What exactly does "elevation gain" mean in a trail description?
Charles M. Kozierok
In preparation for a trip this summer, I am trying to assess the
difficulty for my family of various trails. Each has a specification for
elevation gain, but I am not sure exactly what this means.
Does it refer to the maximum elevation gain at the highest point on the
trail? Or the difference between the elevation at the start and the end
of the trail? Or the cumulative "distance up" over the course of the
trail?
To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
1000' and ends at 1700' and is perfectly flat except for a 900' hill in
the middle of the trail and a straight climb near the end. Is the elevation
gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
Thanks.
peace,
-*-
Charles M. Kozierok (mail to "dsun" at the domain below)
Photographer & Webmaster, Desktop Scenes - <http://www.DesktopScenes.com/?uns>
Free and low-cost screensavers featuring nature scenes and national parks.
Take a "virtual vacation" to a beautiful place any time, right on your PC!
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
> Is the elevation
> gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
700'.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Robertwgross
>In preparation for a trip this summer, I am trying to assess the
>difficulty for my family of various trails. Each has a specification for
>elevation gain, but I am not sure exactly what this means.
>Does it refer to the maximum elevation gain at the highest point on the
>trail? Or the difference between the elevation at the start and the end
>of the trail? Or the cumulative "distance up" over the course of the
>trail?
>
>To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
>1000' and ends at 1700' and is perfectly flat except for a 900' hill in
>the middle of the trail and a straight climb near the end. Is the elevation
>gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
middle, the total gain is likely more. Probably the total gain is 900', but it
depends.
Most people can do 1000' of elevation gain without any trouble, as long as it
is stretched out over a few miles. The same 1000' on a single mile is much
worse.
4000 or 5000 in a day makes for a killer hike. More than 10,000 in a day is
downright crippling.
---Bob Gross---
Dick Ballard
Total gain: displays the sum of all the uphill segments along the
route.
Total loss: displays the sum all the downhill segments along the
route.
Net gain: displays the difference in elevation between the end and the
start of the route.
Dick Ballard
ball...@att.net
Chris HIll
"Charles M. Kozierok" <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
news:c60mv6$fga$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> Hi all,
>
> In preparation for a trip this summer, I am trying to assess the
> difficulty for my family of various trails. Each has a specification for
> elevation gain, but I am not sure exactly what this means.
>
> Does it refer to the maximum elevation gain at the highest point on the
> trail? Or the difference between the elevation at the start and the end
> of the trail? Or the cumulative "distance up" over the course of the
> trail?
>
> To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
> 1000' and ends at 1700' and is perfectly flat except for a 900' hill in
> the middle of the trail and a straight climb near the end. Is the
elevation
> gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
I think you have inadvertently confused things with your example. Starting
at 1000ft. a 900 ft. hill would be minus 100ft from the start.,OR a 900 ft
gain to 1900 ft which would be the high point this example. So that would
net 900 ft of gain. If the "hill" is 900ft or -100 from the start then the
ending elevation of 1700 would net a 700 ft gain.
Now TOTAL elevation loss and gain is what you feel in your legs. If a trail
goes from 1000ft to 2000ft back to 1000ft several times over the course of a
few miles you have a net gain of 1000ft but the total elevation is what ever
you rack up...and down. Hope this doesn't confuse you even more.
Chris
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Very good. If you do the big loop near Camp David, you will have done
about 1600' of elevation gain, in 10 miles or so, and still find
yourself back at your car. I documented this one day with my Casio watch.
I don't mind 4000' or 5000' going *up* on a trail. When my wife and I
were run out of the Sierra at 6 pm one day, we did 13.2 miles with 5500'
of elevation loss to get to our rental car in the dark. Big baby that I
am, I was begging for a Japanese guard to please shoot me. I got a
neuroma from that unplanned hike; it was taken out, the size of an
olive, between the 2nd and 3rd toes on my right foot. Going *down* is
more crippling than going up. Next morning I seemed OK, and got a great
series of sunrise pictures of the Eastern Escarpment.
My wife and I used to lead a one-day hike up Rabbit Peak, near Palm
Springs, which is at least 7000' of net elevation gain. It was somewhat
amazing to see people who seemed to be in pretty good shape drop out
with thigh cramps and other problems. It's just a walk up a hill, for
God's sake! You do have to start in the dark and get back in the dark,
as doing it at any other time than December-January would be suicide,
since it's in the desert. 10,000' I've never done. The day is not long
enough. We did do Middle Teton in one day, which was about 7000' of
gain and 14 miles. It was the only time I've seen her to punk out. We
ditched her summit pack, and she was very happy to have made the peak.
The problem for me was the huge rock field, because I have poor balance.
Staying at the Ranch was rather upsetting, because of the keening of the
women when their husbands were brought back at night in green body bags.
We never climbed the Grand, as it just scared the shit out of me, and
we didn't have the time for a guided trip, nor enough toilet paper for me.
When we were there, there were so many deaths and serious accidents. In
fact when we first arrived to register at the ranger station, there was
this odd green bag lying outside, which I had never seen before.
"What's that?" "He tried to ski the Grand Teton." "Oh <gulp>."
jimbat
Robertwgross
>...My wife and I used to lead a one-day hike up Rabbit Peak, near Palm
The killer is Telescope Peak at Death Valley, starting from Shorty's Well
(~minus 250 feet) to the summit (11,049 feet) and down to Mahogany Flat (8100
feet), in a day. About 24 miles in all. I survived it, but I was almost begging
for them to shoot me to put me out of my misery the next day.
Kids! This is only for trained professionals. Don't do it at home. :-)
---Bob Gross---
m0loch
between ending point and starting point, some add up all vertical gain.
If in doubt, get the topo and do your own elevation profile.
MLL
"Charles M. Kozierok" <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
news:c60mv6$fga$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Think stairs in a 100' tall building.
Go up and down 5 times.
Net gain is 0 because you end where you began.
Total gain is 5*100 = 500 feet (you went up 5 times).
Total loss is 5*100 = 500 feet (you came down 5 times).
All of this is academic because some trails are simply easier than others,
the rate of gain/loss can vary considerably depending on terrain,
altitude/wind/temp/etc. all have an affect and, if the scenery sucks, your
mood sucks too!
Consult a reputable trail guide and listen to others that have gone before
you.
Charles M. Kozierok
Chris HIll <chris....@hp.com> wrote:
} I think you have inadvertently confused things with your example. Starting
} at 1000ft. a 900 ft. hill would be minus 100ft from the start.,OR a 900 ft
} gain to 1900 ft which would be the high point this example. So that would
} net 900 ft of gain. If the "hill" is 900ft or -100 from the start then the
} ending elevation of 1700 would net a 700 ft gain.
} Now TOTAL elevation loss and gain is what you feel in your legs. If a trail
} goes from 1000ft to 2000ft back to 1000ft several times over the course of a
} few miles you have a net gain of 1000ft but the total elevation is what ever
} you rack up...and down. Hope this doesn't confuse you even more.
} Chris
Sorry Chris... I meant you start at 1000', go up a 900' hill to 1900',
come back down to 1000' and then go back up to 1700'.
I fully understand the difference between the measures. I am just trying
to figure out what the trail descriptions normally use.
For example:
<http://www.nps.gov/glac/maps/trailslm.htm>
In some cases they say it climbs and then descends.. but other times it
just says "climbs 1000'" for example and I am trying to figure out what
that means. ;)
Similarly, in my books they usually just say "elevation gain" and don't
give an indication of what that means.. maybe I will email the author
and ask.
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Telescope Peak is in the Panamints. Start from the west, not Death Valley.
My wife led a trip up Telescope Peak. You don't have to start from
Shorty's Well. Look up Seldom Seen Slim, and he will show you the way.
On my wife's trip, she said everyone loved it. Whoops, he's dead now
according to Google. I was supposed to lead it, but wasn't feeling well.
If had been there for you and had a gun, I'd have helped you, by
shooting your idiotic leader.
jimbat
Traveler4D
Go up and down 5 times.
Net gain is 0 because you end where you began.
Total gain is 5*100 = 500 feet (you went up 5 times).
Total loss is 5*100 = 500 feet (you came down 5 times).>
Not sure if this example is appropriate or not. By this standard, the Everest
climbers had 0 net gain, as they started out for the top and arrived back at
where they started. Elevation gain, as I have most always seen it, is the total
elevation one walks during the hike, even if that exceeds the overall elevation
of the summit. For example, the approach to Bear Mtn in CT from the west takes
you up onto Brace Mtn at 2311 feet, from Rt 22 you climb about 1800 feet to
summit that. You then drop down into a saddle and move up Frissell, to its
summit of 2400 feet, but only have about a 900 foot elevation gain to arrive
there from the saddle, from there you drop down and go up and over Round Mtn,
at about 1800 feet at its summit, logging about 800 feet in gain to do that,
then get over to Bear mountain to reach the summit of 2300 feet, with about a
1000 foot climb up to reach it. The total elevation gain experienced was 4,500
feet, the sum total being higher than any of the peaks you went over. This can
be used to describe the intensity of the hike, as stated in this thread. The
less miles and higher elevation gain, the more difficult the trail is. The
Summit Elevation is one number, total Elevation Gain is another.
Gary S.
