127 Hours
gratefuljoe
(music by Sigur Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigur_R%C3%B3s).
Seems the guy featured in the movie was one of them Phish doods. Gets
the GJ thumbs up. Danny Boyle production.
3jane.
I found it hard to believe that someone would make a good movie about
a guy being trapped in a canyon for 3 days and then cutting his arm
off but based on ^ and other reviews, It looks like he did. Will
check out the dvd, love Danny Boyle (though I thought Slumdog
Millionaire was lame).
DGDevin
"gratefuljoe" wrote in message
news:3f69baa1-9d3a-411d...@s41g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
My brother is a climber, he said when news of the incident on which this
movie is based reached the climbing community nobody was surprised to hear
who was involved. Apparently this guy has a reputation for unwise behavior,
and I mean unwise by the standards of people who climb mountains. Maybe his
brush with death (and having a wife and child now) has taught him to be a
little less foolish.
gratefuljoe
Yeah I don't feel much sympathy for him at all. Being out in the
middle of nowhere and not being with a partner for safety let alone
not telling anyone is stupid.
That is beautiful country, I've driven through twice and via Amtrak
once. Would like to take a safe up close excursion one day.
gratefuljoe
I didn't really care for Slumdog much either. This movie was fairly
short, I think about an hour and 32 minutes with credits. They didn't
drag it out. The cinematography was fantastic and I hate to be a
broken record but the integration of music with the movie was good.
Franco was good too. I don't want to oversell it either, it was good
and worth seeing.
gratefuljoe
I don't know who was crazier Aron Whatshisname or this dude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7S5BP-tvR8
Possibly NSFW
Brad Greer
Anything with Icelandic music can't be all bad.
Íslenska eiginleikar tónlistarsnillings ert the bestur.
dr.narcolepsy
What did he do that was so foolish? Just a calm, simple sentence, or
two, please.
Joker
Shhh, the Voice-From-On-High-Who-Wasn't-There-But-Knows-Someone-Who-
Knows-Someone has passed judgement!
Ken Fortenberry
Climbing by yourself in a remote location is foolish. Just being
in a remote location without leaving some sort of note or message
as to your whereabouts and planned time of return is foolish even
without the climbing. There's no doubt that his 127 hours was a
result of his own foolishness.
--
Ken Fortenberry
James Pablos
wrote:
> Climbing by yourself in a remote location is foolish.
That ain't foolish, motherfucker. That's dangerous and adventuresome,
but not foolish.
*This* is foolish:
http://www.break.com/index/russian-guy-kos-himself-on-homemade-trapeze-1993423
Ray
>
> (music by Sigur Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigur_R%C3%B3s).
Sigur Ros is a great band. My favorite release of theirs is Aaetis
Byrjun, but everything I've heard from them is good (if you're into
ambient electronica).
> Seems the guy featured in the movie was one of them Phish doods.
Aron Ralston is in fact a Phish head.
Ray
wrote:
> On 2/9/11 7:20 AM, dr.narcolepsy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> "gratefuljoe" wrote in message
>
> >>news:3f69baa1-9d3a-411d...@s41g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Saw it this weekend. Real good, very intense music/drama in finale
> >>> (music by Sigur Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigur_R%C3%B3s).
> >>> Seems the guy featured in the movie was one of them Phish doods. Gets
> >>> the GJ thumbs up. Danny Boyle production.
>
> >> My brother is a climber, he said when news of the incident on which this
> >> movie is based reached the climbing community nobody was surprised to hear
> >> who was involved. Apparently this guy has a reputation for unwise behavior,
> >> and I mean unwise by the standards of people who climb mountains. Maybe his
> >> brush with death (and having a wife and child now) has taught him to be a
> >> little less foolish.
>
> > What did he do that was so foolish? Just a calm, simple sentence, or
> > two, please.
>
> Climbing by yourself in a remote location is foolish.
IMO it's more foolhardy than foolish. FWIW Ralston is a friend of a
friend of mine; I've met him once and he seemed like a really cool
guy. Everybody does foolish & often foolhardy things, especially when
younger.
Joker
And a well-known Cheesehead, too. As in, Stringcheese Incident.
DGDevin
"dr.narcolepsy" wrote in message
news:8e4db94e-d552-4771...@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> What did he do that was so foolish?
In this case he headed into the wilderness alone and without letting anyone
know where he was going or when he should be expected back. Apparently that
was typical of him.
> Just a calm, simple sentence, or
> two, please.
You know, if I write too many sentences or am otherwise irritating to you,
you can always stop reading my posts--I won't burst into tears or anything,
I promise.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:d08a0506-00d0-4f17...@a8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> Climbing by yourself in a remote location is foolish.
IMO it's more foolhardy than foolish.
I was going to say that's a distinction in search of a difference, but
you're right, foolhardy is better in the sense of taking unwise risks. Not
buying enough finger foods for your Super Bowl party is foolish, inviting
outlaw biker Steeler and Packer fans is foolhardy.
> Everybody does foolish & often foolhardy things, especially when
> younger.
If they're lucky they survive to an age where they know how stupid they
were, but some don't, I remember several....
DGDevin
"Joker" wrote in message
news:7d9b1b30-ccea-4cfd...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Shhh, the Voice-From-On-High-Who-Wasn't-There-But-Knows-Someone-Who-
> Knows-Someone has passed judgement!
Geez, I must be doing *something* right, the village idiots are lining up to
snivel about me.
dr.narcolepsy
That was not an editorial on my opinion of your valuable input, here.
I just didn't want to be called names for merely asking what exactly,
in this case, in your opinion, made him foolish.
