Careful of gingers. Word on the street is they have no soul.

A good friend bails you out of jail the next morning after you've had too much to drink.

Your best friend dies alongside you after futiley attempting to lug 225 lbs of dead weight down ladders and rope pullies.

I think I read that in a bathroom stall somewhere.

Your long rambling attempt to explain what you meant does not change the fact that your opinion was really dumb.

You apparently have this presumption that climbing everest is this foolishly reckless form of russian roulette, as if you are saying "well what the hell you fool, you already threw your own life away by climbing the mountain, so you might as well try to rescue that person and figure out a way to save both your own life and the other person"

Your presumption is wrong. Yes, unprepared people are suicidal for trying, but climbers who have a lot of experience, training, and preparation in good weather can climb this mountain relatively safely. The only problem is they can not make a single mistake. (and sometimes "making a mistake" means continuing up when you obviously have to give up due to weather or equipment problems and you need to start going back down) If they do everything correctly, careful every step of the way, they have an extremely good chance of making it just fine. The most skilled and most careful climbers have climbed this and similar mountains a dozen or more times.

On other lesser mountains, making a mistake with equipment, movements, etc could result in death or could result in injury, or could result in a frightening close call. On everest near the top, a mistake basically means you die, 99%+.

Trying to get someone, close to the very top, who is severely hurt and cant do much climbing anymore, qualifies as a fatal mistake. Climbing everest is not a foolish suicide mission if done correctly, and no one should be ashamed or haunted for not needlessly throwing their own life away in a doomed attempt to save someone else who cant be saved.

This blog about "wrongness" is so interesting it deserves it's own thread. If you all have time I recommend the interviews with Bourdain, Posnanski, and Dershowitz as well. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing man.
Posted via Mobile Device

"Speaking of conservative decisions, I heard you once turned around when you were 300 feet from the summit of Mount Everest. Three hundred feet out of, what, 29,029?

Yeah. That was my first trip to Everest, and I was like—daaaaaaahhh! You know, there's the top, I could see the top, 300 feet away. But it was the obvious decision; all the indications were that we needed to turn around, and I just realized that I was going to have to go home and come back another year. And even though it was slightly frustrating, I wasn't disappointed. If I have to turn around because of conditions beyond my control, as long as I haven't given up physically or mentally, I don't call those failures. I can live with those."



It would take amazing personal strength to turn around 300 feet from the summit. No wonder that guys has scaled all of the 8000'ers.

Jomolungma is for pussies. Hardcore dudes go up K2.

Are you calling my wife a whore!? Say that to my f....

Sorry, I spaced out there.

I have nothin against DMAC or Silock or anything. Heck, I don't even know anyone that has climbed everest and did or did not stop to help someone. We're all talking theory here, and I do find it interesting.

There are TONS of situations where you have to leave a guy behind. PLENTY of scenarios where to save the maximum amount of people you need to bring or allow harm to a few. I get that. Nothing wrong with that. It's the way the world is. Soul or no soul.

The facts of the matter are that not everyone who is left behind is left for the same reasons, with the same likelihood of death-for-all should a rescue be attempted.

Expeditions continue all the time when a portion, sometimes a major portion, of a crew is wiped out.

Sometimes a person could actually be rescued if a team aborts and spends their time/energy/oxygen/light/food on a rescue instead of continuing forward to the summit.

I find it interesting to sort out when we would/wouldn't make that call. I think we all find it interesting, that's why we're jabbin about it.

I'm rather new to the whole "meet in real life to beat each other up" protocol, so if I'm not following the standard progression or I'm missing a step, you'll have to let me know.

My family was more of an "insults at 10 paces" type clan. Then bring the heat after that.

Lest you think I'm high and mighty, I've had too much soulless activity in my own life. My own actions and lack of actions. I don't like it, and I don't like reading about it.

I guess the climb must always go on. Or must it?

I scaled Mount Olympus.

I've never viewed a blog, I guess. I can't seem to follow this one. I've signed up to google, but all I see is a bird sitting over a wall.

I don't care if you pull him down. I want you to pull me down.

I didn't mean to make such a mess. Sorry.

If this is true, just type in "naked women" in google, then hit enter. YOUR MIND WILL BE BLOWN
Posted via Mobile Device

I very much agree.

I think my long rambling attempt at an explanation fell short.

I'm not saying that everyone who's had to let someone die is soulless or should be haunted or subjected to Pauly Shore movies or anything like that.

Anyone who's been in tight spots themselves, or watched "Touching the Void" knows that the decision to move on and leave someone is never light. It's not always an easy call, probably never.

I think it's naive to believe that men can never be swayed by ego or pride into making bad decisions. Decisions to pass by when they could aid or save. Those are the men that should be haunted, not well meaning folks who have done all they reasonably could.

Mine does that at work. I dunno if its a browser setting or what, I didn't really care. I downloaded Firefox and it read fine through that.

Good luck.

I love this place. There literally isn't anything you idiots won't argue about. LMAO