>
>"Charles M. Kozierok" <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
>news:c60mv6$fga$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In preparation for a trip this summer, I am trying to assess the
>> difficulty for my family of various trails. Each has a specification for
>> elevation gain, but I am not sure exactly what this means.
>>
>> Does it refer to the maximum elevation gain at the highest point on the
>> trail? Or the difference between the elevation at the start and the end
>> of the trail? Or the cumulative "distance up" over the course of the
>> trail?
>>
>> To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
>> 1000' and ends at 1700' and is perfectly flat except for a 900' hill in
>> the middle of the trail and a straight climb near the end. Is the
>elevation
>> gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
>>
>Think stairs in a 100' tall building.
>Go up and down 5 times.
>Net gain is 0 because you end where you began.
>Total gain is 5*100 = 500 feet (you went up 5 times).
>Total loss is 5*100 = 500 feet (you came down 5 times).
>
>All of this is academic because some trails are simply easier than others,
>the rate of gain/loss can vary considerably depending on terrain,
>altitude/wind/temp/etc. all have an affect and, if the scenery sucks, your
>mood sucks too!
>
>Consult a reputable trail guide and listen to others that have gone before
>you.
>
Both methods are used, both cumulative elevation gain and net gain.
There are limits to how much you can quantify hiking.
Use available resources, guidebooks and advice from others as above,
and then your best judgement.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
rick++
The backcountry can be dangerous for beginners and advanced alike,
but joyous once you got the hang of it.
See how well the members of your family handle things then
in preparation for future trips.
Robertwgross
>Telescope Peak is in the Panamints. Start from the west, not Death Valley.
But you can't get in 11,000 feet if you start from the Panamint Valley.
>My wife led a trip up Telescope Peak. You don't have to start from
>Shorty's Well.
You can start from Mahogany Flat, but again, you can't get 11,000 feet of climb
from there.
>If had been there for you and had a gun, I'd have helped you, by
>shooting your idiotic leader.
You missed the point. That 11,000 feet was the plan.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
If you are bringing beginners along, you need to do something that
THEY are comfortable with.
Think like you are "selling" hiking to them. It needs to be fun for
them,something they will want to do more of. If it's not fun, they
won't bother with it again.
Then gradually work up to the bigger stuff.
MLL
"Traveler4D" <trave...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040420094345...@mb-m21.aol.com...
I don't think they did Everest in one day.
When discussing elevation gains/losses think two l's: legs and lungs. Your
legs carry you up/down and your lungs have to be able to cope with all of
it. Going 1000' higher at 16K costs you a lot more than that extra 1000'
peak on the AT.
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Then you both should have been shot. The buzzards need food more than
the world need idiots who want to spend thousands in a hospital.
jimbat
>
Jim Roberts
Gary S. wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2004 08:10:14 -0700, ric...@hotmail.com (rick++) wrote:
>
>
>>Dont consider at any gains over 1000' due to your inexperience.
>>The backcountry can be dangerous for beginners and advanced alike,
>>but joyous once you got the hang of it.
>>See how well the members of your family handle things then
>>in preparation for future trips.
>
>
> If you are bringing beginners along, you need to do something that
> THEY are comfortable with.
>
> Think like you are "selling" hiking to them. It needs to be fun for
> them,something they will want to do more of. If it's not fun, they
> won't bother with it again.
>
> Then gradually work up to the bigger stuff.
You could also do what I used to do with my first wife, which was to
bend her over a fence or a branch in broad daylight in the backcountry
and fuck her brains out, well, if she actually had any brains, which was
not clear. That's good backcountry experience.
jimbat
Robertwgross
>Then you both should have been shot. The buzzards need food more than
>the world need idiots who want to spend thousands in a hospital.
Maybe you get into trouble and end up at the hospital. I don't.
Besides, there aren't any buzzards around there. There are some mean looking
crows, though.
---Bob Gross---
MLL
> You could also do what I used to do with my first wife, which was to
> bend her over a fence or a branch in broad daylight in the backcountry
> and fuck her brains out, well, if she actually had any brains, which was
> not clear. That's good backcountry experience.
>
> jimbat
>
What is wrong with you? Only a truly screwed up individual would post such
garbage for the world to see. I feel sorry for you.
Charles M. Kozierok
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
}
}
} Gary S. wrote:
} > If you are bringing beginners along, you need to do something that
} > THEY are comfortable with.
That's what I am trying to figure out. We are certainly only doing
relatively short day hikes, but I want to determine what is reasonable
for them to try based on hike descriptions.
} That's good backcountry experience.
Probably not for my kids. ;)
Traveler4D
When discussing elevation gains/losses think two l's: legs and lungs. Your legs
carry you up/down and your lungs have to be able to cope with all of it. Going
1000' higher at 16K costs you a lot more than that extra 1000' peak on the AT.>
No, they did not, nor did they zero out the elevation gains they made when they
returned, as the example of the stair way states. Elevation gain is simply the
vertical feet one has to climb on a given trail. Some trails start at 1000
feet, end at 1000 feet, and have small 200 foot gains and falls along the way,
for a total of 1500 feet of elevation gain to arrive back at the starting
point. Again, this is a barometer of difficulty rating many use to assess
difficulty, not the overall altitude one will reach at the summit of a given
peak. In many instances, the peak summit and actual elevation climed to reach
it will be different numbers, the elevation gain typically being higher than
the summit itself.
Edward Lisowski
people calculate elevation gain according to National Geographic Topo. Most
trails in the Pacific Northwest tend to start at the bottom and to up with
little up and down, so total gain and net gain are usually the same. I was
just looking at the description of the Wonderland Loop Trail around Mt.
Rainier. Because it is a loop, the net gain is zero, but the total
elevation gain is 20,000 feet over 93 miles. If I just saw the net gain
figure, I might assume that I was back in Illinois. ;-)
Ed
Edward A. Lisowski, kd7wom
2705 W NOB HILL BLVD APT #J
YAKIMA WA 98902-5168
509-248-4590 (home)
liso...@nwinfo.net
"Dick Ballard" <ball...@att.net> wrote in message
news:j0c88053slssjlmt7...@4ax.com...
Gary S.
Yes, the cumulative elevation gain comes the closest to describing the
amount of effort needed to do that trail, which is what most people
are really asking.
Gary S.
Kozierok) wrote:
>In article <UXihc.31317$L31....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>}
>} Gary S. wrote:
>} > If you are bringing beginners along, you need to do something that
>} > THEY are comfortable with.
>
>That's what I am trying to figure out. We are certainly only doing
>relatively short day hikes, but I want to determine what is reasonable
>for them to try based on hike descriptions.
>
First, do not set a summit as the goal. Very disappointing if you do
not make your goal. You can go with multiple "sub goals", or the
"journey IS the destination" philosophy.
>} That's good backcountry experience.
>
>Probably not for my kids. ;)
>
Many may prefer more privacy in these matters, in deed and discussion.
Do whatever you like, but don't scare the horses.
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Then you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din. It took a couple of
years after our flee from the Sierra for my neuroma to develop; the
doctor thought that was the likely cause. My wife had no after effects.
jimbat
Eugene Miya
MLL <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
Snipping 41 lines of attribution.
>I don't think they did Everest in one day.
Over the past 2 decades a number of people have claimed 1 day ascents
from various base defined locations first starting from the South Col
(shared with Lhotse) and other parts even lower down the massif.
Rowell and Gilette also claimed a 1 day Denali ascent starting from
10K ft. whereas others claim the base of Denali is 3K ft.
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Robertwgross wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>>...My wife and I used to lead a one-day hike up Rabbit Peak, near Palm
>>>Springs, which is at least 7000' of net elevation gain.
>>
>> The killer is Telescope Peak at Death Valley, starting from Shorty's Well
>> (~minus 250 feet) to the summit (11,049 feet) and down to Mahogany Flat (8100
>> feet), in a day. About 24 miles in all. I survived it, but I was almost begging
>> for them to shoot me to put me out of my misery the next day.
>>
>> Kids! This is only for trained professionals. Don't do it at home. :-)
>
Naw Jim, he's just sucker trolling you.
>My wife led a trip up Telescope Peak. You don't have to start from
>Shorty's Well. Look up Seldom Seen Slim, and he will show you the way.
> On my wife's trip, she said everyone loved it. Whoops, he's dead now
>according to Google. I was supposed to lead it, but wasn't feeling well.
>
>If had been there for you and had a gun, I'd have helped you, by
>shooting your idiotic leader.
Go for it.
--
Eugene Miya
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>In preparation for a trip this summer, I am trying to assess the
>difficulty for my family of various trails. Each has a specification for
>elevation gain, but I am not sure exactly what this means.
>
>Does it refer to the maximum elevation gain at the highest point on the
>trail? Or the difference between the elevation at the start and the end
>of the trail? Or the cumulative "distance up" over the course of the
>trail?
>
>To put it in more concrete terms, suppose we have a trail that starts at
>1000' and ends at 1700' and is perfectly flat except for a 900' hill in
>the middle of the trail and a straight climb near the end. Is the elevation
>gain of this trail 700', 900' or 1600'?
Make a diagram, a trail profile.
Natural language is poorly vague.
Using scale where an ASCII character is | for 100 ft. vertical scale:
/\
/ \
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
---------- -------------
Oh this looks like an Italian Dolomite Alpini with 700 ft. of ladders.
Now if that's not what you words convey, you should mod the profile.