My point is that there are two schools of thought on this. Yes, it's
good for boy scouts and your normally sedentary Uncle Timmy to let
everyone know when they're heading in, when they're going to be coming
out, their exact route, etc. But for adults whose life is spent in
the outdoors, often with buddies or in groups, but just as often
alone, in one "dangerous" pursuit, or another, and "dangerous" here
defined as something that scares the willies out of or simply
befuddles relative couch potatoes, but which really can just be the
day to day for some other folks, then those comings and goings and
spontaneous route changes, adding days here or subtracting days there,
deciding to head up this here drainage instead of that there
previously planned one, etc., finding that food is plentiful so why
not stay out three more days . . . these improvisations are just the
stuff of normal life, and to be handcuffed to this idea that one
simply must provide a detailed itinerary or one is being foolish, or
foolhardy . . . well, this idea is just anathema to a certain breed
of people. This idea isn't carved on a stone. The loved ones of
these sorts of folks don't just sit home and fret when that person is
out adventuring - they know it's how they live their life. Once in a
great while bad stuff happens. This doesn't negate the life they've
chosen to live. Just because some people back in the world shake
their heads and whine that "he should have let someone know where he
was going to be, when he was coming out, etc.," doesn't invalidate
that way of life, or all by itself, make that person an irresponsible
outdoors person.
The dude's arm was a goner, no matter what - didn't the necessary
necrosis happen within hours - or less? - shit happens. He's alive
and thankfully and apparently happy.
Now - he may be all sorts of a bad, abrasive, rash guy - or he may be
a great guy - or, maybe, he's like most of us and a bit of both - and
even here on rmgd, opinions twice or thrice removed of those who know
someone who knows him seem to be completely divided on this - and it
sounds like he was under prepared for an unplanned extended outing, by
his own standards - and he may have made a series of questionable
decisions whose consequences negatively compounded themselves in this
one unfortunate situation, but none of that means that if he'd only
left a note everything would have been okay.
It's not black and white.
Andrew
I would totally co-sign on all of the above if only you could condense
that into a calm, simple sentence or two... Better yet. Two words.
Nah, syllables. Two syllables, and you have my full support.
dr.narcolepsy
> I would totally co-sign on all of the above if only you could condense
> that into a calm, simple sentence or two... Better yet. Two words.
> Nah, syllables. Two syllables, and you have my full support.
I knew I was wide open to that! Sorry.
Ray
> good for boy scouts and your normally sedentary Uncle Timmy to let
> everyone know when they're heading in, when they're going to be coming
> out, their exact route, etc. But for adults whose life is spent in
> the outdoors, often with buddies or in groups, but just as often
> alone, in one "dangerous" pursuit, or another, and "dangerous" here
> defined as something that scares the willies out of or simply
> befuddles relative couch potatoes, but which really can just be the
> day to day for some other folks, then those comings and goings and
> spontaneous route changes, adding days here or subtracting days there,
> deciding to head up this here drainage instead of that there
> previously planned one, etc., finding that food is plentiful so why
> not stay out three more days . . . these improvisations are just the
> stuff of normal life, and to be handcuffed to this idea that one
> simply must provide a detailed itinerary or one is being foolish, or
> foolhardy . . . well, this idea is just anathema to a certain breed
> of people.
Yeah, 'foolhardy' probably isn't the proper word here. By that I meant
to imply intentionally taking risks that one knows is inherently quite
dangerous. Is that being 'foolish' - and by that in this context I
mean exercising unwise judgment to the point of recklessness? That's
in the eye of the beholder, which is what I think you are saying here
as well. Many people no doubt consider some of the activities that
I've engaged in as foolhardy or just foolish (I've jumped off of a
mile-high mountain when paragliding, for example), as no doubt is the
case for many of you as well. (For example, consider some of the
things many of you have done at Dead shows...)
> This idea isn't carved on a stone. The loved ones of
> these sorts of folks don't just sit home and fret when that person is
> out adventuring - they know it's how they live their life. Once in a
> great while bad stuff happens. This doesn't negate the life they've
> chosen to live. Just because some people back in the world shake
> their heads and whine that "he should have let someone know where he
> was going to be, when he was coming out, etc.," doesn't invalidate
> that way of life, or all by itself, make that person an irresponsible
> outdoors person.
>
> The dude's arm was a goner, no matter what - didn't the necessary
> necrosis happen within hours - or less? - shit happens. He's alive
> and thankfully and apparently happy.
>
> Now - he may be all sorts of a bad, abrasive, rash guy - or he may be
> a great guy - or, maybe, he's like most of us and a bit of both - and
> even here on rmgd, opinions twice or thrice removed of those who know
> someone who knows him seem to be completely divided on this - and it
> sounds like he was under prepared for an unplanned extended outing, by
> his own standards - and he may have made a series of questionable
> decisions whose consequences negatively compounded themselves in this
> one unfortunate situation, but none of that means that if he'd only
> left a note everything would have been okay.
>
> It's not black and white.
Very well said.
To be clear I am not passing witness that he's an angelically great
guy - again I've met him once, which of course isn't enough time to
effectively assess these sorts of things for oneself. To be more
specific I spent an evening with him at a Leftover Salmon show some
years ago, when he met up with me and our mutual friend. My friend
says he's a great guy and he certainly came off to me that way that
evening - very nice and friendly and generous all that good stuff, and
in no respect abrasive. Beyond I couldn't say, except to say that he
didn't strike me as the stupidly reckless either. Again that's just
an assessment from spending one evening with the guy. And yeah, like
most of us, he's likely to have both elements of 'good' and 'bad' in
him.
"...that path is for your steps alone."
band beyond description
Thanks, Bear Grylls, er Dr. "Special Forces" Narcolepsy... :-)
--
Peace, Steve
Ray
And a Salmonhead too.
dr.narcolepsy
These days, I pray for a special force in the bathroom.
Ray
Has anyone else here read "Into The Wild"? The movie is great -
strongly recommended - but IMO (and as is usually the case) the book
is even better.
The book and movie are about a 'foolhardy' kid who eventually gets
himself killed while trying to a go of it living alone in the the
Alaskan wilderness. Sean Penn's movie does an excellent job telling
that story, but amongst other things what's left out is the deeply
personal perspective that the author of the book, Jon Krakauer,
provides in an effort to cast more light on what drove and motivated
the protagonist to do such a 'foolish' thing. Krakauer relates how he
too was driven to go to Alaska on his own, in his case to climb a very
dangerous mountain in a very remote location alone. And he came close
to dying while doing so.
