/ Protecting the environment vs yourself - "ethical" climbing

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
OneLifeOneHeart - on 27 Jan 2013
My interest in mountaineering and climbing is just a few months old and I have already noticed with a bit of confusion how many books, articles and discussions mention "ethical" climbing, about not damaging the rocks and the beauty of the mountains etc.

Now - call me insensitive - but as a beginner (and also later in my adventure), and being partly disabled, my safety is what matters to me most whatever sport I do, and I would find it a bit nuts to sacrifice my safety for the sake of preserving inanimate rock.

Whatever damage I can do to any kind of rock, I would assume that its lifespan is a million times longer than mine.

Or is this topic something deeper and less straightforward than just preserving rock? Which part of this discussion have I missed/misunderstood?
tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

Preserving your safety isn't what climbing is about. Many people enjoy pusing the boundaries, seeing what they are capable of doing, judging the risks and walking that thin line between what is safe and what is possible. Removing that psychological game from climbing would remove a big portion of the point of climbing for many people.

Even at lower levels, where there is no real danger, just feeling scared and then understanding that you can push yourself through that fear and carry on is a big part of what climbing is about.

When people talk about ethics, they are talking about climbing ethics. Climbing in a style that is the purest possible, soloing, leading trad, top roping, sports climbing, aid climbing and top roping all have their place, and all have varying amounts of 'head' that are needed (depending on both the climb itself and the style that you use to climb it).

I don't think worrying about damaging the rock is the biggest concern, beyond the fact that you would be diminishing the difficultly of the climb for those who want to try it after you. After all, there is plenty of large scale quarrying going on which is causing far more damage to the rock.

So enlarging a hold, placing a bolt etc are all making the climb easier. If you can't do the climb yourself, why not leave it as it is for those who ARE able to do it?

Hope this helps.
OneLifeOneHeart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm:

I have met various climbers who enjoy the sport for its physical benefits, which is what I enjoy as well, as well as the idea of reaching better views.

I didn't get the impression that climbing was reserved for an elite of adrenaline junkies.
elsewhere on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
Generally we shouldn't make a pig's ear of the outdoor environment, but it's not about preserving inanimate rock. It's about preserving the challenge for somebody who comes along to do the climb 5 minutes or 50 years later.

Gravity is the same for beginners and the elite so the dire consequences can be the same. That's part of climbing and why climbing sometimes feels like 90% mental & 10% physical.
tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> I have met various climbers who enjoy the sport for its physical benefits, which is what I enjoy as well, as well as the idea of reaching better views.
>
> I didn't get the impression that climbing was reserved for an elite of adrenaline junkies.

There is room for all and most of us enjoy both the physical and the mental aspects of climbing as well as the amazing locations, friendships and fun.
didntcomelast on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart: I don't think that was what tlm was meaning in relation to if you can't do the climb leave it to someone who can. I read that comment as meaning there are climbs of all different levels of difficulty and some you will be able to do and some you won't. Just because a climb is beyond a persons ability it would be unethical to alter the rock by chipping etc to bring it down to a level of difficulty a person could achieve.

The main concern in my mind about ethical climbing is to enjoy the climb, the scenery, the company all in an un altered state. All climbs have some danger involved thats why we carry protection and that protection has been designed in the main to do as little damage to the rock as possible, so leaving it looking as it has for millenia.

Climbing is many things to many people and each to their own. To cause damage though is not 'ethical' as it is a selfish act. A bit like buying a work of art and then damaging it to make it fit in your home.
Snoweider - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

Tlm hit the nail on the head- if you can't do it, there are lots of easier climbs to do, without spoiling the climb for other people. Climbing has a deep sense of history and routes, grades and first ascentionists are part of that. Altering a climb for good undermines this, spoils the route for others and hence will be frowned upon.