That figure would be 1600 ft. But the Italians use the SI metric.
--
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
Gene I hate to think I might have been a sucker, as I am one of the two
founding members of the local kids' Liars' Club. Perhaps he was telling
the truth. I know a guy who used to go up and down this 8000' ravine on
the north side of San Antonio in one day. I avoided any trip he might
be leading.
I really punked out on some very strenuous trips in my 40s and couldn't
understand it, as I was exercising and was in shape. The real problem
emerged only in 2001, at 59, when I got a triple bypass and my heart
surgeon told me I had had heart disease for at least 30 years, and gave
me a severe lecture about Italian sausages, Popeye's chicken, pizzas,
and so forth. My wife was there and enforces his lecture.
My main doctor saved my life, bless her. "I don't agree with your
diagnosis." I love it when folks who actually know something disagree
with me, besides digging through lies, it's the best way to learn.
However, for the surgery they refused just to give me a local
anaesthetic so I could assist. After a panic attack the night before, I
became interested in how the operation would be done. The anaesthetist
did assure me that they wouldn't be using a Craftsman saw to cut through
my sternum, but some sort of German saw. Eeeeks! I might get a panic
attack again.
jimbat
Charles M. Kozierok
} Oh this looks like an Italian Dolomite Alpini with 700 ft. of ladders.
} Now if that's not what you words convey, you should mod the profile.
} That figure would be 1600 ft. But the Italians use the SI metric.
Yes, that's what I meant. But it seems there is no consistent use of
"elevation gain" anyway, so I wrote the author of the main book I am
using, and hopefully he will reply back and tell me what he meant.
Eugene Miya
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>"elevation gain" anyway, so I wrote the author of the main book I am
>using, and hopefully he will reply back and tell me what he meant.
The book author is good for going to the source.
Don't expect consistent, but realize that it's how you use the term
which is important.
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Gene I hate to think I might have been a sucker, as I am one of the two
>founding members of the local kids' Liars' Club. Perhaps he was telling
>the truth. I know a guy who used to go up and down this 8000' ravine on
>the north side of San Antonio in one day. I avoided any trip he might
>be leading.
It's the how and the purpose of using the truth.
It's known as sand bagging.
>I really punked out on some very strenuous trips in my 40s and couldn't
>understand it, as I was exercising and was in shape. The real problem
>emerged only in 2001, at 59, when I got a triple bypass and my heart
>surgeon told me I had had heart disease for at least 30 years, and gave
>me a severe lecture about Italian sausages, Popeye's chicken, pizzas,
>and so forth. My wife was there and enforces his lecture.
So do everything as a slow progression and learn your limits.
>my sternum, but some sort of German saw. Eeeeks! I might get a panic
>attack again.
Don't panic.
And so long and thanks for all the fish.
--
Robertwgross
>Gene I hate to think I might have been a sucker, as I am one of the two
>founding members of the local kids' Liars' Club. Perhaps he was telling
>the truth.
Yup. Late September 2001. Shorty's Well to Telescope Peak and out to Mahogany
Flat. I think there were about nine or ten of us in the group, and it has been
published on the web since then.
I believe that is the longest continuous uphill hiking route in North America.
Longest and continuous in terms of elevation gain to be done in one day.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
Each June, some folks in our group do a trip in the NH White Mountains
called the "Presidential Death March" on the longest Saturday daytime
of the year. 23 miles, over all of the Presidential Ridge from Madison
to Jackson. I don't recall the cumulative elevation gain, but at least
8000 feet. Different than what you describe,but not really easier.
Robertwgross
>Each June, some folks in our group do a trip in the NH White Mountains
>called the "Presidential Death March" on the longest Saturday daytime
>of the year. 23 miles, over all of the Presidential Ridge from Madison
>to Jackson. I don't recall the cumulative elevation gain, but at least
>8000 feet. Different than what you describe,but not really easier.
Damn. Is that an outdoor group, or a Marine Corps boot camp?
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
Some of the more serious hikers in the AMC. For our committee, perhaps
3 or 4 each year in this class, out of 160 different trips. If no one
showed up, they would not keep doing them.
I know you have been up Washington, so you appreciate the above
treeline terrain in the area. The northern 2/3 of this trip is on
comparable terrain, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Clay, Washington,
Monroe, and then it gets somewhat simpler.
Robertwgross
>I know you have been up Washington, so you appreciate the above
>treeline terrain in the area. The northern 2/3 of this trip is on
>comparable terrain, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Clay, Washington,
>Monroe, and then it gets somewhat simpler.
Terrain, above the treeline on Washington?
On my first trip up there, I couldn't see much terrain due to snow and wind.
All I saw were those two-foot lumps covered by snow, which made walking
treacherous. I would imagine that in June it is much nicer. Isn't that when the
black flies come out?
---Bob Gross---
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
> In article <j_Ohc.44004$L31....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>Gene I hate to think I might have been a sucker, as I am one of the two
>>founding members of the local kids' Liars' Club. Perhaps he was telling
>>the truth. I know a guy who used to go up and down this 8000' ravine on
>>the north side of San Antonio in one day. I avoided any trip he might
>>be leading.
>
>
> It's the how and the purpose of using the truth.
>
> It's known as sand bagging.
>
That's from poker (one word, really), and I know how to avoid it there.
I don't fall into that trap, as it was used on me twice when I was
about 20 playing 5-card draw at the U of AK. I'm exceedingly cautious
in poker, after some bad experiences, and I only play fools like
astronomers. Losing sucks and haunts your dreams. If the guy was lying
about his hike up Telescope Peak, it was a pretty good lie.
My heart operation was in April 2001, when they ripped all the veins for
the bypass out of my right leg, leaving a substantial red scar; 100
staples altogether. The scar is largely gone now, but not the nerve
damage. In the early summer of 2001 I was out in my shorts, with my
dog, and the Liars' Club came up to me asking what could have happened
to me? They knew I had been in hospital for something. I told them
that because of my extreme age (young kids can't tell the difference
between 60 and 90) my heart had fallen down into my leg - have I told
this story on this newsgroup before? - and the surgeons had to go down
into my leg to get it and put it back in my chest, and I asked the kids
to verify thy my heart was truly back in my chest. Well, both their
parents are MD/PhDs from Hopkins, so they came at me the next day like
Japanese hornets, "You lied to us!!" I said, you know the whole idea of
the Liars' Club is that you learn the best when you figure out all the
lies everyone else tells you? "Yes?" Now you know a lot more than you
did yesterday, don't you? Then they weren't so pissed off. But they
were dubious about getting such a huge and serious personal lie.
They preferred to hear that Alexander got lost and conquered Persia by
accident.
One of my favorite old New Yorker cartoons, shows a CEO so old that his
flesh is just falling off his face. He hits the intercom and demands,
"Mrs Covington (or some such), please bring me come connective tissue!"
At 62 I need some myself.
The co-founder, indeed the initiator, of the Liar's Club was a 5-yr-old
girl named Hannah. I was sitting on the curb with my dog Achilles
watching the kids and their parents play ball in the parking lot. The
ball rolled uphill and hit my feet. She came to get it and apologized.
"Never mind, balls naturally roll uphill." The next day she gathered
the four Irish Goggins kids and came up to me, while I was chatting with
neighbors, in a confrontational mood. "You told me a lie. Tell me more
lies!!" That was the real beginning. I told her father, a Hopkins
doctor, that she was so good she needed an agent.
But the Liars' Club is now a ghost town, like Ballarat, as Hannah has
moved away, and the Goggins parents sniffed out that my lies were more
subversive than one might at first think, and that I usually told the
truth, which they definitely did not want their kids to hear. I tried
to repair relations by giving the middle daughter "How the Irish Saved
Civilization" for her 10th birthday a month ago. She's smart enough to
read it, and just snatched it out of my hand right in front of her
amused mother, whom I call St Bernadette.
>
>>I really punked out on some very strenuous trips in my 40s and couldn't
>>understand it, as I was exercising and was in shape. The real problem
>>emerged only in 2001, at 59, when I got a triple bypass and my heart
>>surgeon told me I had had heart disease for at least 30 years, and gave
>>me a severe lecture about Italian sausages, Popeye's chicken, pizzas,
>>and so forth. My wife was there and enforces his lecture.
>
>
> So do everything as a slow progression and learn your limits.
>
>
>>my sternum, but some sort of German saw. Eeeeks! I might get a panic
>>attack again.
>
>
> Don't panic.
> And so long and thanks for all the fish.
>
According to the cladists at the American Museum of Natural History in
NYC, a most excellent place for many years, we are all just walking
fish, carrying the ocean with us.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Yes, very likely. McKinley or St Elias take a lot more than one day.
Try Rabbit Peak, as it's relatively easy, but puts people who think they
are tough in their place. Weather is good, no rain and hail storms as
in the Sierra, and only half of the people will get lost. There are
orchards to feed them at the base until they get rescued. I can't do it
right now, as I have been so lax in recovering from my heart surgery my
wife is going nuts.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Gary S. wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2004 18:46:54 GMT, robert...@cs.com (Robertwgross) wrote:
>
>
>>Jim wrote:
>>
>>>Gene I hate to think I might have been a sucker, as I am one of the two
>>>founding members of the local kids' Liars' Club. Perhaps he was telling
>>>the truth.