Was Krakauer's climbing by himself in a remote location necessarily
'foolish'? The book reports, you decide.
Which is exactly what Krakauer does with respect to the protagonist.
He doesn't pass judgment, he instead illuminates where he thought the
protagonist, whom Krakauer regarded in some respects as probably a
kindred spirit, may have been coming from. Great book, highly
recommended (as are all of Krakauer's books - he's one of my favorite
authors).
volkfolk
> On Feb 9, 9:56 am, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Climbing by yourself in a remote location is foolish.
>
> That ain't foolish, motherfucker. That's dangerous and adventuresome,
> but not foolish.
Don't know much about mountaineering, climbing and the backcountry, do
you?
Anybody who doesn't have a partner when they go climbing/hiking/
backcountry skiing etc IS a moron and a danger to themselves and the
people who might be called on to find them,
Scot
3jane.
>
> > > Seems the guy featured in the movie was one of them Phish doods.
>
> > Aron Ralston is in fact a Phish head.
>
> And a well-known Cheesehead, too. As in, Stringcheese Incident.
Maybe he was tripping when he cut his arm off.
3jane.
>
> Which is exactly what Krakauer does with respect to the protagonist.
> He doesn't pass judgment, he instead illuminates where he thought the
> protagonist, whom Krakauer regarded in some respects as probably a
> kindred spirit, may have been coming from. Great book, highly
> recommended (as are all of Krakauer's books - he's one of my favorite
> authors).
Reading "Where Men Win Glory" (Pat Tillman) now, all his books are
great. Tillman had 224 tackles in his last year in the NFL-an insane
amount, 14 a game from the strong safety position. Pro Bowl
linebacker London Fletcher led the Redskins with 147 this year, which
is a great year for most defensive players.
Andrew
Yeah, well, I'm more on than you are...
Sincerely,
Andrew, circa 2nd grade....
Joker
From what I've read, he was tripping hard. But not on drugs. Try
hanging 60 feet above a canyon floor in the desert with dwindling
resources, strength and hope for 5 days and nights with a crushed arm.
Imagine what you'd do in that situation...
Joker
Nope. Any inexperienced person who naively wanders off by themselves,
probably is. But to make such a blanket statement about any and all
who do so is ridiculous in itself. Beyond ridiculous.
Of course we hear all about it (especially from arm-chair experts
who's brother knows someone who knew someone who heard something) when
something goes wrong and rescue/recovery is called for. But that
doesn't account for the hundreds of others who engage in such acts and
return unscathed, unharmed and incredibly enriched.
Wilderness and solitude have always been incredibly attractive to a
certain breed of humans. Granted, most humans--the majority, I'd say--
have always found the concepts frightening. But while the majority of
timid souls vastly outweighs the solitary adventurer, it doesn't make
either one "moronic" or wrong.
I say bully for the solo sailors and climbers and adventurers. Some
will pay a very high price. Most I suspect are just looking for
something the rest of us barely know exists, much less understand.
Joker
> Wilderness and solitude have always been incredibly attractive to a
> certain breed of humans. Granted, most humans--the majority, I'd say--
> have always found the concepts frightening. But while the majority of
> timid souls vastly outweighs the solitary adventurer, it doesn't make
> either one "moronic" or wrong.
> I say bully for the solo sailors and climbers and adventurers. Some
> will pay a very high price. Most I suspect are just looking for
> something the rest of us barely know exists, much less understand.
Or:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/journey-of-selfdiscovery-leads-man-to-realization,19100/
James Pablos
> Anybody who doesn't have a partner when they go climbing/hiking/
> backcountry skiing etc IS a moron and a danger to themselves and the
> people who might be called on to find them,
I don't know. I think there's a difference between the moron frat boy
who tries to free solo El Capitan and an experienced climber who -- in
the course of pushing himself to the limits -- makes the same attempt.
The first is pure stupidity; the second is something different...
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> My point is that there are two schools of thought on this. Yes, it's
> good for boy scouts and your normally sedentary Uncle Timmy to let
> everyone know when they're heading in, when they're going to be coming
> out, their exact route, etc. But for adults whose life is spent in
> the outdoors, often with buddies or in groups, but just as often
> alone, in one "dangerous" pursuit, or another, and "dangerous" here
> defined as something that scares the willies out of or simply
> befuddles relative couch potatoes, but which really can just be the
> day to day for some other folks, then those comings and goings and
> spontaneous route changes, adding days here or subtracting days there,
> deciding to head up this here drainage instead of that there
> previously planned one, etc., finding that food is plentiful so why
> not stay out three more days . . . these improvisations are just the
> stuff of normal life, and to be handcuffed to this idea that one
> simply must provide a detailed itinerary or one is being foolish, or
> foolhardy . . . well, this idea is just anathema to a certain breed
I do foolish things as often as I'm able but I know that I'm being
foolish. I fly fish alone on small mountain streams far off the
beaten track where I know I'm just a misstep and a broken leg away
from a possible drowning death. I ski alone in the backcountry and
the wintry solitude is a large part of the appeal. I've spent weeks
alone in the Absaroka-Beartooths north of Yellowstone backpacking
and bothering cutthroat. But it's all foolish, and I know it, and
that's part of what is appealing about it.
There's nothing wrong with doing foolish things and it's not a
negative reflection on one's character to do foolish things. In
fact, doing foolish things is a *good* thing. But it's still foolish.
--
Ken Fortenberry
dr.narcolepsy
wrote:
> I know that I'm being foolish.
I have too much respect for you to argue against your position.
James Pablos
wrote:
> I do foolish things as often as I'm able but I know that I'm being
> foolish. I fly fish alone on small mountain streams far off the
> beaten track
X-treme Fly Fishing? My god, what a daredevil you are, Ken.
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> I know that I'm being foolish.
>
> I have too much respect for you to argue against your position.