There are so many different games and grades under the heading of climbing, that if you want to minimise the risks but still get the physical benefits, its possible to do so by sticking to safe(r) sports routes, bouldering and climbing indoors, as well as picking nice weather days and easier routes if it is trad you are after.

You also have a responsibility to yourself and other hill users plus MRT not to bite off more than you can chew on a route so until you are confident of your own abilities and understand the "head game" of pushing your grade, this is a good idea for lots of other reasons, not just trashing routes when you find yourself out of your depth.

Finally, in extremis on a route, I've never thought for a million years, oh heck, I'll stop here for a bit, chip this hold and then I'll not hurt myself. If I can't do a move, its usually a case of pull on gear, or lower off and cry....! People who damage rock for their own ends are not usually doing it on the lead- which is when personal safety is usually most in question on a route.

And finally finally, I've left tat on the hill when I've had to ab off in a proper emergency. In this instance, I feel awful, but I don't feel dead so I can live with that.
needvert on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

My ethics:
given the massive damage we are doing to this biosphere, I wouldn't worry too much, even about dry tooling. You're probably doing more environmental damage every time you have dairy/beef or drive.

tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to needvert:

> My ethics:
> given the massive damage we are doing to this biosphere, I wouldn't worry too much, even about dry tooling. You're probably doing more environmental damage every time you have dairy/beef or drive.

That's the thing about climbing ethics - it isn't really about the environment - it's more about what you are leaving for other climbers, so that's a bit of a false argument (although personally, I don't see any harm in thinking about the environment too and not inflicting extra damage just for the sake of it).

Jon Stewart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> I have met various climbers who enjoy the sport for its physical benefits, which is what I enjoy as well, as well as the idea of reaching better views.
>
> I didn't get the impression that climbing was reserved for an elite of adrenaline junkies.

Climbing is extremely varied. Going mountaineering in big boots and lashing rain is a completely different thing to climbing some bold gritstone horror with no worthwhile gear and a spine-crunching landing. Which is just as different to redpointing (researsing bolted climbs before an eventual 'clean' ascent) and bouldering - though I think that these two have a lot in common as they are both about distilling the technical difficulty while reducing the risks.

Most forms of rock climbing (as opposed to mountaineering) attract either people who want to push their physical limits (sport and bouldering), or adrenaline/challenge junkies who like to use skill and judgement to manage (what appear to be) severe risks to get a real buzz (trad, winter). There is also a much more relaxed group of climbers (usually referred to by the other types as 'bumblies') who don't really fall into either of these categories, and who climb well within their limits, just for enjoyment. You can spot them at the crag by their red socks.
tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There is also a much more relaxed group of climbers (usually referred to by the other types as 'bumblies') who don't really fall into either of these categories, and who climb well within their limits, just for enjoyment. You can spot them at the crag by their red socks.

I do think that bumblies fall into both of the other types of climbers - just at lower levels. Just cos a climb is well protected, it doesn't mean that you don't have to ignore your fear a bit to get up it (knowing in your heart of hearts that your fear is unfounded). Just because the route is at an easy grade, it doesn't mean that it isn't a physical challenge.

Also, I think the term 'adrenaline junky' is a bit misplaced. That infers that you seek adrenaline fixes. I think many climbers don't particularly seek out getting scared, but seek out actually having control over misplaced fear - fear when you know full well that the climb is well within your capabilities and that you won't get hurt, so you really shouldn't actually be scared.

It isn't about thrill seeking - it's about aiming for a zen like calm (that we never completely reach). Some of my best climbing has been in the zone - no fear, no adrenaline, just smooth climbing when nothing but the climb exists.

tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

> I didn't get the impression that climbing was reserved for an elite of adrenaline junkies.

I did wonder with your first post, but this wording really confirms it. :-) I don't see anyone who has only been climbing for 3 months using wording like this. :-) But you've started an interesting thread never the less.
Jon Stewart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> I do think that bumblies fall into both of the other types of climbers - just at lower levels. Just cos a climb is well protected, it doesn't mean that you don't have to ignore your fear a bit to get up it (knowing in your heart of hearts that your fear is unfounded). Just because the route is at an easy grade, it doesn't mean that it isn't a physical challenge.