>>
>>Yup. Late September 2001. Shorty's Well to Telescope Peak and out to Mahogany
>>Flat. I think there were about nine or ten of us in the group, and it has been
>>published on the web since then.
>>
>>I believe that is the longest continuous uphill hiking route in North America.
>>Longest and continuous in terms of elevation gain to be done in one day.
>>
>
> Each June, some folks in our group do a trip in the NH White Mountains
> called the "Presidential Death March" on the longest Saturday daytime
> of the year. 23 miles, over all of the Presidential Ridge from Madison
> to Jackson. I don't recall the cumulative elevation gain, but at least
> 8000 feet. Different than what you describe,but not really easier.
Defintely not easier. But make sure you have perfect boots. I worry
that you might get neuromas, as I did from one disastrous hike downhill
over the Hogsback. Don't carry more than the 11 essentials, and try to
do it without a feeling of emergency. Rent a Japanese guard for those
who can't make it.
jimbat
Mark South
news:R%3ic.34766$G_.3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> ... Liars' Club ...
> They preferred to hear that Alexander got lost and conquered Persia by
> accident.
Funny! a few days ago I trolled you with my "Switzerland held off Napoleon"
stuff and you swallowed it so hard I had to yank my arm back to keep my
fingers.
> > Don't panic.
> > And so long and thanks for all the fish.
> >
> According to the cladists at the American Museum of Natural History in
> NYC, a most excellent place for many years, we are all just walking
> fish, carrying the ocean with us.
Actually, that was the dolphins he was quoting.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
Gary S.
I have led a number of groups up to NH summits where I had to describe
how good the view would have been without the clouds and fog.
The Presi ridge, and the Washington summit in particular, is sometimes
called the "Big Rock Pile" as the higher elevations are a jumble of
boulders and rocks, with no apparently solid rock visible.
This is what I meant, the sometimes treacherous rocks make moving fast
far more difficult.
Mid-May to Mid-June is typical for black flies. Once you get above
treeline, though, the high winds blow the black flies away from you
before they bite.
Gary S.
<jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Gary S. wrote:
>
>> Each June, some folks in our group do a trip in the NH White Mountains
>> called the "Presidential Death March" on the longest Saturday daytime
>> of the year. 23 miles, over all of the Presidential Ridge from Madison
>> to Jackson. I don't recall the cumulative elevation gain, but at least
>> 8000 feet. Different than what you describe,but not really easier.
>
>Defintely not easier. But make sure you have perfect boots. I worry
>that you might get neuromas, as I did from one disastrous hike downhill
>over the Hogsback. Don't carry more than the 11 essentials, and try to
>do it without a feeling of emergency. Rent a Japanese guard for those
>who can't make it.
>
The way it is planned, there are cars spotted at the trailheads of
various side trails, so there are numerous options for shortening the
trip as needed.
No good reason not to have boots that fit well, and hold up to the
sort of hiking and terrain you will be doing.
Neuromas are caused by continued excess pressure to certain nerve
bundles, and are also seen in runners. Those who have a second toe as
long or longer than the big toe are very prone to what is called
Morton's Toe or Morton's Neuroma. Good orthotics will minimize these
problems for many people.
Start with modifying the footwear with orthotics, before modifying the
foot with surgery.
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
*I* sure would not go anywhere near Mt Washington in the winter.
jimbat
Robertwgross
>*I* sure would not go anywhere near Mt Washington in the winter.
---Bob Gross---
Jim Roberts
Gary S. wrote:
I've tried orthotics given me by a few podiatrists; they are so much
trouble I couldn't even hike far with them. My Alpenspitz mountain
boots from Sports Chalet (q.v.) in 1977 are the most comfotable foot
wear I have ever owned, counting all shoes, sandals, and such. I'm on
my 4th set of Vibram soles, and they are still in great shape. I just
took a terrific pounding from that emergency escape from the Sierra,
without having hiked that much beforehand.
What you describe as causes for neuromas are all essentially injuries,
as I mentioned. My feet and toes are perfectly normal, and have
received much favorable comment from dates between marriages, and from
my 2nd wife. But they are small compared to my torso, as are my hands,
arms, and legs. I have occasionally joked that I'm an achondroplastic
dwarf, which my wife does not find amusing, either.
As I said, my wife suffered no injuries from our mad hike out. She also
runs marathons and half-marathons, and similar races, and never has had
an injury though she will be 56 this year. She's just more
indestructible than I am.
Your system of exits for folks who punk out sounds very good. Where I
have gone in the West there are not really such options as there are
here in the East. Like a Civil War soldier, you just had to bite your
knife and bear it. I didn't even have any whiskey.
jimbat
Robertwgross
>The Presi ridge, and the Washington summit in particular, is sometimes
>called the "Big Rock Pile" as the higher elevations are a jumble of
>boulders and rocks, with no apparently solid rock visible.
>This is what I meant, the sometimes treacherous rocks make moving fast
>far more difficult.
Yes, the rocks were 1-2 feet in diameter, and there was 1-2 feet of snow down,
so it was difficult to guess where to put my feet. However, I had hiked up in a
hurry from Pinkham Notch, and I was slowing down as I approached the summit.
GPS was showing me a bearing, but a direct bearing is not very optimal over
rocks like that.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
Easier with more snow to smooth out the surface. But you were there in
mid-October, IIRC.
When that terrain is dry, it is somewhat easier, although still slow
going. Not all of the rocks are stable.
If you really want some fun, try that terrain with a bit of verglas
over the rocks.
In that situation, the GPS helps with macro direction finding, not
with the micro direction finding.
Gary S.
It is true for many people, but not all of them know it.
Mt. Washington in winter has the potential to be as bad as any
mountainous area in the world in terms of extreme weather, with the
sole exception of altitude. Combine this with its deceptive ease, and
proximity to a large population, and the SAR folks can end up busy.
Almost as severe are the rest of the Presidential Ridge, the Franconia
Ridge, as well as some of the more isolated summits with extended
above treeline stretches.
Not just my opinion, but shared by many more experienced than I who
have done the Presi's in winter as well as mountaineering in Alaska,
South America, the Himalaya, the Karakoram, etc.
Robertwgross
>In that situation, the GPS helps with macro direction finding, not
>with the micro direction finding.
Exactly. I was swinging around, right and left, trying to work my way through
the rock field to the summit, and my GPS display was shifting the Bearing to
Destination right and left, trying to keep up. The actual tracklog looked like
that made by a drunken snail.
When I went back there a year or two later in September (no snow), I was able
to rock-hop from one to another without any difficulty.
---Bob Gross---
Robertwgross
Bob Gross wrote:
>>It's a wise man that knows his limitations.
>It is true for many people, but not all of them know it.
What impressed me was after I had returned to Pinkham Notch on that first Mt.
Washington trip. I had gotten up in about four hours and returned in about the
same. Later that night and the next day, the news carried the story of the guy
who had been up on Washington that same day and had gotten into trouble. The
weather pinned him down on the Alpine Garden, and he had called for help on a
cell phone. The SAR team went up the road in a snow cat and scooped him up near
the road. After they hauled him out to the hospital, I think he had some
frostbite or something.
Why did I make it without problem and he barely survived? I started earlier in
the day, and I was very heavily clothed, for just such an occasion. There's
probably a stubbornness factor in there, also.
---Bob Gross---
Ed Huesers
> If you really want some fun, try that terrain with a bit of verglas
> over the rocks.
It was on our second attempt at WY's highest north glacier route.
We had attempted it a couple years prior and had two feet of heavy
snow to break on summit day. We ran out of energy well below the actual
climb.
The second attempt was at the end of July and the streams had receded
a bit giving us boulders to hop up along the stream in the flood plain.
We had taken the woods trail the previous trip and found that it was
completely unmaintained and wove through and around blow down areas and
was hard to follow.
Anyway, the flood plain was not really that wide and brush hung out
over the stream leaving us rocks that were being splashed and were wet.
Most of the rocks were just wet and the traction was fine but every once
in a while we'd step on one that had the verglas on it. I likened it to
playing a game or Russian Roulette.
We came to our senses after a few encounters and moved off into the
woods to the trail.
It was quite the trip. We had to chase a few moose out of a flat area
to set our tent up on the night before the creek experience.
We also experienced glacier travel with large crevasses [for me
anyway] that could have swallowed up a bus. The glacier and bergshrud
were just a slog but the final 1000 feet were steep snow going up
through a 10 foot wide chute and then opening up again on the summit
snowcap.
Was a feeling I'll never forget crossing the crux of the snowcap. I
had felt it years ago as a child when I climbed the haystack that I
wasn't supposed to.
There was something about not having anything but snow in view as far
as the peak we were on. There were no close rocks in view to give me
perspective of solid ground. I don't know exactly what it was but I've
felt it other times too.
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Robertwgross
>... We also experienced glacier travel with large crevasses [for me
>anyway] that could have swallowed up a bus. ...
I don't worry so much about the large crevasses, because I can see them, judge
them, negotiate them somehow, and continue.
What I worry about are the nasty little ones that are just about big enough to
swallow up one or two climbers. The nasty little ones are often covered by a
thin snow bridge, so you really can't see them unless you are continuously
probing, and that makes progress terribly slow.
The only good thing about the nasty little ones is that a falling climber will
likely get wedged very quickly, before falling far. If you fall in the large
crevasse, you go a long way down first.