I know you have a different definition of foolish, but solo in
the backcountry pretty much defines foolish. I know this because
my wife tells me so. If you had a wife I would hope that she'd
tell you the same thing. And I'd expect that you would pay just
as little attention to it as I do. ;-)
--
Ken Fortenberry
dr.narcolepsy
High-gradient mountain stream fly fishing is no joke, and that's all
I'll say.
dr.narcolepsy
wrote:
I was just joking, saying that I'm not going to argue if you want to
call yourself a fool (realizing that you didn't call yourself a fool).
And, ya see, I did have me a wife, but the dang thing is she
*encouraged* me to do dangerous stuff. And here I used to think it
meant she loved me.
James Pablos
volkfolk
We're talking about a VERY small percentage of people. Sure there are
a select few who are up for the challenge. But even those people at
least let someone know where they are going and when they plan on
coming back. Most people aren't in this category. Most people are too
careless and inexperienced to be up for the challenge.
Most of the people I know who are serious about the backcountry and
real hiking and backpacking aren't reckless people by nature. Very few
of them would go into the wilderness without a partner or letting
someone know where they're going
I've spent a good portion of my life in the mountains. I've hiked a
good chunk of the Appalachian trail in New England, hiked all through
the White Mts of New Hampshire (in both winter and summer)
volkfolk
(I'm not sure why this is truncated-here is the rest)
In all my years of hiking, rock climbing ans backcountry camping the
very first rule of thumb is to always at the very least let people
know where you are going and how long you expect to be gone.
To do otherwise is stupid and reckless.
Scot
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:2af9b48d-45a7-44ce...@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, 'foolhardy' probably isn't the proper word here. By that I meant
> to imply intentionally taking risks that one knows is inherently quite
> dangerous. Is that being 'foolish' - and by that in this context I
> mean exercising unwise judgment to the point of recklessness? That's
> in the eye of the beholder, which is what I think you are saying here
> as well. Many people no doubt consider some of the activities that
> I've engaged in as foolhardy or just foolish (I've jumped off of a
> mile-high mountain when paragliding, for example), as no doubt is the
> case for many of you as well. (For example, consider some of the
> things many of you have done at Dead shows...)
Let's say you went paragliding off a mountain despite a storm moving in
fast. That would elevate the risk to a level where no amount of skill on
your part would be likely to ensure your safety, it would have become
reckless and would suggest your judgment is suspect. My feeling is that if
within a community that engages in daring activities like mountain climbing
(as opposed to hiking in rough country) you've acquired a reputation of
being a daredevil then there must have been a pattern of such behavior.
Pilots have a saying, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but
there are no old bold pilots. That doesn't mean that careful pilots never
make smoking holes in the ground, but when you often push the odds you're
setting yourself up for a bad end.
Ray
> "Ray" wrote in message
>
> news:2af9b48d-45a7-44ce...@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yeah, 'foolhardy' probably isn't the proper word here. By that I meant
> > to imply intentionally taking risks that one knows is inherently quite
> > dangerous. Is that being 'foolish' - and by that in this context I
> > mean exercising unwise judgment to the point of recklessness? That's
> > in the eye of the beholder, which is what I think you are saying here
> > as well. Many people no doubt consider some of the activities that
> > I've engaged in as foolhardy or just foolish (I've jumped off of a
> > mile-high mountain when paragliding, for example), as no doubt is the
> > case for many of you as well. (For example, consider some of the
> > things many of you have done at Dead shows...)
>
> Let's say you went paragliding off a mountain despite a storm moving in
> fast. That would elevate the risk to a level where no amount of skill on
> your part would be likely to ensure your safety, it would have become
> reckless and would suggest your judgment is suspect. My feeling is that if
> within a community that engages in daring activities like mountain climbing
> (as opposed to hiking in rough country) you've acquired a reputation of
> being a daredevil then there must have been a pattern of such behavior.
What you heard second (third?) hand may be an accurate assessment. It
doesn't line up with my impressions, but again I barely know the guy.
Whoever knows the truth about this it's not us.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:9108626f-d7ee-4742...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> What you heard second (third?) hand may be an accurate assessment.
My brother has climbed mountains on several continents, he and his wife got
married on top of a mountain they had climbed, he's got pretty good
connections in that community. At the time of this incident there was some
mention in the media of this guy being a daredevil, he was even asked about
it in interviews so on balance I don't think I've dropped a bizarre rumor
into the conversation.
> It
> doesn't line up with my impressions, but again I barely know the guy.
Presumably people who have climbed with him have the best insight into this
aspect of his character, and as you say, that isn't you or me.
>> Whoever knows the truth about this it's not us.
These days mountains are something I look at from a hotel room balcony,
although a bit of mountain spring water goes well with a single malt. Just
looking at photos of some of the places my goofball brother has climbed
makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Ray
>
> My brother has climbed mountains on several continents, he and his wife got
> married on top of a mountain they had climbed, he's got pretty good
> connections in that community. At the time of this incident there was some
> mention in the media of this guy being a daredevil, he was even asked about
> it in interviews so on balance I don't think I've dropped a bizarre rumor
> into the conversation.
I didn't say or imply that it is bizarre, but it is a rumor.
> Presumably people who have climbed with him have the best insight into this
> aspect of his character
Agreed. I don't additionally presume however that said insight has
been correctly transmitted through rumor mill.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:2194146a-a185-400b...@y4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I didn't say or imply that it is bizarre, but it is a rumor.
Apparently it's one of those rumors widely accepted by people qualified to
judge what is or isn't foolhardy behavior in the great outdoors.
http://www.allclimbing.com/archive/2006/07/aron-ralston-update/
"At 30 years of age, he is one of the nation’s best-known mountaineers. But
in the mountain-climbing community, he is the foolhardy adventurer who
nearly died after committing the cardinal sin of hiking into the outdoors
without leaving word on his whereabouts."
"One could say he takes too many risks, and that he has a tendency toward
carelessness. He himself notes this."
