

    i’ve always argued that there should be more problems in the world than less so if a problem with an obvoius sit start has a stand start, both should be valid. under this rationale, bernd’s climb clearly exists and opens this piece of stone to an arguably larger population than paul’s start. in this, there is value in my opinion.

    finally, regarding sit starts, generally… it seems that an aversion to sit starts as being oh so un-king-line-esque is probably based on rock type. sit starts on mainly vertical or bulging sandstone sloper fests, for instance, would often be pretty lame, whereas sit starts in hueco open up otherwise chossy face climbs to many many moves of horizontal cave climbing underneath the underlip.

  31. PA

    19. Oct, 2010

    I can’t believe how needlessly complex this ‘issue’ has become. I mean really??? We are attaching respect, morals, and ethics within and between countries, cultures, and nationalities to the naming of a piece of rock??!!!!!!!!!! I can’t tell after reading all of these comments if I’m the crazy one or if you all are. Since when does cleaning a boulder equate to ownership of said boulder? And I’m sorry but doesn’t Bernd have like 20 other V.sickhard projects to do? I thought Swizzy was crawling with untapped projects and didn’t he say he cleaned like 90% of all the problems in Swizzy? If that’s the case then you should be used to someone occasionally coming in and swooping up some low lying fruit, thanks! Look, Paul said he started on the obvious jugs at the bottom; how is that not the most logical place to start? And what, is there some ‘universal project-cleaning data base’ he can tap into to get the contact information for every person who has cleaned and done a stand start to what’s listed as a project in the guide book? Fuck that. This is silly and blown way out of proportion. What about Dave Grahm doing the sit start to Boogalagga and calling it Big Paw? Where was the internet explosion over that one? The point is that Paul did the FA right? Is anyone questioning that? Then why the hell shouldn’t he get to name it whatever he wants including sit start to Wovenhand? Is this really about naming boulder problems? I think not. More likely it’s about a sense of entitlement that develops over a period of time in someone who spends most of their time cleaning and developing problems. These rocks do not belong to you no matter how much you may clean or chalk them. If you’re looking for credit then by all means spray everywhere about how much time you spend cleaning and developing and try to convince people that you deserve a book to be written about you or a medal or a holiday or something. Get over it! Your dreams of doing the ‘real’ Wovenhand are long gone. Do you stop cleaning and developing every time something you have cleaned and developed gets FA’ed? No! So move on, find another a problem, clean it, climb it, and name IT Wovenhand, or better yet you could even call it ‘Paul Robinson Hurt My Feelings By Not Using the Name I Wanted To Use on a Problem Noone Knew I had Done a Stand Start To’ (V.17). Sheesh! I love how overtly passive aggressive climbers are, don’t you? And another thing, just kidding.

  32. Dbuzz

    20. Oct, 2010

    “Either way, an interesting topic and one that has clearly not yet been resolved.”

    There is no resolution. Like most things in life there are discussions and opinions….like grades or whether or not to rename a new sit to a stand. This is all part of the sport and part of climbing. We all know who the “good guys/gals” are and we all know who are the d-bags. We have respect for those that deserve it and make fun of those that don’t. I have a positive 6 ape, so when I grade a problem V1 and someone comes along with a minus 1 says, “no way!”…it’s only a reference my friend. Lets go back to B1, 2 and 3. Or when someone decides to “rename” a problem we can discuss what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” on the 3 hour drive to the gunks. Did Paul know or didn’t he? Now that Bernard and Paul have discussed it we can talk about it and generate are own opinions. These are the debates that make life and the sport interesting. This will never and should never be resolved….I live too far from too many great area’s!

  33. M.I.A.G.T

    20. Oct, 2010

    I feel like boulder problems are fair game. I do greatly respect the process of hiking forever, cleaning, climbing, and coming back to continue to try. That being said a boulder is a boulder. Bolting a route is a hole different story.

    As far as naming renaming etc I could care less. I do respect those who have come before me and what they have taught us. If you need to have a first assent to sleep better than go for it. If you need to hit up 8anu then by all means do so.