---Bob Gross---
Ed Huesers
> >... We also experienced glacier travel with large crevasses [for me
> >anyway] that could have swallowed up a bus.
Robertwgross wrote:
> I don't worry so much about the large crevasses, because I can see them, judge
> them, negotiate them somehow, and continue.
Yes, the area with the large crevasses was actually an ice fall, a
small on but still an ice fall. We went up on the right side weaving
along on ledges and snow bridges. On the way down we went on the left of
the ice falls where it was steep and continuous snow.
> What I worry about are the nasty little ones that are just about big enough to
> swallow up one or two climbers. The nasty little ones are often covered by a
> thin snow bridge, so you really can't see them unless you are continuously
> probing, and that makes progress terribly slow.
We were roped up for most of the glacier travel and I stepped [one
leg] into a few of them below the ice falls and out on the flats.
> The only good thing about the nasty little ones is that a falling climber will
> likely get wedged very quickly, before falling far. If you fall in the large
> crevasse, you go a long way down first.
The large ones had debris in them due to it being an ice fall so the
fall wouldn't have been to far. There were a few deep ones though above
the ice falls.
Mmmm, thanks for the memories,
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Robertwgross
> We were roped up for most of the glacier travel and I stepped [one
>leg] into a few of them below the ice falls and out on the flats.
Kind of takes your breath away, doesn't it?
Years ago, I was crossing a piece of side-glacier to the Khumbu Glacier in
Nepal. I looked down into a crevasse and gasped in amazement. I had to get my
eyes off the crevasse and onto the trail in front of me.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
>Gary wrote:
>
>Bob Gross wrote:
>>>It's a wise man that knows his limitations.
>
>>It is true for many people, but not all of them know it.
>
>What impressed me was after I had returned to Pinkham Notch on that first Mt.
>Washington trip. I had gotten up in about four hours and returned in about the
>same. Later that night and the next day, the news carried the story of the guy
>Why did I make it without problem and he barely survived? I started earlier in
>the day, and I was very heavily clothed, for just such an occasion. There's
>probably a stubbornness factor in there, also.
>
>---Bob Gross---
I do recall that. He was quite fortunate that they found him on their
last pass, before they got out of the storm to save themselves..
Two factors that I could see:
Timing. It is rarely a mistake to start early, as you did. Save the
extra daylight for the end of the day, just in case. The weather
forecasts there are generally quite good, and bad weather should never
be a complete surprise. I would have to look it up, but I believe that
that storm was mentioned in the forecast for that evening?
Navigation/route selection. You had the GPS and map, and experience
using them, and had reviewed the trail options. He had knee problems,
and was trying to head over to the Auto Road for an easier way down,
but did not have the ability to navigate in a whiteout. He also spent
a lot of time as conditions deteriorated doing a lateral
above-treeline traverse to get to the easier hike down, instead of
ducking below treeline as quickly as possible. He skipped the Tuck's
trail, Lion Head trail, and the Escape Hatch, and got stuck above
Huntington Ravine, which is all alpine climbing routes (except for one
difficult hike which is recommended only for upward, and only for dry
conditions). The cell phone may have given him false confidence.
I have less to go on with this, but between the lines, I think that
his hike plan may have been significantly more strenuous than his
usual hike, while yours was more in line with your typical hike.
Gary S.
Crevasses are interesting. As said, it is not the big ones you can see
which are the problem, but the small hidden ones.
When I did Rainier with RMI some years ago, the guy ahead on my rope
team stepped across a small crevasse, and the far lip crumbled under
him. Last I saw for a bit, as I was plastered face down over my ax in
a self arrest. Turned out he only went in to his knee, and stepped out
of it, but I wasn't waiting to see what happened.
There is a scene in the Imax film "Everest" of crossing a ladder
through the Khumbu Icefall. Worth the price of a ticket all by itself.
Jim Roberts
Gary S. wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2004 03:58:57 GMT, robert...@cs.com (Robertwgross) wrote:
>
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>> We were roped up for most of the glacier travel and I stepped [one
>>>leg] into a few of them below the ice falls and out on the flats.
>>
>>Kind of takes your breath away, doesn't it?
>>
>>Years ago, I was crossing a piece of side-glacier to the Khumbu Glacier in
>>Nepal. I looked down into a crevasse and gasped in amazement. I had to get my
>>eyes off the crevasse and onto the trail in front of me.
>>
>>---Bob Gross---
>
> Crevasses are interesting. As said, it is not the big ones you can see
> which are the problem, but the small hidden ones.
>
> When I did Rainier with RMI some years ago, the guy ahead on my rope
> team stepped across a small crevasse, and the far lip crumbled under
> him. Last I saw for a bit, as I was plastered face down over my ax in
> a self arrest. Turned out he only went in to his knee, and stepped out
> of it, but I wasn't waiting to see what happened.
>
> There is a scene in the Imax film "Everest" of crossing a ladder
> through the Khumbu Icefall. Worth the price of a ticket all by itself.
>
A bit off topic:
That freaked me out, because of my fear of heights. I'd never do that.
I've seen it many times. Crossing those damned ladders is like a
nightmare to me, except that in my nightmares I don't die for real.
I wasn't even able to do simple rides, like The Spider, until in my 30s
when the 10-yr-old ride-loving son, Bret, of my lover spent an entire
day educating me. What a good teacher he was.
Late in the day I did The Hammer without freaking out. My knife fell
out of my pocket and went rattling aroud the cage during the ride. Then
my son went on it with Bret. The restraints back then (mid 70s) were
not adequate for a small child (8 yrs), so when Monty got off and came
up to me he had a very odd expression on his face. I just grabbed him
and he had a few moments of crying and was then OK.
My favorite rides are wooden roller coasters, as they shake your
fillings loose without breaking your neck, and I go no hands, especially
since the restraints are so overly safe now. Our German wife refused to
ride them with me at Cedar Point. I told her that Rommel would have
come; she was not amused. I can amuse my wife, but had some difficulty
with her. But my wife would no more have ridden those coasters than she.
jimbat
Robertwgross
>He skipped the Tuck's
>trail, Lion Head trail, and the Escape Hatch, and got stuck above
>Huntington Ravine, which is all alpine climbing routes (except for one
>difficult hike which is recommended only for upward, and only for dry
>conditions).
I had gone up Tuckerman Ravine and gone down Lion Head. What is the Escape
Hatch?
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
It's an ice climbing descent route through a snow gully. Less
attractive for hikers than Lion Head trail summer or winter. It leads
down into Huntington Ravine, more ideal for ice climbers staying at
the Harvard Cabin there. I don't think it is mentioned in the AMC
White Mountain hiking guidebook.
See:
http://www.chauvinguides.com/hunticeguide3.htm
For a description from a climbers perspective of how to get down
quickly in that area.
Map of the major gullies in Huntington:
http://www.chauvinguides.com/hunticeguide2.htm
This is north of Lion Head, on the southern (or north facing) wall of
Huntington, which is part of the division between Tuckerman and
Huntington Ravines.
Just north of Lion Head is the minor gully known as Raymond Cataract
(not named on many maps), not a great descent route, and north of that
is the beginnings of Huntington Ravine.
At times, getting below treeline, even on the wrong side of the
mountain, is the top priority. "Any port in a storm" might be the best
old saying here.
Eugene Miya
In article <R%3ic.34766$G_.3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>That's from poker (one word, really), and I know how to avoid it there.
> I don't fall into that trap, as it was used on me twice when I was
>about 20 playing 5-card draw at the U of AK. I'm exceedingly cautious
>in poker, after some bad experiences, and I only play fools like
>astronomers. Losing sucks and haunts your dreams. If the guy was lying
>about his hike up Telescope Peak, it was a pretty good lie.
Naw wasn't a lie.
Just meant to suck you in.
Extrema which isn't so extreme.
Meant to sound like big fish.
If you want to gamble, you have to do as Hibbs did in Vegas and earned
the empirical statistics of gambling.
>According to the cladists at the American Museum of Natural History in
>NYC, a most excellent place for many years, we are all just walking
>fish, carrying the ocean with us.
Jim: you posting under the influence?
--
Eugene Miya
Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>What I worry about are the nasty little ones that are just about big enough to
>swallow up one or two climbers.
Yeah but you aren't a climber by your own admission.
--
Robertwgross
>Yeah but you aren't a climber by your own admission.
Back to semantics, are we?
Yes, I am not a technical rock climber. Peak bagger is a good description. By
the Laws of Eugene, I guess a person who hikes up 14,000 foot peaks is not a
climber.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
The word is used very differently by different people.
I have seen the term "climb" applied to any uphill hike, even a small
hill. Others reserve "climb" for technical routes. "Technical" in
winter conditions may mean that ice ax and crampons are used, while
the exact same terrain in summer conditions is not technical.
Based on his various experiences mentioned here, Bob G is clearly a
technical mountaineer by most definitions, and probably not a
technical climber by most definitions, including his own.
Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
Robertwgross
>The word is used very differently by different people.
>
>I have seen the term "climb" applied to any uphill hike, even a small
>hill. Others reserve "climb" for technical routes. "Technical" in
>winter conditions may mean that ice ax and crampons are used, while
>the exact same terrain in summer conditions is not technical.