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2010/11/what-you-should-know-about-aron-ralston/
"Although Ralston became a hero to uncountable thousands of people for
having the fortitude to cut off his forearm off to escape, within the
outdoor community he was much more commonly slammed as a yahoo and a
knucklehead who didn’t have the sense to tell people where he was going, and
who perhaps got exactly what he deserved.... I was among the latter group,
though my opinions weren’t quite that harsh. I’d heard rumors that Ralston
was a wild man, that he’d gotten friends caught in an avalanche while
backcountry skiing, that he took foolhardy risks, and that the odds caught
up with him. Many folks I knew were offended that he turned a dumb mistake
into fame, or at least infamy, and was making a living speaking and writing
about it. Although the incident occurred in 2003, Ralston appeared
frequently in magazine ads for personal locator beacons, so he never really
disappeared from the scene, and as time went on, it seemed the more someone
knew about the outdoors, the more vehemently negative their assessment was
of him.
Last spring, through a series of events not worth recounting, I found myself
working on the production of 127 Hours. It was all stuff in support of the
movie, extra content, time lapses, interviews, small features designed to
let movie fans dig deeper into the realm of canyonlands, canyoneering, and
the issues surrounding Ralston’s accident. At that point, I thought it might
make sense finally to read Aron’s book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place. And
for the first third of it, everything I read reinforced my opinion. All who
have adventures take risks, but Ralston willfully flirted with disaster in
pursuit of thrills, then described it almost joyfully."
Ray
> "Ray" wrote in message
>
> news:2194146a-a185-400b...@y4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I didn't say or imply that it is bizarre, but it is a rumor.
>
> Apparently it's one of those rumors widely accepted by people qualified to
> judge what is or isn't foolhardy behavior in the great outdoors.
Your own sources support a far broader and far less unanimous
perspective than what you've presented here.
Your first quote, for example:
> At 30 years of age, he is one of the nation’s best-known mountaineers. But
> in the mountain-climbing community, he is the foolhardy adventurer who
> nearly died after committing the cardinal sin of hiking into the outdoors
> without leaving word on his whereabouts."
Comments below that include divergent opinions from climbers . Here
are two that disagree with the characterization that what Ralston did
was exceptionally unusual in their community:
--------------------------------------------
"Will 07.04.06 at 8:18 pm
Cardinal sin my ass! Nearly every climber and outdoor athlete I know
has put himself in a not dissimilar position more than once. the truth
is that every time we leave the car to head to a real live cliff we
face risks just like nearly killed Aaron...
3 Tom 07.14.06 at 2:13 pm
...I’m inclined to agree with Will except for the cardinal sin part.
As climbers, we all do put ourselves into controlled, risky situations
and that’s obviously part of the enjoyment. But, even through we often
don’t leave better notifications when we venture out solo, that
doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
--------------------------------------------
Moreover, the source you quoted most and at length from in fact ends
up, after having "considered the story of Aron Ralston from almost
every conceivable angle" taking the essentially ***opposite***, and
"unavoidable", position from what you had quoted. It's a far more more
nuanced position, and the one that I'm inclined to agree with even if
I didn't (barely) know the guy:
> http://www.adventure-journal.com/2010/11/what-you-should-know-about-a...
>
> "Although Ralston became a hero to uncountable thousands of people for
> having the fortitude to cut off his forearm off to escape, within the
> outdoor community he was much more commonly slammed as a yahoo and a
> knucklehead who didn’t have the sense to tell people where he was going, and
> who perhaps got exactly what he deserved.... I was among the latter group...
Further down, the author presents his reassessment:
-------------------------------------------------------
Since then, I have considered the story of Aron Ralston from almost
every conceivable angle. I spent a week with Aron out in Robber’s
Roost, scrambled Blue John with him, and watched as he outlined with
his fingers where he’d scratched “Aron Ralston RIP 1978-2003” in the
rock. I interviewed the first person to descend Blue John, an expert
on the geological dynamics of slots, a rancher whose family ran cows
on the Roost and grew up out there, and quite a few others. And I’ve
thought at great length about the simple facts of what happened.
After all that, the conclusion is unavoidable: It was an accident. It
could have happened to me. It could have happened to any one of dozens
of my desert rat friends. It could have happened to anyone who
descended Blue John and put their weight on the boulder in exactly the
same way. It was an accident, a freakishly malign kink of luck, and
the judgmental attacks heaped on Aron are unfair and misguided. Did he
deserve entrapment and the loss of an arm because he didn’t leave a
note? To argue thus indicates an uncommonly cruel and insensitive way
of viewing it.
The one question we asked in all our interviews, from actors Amber
Tamblyn and Kate Mara to the desert experts such as Craig Childs, was
whether they thought they’d have the strength of will to do what
Ralston did, but the one question I personally ask the critics is if
they’ve ever gone into the wilderness alone, without anyone knowing
exactly where they were. Craig, who is not a critic, spends weeks in
the desert by himself and no one knows his precise location. Most
adventurous people I know head out alone at some point and some do it
more often than not. What is adventure if not a risky undertaking with
an uncertain outcome? If we’re going to celebrate solo explorers as
heroes, we shouldn’t be scapegoating them when things go wrong.
This doesn’t mean Ralston is absolved of responsibility. Of course
not. Yes, he was sometimes reckless. He could be self-absorbed and
overly individualistic, though that’s not exactly uncommon in the
stunted adolescent culture of ski towns like Aspen. It’s safe to say
that there’s no person on the planet who understands better than Aron
that all the crossroads of his life led him to be alone under that
rock, without any hope that someone would come to find him.
But the simple fact that a man walked down Blue John, dislodged a
boulder, and got himself stuck? It was an accident.
Ray
More to the point, per the source you quoted at length from DGD:
3jane.
I think if he walked out and didn't cause anybody to waste any time or
money on him, good on him. If he did cost people time and money he
should pay back every cent, maybe more, especially now that he can
afford to. I doubt I will ever watch the movie but I do know some
climbers.
Ray
>
> If he did cost people time and money he
> should pay back every cent, maybe more, especially now that he can
> afford to.
Agreed.
> I doubt I will ever watch the movie but I do know some
> climbers.
