What one thing...

lal_truckee wrote:

No difference, in an emergency. Paid, unpaid; you pitch in to the limits
of your ability and stamina.

I think in the book he reports himself as being out of stamina at that
point. Should he have gone out and gotten killed himself? It's easy to
second-guess others (which I guess Krakauer does himself to some extent).

The major lesson of the book for me was that guide services have no
business being on mountains like Everest. Too many conflicts of
interest between business success and safety.

Dave

Walt wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:

Jeff Davis wrote:


Universal Pictures. Appearantly they're shooting a film
of the 1996 climbing disaster there.

I sure hope they're not doing Krakauer's self serving book that
slandered Boukreev.


IIRC, David Breashears was there when it happend too. He's probably
filming *his* take on it, not Krauauer's. Krackaur may have sparked
interest in the incident with his book, but he doesn't own a copyright
on the story.

Breashears was down the mountain, not "there."

That jerk Krakauer had more experience than just
about anyone else on the mountain, excluding guides; and hid in his tent
when it was all going down.


Which might have been the most sensible thing to do. Him being so
experienced and all.


Then he had the nerve to slam Anatoli.


The gist of the criticism is that Boukereev was a paid guide, Krackaur
was not. That may be a distinction without a difference to some.

No difference, in an emergency. Paid, unpaid; you pitch in to the limits
of your ability and stamina. And Krakauer did have mountaineering
experience - he was not a "paid client" in the same sense as the other
clients - he was there as a reporter with mountaineering experience.
Krakauer not only turned in for the night, before that he misdirected a
fellow climber right off a cliff, apparently. (The latter can be
forgiven, due to disorientation from the storm; failure to assist IMO
cannot be forgiven.)

Boukreev didn't refuse to rescue clients of other outfits, including
Krakauer's mob - he brought in everybody he could find who was still
alive (except Beck? who presented as dead,) including some some from
other parties who would not have made it without him. (Boukreev's party
lost no clients - all survived; his party did lose it's
leader/organizer, unfortunately.)

All told, IMO this screwup was caused by competitive guides ignoring
their own rules and plans. The primary lesson for us low altitude wusses
is, even while skiing inbounds or backcountry with someone more
experienced, you are still responsible for yourself and must constantly
be re-evaluating the situation. Otherwise you'll be like those Air Force
Thunderbirds who all followed their leader right into the ground.

In article ,
Dave Stallard wrote:
-
-The major lesson of the book for me was that guide services have no
-business being on mountains like Everest. Too many conflicts of
-interest between business success and safety.
-

The major lesson for me from the entire event and all its reporting is
that Mother Nature really and truly doesn't give a damn. Not about what you deserve, or
what you've got, or what you've done, or what you're doing, or what you know,
or anything else.


Steve

In article ,
lal_truckee wrote:
-Steve wrote:
-
- In article ,
- Dave Stallard wrote:
- -
- -The major lesson of the book for me was that guide services have no
- -business being on mountains like Everest. Too many conflicts of
- -interest between business success and safety.
- -
-
- The major lesson for me from the entire event and all its reporting is
- that Mother Nature really and truly doesn't give a damn. Not about
-what you deserve, or
- what you've got, or what you've done, or what you're doing, or what
-you know,
- or anything else.
-
-You know, that's exactly it; these people paid money to challenge nature
-at her toughest; they got what they paid for, in full measure.

Absolutely, but that's only half the story. Even some of the experienced,
nature-loving, knowledgeable guides with loving families waiting for them caught
EXACTLY the same outcome. And I'd bet that some of the survivors were
obnoxious weasely butt-heads.

Mother Nature doesn't give a ****. Not malignant, not nurturing, just
entirely indifferent.

Steve

Steve wrote:

In article ,
Dave Stallard wrote:
-
-The major lesson of the book for me was that guide services have no
-business being on mountains like Everest. Too many conflicts of
-interest between business success and safety.
-

The major lesson for me from the entire event and all its reporting is
that Mother Nature really and truly doesn't give a damn. Not about
what you deserve, or
what you've got, or what you've done, or what you're doing, or what
you know,
or anything else.

You know, that's exactly it; these people paid money to challenge nature
at her toughest; they got what they paid for, in full measure.

lal_truckee wrote:

You know, that's exactly it; these people paid money to challenge nature
at her toughest; they got what they paid for, in full measure.

I kinda got the impression that they were buying some kind of trophy.
Pay enough money and anybody can summit Everest. Such a conversation
starter!

Problem is, when Mother Nature doesn't want to cooperate, your highly
paid guide won't be able to save your ass. He might not even be able to
save his own.

--
//-Walt
//
// Sigs suck. Oh, the irony.

Kurt Knisely wrote:

It's still more dangerous in the Man-Made world. Look at the auto fatality
stats.

Um, I don't think so. What's the fatality rate for Everest? Something
like one fatality for every three successful summits. Not very
promising odds. If the success-to-death rate for car trips was that bad
none of us would drive.

Granted, cars are more deadly than lift served in bounds skiing. But
they don't call Everest the "death zone" for nothing.

--
//-Walt
//
// Sigs suck. Oh, the irony.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:00:57 -0400, Dave Stallard
wrote:

guide services have no
business being on mountains like Everest. Too many conflicts of
interest between business success and safety.

Sounds like the typical liberal, democrat line: If it's dangerous in
any way, shape or form, it has to be regulated !!!

Big businesses sponsor expeditions all the time. Like there has never
been a compromise of safety in the interest of success during one of
the big sponsored expeditions, Everest or elsewhere.

Regardless, who is to say what one can or can't do, like getting
themselves killed by doing something stupid.

It's simple, if you are not willing to assume the inherent risk, don't
participate.

Personally, I'll probably never use a "guide" for anything....because
to hire a guide seems so...ummmm..."Texan".

-Astro

Kurt Knisely wrote:

Then maybe those who challenge nature at her toughest, shouldn't have families?

Well, in the good old days, when you set out to explore the wilderness
or be a mountain man or invade Mecca in disguise or somesuch, you left
your family behind, with little expectation of returning. (I bet Isabel
was surprised each time Richard came back.) These days you call the wife
up on the satelite from the back of nowhere and chat about the boy
child's parent-teacher conference...

I've read too many of these books...

I've got a fair collection, including a first edition of Colonel Hunt's
expedition report, signed by Hillary; but I like Stephen Venables' book:
Everest: Alone at the Summit

Venables writes so well you almost begin to think he's a normal human
being: contrast Messner, where you can only assume there is something
super-human going on; not a normal person at all.

Walt wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:


You know, that's exactly it; these people paid money to challenge nature
at her toughest; they got what they paid for, in full measure.


I kinda got the impression that they were buying some kind of trophy.
Pay enough money and anybody can summit Everest. Such a conversation
starter!

Is this the ultimate application of "Caveat Emptor?"