>
>Based on his various experiences mentioned here, Bob G is clearly a
>technical mountaineer by most definitions, and probably not a
>technical climber by most definitions, including his own.
>
>Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
>qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
>Gary wrote:
>>The word is used very differently by different people.
>>
>>Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
>>qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
>
>Damn. We can't let Eugene off that easily!
>
>---Bob Gross---
Methinks that Eugene is highly skilled with semantics, as well as
provoking responses.
Robertwgross
>Methinks that Eugene is highly skilled with semantics, as well as
>provoking responses.
Instead of computer science, he must have majored in semantics.
---Bob Gross---
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
>>>It's known as sand bagging.
>
>
> In article <R%3ic.34766$G_.3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>That's from poker (one word, really), and I know how to avoid it there.
>> I don't fall into that trap, as it was used on me twice when I was
>>about 20 playing 5-card draw at the U of AK. I'm exceedingly cautious
>>in poker, after some bad experiences, and I only play fools like
>>astronomers. Losing sucks and haunts your dreams. If the guy was lying
>>about his hike up Telescope Peak, it was a pretty good lie.
>
>
> Naw wasn't a lie.
> Just meant to suck you in.
> Extrema which isn't so extreme.
> Meant to sound like big fish.
>
> If you want to gamble, you have to do as Hibbs did in Vegas and earned
> the empirical statistics of gambling.
>
>
I think you are gettng disingenuous. Daddy spank. As a daddy I never
did, but in your case I might make an exception. Just take down your
pants. I have bamboo stakes that we usually use in the garden. But of
course I prefer to keep them for an imaginary English or Russian tall
woman. Not so imaginary, and I have laid my plans.
>
>>According to the cladists at the American Museum of Natural History in
>>NYC, a most excellent place for many years, we are all just walking
>>fish, carrying the ocean with us.
>
>
> Jim: you posting under the influence?
>
Just statng the facts. You think I have to be medicated to state the
facts? Do you think Darwin and Einstein wrote while plastered?
Certainly Oppie wouldn't have been allowed to get wasted when inventing
the atomic bomb. I was a bit young to talk to Einstein, though that was
my nickname in school, but I did get a chance to talk to Oppie.
jimbat
Eugene Miya
Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>Eugene wrote:
>>Yeah but you aren't a climber by your own admission.
>
>Back to semantics, are we?
That's life; it's in the details.
>Yes, I am not a technical rock climber. Peak bagger is a good description. By
>the Laws of Eugene,
I didn't say technical rock climber, Bob.
>I guess a person who hikes up 14,000 foot peaks is not a climber.
Your words.
You said:
In article <20040423224858...@mb-m15.news.cs.com>,
Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>What I worry about are the nasty little ones that are just about big
>enough to swallow up one or two climbers.
Knowledgeable climbers practice team arrest and extraction.
Novices get swallowed.
Rock climbers in crevasse fields are novices. Peak baggers can be novices.
--
Eugene Miya
Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
Eugene wrote:
>>>Yeah but you aren't a climber by your own admission.
On 26 Apr 2004 15:21:55 GMT, robert...@cs.com (Robertwgross) wrote:
>>Back to semantics, are we?
>>Yes, I am not a technical rock climber. Peak bagger is a good description. By
>>the Laws of Eugene, I guess a person who hikes up 14,000 foot peaks is not a
>>climber.
>>
>The word is used very differently by different people.
To me is you ascend that's fine, that only leaves traverses ambiguous
but that's not a problem.
>I have seen the term "climb" applied to any uphill hike, even a small
>hill. Others reserve "climb" for technical routes.
That's kind of a thread in r.c. and it plays on the pages of Rock and Ice.
The issue of technical.
>"Technical" in
>winter conditions may mean that ice ax and crampons are used, while
>the exact same terrain in summer conditions is not technical.
Technical, as in ratings, is largely based on the presence of a rope.
Not ax or crampons.
>Based on his various experiences mentioned here, Bob G is clearly a
>technical mountaineer by most definitions, and probably not a
>technical climber by most definitions, including his own.
Well he uses peak bagger.
Did Bob lead and place fixed line on Denali from the stretch between
14K and 17K ft.? He can answer that. That's all part of climbing.
>Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
>qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
It's hiking if the slope is gradual. It is mountaineering? Sure.
Climbing: in my book. Gaining elevation, seemingly competent.
Seemingly.
>>Yes, I am not a technical rock climber. Peak bagger is a good description.
That is what he says.
This is Bob's attempt at a barb:
>>By the Laws of Eugene, I guess a person who hikes up 14,000 foot peaks is not
>>a climber.
He guesses wrong. He mistakes elevation as the issue. And so do you.
Bob wrote:
>I don't worry so much about the large crevasses, because I can see them,
>judge them, negotiate them somehow, and continue.
Nothing wrote with that. It's just bait.
>What I worry about are the nasty little ones that are just about big
>enough to swallow up one or two climbers. The nasty little ones are
>often covered by a thin snow bridge, so you really can't see them unless
>you are continuously probing, and that makes progress terribly slow.
Big crevasses develop bridges, too.
>The only good thing about the nasty little ones is that a falling climber
>will likely get wedged very quickly, before falling far.
This sounds impressive.
This is actually potentially the more dangerous situation.
I depends how one falls into a crevasse.
The highest potential for injury is the inital bridge break, but wedging
is particularly dangerous as exhaled breathing allows one to settle in
deeper and no chance to take the next breath.
Crevasses go from the ignorable except for knowing, to foot and body
with wide where your arms and or tools might jam you (the proverbal leg
breaking or crotch pain), to even wider where an arm could not recover
your fall. You have to check the latter fast.
>If you fall in the large crevasse, you go a long way down first.
If you go a long way, you don't have a belay or arrest.
This is not competent. He's trying to make an impression on you
as knowledgeable. He's not. Go back to the dork (Joes term) thread.
Just to thread this. Novices go down a long way.
If you want to follow Bob into a crevasse, that's your choice.
Practice requires jumping and falling into crevasses, and Bob won't do that.
If you want to follow Bob into a crevasse, that's your choice.
And you took him for his word, hook, line and sinker.
--
Eugene Miya
Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>>Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
>>qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
>
>Damn. We can't let Eugene off that easily!
Naw, 14K peaks are irrelevant.
Climbing competence is. You aren't.
--
MLL
"Robertwgross" <robert...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040426112155...@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
Apparently, many in this group haven't done enough. Climb enough, hike
enough, trek enough, and sooner or later it hits you. It's not what's
outside you (height, snow, crevasse, storm, pitch, etc.) that matters. It's
what's inside you. Discover that and the need to thump your chest will
vanish.
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
Anyone can be a "climber". All they have to do is hike up a hill. Old
Rag, a 2.75 hour drive from Baltimore has a rocky east ridge with a few
3rd class moves. One rather difficult if you are not prepared. There is
an easy western path down from the peak, which is where I find the
limping women who need "advanced first aid".
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Gary S. wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2004 15:21:55 GMT, robert...@cs.com (Robertwgross) wrote:
>
>
>>Eugene wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah but you aren't a climber by your own admission.
>>
>>Back to semantics, are we?
>>
>>Yes, I am not a technical rock climber. Peak bagger is a good description. By
>>the Laws of Eugene, I guess a person who hikes up 14,000 foot peaks is not a
>>climber.
>>
>
> The word is used very differently by different people.
>
> I have seen the term "climb" applied to any uphill hike, even a small
> hill. Others reserve "climb" for technical routes. "Technical" in
> winter conditions may mean that ice ax and crampons are used, while
> the exact same terrain in summer conditions is not technical.
>
> Based on his various experiences mentioned here, Bob G is clearly a
> technical mountaineer by most definitions, and probably not a
> technical climber by most definitions, including his own.
>
> Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
> qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
I am reluctant to criticize Eugene, as he has done a great job of
moderating this newsgroup, especially when I was reading it back in the
early '90s; I just resumed reading it a year or so ago. Maybe he is
getting bored. I can't imagine doing any such thing myself without
going mad. The only thing I ever worked on for more than a very few
months can be found in ApJSupp *45*, 75.
As "M" leaders my wife and I think that anyone who can do 3rd class
moves are climbers. We've both done 5.7 without ropes or assistance,
but prefer a good pastrami sandwich, without the Carnegie Deli "waiters".
I owe my old 1991 post "Tanks in the Backcountry" to a brilliant woman
on sci.military, who taught me a lot, as I knew nothing. Eugene has
been very useful, in all my experience, though he seems to lapse now out
of sheer boredom, very understandable. If you want to give me a whack,
Gene, do so; I can take it.
jimbat
Eugene Miya
Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2004 16:36:12 GMT, robert...@cs.com (Robertwgross) wrote:
>>Gary wrote:
>>>The word is used very differently by different people.
>>>
>>>Multiple 14K peaks, including "winter" conditions, would certainly
>>>qualify as mountaineering, not hiking.
>>
>>Damn. We can't let Eugene off that easily!
>
>provoking responses.
Merely some skill.
Like the bear joke, I only have to be the guy with the tennis shoes
or the small caliber pistol (for the versions) to you guys.
Your monotonic reasoning about climbing Gary, somewhat similar to Gross',
is that you have mimicked his fixation with numbers like elevation or
climb rating, anything bigger or harder. You certainly know that the NE
has an impressive wind in your nearby high point, but 20+ times up
Whitney or Shasta easily impresses you. Similarly other far more impressive
objectives exist at even lower elevations (exercise: name the high
points on the Patagonia silhouette, not that that is important: it all
small stuff, never sweat the small stuff).