Fair point. I'm thinking really about the bumblies who have been climbing VSs on Stanage for 40 years and for whom pushing themselves just isn't part of the equation.
>
> Also, I think the term 'adrenaline junky' is a bit misplaced. That infers that you seek adrenaline fixes...
> It isn't about thrill seeking - it's about aiming for a zen like calm (that we never completely reach). Some of my best climbing has been in the zone - no fear, no adrenaline, just smooth climbing when nothing but the climb exists.

Interesting this. For me the best routes are ones which give the illusion of enormous danger but are actually safe - a run-out above good gear on a steep wall 200ft above the sea is where it's at for me. I agree it's not about getting scared in a negative way (that feeling where you go "f^ck, I'm out of my depth, this is serious, what am I going to do?") but for me it is about thrill seeking. It's about reaching the state of full fight-or-flight capacity, and using it to pull off something extremely physically demanding while somehow keeping your cool, not quite reaching that dry mouth, shaking, swearing stage that happens when you're just about to fall off. For me, it is all about the buzz (hence why sport climbing and bouldering bore me).

I agree that trad climbing nirvana is the calm 'zen' state where it's as if the ground has just moved up to inches below your feet and all the fear and self-doubt disappears, and a kind of silence comes over you while you do the moves without knowing how...but I think that's only happened to me about twice in 10 years!
tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Fair point. I'm thinking really about the bumblies who have been climbing VSs on Stanage for 40 years and for whom pushing themselves just isn't part of the equation.

But they might be thinking that their routes "give the illusion of enormous danger but are actually safe". You really can't tell if someone is pushing themselves or not. If they only get out climbing twice a year, or if their muscles are aging and weakening, or if their personality is one that is a low risk personality, then they may be doing exactly what you are doing, but at their own level.

I also did think after writing it, that some climbers DO seek thrills - I thought that anyway, but was just making the point that most people I know aren't exactly adrenaline junkies in any way that anyone else would define it.
OneLifeOneHeart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm and Jon Stewart:

First of all, thanks for clarifying what the "ethics" meant. I guess I had misunderstood something, or the climbing intro book was not very clear... so it wasn't the environment after all.

Secondly, my story is that I got a spine injury from an accident a couple of years ago and therefore cannot do any sport that involves impact or too much force (I cannot even jog or run, just walk brisk, or "speedwalk").

So, while enjoying my walks, I also started "pushing myself" beyond the limits of the city and hike outdoors, out of pure curiosity. Then, a new friend, who is a professional climbing instructor, took me to a trek in the mountains and ultimately convinced me to climb a few pitches. I felt that was incredibly healthy and, as you all surely know, climbing is like a "full body work out". So I started bouldering indoors more regularly and occasionally do outdoors as well.

In few words, I started to climb mainly to stay fit and healthy :)

I realize there are many other motivations to climbing, including photography, just enjoying the outdoors, or climbing as an extension to mountaineering/hiking. Or pushing your boundaries.

However, coming from a place of unwanted disability and daily chronic pain, I cannot help thinking that those who truly don't mind risking their life just to set a record in the climbing magazines must be seeing life in the same way as those who don't mind committing suicide; I'd even consider suggesting that those who want to commit suicide should try free soloing first.

Just look at the list of deaths in the free solo climbing article on Wikipedia! Sheer idiots!

In other words: respect life. You might have only one.
john arran - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

Thank you for the lecture. I'll make my own decisions though if you don't mind.

Suicide? You're having a laugh! Maybe when you've been climbing a while longer you'll understand better the difference between risk-taking and risk-control.
jwa - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
Not wanting to put you off but I wouldn't have thought that bouldering was a particularly good idea if you have to avoid sports with impacts. Even if you climb well within your limits and always climb down you can't anticipate a spinning hold or brief lapse in concentration that could result in an awkward fall. Top roping might be safer.

