Alpine_Tom

quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: Alpine Tom. I recently heard about Guns, Germs, and Steel. What is that about? Basically that, in the development of human history, geography was destiny. He starts off the book with the question: why did soldiers from Spain conquer Mexico, rather than vice versa? Sounds sort of silly, but a great deal flows from that. He addresses: why agriculture developed so quickly in the Middle East, and why is spread so much more rapidly in Eurasia than in the Americas; why China, with superior technology (printing, gunpowder, the compass) was overtaken technologically by Europe, why so few animals are fit for domestication, and how that affects the development of agriculture, which in turn enables the development of standing armies, as well as the development of culture. Why communicable diseases like measles and smallpox arose in Eurasia but not the Americas, with the effects we all know about. This guy is an anthropologist, and one of the ideas he seeks to discredit is the one that different peoples have different tendencies (Mexicans are lazy, primitive tribesmen from New Guinea can’t understand capitalism, Japanese can imitate but not innovate) and it seems like he does so extremely well. The first chapter, as I recall, was a bit slow, but it just got better and better. The chapter on writing was particularly good. I could easily go on for ten pages, but I will, with great effort, restrain myself.

Most of my "reading" has lately been books on tape, to use my bicyle commuting time effectively. I thought Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers was excellent; it's about the American revolutionary generation. Finally did Cold Mountain that way, and it was worth the read. Another book that really changed the way I look at the world is "Guns Germs and Steel." Also available on tape. Currently working on both Stephen Jay Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack" (I recommend ANY of his essay collections; there's about ten) and Thomas Wolfe's "Look Homeward, Angel" which is a bit slow so far. I too can sit for hours perusing guidebooks, going from Beckey. It is odd how they never get boring, even if you know what the route description is going to say. I think that once you've climbed a peak or route, you get a whole different perspective on the route descriptions around it. You see a really cool peak from the top of another one, and dig out the books to see what the heck that was. If you're an active climber, your perspective constantly changes, and you look differently at the same routes. You can also (fun with Beckey) compare an early edition with the current edition, and see how the descriptions have changed.

I didn't think Krakauer came across as arrogant in "Into Thin Air." He talks about when he was younger, how he and his buddies joked about the S. route on Everest being the Yak route, and how they were "real climbers" who wouldn't sully themselves on it. The reality, as he reports, is that you can't imagine how brutally hard it really is. That doesn't sound to me like arrogance. Sure his view of things is different than Boukriev's (sp?) and reading the two books together gives a real Rashomon-like effect. Boukriev has his own axe to grind, and is pretty defensive about lots of stuff (people joking about him, calling him "sneakers".) A bigger theme in ITA is how much different it is to be on a guided climb. K talks about getting back to his tent after the summit day, as all the shit was happening, and just climbing into his tent, leaving the rescuing to the guides. He's aware that he would never have done that if there weren't guides. That's part of the destructive effect of guided climbs; they encourage even strong, experienced climbers to abandon their ethic to the guides. I don't see how you could come away from ITA thinking that guiding on a place like Everest is a good idea. I liked Eiger Dreams quite a bit, and liked the New Yorker article that turned into Into the Wild (which I never read.) I wonder if what bothers climbers about K is that he wrote a best-seller. I knew dancers who really resented seeing women walking around in leg-warmers, back in the 80's when they were the fashion. And climbers who've done their thing is obscurity, even around here, suddenly hear couch-potatoes on the bus discussing "what went wrong" on Everest as though if THEY were there, they'd have done things differently. If Into Thin Air had been a niche book, like Touching the Void (still the most riveting climbing book I've ever read, still I can't put on crampons without thinking about the crampon on his broken leg catching on the fabric of his pants and grinding the bone!) I doubt people would have the strong feelings about it that they did.

quote: Originally posted by lizard brain: I haven't looked at king5, but here's what the Times says about it... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134354135_dige15m.html That was a sobering list of catastrophes. I'm glad they didn't include photos.