--
Eugene Miya
I was never a CS major until grad school.
The topic might be computation linguistics.
Then we would get into syntax like Backus-Naur Forms,
Chomsky Normal Forms, Greibach normal forms, etc.
Life is all about semantics.
Life is in the details.
--
Eugene Miya
>> the empirical statistics of gambling.
In article <kDgjc.40261$Aq.2...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>I think you are gettng disingenuous. Daddy spank. As a daddy I never
>did, but in your case I might make an exception. Just take down your
8^)
>pants. I have bamboo stakes that we usually use in the garden. But of
>course I prefer to keep them for an imaginary English or Russian tall
>woman. Not so imaginary, and I have laid my plans.
SO be it.
>> Jim: you posting under the influence?
>
>Just statng the facts. You think I have to be medicated to state the
>facts?
Didn't see it as medication.
Could be recreational.
>Do you think Darwin and Einstein wrote while plastered?
Darwin likely. Einstein: less likely.
>Certainly Oppie wouldn't have been allowed to get wasted when inventing
>the atomic bomb. I was a bit young to talk to Einstein, though that was
>my nickname in school, but I did get a chance to talk to Oppie.
I suspect Oppie unwound on Sundays.
So you evaded the question. I merely guess booze.
Jim: you posting under the influence?
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Anyone can be a "climber". All they have to do is hike up a hill.
"Can be" is the key.
But he chose not for a "bagger."
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>I am reluctant to criticize Eugene, as he has done a great job of
>moderating this newsgroup, especially when I was reading it back in the
>early '90s; I just resumed reading it a year or so ago. Maybe he is
>getting bored. I can't imagine doing any such thing myself without
>going mad. The only thing I ever worked on for more than a very few
>months can be found in ApJSupp *45*, 75.
Rec. groups are notorious hard to moderate.
Rec.hunting barely succeeds. Naw the group is free, unmoderated, and
comparative wild populated with lots of herbavore lurkers,
and a small percentage of carnivores.
>As "M" leaders my wife and I think that anyone who can do 3rd class
>moves are climbers. We've both done 5.7 without ropes or assistance,
But likely not in a sustained sense.
>but prefer a good pastrami sandwich, without the Carnegie Deli "waiters".
>
>I owe my old 1991 post "Tanks in the Backcountry" to a brilliant woman
>on sci.military, who taught me a lot, as I knew nothing. Eugene has
>been very useful, in all my experience, though he seems to lapse now out
>of sheer boredom, very understandable. If you want to give me a whack,
>Gene, do so; I can take it.
Naw. Not one of those B/D discipline types. I refer you to friends
named Mark, Charles, Nancy, Janis, etc.
Naw, limited time to read an post.
--
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
He was sharp. Figured out what had been troubling me for 6 months in
just a couple of minutes. You should have been so lucky.
>
> So you evaded the question. I merely guess booze.
> Jim: you posting under the influence?
>
I'm as qualified to be president as Dubya, so like him, I will evade all
such questions. Match your wits to mine, if you dare. I will crush you.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
You are correct. But as I said in another post, my wife and I define
anyone as a climber who can get up and down a peak doing a few 3rd class
moves, not many of which are available here in the East, except when a
roofman fell through our TP shingles and 1/4" rotten roof plywood. He
did quite well in extricating himself. It *was* alarming to see a
roofman appear in our family room through the roof. We had the whole
thing torn off and rebuilt to my standards, so it is likely good until
we are both dead.
On Haekel in the Sierra, a 3rd class peak, I had a leader when I was
learning who said it was 2nd class, and proved it by going up the ravine
"no hands". I could not because of my inferior balance.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
> In article <R7njc.46773$G_.2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>I am reluctant to criticize Eugene, as he has done a great job of
>>moderating this newsgroup, especially when I was reading it back in the
>>early '90s; I just resumed reading it a year or so ago. Maybe he is
>>getting bored. I can't imagine doing any such thing myself without
>>going mad. The only thing I ever worked on for more than a very few
>>months can be found in ApJSupp *45*, 75.
>
>
> Rec. groups are notorious hard to moderate.
> Rec.hunting barely succeeds. Naw the group is free, unmoderated, and
> comparative wild populated with lots of herbavore lurkers,
> and a small percentage of carnivores.
>
>
Eugene, the word would be "herbivores".
>
>>As "M" leaders my wife and I think that anyone who can do 3rd class
>>moves are climbers. We've both done 5.7 without ropes or assistance,
>
> But likely not in a sustained sense.
Right, just on a rock slope.
>
>>but prefer a good pastrami sandwich, without the Carnegie Deli "waiters".
>>
>>I owe my old 1991 post "Tanks in the Backcountry" to a brilliant woman
>>on sci.military, who taught me a lot, as I knew nothing. Eugene has
>>been very useful, in all my experience, though he seems to lapse now out
>>of sheer boredom, very understandable. If you want to give me a whack,
>>Gene, do so; I can take it.
>
>
> Naw. Not one of those B/D discipline types. I refer you to friends
> named Mark, Charles, Nancy, Janis, etc.
>
> Naw, limited time to read an post.
>
"an post"? What's your native language? The first three may not be
friends, but the last could have been a friend, but would have eaten me
for breakfast. I dismissed my astronomy sections when she died, as I
was too broken-hearted to teach. I told them to go get "Kozmic Blues"
and listen to it for the rest of the day, then they might be more ready
to understand astronomy. The Chairman was extremely pissed at me.
Kozmic Blues was one of the few songs to help my 4-6 mos old son through
his colic. There was also a Serbian folk song, and the Ode to Joy.
That's about all he would tolerate in his agony, as I gently bounced
him. He'd actually go to sleep, but there was no way I could get away
with putting him down, so for many hours I had to do my research in my head.
Some friends like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, if they ever really
existed?
jimbat
Robertwgross
>Match your wits to mine, if you dare. I will crush you.
Just to add fuel to the fire, I would add the old quote:
"In the battle of wits, he is an unarmed soldier."
---Bob Gross---
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>He was sharp. Figured out what had been troubling me for 6 months in
>just a couple of minutes. You should have been so lucky.
I have been.
>> So you evaded the question. I merely guess booze.
>> Jim: you posting under the influence?
>
>I'm as qualified to be president as Dubya, so like him, I will evade all
>such questions. Match your wits to mine, if you dare. I will crush you.
Well he's merely the commander and chief.
I don't dare.
The way to win is not to play.
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>You are correct. But as I said in another post, my wife and I define
>anyone as a climber who can get up and down a peak doing a few 3rd class
>moves, not many of which are available here in the East, except when a
>roofman fell through our TP shingles and 1/4" rotten roof plywood. He
I will give some of the title to someone who hikes the Whitney trail
to the summit, but (travel with Bob), but consider doing it on a
glacier.
>On Haekel in the Sierra, a 3rd class peak, I had a leader when I was
>learning who said it was 2nd class, and proved it by going up the ravine
>"no hands". I could not because of my inferior balance.
2-3 is marginal. Many 3 short of chimneys can be done no hands if you
can trade time for it. The N face of Sentinel could be argued as 3rd
by a tiny tiny minority.
--
Eugene Miya
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>> comparative wild populated with lots of herbavore lurkers,
>
Jim, most of the people in the group are herbavore lurkers.
You could use various other adjectives. They are information grazers.
>>>As "M" leaders my wife and I think that anyone who can do 3rd class
>>>moves are climbers. We've both done 5.7 without ropes or assistance,
>> But likely not in a sustained sense.
>Right, just on a rock slope.
>>>but prefer a good pastrami sandwich, without the Carnegie Deli "waiters".
>>>
>>>I owe my old 1991 post "Tanks in the Backcountry" to a brilliant woman
>>>on sci.military, who taught me a lot, as I knew nothing. Eugene has
>>>been very useful, in all my experience, though he seems to lapse now out
>>>of sheer boredom, very understandable. If you want to give me a whack,
>>>Gene, do so; I can take it.
>> Naw. Not one of those B/D discipline types. I refer you to friends
>> named Mark, Charles, Nancy, Janis, etc.
>> Naw, limited time to read an post.
>>
>
>"an post"? What's your native language? The first three may not be
and post. keyboard is is failing. I am noticing xs bs, and other
characters are having problems with one of my machines.
English. Amazing huh? And I employ English PhDs as copy editors
as a subject area editor.
>friends, but the last could have been a friend, but would have eaten me
>for breakfast. I dismissed my astronomy sections when she died, as I
>was too broken-hearted to teach. I told them to go get "Kozmic Blues"
>and listen to it for the rest of the day, then they might be more ready
>to understand astronomy. The Chairman was extremely pissed at me.
Well astronomy has a nice apparent purity.
>Kozmic Blues was one of the few songs to help my 4-6 mos old son through
>his colic. There was also a Serbian folk song, and the Ode to Joy.
>That's about all he would tolerate in his agony, as I gently bounced
>him. He'd actually go to sleep, but there was no way I could get away
>with putting him down, so for many hours I had to do my research in my head.
>
>Some friends like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, if they ever really
>existed?
Oh I suspect they did.