Most people aren't climbing out of lack of respect for their life. People make calculated decisions on what they feel safe and comfortable doing.
OneLifeOneHeart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran and jwa:

Then why did/do so many die?

Apparently the calculated decisions they "made on their own" were not so accurate.

Or were they punished by the mountain god?
Jon Stewart - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm and Jon Stewart)
>

> However, coming from a place of unwanted disability and daily chronic pain, I cannot help thinking that those who truly don't mind risking their life just to set a record in the climbing magazines must be seeing life in the same way as those who don't mind committing suicide; I'd even consider suggesting that those who want to commit suicide should try free soloing first.
>
> Just look at the list of deaths in the free solo climbing article on Wikipedia! Sheer idiots!
>
> In other words: respect life. You might have only one.

The thing is with risks, is that to understand how big or small they are, you have to know the number of people exposed to the risk. There are 6 deaths listed on that article, out of how many people who go soloing? I would suggest that the risk is in fact much smaller than driving a car.

As someone who likes to climb some routes solo, I can assure you that it's not about getting on the front of a magazine ("Jon Stewart's inspiring solo ascent of Doorpost, HS" is unlikely to make it) or anything to do with suicide. It's about knowing what's dangerous and what isn't. I'm not going to fall off a route I choose to solo because I've acquired the skills and judgement to make the risk perfectly reasonable: exactly like driving a car. Very likely to end in tears if you don't know what you're doing, but once you're competent the risk is still there, but it's reasonable. Just like driving, I know it could end in life-changing injury of death, but the chances are small enough and the benefits great enough (really, the benefits of soloing certain routes are immeasurable if you're into it) to make the decision a rational and sensible one.

Many of those people who died soloing took it to an incredible level, and eventually pushed it too far. They were climbing hard routes on big, big crags. I don't think it's fair to make judgements about their motivations, nor anyone's until you know them. I doubt people who push the limits on bold routes or solos are motivated externally - it's too serious for that.

Have a look for an interview with Johnny Dawes about climbing Indian Face and the degree of introspection he went through.
Snoweider - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

take a look at the BMC particpation statement: "The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions."

All climbers accept these risks- if they can't they need to find another sport.

There is a lot of information about climbing and risk on the BMC website:http://www.thebmc.co.uk/risk-and-safety You will find that the sport has remarkably low accident rates. Plenty more dangerous sports out there, like rugby for example.
john arran - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

> Then why did/do so many die?
>
> Apparently the calculated decisions they "made on their own" were not so accurate.

Apparently so, yes.
Rob Grant - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

They died because the risk they took, although calculated, was still a risk. they decided that the colour, for want of a better word, climbing added to their life was worth risking everything for.

I guess that is very hard to comprehend if you have not experienced how rewarding and beautiful climbing, or any activities with similar characteristics, can be. And,apologies if this sounds pompus, but I don't think you can comprehend it until you have been climbing for more than a few months and really explored what clibming is about.
tlm - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to john arran and jwa)
>
> Then why did/do so many die?
>
> Apparently the calculated decisions they "made on their own" were not so accurate.
>
> Or were they punished by the mountain god?

Why do so many people die driving?

Do they not make accurate decisions?

Or are they punished by the road god?

tk421 on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193

#19: Choking on food
Odds of dying: 1 in 4,404
People still eat solid food...

#11: Pedestrian accident
Odds of dying: 1 in 623
1/10,000 people die every year in a pedestrian accident (approx stat from that article), you'd think we're quite good as assessing risks when crossing the road.

I guess my point is that there are risks everywhere that we make calculated decisions to take that sometimes aren't very accurate but could feasibly avoid, yet we keep on doing it.