I've done some relatively light climbing and mountain climbing, though
I wouldn't call myself a climber. One of my best friends - who I
climbed and backpacked with in various parts of the world - over time
became a hardcore mountain climber. He was going to give me some
lessons in it but not long before we were to do that he went on a
mountain climbing expedition where he got buried in an avalanche at
20,000 feet; his body was never recovered. That dampened my
enthusiasm for getting further into the sport, though I still do
relatively light stuff.
3jane.
>
> I've done some relatively light climbing and mountain climbing, though
> I wouldn't call myself a climber. One of my best friends - who I
> climbed and backpacked with in various parts of the world - over time
> became a hardcore mountain climber. He was going to give me some
> lessons in it but not long before we were to do that he went on a
> mountain climbing expedition where he got buried in an avalanche at
> 20,000 feet; his body was never recovered. That dampened my
> enthusiasm for getting further into the sport, though I still do
> relatively light stuff.
I've done 5.8/5.9 but I'll never do any more than that, I'll probably
never do that again. I just don't care enough to get that jacked/
terrified anymore and my technique isn't good enough to get any
better, which is probably a good thing.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:ee1d841f-85fc-4423...@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Your own sources support a far broader and far less unanimous
> perspective than what you've presented here.
I am aware of that, and I knew if anyone would read all the way to the end
it would be you, Ray. But I was defending only one point--that in the
climbing community Ralston was widely considered somewhat reckless, too
willing to take foolish risks. I don't see how that can be disputed, as the
guy who wrote the longest quotation accepted that view of Ralston even if he
later came to think it was too harsh, and even Ralston admits to tending to
be careless. Deserved or not, he was known for hanging it out way over the
edge, and that's all my original post says, that people in that community
weren't surprised to hear it was him pinned under that rock.
Joker
> "Ray" wrote in message
>
> news:ee1d841f-85fc-4423...@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your own sources support a far broader and far less unanimous
> > perspective than what you've presented here.
>
> I am aware of that, and I knew if anyone would read all the way to the end
> it would be you, Ray.
Completely lame and dishonest, but typically arrogant.
>But I was defending only one point--that in the
> climbing community Ralston was widely considered somewhat reckless, too
> willing to take foolish risks.
Nope. You plainly, obviously didn't read past the quotes you thought
bolstered your view.
Ray
>
> news:ee1d841f-85fc-4423...@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your own sources support a far broader and far less unanimous
> > perspective than what you've presented here.
>
> climbing community Ralston was widely considered somewhat reckless, too
> willing to take foolish risks.
In which case we've been talking somewhat past each other - that I of
course agree with. However and as your own sources demonstrate the
assessment of him being generally inordinately reckless and is far
from an unanimous in the climbing community, and almost all of those
who hold that assessment have never met Ralston in any event.
The point I'm defending here is that to judge Ralston's general
character as generally inordinately reckless (by climber standards) on
the basis of that far-from-unanimous assessment - which again is held
mostly by people who do not know him personally - is to pass judgment
on his general character without sufficient basis for doing so.
BTW the essay you cited and quoted from at length that asserts that
"the judgmental attacks heaped on Aron are unfair and misguided" is
IMO does an excellent job of explicating some of the deeper nuances
ere with respect the Aron's character and "recklessness" - thanks for
bringing it it to my attention.
DGDevin
"Joker" wrote in message
news:28052d15-919b-489e...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Completely lame and dishonest, but typically arrogant.
Dang, you really got a pinecone up your ass, don't you sunshine. Oh well,
you seem to enjoy it, so knock yourself out.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:37ada579-17c8-45f1...@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> ...I was defending only one point--that in the
>> climbing community Ralston was widely considered somewhat reckless, too
>> willing to take foolish risks.
> In which case we've been talking somewhat past each other - that I of
> course agree with. However and as your own sources demonstrate the
> assessment of him being generally inordinately reckless and is far
> from an unanimous in the climbing community, and almost all of those
> who hold that assessment have never met Ralston in any event.
I can't help but think that if even a significant percentage of that
community thinks he's too daring I have to wonder how they formed that view,
especially if the man himself admits to carelessness. However I think we're
just running laps now....
DGDevin
"volkfolk" wrote in message
news:dabe545b-3570-4ebe...@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody who doesn't have a partner when they go climbing/hiking/
> backcountry skiing etc IS a moron and a danger to themselves and the
> people who might be called on to find them,
Of course it's their right to climb or hike alone, although that doesn't
make it less risky. But as someone else suggested, when an expensive search
and rescue effort is triggered, they should pay for it.
And then there is this guy. If you haven't seen the video, it's worth
checking out.
Ray
By the same token, I can't help but think that given a significant
percentage of that community thinks that he's not deserving of the
judgment that's been heaped on him for other parts of the community I
have to wonder how they formed that view as well.
> However I think we're
> just running laps now....
Pretty much, yeah.
Joker
Nope, my ass is fine, but thanks for asking. OTOH, I bet you'll read
the whole article before you post your next link. Nothing like looking
like an idiot to smarten you up.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:07d643ef-63ef-437a...@s28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> However I think we're
>> just running laps now....
> Pretty much, yeah.
I was going to post that Ralston is worse than Hitler, but now I won't.
DGDevin
"Joker" wrote in message
news:eddcf7a4-d8f8-42e3...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> OTOH, I bet you'll read
> the whole article before you post your next link. Nothing like looking
> like an idiot to smarten you up.
I did read the whole article, and I quoted the part that backed up my
original assertion, that there was a widespread perception in the climbing
community that Ralston was a daredevil. That this particular author came to
object to "piling on" is irrelevant to my point: *at the time of the
accident Ralston was widely seen as reckless*. So since my cites back up my
position, and since you're the one making up silly shit (like me claiming
that my brother heard something from one guy who maybe heard it from another
guy rather than it being a popular view in the community) I am quite happy
with where I started and ended in this thread. You for some reason are
talking it like a slur on your religion or something--okay, that's your
problem, not mine.
Ray
>
> I did read the whole article, and I quoted the part that backed up my
> original assertion, that there was a widespread perception in the climbing
> community that Ralston was a daredevil. That this particular author came to
> object to "piling on" is irrelevant to my point: *at the time of the
> accident Ralston was widely seen as reckless*.