I e-mailed them last year, and was told, by Seana Strain [seana_Strain@BanffCentre.AB.CA] "The films shown in each location are chosen by the host organization. Please contact the host listed on the website for details on what will be shown in their town or city." So if you don't like the films the Mountaineers select, you'd need to take it up with them. (Of course, they can only select from what Banff has...)

quote: Originally posted by willstrickland: Here's my slant on that: Now that the companies and mags (aka the Marketing Forces) have made climbing somewhat mainstream and gotten all these new people involved through the relavtively simple pursuits of sport and gym climbing and bouldering they'll start making their move. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that trad or wall climbing requires much more gear (and hence generates much more money). It's already happended with ice climbing, now start running all these stories about how cool big walling is and how rad the trad climbers are...EUREKA! A surge in sales of trad and wall gear and a boon for the Market Forces...shops, manufactuers, and mags. Just wait, it will happen. And they'll figure out in about a second that you can make WAY more money selling camalots, nuts, hexes, etc etc etc than you can selling quickdraws. In a year or two, bolts will be about as fashionable as those knickers FB used to pose in back in the day.

quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: That was a nice site Alpine Tom, indeed it was... I appologize. I usually try to avoid the cheapest possible humor. I went out on google to see if I could figure out what moondancing was (why anyone would search for anything in the Internet with Yahoo is beyond me) and I found this, and I couldn't resist. I guess I'm in a pissy mood because I've been fighting with a Compaq server all day. (Time to look into backhoe driving school again.) Anyhow, sorry for the smart-ass website posting. (It was sort of funny, though, wasn't it?)

http://star_world.tripod.com/Moondancers.html

If you're going to be climbing a LOT at Marymoor, to the point where you may retire this rope after climbing primarily there, then the economics of tossing a 50m rope vs. a 60m rope come into play. You won't need a 60m rope at Marymoor. It's not a lot of money, but for a starving student, the extra $20 or so might make the difference. (Or, make the difference between replacing the rope and holding onto it for another quarter.)

Another interesting glacier factoid. The upper East Rongbuk (on Everest) is a particularly interesting place, because it is so slow moving. At the research site, liquid water does not exist at the glacier bed, unlike virtually all other non-polar glaciers in the world. Here, at over 20,000 feet in elevation, the glacier is frozen to the rocks below and moves by deformation, not sliding. They are doing oxygen isotope studies on the ice, which is thousands of years old at great depths.

Turns out that Viagra is good for combating the effects of altitude. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010927/hl/viagra_1.html The opportunities for double-entendres alone are endless.

see: http://staff.washington.edu/gregm/whitershadeofpalechuck.html

Be aware that there's no water up there at all, and it's bigger than it looks. Bring water! The Cascadia couloir ascent involves a short traverse of a snowfield that this time of year is pretty icy, so you might want to bring crampons, certainly an ice axe at a minimum. [This message has been edited by Alpine Tom (edited 09-25-2001).]

ScottP -- your turn. Take this mess and turn it into a climbing story!

quote: Originally posted by freeclimb9: Erwin: you suggested that a flag left unattended on a summit is garbage. You're wrong as well. It may not be garbage while it's up, but once the wind blows it down, and tumbles it down into a ravine or snowbank or crevasse someplace, it will in fact turn into garbage.

quote: Originally posted by nolanr: I nominate Middle Fork Snoqualmie River. This road was responsible for only time I ever bailed on a climb BEFORE getting to the trailhead! The road up to Whitehorse Peak (mine road?) is pretty wrecked too. Or, it was up to a couple of years ago. Maybe our trail park fees have fixed it.

quote: Originally posted by bobinc: What does REI actually stand for: REturn Every Item Return Everything Immediately Return Equipment Indefinitely I know, this thread isn't really about REI, but I have to share this. I stopped by the Lynnwood store on Saturday, on the way home from a birthday party with my son. Noticed they had their "garage sale" or "attic sale" or whatever they call it, so I went over to look at the table. There was the usual mismatched / mangled stuff, and... a three-year old (according to the tag) canvas hat, dirty and obviously well-used, torn across the crown. Someone had decided after three years of apparently hard use that they were entitled to a refund, and REI apparently happily agreed. Makes you wonder... [This message has been edited by Alpine Tom (edited 09-21-2001).]

A quick look at http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/ shows the headline "Fire in the Mt. Adams Wilderness Closes Mt. Adams South Climb Trail. "The Salt Creek Fire Complex in the Mt. Adams Wilderness has closed the Mt. Adams South Climb trail and several other trails within the Mt. Adams Wilderness in order to protect hikers from potential fire danger."

quote: Originally posted by Brian Rybolt: AlpineTom, Hayduke, and Eddie, It appears to me that you have all thrived in the world of academia...Western of Evergreen, no doubt If it could possibly matter, I'm an alumnus of the US Naval Academy (80). There is reams to be said in refutation of your dittohead "ideas" but this is a climbing website, not a poliical debating society. The aphorism about wrestling in the mud with a pig comes to mind. I have yet to see a political discussion (or argument) that changed anyone's mind.