I'm sure the likelihood of falling on most free solo climbs is comparable to the likelihood of slipping on the stairs.
PMG on 27 Jan 2013
> I'm sure the likelihood of falling on most free solo climbs is comparable to the likelihood of slipping on the stairs.

2 persons I knew very well died climbing. I witnessed 1 fatal climbing accident (unrelated party) myself. Some of my climbing friends were injured while climbing (broken limbs etc.) I do not know anybody who got killed slipping on stairs.

A slip on free solo means death. In most cases a slip on stairs means bruises. All people walk stairs on daily basis - therefore such accidents happen even if their probability is very low. (The statistics you cite includes elderly persons much more likely to fall with bad consequences.)

Climbing is less dangerous than most people think which does not mean it is safe.

cuppatea on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

Does anyone remember the controversy around 20 (?) years ago where a climber (Ben Moon?) wanted to install a bolt lower-off to protect some flowers at the top of a sea cliff route (Isis?) somewhere.

As far as my addled brain recalls it the debate was whether a bolt on Cornish granite (?) was better or worse than flattening the rare flowers. The bolt would have meant the climber could lower off rather than topping out through the flora.

I may well have misremembered the whole thing, a quick Google search hasn't found anything to corroborate.
Goucho on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm and Jon Stewart)
>
>
> Just look at the list of deaths in the free solo climbing article on Wikipedia! Sheer idiots!

John Bachar, Tobin Sorenson, Derek Hersey, Jimmy Jewel etc.

You either know nothing about this side of climbing (or in fact, climbing) or you're the f*cking idiot!
>

Orgsm on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

To quote the Sultan of Mysore in 1800

‘In this world I would rather live two days like a tiger, than two hundred years like a sheep.

Mark Kemball - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm and Jon Stewart)

> Just look at the list of deaths in the free solo climbing article on Wikipedia! Sheer idiots!
>
I really think you should be more careful with your choice of words. As someone who has lost good friends soloing, I find this offensive.

Mark Kemball - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to cuppatea:
> (In reply to OneLifeOneHeart)
>
> Does anyone remember the controversy around 20 (?) years ago where a climber (Ben Moon?) wanted to install a bolt lower-off to protect some flowers at the top of a sea cliff route (Isis?) somewhere.

Fairly certain it was the Edwards. Previous bolting activity meant their ideas were not well received.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:

> I realize there are many other motivations to climbing, including photography, just enjoying the outdoors, or climbing as an extension to mountaineering/hiking. Or pushing your boundaries.
>
> However, coming from a place of unwanted disability and daily chronic pain, I cannot help thinking that those who truly don't mind risking their life just to set a record in the climbing magazines must be seeing life in the same way as those who don't mind committing suicide; I'd even consider suggesting that those who want to commit suicide should try free soloing first.
>
> Just look at the list of deaths in the free solo climbing article on Wikipedia! Sheer idiots!
>
> In other words: respect life. You might have only one.

It's about doing what makes you feel most alive, or 'in the moment'. I've climbed solo before, and it honestly can be a very peacefull and clear headed feeling experience.

Everybody has thier own level of risk which they find acceptable, some people like to go out into snowy mountains which are very beautfull, but where there is a risk of avalance.

It's a personal decision to make, and other people can't say they are wrong, only that they wouldn't do the same.
Timmd on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to jwa:
> (In reply to OneLifeOneHeart)
> Not wanting to put you off but I wouldn't have thought that bouldering was a particularly good idea if you have to avoid sports with impacts. Even if you climb well within your limits and always climb down you can't anticipate a spinning hold or brief lapse in concentration that could result in an awkward fall. Top roping might be safer.

That's what I was thinking.
Nath93 - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart: You don't climb solo because you don't have someone else to go climbing with, you solo because you want to. If you didn't, then you wouldn't.

Climbing isn't safe, and people shouldn't try to make it 100% safe. Mountains are dangerous places and always will be.
needvert on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm:

Ahh, well put.

I tend to look at everything from an environmental point of view when people talk about "damaging the rock".