Your stated point here -- that Ralston was widely seen as having
reputation for unwise behavior by the climbing community **at the time
of the accident** -- was not made or otherwise implied by that
article.
What that article stated regarding assessments of Ralston's
"recklessness" was in reference to opinions and judgments after-the-
fact, not before. And that difference of course has effect on peoples'
judgments about him - especially with respect to the overwhelming
number of people who didn't and don't know the guy, before or after.
> So since my cites back up my position
They don't.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:6b00bc87-53a9-443e...@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Your stated point here -- that Ralston was widely seen as having
> reputation for unwise behavior by the climbing community **at the time
> of the accident** -- was not made or otherwise implied by that
> article.
> What that article stated regarding assessments of Ralston's
> "recklessness" was in reference to opinions and judgments after-the-
> fact, not before. And that difference of course has effect on peoples'
> judgments about him
I found some other things I decided not quote for various reasons, including
a post from someone who wrote he stopped climbing with Ralston because he
had no common sense (signed with a screen name and thus unverifiable) but
this one is pretty good. If for some reason you want to insist that
Ralston's reputation for recklessness came only after his famous accident,
okay, I can't think how to prove otherwise. But I have to wonder, if
Ralston wasn't someone you'd met and liked, would the balance of probability
still be so unpersuasive?
http://outthere.freedomblogging.com/2009/04/01/ralston-seeks-larger-meaning-with-longer-hair/4641/
"They call him “rescue bait” because he has a knack for getting into dicey
situations.
Ralston laughs at their ribbing, but there is hard truth in what they say.
A month before Ralston got stuck in Blue John Canyon, Patchet and Hadlich
watched a whole mountainside of snow cut loose, burying Ralston and two
other friends in a massive avalanche near Leadville.
The group had been backcountry skiing. Patchet and Hadlich were in a hut;
Ralston and two other friends looked down from the top of an alpine bowl.
Ralston’s companions decided the slope was unsafe. Ralston skied it anyway.
The other two followed, and all three were buried when the snow roared down.
Both men now refuse to speak to Ralston.
Then there are Ralston’s tales about at least three fourteeners where he
almost met an early end because of carelessness, needless risk or just plain
bad luck.
Even around his hometown, Aspen, his exuberant thirst for adventure has a
reputation for being a little reckless.
“That’s just the way Aron is,” Patchet said, leaving an unspoken
understanding hanging in the air."
bmo...@nyx.net
> "gratefuljoe" wrote in message
>
> news:3f69baa1-9d3a-411d...@s41g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Saw it this weekend. Real good, very intense music/drama in finale
> > (music by Sigur Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigur_R%C3%B3s).
> > Seems the guy featured in the movie was one of them Phish doods. Gets
> > the GJ thumbs up. Danny Boyle production.
>
> My brother is a climber, he said when news of the incident on which this
> movie is based reached the climbing community nobody was surprised to hear
> who was involved. Apparently this guy has a reputation for unwise behavior,
> and I mean unwise by the standards of people who climb mountains. Maybe his
> brush with death (and having a wife and child now) has taught him to be a
> little less foolish.
And then there's this guy:
Joker
>
> news:eddcf7a4-d8f8-42e3...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > OTOH, I bet you'll read
> > the whole article before you post your next link. Nothing like looking
> > like an idiot to smarten you up.
>
> I did read the whole article, and I quoted the part that backed up my
> original assertion, that there was a widespread perception in the climbing
> community that Ralston was a daredevil. That this particular author came to
> object to "piling on" is irrelevant to my point: *at the time of the
> accident Ralston was widely seen as reckless*. So since my cites back up my
> position, and since you're the one making up silly shit (like me claiming
> that my brother heard something from one guy who maybe heard it from another
> guy rather than it being a popular view in the community) I am quite happy
> with where I started and ended in this thread. You for some reason are
> talking it like a slur on your religion or something--okay, that's your
> problem, not mine.
Your problem is that you plainly, obviously did not read the article
you cited and linked. Blow all the smoke you want, it won't change
that fact.
From your reply to Ray, I'm not convinced you've read the whole thing
yet. Not that it matters, you'll have more links, no doubt. But you'll
read them through before you post them from now on, won't you?
Ray
> "Ray" wrote in message
>
> news:6b00bc87-53a9-443e...@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your stated point here -- that Ralston was widely seen as having
> > reputation for unwise behavior by the climbing community **at the time
> > of the accident** -- was not made or otherwise implied by that
> > article.
> >
> > What that article stated regarding assessments of Ralston's
> > "recklessness" was in reference to opinions and judgments after-the-
> > fact, not before. And that difference of course has effect on peoples'
> > judgments about him
>
> I found some other things I decided not quote for various reasons
So you decided to quote things from your three previous sources - all
sources DID NOT SUPPORT your point instead?
> If for some reason you want to insist that
> Ralston's reputation for recklessness came only after his famous accident,
> okay, I can't think how to prove otherwise.
Please stop misrepresenting my position - I am not insisting that.
What I am saying in that regard instead is that I do not have enough
information there to make an assessment, and thus I am not going to.
> But I have to wonder, if
> Ralston wasn't someone you'd met and liked, would the balance of probability
> still be so unpersuasive?
Well, see, that's not "so unpersuasive" to me. It's simply not
persuasive enough to me to pass judgment on the guy as being more
"reckless" than a sizable portion of the climbing community, or to
agree that a sizable portion of the climbing community had passed such
a judgment on him before his fateful incident (or for that matter to
agree that a sizable portion of the climbing community even knew who
Ralston was before his incident). Your previous source that you had
quoted at length from does an excellent job of going a long way
towards explaining why that is my position - here's one relevant part
of what your source said again:
"Yes, he was sometimes reckless. He could be self-absorbed and overly
individualistic, though **that’s not exactly uncommon** in the stunted
adolescent culture of ski towns like Aspen."