quote: Originally posted by ScottP: I've read an account that is somewhat different than yours. Mallory was on a lecture tour after the 1922 expedition, trying to raise money for the 1924 attempt. Everywhere he went, he was asked mundane questions like: Was it cold? Where is Tibet? Why do you want to climb Everest? In exasperation, and not meaning to be taken seriously, he replied to the latter, "Because it is there." Perhaps your quote comes form subsequent attempts to explain himself. I don't know, I wasn't there. My reference is the book "First on Everest" by Tom Holzel ane Audrey Salkeld. Apparently the deathless words were printed in a NY Times article about a lecture he'd given there some time before. I quote: It was the first paragraph of a half-page feature entitled "CLIMBING MOUNT EVEREST IS WORK FOR SUPERMEN" Why did you want to climb Mount Everest? This question was asked of George Leigh Mallory, who was with both expeditions toward the summit of the world's highest mountain, in 1921 and 1922, and who now is in New York. He plans to go again in 1924, and he gave as the reason for persisting in these repeated attempts to reach the top, 'Because it's there.' Prompted by the reporter's question, 'But hadn't the expedition valuable scientific results?' the article's second paragraph goes on to give Mallory's standard remarks about geology and adventure: The geologists want a stone from the top. That will decide whether it is the top or the bottom of a fold. But these things are by-products. Do you think Shackleon went to the South Pole to make scientific observations? He used the observations he did make to help finance the next trip. Sometimes science is the excuse for exploration. (end of quote, pp 295-296, paperback edition. The italics are the text of the newspaper article as quoted by the book.) It's enlightening to read this again; the first time I read the book a decade ago, I hadn't heard of Shackleton, but now he's as much a celebrity as Mallory currently is. As I said, I can't think of a more valid justification for climbing something. What possible point is there for someone to risk their life for a first ascent of a peak or route, or a second ascent, or a thousandth ascent? To prove that I'm stronger than you? To impress the babes? To get on the cover of Climbing Mag? To get out of the house, or get out of mowning the lawn? [This message has been edited by Alpine Tom (edited 09-18-2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Brian Rybolt: The idea that America is to blame for all of the worlds ills is, quite simply, liberal guilt bullshit. We are hated in the world of Islam because in their minds, our values represent a threat to theirs. I am always amazed when I hear "progressive-minded" people rush to the defense of Islam; the same religon that relegates women and girls to lives of serfdom/servitude and grows like a cancer in places like Indonesia and The Phillipines. The same religon that seems to be incompatable with the ideals of liberty and democracy. Indeed, The Russians have been trying to keep this disease from spreading northward into their heartland with varying degrees of success for several years now. Now is not a time for our country to show any weakness...or mercy. Let Bin Laden be responsible for bringing the wrath of our country down on those who support him. Thanks, Brian. It's been years since I read an issue of National Review. I feel like I'm all caught up now.

quote: Originally posted by ScottP: He was being facetious. I don't think that Mallory was being facetious with his "because it's there" justification for climbing Mt. Everest. The full context of the remark begins with him saying, (to paraphrase) "We justify the desire to climb Everest in terms of gaining scientific knowledge about physiology and geology and try to find fossils high in the rock. But we know that’s a ruse, we want to climb it simply because it's there." It becomes somewhat more interesting and complicated, examining the early Everest expeditions in light of the polar explorations England had engaged in over the previous decades, and questions like national masochism present themselves. But the fact is, Mallory acknowledged that there was no point in climbing Mt. Everest, except just... to climb it. Because it’s there. And, remarkably, after almost 80 years it remains the most valid justification to do any climb, whether a first ascent in the Himalayas or Antarctica, or a weekend climb of Mt. Baker.

Don't go TELLING people in a public venue like this! Geez! Hey, everyone, the Cascades suck, if you want real rock and ice action, move to Colorado! All those fourteeners! You can bag three a day! You Colorado climbers, you'll hate it here. Really. Stay there. Or California: that's great too. Better rock, less crowded.

"After the two had reached an overhanging horizontal band of granite about 150 feet from the summit, they unroped and started scrambling up the loose rock..." Sounds like this guy should be nominated for a Darwin award!

quote: Originally posted by Bronco: I always thought it was a good excuse to skip church and go climbing. Or, as I read someplace recently: It's better to be out in the mountains thinking about God, than sitting in church thinking about climbing.