But, as you say, it's about preserving the existing experience of the climb.

Now that I think about it, I'm even more accepting in my 'ethics'. I don't much mind about bolting, dry tooling, unclean aid, etc. The climb will always be there, just possibly in a different form as holds and pro evolve. Personally the damage I hate most is that of frequent traffic leading to polished greasy rock, but - I don't know of anyone who considers the hands and shoes on rock that leads to that as unethical.
needvert on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to Nath93:

Sometimes I go climbing by myself because I don't have anyone else to go with. I take a rope.

I'm not sure if that's a form of solo, since the usage of terms like solo and free solo in climbing are a bit odd. Solo aid, probably involves a rope for example.
tlm - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to Nath93)
>
> Sometimes I go climbing by myself because I don't have anyone else to go with. I take a rope.
>
> I'm not sure if that's a form of solo, since the usage of terms like solo and free solo in climbing are a bit odd. Solo aid, probably involves a rope for example.

In the UK, we tend to call that roped soloing.... but it's most definitely a solo!

tlm - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to needvert:

> Now that I think about it, I'm even more accepting in my 'ethics'. I don't much mind about bolting, dry tooling, unclean aid, etc. The climb will always be there, just possibly in a different form as holds and pro evolve. Personally the damage I hate most is that of frequent traffic leading to polished greasy rock, but - I don't know of anyone who considers the hands and shoes on rock that leads to that as unethical.

Don't you ever listen to those endless debates about top-roping things above your ability, and the resulting polish on holds? Or people discussing putting muddy boots on the rock, or talking about placing your feet carefully, rather than scrabbling around?

I think the thing is, routes are usually made easier, not harder, by modifications. As I'm such a bumbly, it's unlikely to affect my experience, but if you are looking for top end routes to climb and they all get made easier, then you might feel differently about it.

I do also think that we are quite lucky in the UK to have retained the adventurous side of climbing, rather than turning the outdoors into a gym. I've seen a real change in climbing culture in my own time, so I do think it would be very sad if people in the future didn't even get to notice the adventures to be had. But there you go - you can't really ever stop change from happening. I feel very privileged to have climbed in the times that I have climbed.

wilkie14c - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm: Well put. I was chatting to a french guy on Skye the other week and he simply loved the UK climbing scene due to the clean ethics and spirit of adventure. We've seen a hell of a lot of change in climbing 'lives' - the last 20 years or so, and as a community we should be singing our praises as we've kept things as pure as we can without over regulating the sport.
Camm on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
Humans are easily replaced, the rock can't be
tlm - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to danrock101:
> (In reply to OneLifeOneHeart)
> Humans are easily replaced, the rock can't be

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Rock is constantly being created, just at a very, very slow speed.

Timmd on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to tlm:I suppose from our perspective at least, it's about whether it's replaced while humans are still around to climb it.
deepsoup - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to Nath93:
> Climbing isn't safe, and people shouldn't try to make it 100% safe.

This is true of course.

On the off chance that the OP is a poorly informed (and somewhat judgemental) newbie rather than a troll, I'll point out the bleedin obvious..

This does not mean that as in individual climber you can't choose to make your own climbing relatively safe, simply by choosing relatively safe routes to climb. (Of course it can't be made absolutely 100% safe, but then neither can any other worthwhile physical activity.)
Timmd on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup:Even living an average life has risks in it, like crossing the road. It's about what makes you feel alive in the end.
mkean - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
It's about what makes you feel alive in the end.

Being alive makes me feel alive, or do you mean "It's about what makes you feel alive in the end" because that is a very rude sentence and not suitable for a family friendly forum :-)

Ava Adore - on 28 Jan 2013
In reply to OneLifeOneHeart:
> (In reply to tlm and Jon Stewart)


> (I cannot even jog or run, just walk brisk, or "speedwalk").


Erm....didn't you post recently asking for suggestions of run routes?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.