    The internet is great for some many things, but it seems to eroding the soul of this sport faster and faster with they little “pro” ego nonsense.

    The passive aggressive garbage is getting out of control. But when they are that insecure and argue over climbing on rocks, what else do you expect.

    once again Jamie really like your last story, makes me want to move away from eskrima and get back to crankin!

    Thanks for the inpiration

  34. Adam M

    20. Oct, 2010

    @Jim; No one should have to contact anybody when working a problem in a book that says project. Anywhere. I start calling Wills Young everytime I want to try a “black line” in the Bishop book he’s going to kick my ass and take my crashpads away. Comeon.

    @PA. Word.

  35. Yorginswitzerland

    20. Oct, 2010


    “there are no rules”, “Paul basically repeated Bernds climb and named it something new because he THOUGHT it was a project.”

    thanks again campusman, enough said, next topic Jamie

  36. Jim

    20. Oct, 2010

    @Adam M; I didn’t mean to imply that you should have to contact anyone while working a project. That would be ridiculous. But if you intend on giving the project a name because you made the FA, you should at least check to see if you really made the FA. That’s all I meant.

  37. Adam M

    20. Oct, 2010

    @Jim: Cool. What you just said was clearer and more succinct. Thanks man! Peace.

  38. mike hawk

    21. Oct, 2010

    I think you have all forgot the bigger issue. We are american’s so f#$% everybody else. We do what we want because screw everybody else. America! Red, white, and @#$% you

  39. Nanda yo!

    21. Oct, 2010

    Adam M: Paul`s fluffer-boy. Oopsy, keep on fluffing.

  40. campusman

    21. Oct, 2010

    I think we have all forgot the bigger issue. We are American’s so lets have sex with everybody else. We do what we want so screw everybody else. America! Red, white, and blue balls.

  41. lowballer

    21. Oct, 2010

    Americans, they are all from a different continent. Someone pwns them.

    but forget it, I am pretty sure that Paul got an FA because he started from the low jugs though its not clear as to why bernd didnt start there too if its jugs. maybe the move from the jugs ads too much for what bernd could do at that time.

    I 3rd the no rules aspect

  42. Adam M

    22. Oct, 2010

    Yeah. Tough being a good friend to someone isn’t it? Especially when he keeps getting dumped on. Hard to have a pal.


  43. campusman

    22. Oct, 2010

    our biggest problem is ourselves.
    its easy to have friends, good friends, friends that have problems that set them aside for a good time with us. However, if we want to keep those friends we must take care of those problems in our own way & or seek help in any way. Dealing with our friends problems is not something we have to do unless asked. The best way to help someone, even a crazy person is to just love them. I am not crazy, nor have I ever been crazy. However I have had my moments like anyone.
    I met a crazy person last night (my friend and I were judging her at first and so was my friend). She had some good things to say, I was surprised by her outlook on just wanting to have a good time and spend time with some people. We continued to judge her by her appearance and the fact she was probably on medication. She was soon approached by someone that was close to her, he obviously loved her. What shocked was that she was completely sane after he showed up for a while. Unfortunately she kept drinking and I was thinking it was just going to be all down hill from there.
    Even though she was drunk and slammed a bottle of beer faster than anyone I have ever seen, I still told her thanks for the conversation on my way out. The lady smiled and she didn’t seem crazy at all. This was a huge lesson for me about loving someone. Hopefully everyone reading this will get something out of it.

    Peace & Love

  44. campusman

    22. Oct, 2010

    For the record, I only had one friend at the time, but I met another one. =)

    My friend David says that there is a way to tell if you are crazy or not. “You buy a bottle of Nutella (the hazelnut spread). Then, you put some on some bread and eat it. If you don’t like it, you’re crazy.”

  45. Cat

    25. Oct, 2010

    Oh, why can’t we just all get along. They’re rocks for crying out loud.

  46. […] Paul Robinson – Ill Trill 8C (aka Wovenhand – Bernd Zangerl) […]

Leave a Reply