(added emphasis mine)
Yes, Ralston clearly likes to take risks - far more risks than me to
be sure, and by many peoples' standards I like to take too many risks.
(I have gotten myself into various life-threatening situations as a
result of my drive for adventure, though to be clear I'm not even
close to being in the same league in that regard as Aron - but then if
my drive were as strong as his I might have been.) And yes, Ralston
has done some things that most people (including me) regard as unwise
- he even says as much about himself. What I haven't seen, however,
is how his general behavior was so **uncommon** in the world that he
moves in -- especially so uncommonly reckless that before his fateful
incident he had already acquired a sizable rep for being
**uncommonly** reckless in the greater climbing community - most of
whom who again don't even know him.
Hopefully this clarifies your apparent confusion with respect to what
my position is here.
DGDevin
"Joker" wrote in message
news:1e7c9c41-d9f3-4c1f...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Your problem is that you plainly, obviously did not read the article
> you cited and linked. Blow all the smoke you want, it won't change
> that fact.
Your problem is that you'll stand on your head and squint sideways to see
what you want to see whether it makes sense or not.
> From your reply to Ray, I'm not convinced you've read the whole thing
> yet.
I've quoted bits of it from near the beginning and near the end, but I
didn't actually read it? Very persuasive.
> Not that it matters, you'll have more links, no doubt. But you'll
> read them through before you post them from now on, won't you?
You'll conclude what you want to based on how pissed off you happen to be,
what I do or don't do will have no influence on that.
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:f2c9d23e-7fdd-479a...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> I found some other things I decided not quote for various reasons
> So you decided to quote things from your three previous sources - all
> sources DID NOT SUPPORT your point instead?
I made a mistake in my first post in saying "nobody" in the climbing
community was surprised to hear of Ralston's accident; that was absolute and
thus inappropriate. However I disagree that none of my sources point to
Ralston having such a reputation even if they don't go out of their way to
backdate that reputation prior to his famous accident.
>> If for some reason you want to insist that
>> Ralston's reputation for recklessness came only after his famous
>> accident,
>> okay, I can't think how to prove otherwise.
> Please stop misrepresenting my position - I am not insisting that.
> What I am saying in that regard instead is that I do not have enough
> information there to make an assessment, and thus I am not going to.
Did I ask you to? Someone I know quite well who is a climber said Ralston's
accident didn’t come as a surprise to [some number of persons] in the
climbing community. I'm not quite sure how we got from there to here other
than you found that statement objectionable.
> What I haven't seen, however,
> is how his general behavior was so **uncommon** in the world that he
> moves in -- especially so uncommonly reckless that before his fateful
> incident he had already acquired a sizable rep for being
> **uncommonly** reckless in the greater climbing community
I am honestly surprised, as someone who can reportedly be nicknamed "rescue
bait" would appear to qualify as more than usually daring even within a
community of people who accept an elevated level of risk.
> Hopefully this clarifies your apparent confusion with respect to what
> my position is here.
It could have been worse, some point of grammar could have come into it, and
this thread would still be going next St. Swithin's Day.
Ray
> "Ray" wrote in message
>
> news:f2c9d23e-7fdd-479a...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I found some other things I decided not quote for various reasons
> >
> > So you decided to quote things from your three previous sources - all
>
> I made a mistake in my first post in saying "nobody" in the climbing
> community was surprised to hear of Ralston's accident; that was absolute and
> thus inappropriate.
Thanks.
> However I disagree that none of my sources point to
> Ralston having such a reputation even if they don't go out of their way to
> backdate that reputation prior to his famous accident.
You're changing the parameters - wasn't this your "point"?
DGD: "my point: *at the time of the accident Ralston was widely seen
as reckless*"
Again none of those three sources that you had cited supported what
you explicitly stated was your point.
> >> If for some reason you want to insist that
> >> Ralston's reputation for recklessness came only after his famous
> >> accident,
> >> okay, I can't think how to prove otherwise.
> >
> > Please stop misrepresenting my position - I am not insisting that.
> > What I am saying in that regard instead is that I do not have enough
> > information there to make an assessment, and thus I am not going to.
>
> Did I ask you to?
No, you instead misrepresented my position so I tried to further
clarify what my position is for you.
> Someone I know quite well who is a climber said Ralston's
> accident didn’t come as a surprise to [some number of persons] in the
> climbing community. I'm not quite sure how we got from there to here other
> than you found that statement objectionable.
That "some number of persons" was per you initial claim "nobody",
which I found more unbelievable than objectionable. You have now
backed off from that claim so that is no longer in dispute.
Even with respect to some large portion of the climbing community that
did not know him personally however I find such a claim via rumor to
be suspect, and nothing I've read has during this exchange has altered
my assessment there.
> > What I haven't seen, however,
> > is how his general behavior was so **uncommon** in the world that he
> > moves in -- especially so uncommonly reckless that before his fateful
> > incident he had already acquired a sizable rep for being
> > **uncommonly** reckless in the greater climbing community
>
> I am honestly surprised, as someone who can reportedly be nicknamed "rescue
> bait" would appear to qualify as more than usually daring even within a
> community of people who accept an elevated level of risk.
By my reading of that source he didn't get that nickname until after
the incident; if he got it before then IIRC there is no indication in
that source of such.
In any event other sources of yours present something of a different
picture. Again it's not that I find your (revised) position "so
unpersuasive" - and by that I mean that I find reasonable merit to
your position. Again it's instead that given the information I have I
am not going to pass judgment here.
You may not be asking me to pass judgment here but you sure seem have
a hard time accepting my refusal to do as a reasonable position to
hold - otherwise I'm not clear as to why you keep pushing this
particular point. I get it as to why you've evidently passed judgment
with respect to this specific point and again I don't regard your
(revised) position here to be unreasonable. Can we just agree to
disagree here and leave it at that?
DGDevin
"Ray" wrote in message
news:3ee4c877-e902-46b7...@u23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Can we just agree to
> disagree here and leave it at that?
What else you got to argue about? Some folks are having fun with
Fortenberry, but that's shooting fish in a barrel. ;~)