--
Eugene Miya
You think the objective is to do enough?
I haven't done enough.
>Climb enough, hike enough, trek enough, and sooner or later it hits you.
Hits? Strange verb for this.
>It's not what's
>outside you (height, snow, crevasse, storm, pitch, etc.) that matters. It's
>what's inside you.
Slight difference. What's outside can kill you.
...it's good sound doctrine (except for the Hindu-Zen bullshit).
Abbey's comment to Gary Snyder's "Four Changes"
>Discover that and the need to thump your chest will vanish.
I've no interest in thumping. But I want to know the other guy on the
end of the rope isn't going to drop me into a crevasse. Think about.
--
Robertwgross
>The way to win is not to play.
That sounds vaguely like a quote from "War Games".
---Bob Gross---
Gary S.
wrote:
Different terminology here and there.
Very few in the Northeast refer to the "classes" at all.
Hiking and related guidebooks are completely distinct from climbing,
rock, ice or Alpine.
OTOH, many hiking trails in NH require a little scrambling of 10 feet
here, 20 feet there. Basic climbing skills are very helpful. These do
not usually involve the exposure of the routes that Eugene refers to,
although there are some interesting ones on knife edges, with sudden
drop-offs just feet from the hiking trail, and the most serious listed
hiking trail, the Huntington Ravine trail, which is an ice climbing
route in winter.
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
You are confusing me with Falstaff. I note that you did not challenge me.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
Or is the SecDef or VPOTUS? Or Condi?
That last quote is from Joshua in "War Games". You left off "the game".
Call me Falken. That was over 20 years ago; I had to think about it for
a moment, my memory not being what it ought to be. The military in
Cheyenne Mountain only wish they had the graphics in that movie. Too
bad what happened to Ally Sheedy after that movie, but I gather that she
has largely recovered.
As I have said in a few posts, I drink grain alcohol from time to time,
as I have some disorder that causes me to be confused and depressed
without it.
jimbat
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
> In article <V7skc.119046$L31....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>You are correct. But as I said in another post, my wife and I define
>>anyone as a climber who can get up and down a peak doing a few 3rd class
>>moves, not many of which are available here in the East, except when a
>>roofman fell through our TP shingles and 1/4" rotten roof plywood. He
>
>
> I will give some of the title to someone who hikes the Whitney trail
> to the summit, but (travel with Bob), but consider doing it on a
> glacier.
>
That doesn't count with us, unless you know to sit on your pack when
electricity comes hunting for you, as it often does on Whitney - one of
the most boring climbs in the Universe, except Olympus Mons. You have
to know about ground surges.
>
>>On Haekel in the Sierra, a 3rd class peak, I had a leader when I was
>>learning who said it was 2nd class, and proved it by going up the ravine
>>"no hands". I could not because of my inferior balance.
>
>
> 2-3 is marginal. Many 3 short of chimneys can be done no hands if you
> can trade time for it. The N face of Sentinel could be argued as 3rd
> by a tiny tiny minority.
>
Well, I could do Sentinel no hands - except for balance, as I have done
numerous rollercoasters, even though I can only walk about 3 steps on a
railroad track.
I think you might have to have cerebral palsy to consider Sentinal 3rd
class. Take your nurse.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
> In article <2cwkc.61826$G_.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>Eugene Miya wrote:
>>
>>>comparative wild populated with lots of herbavore lurkers,
>>
>>Eugene, the word would be "herbivores".
>
>
> Jim, most of the people in the group are herbavore lurkers.
> You could use various other adjectives. They are information grazers.
>
I would have no idea about that. As long as they don't die like the elk
in the West, because the draught has forced them to eat poisonous
lichens. I try not to make my posts poisonous.
>
>>>>As "M" leaders my wife and I think that anyone who can do 3rd class
>>>>moves are climbers. We've both done 5.7 without ropes or assistance,
>>>
>>> But likely not in a sustained sense.
>>
>>Right, just on a rock slope.
>>
>>>>but prefer a good pastrami sandwich, without the Carnegie Deli "waiters".
>>>>
>>>>I owe my old 1991 post "Tanks in the Backcountry" to a brilliant woman
>>>>on sci.military, who taught me a lot, as I knew nothing. Eugene has
>>>>been very useful, in all my experience, though he seems to lapse now out
>>>>of sheer boredom, very understandable. If you want to give me a whack,
>>>>Gene, do so; I can take it.
>>>
>>>Naw. Not one of those B/D discipline types. I refer you to friends
>>>named Mark, Charles, Nancy, Janis, etc.
>>>Naw, limited time to read an post.
>>>
>>
>>"an post"? What's your native language? The first three may not be
>
> and post. keyboard is is failing. I am noticing xs bs, and other
> characters are having problems with one of my machines.
>
> English. Amazing huh? And I employ English PhDs as copy editors
> as a subject area editor.
>
You write manuals? They deserve nothing better. Some letters are
starting to wear off my keyboard, and I can't type for shit anyway.
Hence three cycles of proofreading.
If either of my kids had wanted to be an English major, had I been in
contact with them despite their evil mother, I would have had a fit.
But they did even worse under her ignorant tutelage. My current wife
did even worse with a degree in psychology from Sacramento State, but
her native ability, which she had no idea of at the time, has lifted her
far above that. She now makes more than three times what I ever made as
a professor or Sr astronomer at the Space Telescope. I manage the money
(well, in my opinion, as I always beat the market).
I knew I wanted to marry her, though I was chasing several other women,
when I saw how well she got these wimps to go over the edge on rappel in
the SC BMTC, and how well she did the navigation course the next day
that I had designed (not with a Brunton compass).
>
>>friends, but the last could have been a friend, but would have eaten me
>>for breakfast. I dismissed my astronomy sections when she died, as I
>>was too broken-hearted to teach. I told them to go get "Kozmic Blues"
>>and listen to it for the rest of the day, then they might be more ready
>>to understand astronomy. The Chairman was extremely pissed at me.
>
>
> Well astronomy has a nice apparent purity.
>
>
Only if you don't have to deal with the politics, and can just wander
around in Fairbanks in the dark of the winter night looking at stars and
the Aurora and falling into snowdrifts, as I did as a child. I do not
deal with politics very well, as my history is one of being right, so
I'm very intolerant of being told what to do. Give me a project, let me
run with it, and stay off my back, even when I steal time for my own
research. I'm somewhat less intolerant now, if it's a pretty nurse.
At the Space Telescope I was actually grabbed from behind at my
computer, thrown on the floor and grossly insulted, when I was doing a
great job on the Transformation Scripting Guide, which was to determine
the commanding for the Telescope. I made every "commando" give me as
precise info as possible about the instruments so that it could be
written in logical, Boolean form, but this pissed off the commando boss
who felt that I was taking away her authority. I should have filed a
formal complaint and sued the SOB and ruined his career, as he was
pissing off all my coworkers with his arbitrary behavior.
>>Kozmic Blues was one of the few songs to help my 4-6 mos old son through
>>his colic. There was also a Serbian folk song, and the Ode to Joy.
>>That's about all he would tolerate in his agony, as I gently bounced
>>him. He'd actually go to sleep, but there was no way I could get away
>>with putting him down, so for many hours I had to do my research in my head.
>>
>>Some friends like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, if they ever really
>>existed?
>
>
> Oh I suspect they did.
>
Or some friends did. They'd have to have been very old when those
gospels were written.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Robertwgross wrote:
Yes, as I mentioned in a reply to Eugene, Joshua said "The only way to
win is not to play the game." If only our Alfred E. Neuman president
understood that.
My wife thinks that by now Cheyenne Mountain might have as good graphics
as there were in that movie from over 20 years ago.
jimbat
Eugene Miya
In article <20040430190638...@mb-m10.news.cs.com>,
Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>That sounds vaguely like a quote from "War Games".
Vaguely.
But it doesn't ignore bad commentary on crevasse fields.
--
Robertwgross
>Robertwgross <robert...@cs.com> wrote:
>>That sounds vaguely like a quote from "War Games".
>
>Vaguely.
>
>But it doesn't ignore bad commentary on crevasse fields.
Funny, I don't remember any commentary at all on crevasse fields in that movie.
---Bob Gross---
Jim Roberts
Eugene Miya wrote:
I have corrected the quote from Joshua.
jimbat
Eugene Miya
Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>Different terminology here and there.
>
>Very few in the Northeast refer to the "classes" at all.
The use of the YDS (Yosemite Decimal System) is far from universal in the US.
Some use the NCCS. Stannard in your area was/is a proponent of this.
Are you trying to push "technical hiking?"
>Hiking and related guidebooks are completely distinct from climbing,
>rock, ice or Alpine.
There is no consistent characterization of hiking in numeric or even
verbal fashion in ther US. It's simply better at this stage to use
English and state numerically distances and elevation gains and refer to
a map and you can also draw scaled profiles.
>OTOH, many hiking trails in NH require a little scrambling of 10 feet
>here, 20 feet there. Basic climbing skills are very helpful. These do
>not usually involve the exposure of the routes that Eugene refers to,
>although there are some interesting ones on knife edges, with sudden
>drop-offs just feet from the hiking trail, and the most serious listed
>hiking trail, the Huntington Ravine trail, which is an ice climbing
>route in winter.
And the resolution is?.....
Exposure isn't supposed to be taken into account in ratings.
--