Dan Osman Story
Mike Yukish
November 24, 1998
FATAL FALL IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
Daniel Eugene Osman, a 35 year old climber from Reno, Nevada, died
yesterday after falling from the "Leaning Tower" in Yosemite
National Park. Osman fell approximately 1200 feet while attempting a
controlled free fall.
Rangers responded to a 911 call at 6:30 p.m. yesterday evening and
found Osman's body in an inaccessible area at the base of Leaning
Tower. Efforts to recover the body are underway today.
The cause of the accident is under investigation. Although a
controlled free fall uses climbing equipment, it is not an activity
traditionally associated with the sport of climbing. Due to the high
risk nature of this activity, it is being evaluated for its
appropriateness within a national park.
This is the fifth accidental death in the park this year.
*****************************
Mike Yukish
may...@psu.edu
Applied Research Lab/Penn State U.
MEsp735705
climbing history.
Michael Esparza
John Byrnes
> Taken from the NPS Yosemite web site:
Here's a discussion topic. But before starting this, let me
say that all of you who are already thinking of flaming me
for being insensitive and non-PC: shove it where the sun don't
shine. Now that we have that clear...
I'm not sure, if I were the one writing that NPS report, that
I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death. The
word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
overdue".
Dan has for many years reveled in taunting Death in many
ways: speed solo climbing, roped jumping, base jumping,
ghetto crashing, speeding cars, etc. He has built his
reputation and (I believe) his livelihood on repeatedly
embracing death and selling the vicarious thrill to dozens
of entertainment media.
In doing this, his safety margins have been razor-thin if
they existed at all (Remember that almost-failed dyno during
his speed soloing?). It seemed the closer the brush with death
the better he liked it, and the more the media hyped it up!
So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
Roulette is.
- Lord Slime
Avajane
I dunno. What is a razor thin safety margin? I mean, to lots of people simply
hanging off a rope would be "living on the edge." We are all going to die. I
decided a long time ago that I always wanted to be roped in. I also decided I'd
try NOT to fall. My big solo in life was the 5.7 route up Swan Slab. Dan
decided long ago that he didn't need to be roped in. He liked the feeling of
falling. Is anyone surprised he's dead? I don't think so. Does his death
mean he wanted to die? If you say that for him then you have to look at
yourself (and the level of risk you live with) and ask the same question. Do
you want to die? If you get chopped by rockfall did you want it? You didn't
have to be there right?
Dingus Milktoast
John Byrnes wrote:
>
> Here's a discussion topic. But before starting this, let me
> say that all of you who are already thinking of flaming me
> for being insensitive and non-PC: shove it where the sun don't
> shine. Now that we have that clear...
And we all love you for it.
> I'm not sure, if I were the one writing that NPS report, that
> I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death.
Accidential in that a piece of equipment failed; sure.
> The
> word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
> overdue"
Who hasn't had similar thoughts about the man down through the years?
> So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
> Roulette is.
I understand your point. I also understand those who insist on a
little decorum for the dead. I'm somewhere in the middle. Clearly the
guy walked to the edge of the abyss one too many times. It's not
arguable. And when you're so close to death that a pin prick is the
margin of error, it is difficult to classify the results as an
accident. But I gather from those who knew him that Dano was a very
complex and likeable guy. Death wish? Life wish? Whatever. I grieve
for his family and especially for the daughter he left behind.
It's an old story, risk assessment. We all do it and we all justify
or rationalize it to some extent. I too have kids. I have soloed. I
have made a few simple and stupid mistakes down through the years
where my margin of error was like Dan's... a pin prick from death. So
am I really that different from Dan? I mean, if staying alive to
fulfill our responsibilities is of paramount importance, then how can
we justify climbing at all? I'll answer my own question... in that
context we can't. We climb because we want to. If in doing so we die,
then we are right there with Dano. We can't justify Dano's death
except with the knowledge that "he died doing what he loved." The
climbers requiem. In the coming days, as the words fly, try to keep
this perspective. To a climber, Dano seemed beyond the pale; reckless
and bound for trouble. To non-climbers, we all appear this way.
DMT
Chris Wegener
Dingus Milktoast wrote in message <365C5C28...@midtown.net>...
>
>
>John Byrnes wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's a discussion topic. But before starting this, let me
>It's an old story, risk assessment. We all do it and we all justify
>or rationalize it to some extent. I too have kids. I have soloed. I
>have made a few simple and stupid mistakes down through the years
>where my margin of error was like Dan's... a pin prick from death. So
>am I really that different from Dan? I mean, if staying alive to
>fulfill our responsibilities is of paramount importance, then how can
>we justify climbing at all? I'll answer my own question... in that
>context we can't. We climb because we want to. If in doing so we die,
>then we are right there with Dano. We can't justify Dano's death
>except with the knowledge that "he died doing what he loved." The
>climbers requiem. In the coming days, as the words fly, try to keep
>this perspective. To a climber, Dano seemed beyond the pale; reckless
>and bound for trouble. To non-climbers, we all appear this way.
>
>DMT
>
There is a difference in approach that cannot be overlooked. Yes, climbing,
by its very nature is dangerous and exposes us to the possibility of death.
Beyond that we have to look at the manner in which the climbing is
accomplished. Tobin Sorenson springs to mind in that he was similar to Dan
Osmond (whom I have never met) in that he took unusually large risks without
regard to personal safety. When Tobin finally died in Canada those of us
who knew him were saddened but not surprised. The same is the case in the
death of Dan Osmond. I think Lord Slime's Russian roulette analogy is apt.
Chris
Ken Muldrew
>I'm not sure, if I were the one writing that NPS report, that
>I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death. The
>word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
>overdue".
Perhaps we can add to the thread about what to yell when you know
you're going for the big ride...
"Finally!!!"
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
John Byrnes
> >So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
> >Roulette is.
True, but we are not all going to die accidentally.
I
> ...Dan
> decided long ago that he didn't need to be roped in. He liked the feeling of
> falling.
> Is anyone surprised he's dead? I don't think so. Does his death
> mean he wanted to die?
Well that's the question I raised, in other words. Take the Russian
Roulette example. People who play don't want to die, but their death
is not accidental (it's statistical).
> If you say that for him then you have to look at
> yourself (and the level of risk you live with) and ask the same question. Do
> you want to die? If you get chopped by rockfall did you want it? You didn't
> have to be there right?
Well let's get objective dangers right out of this discussion.
Rockfall,
earthquakes, etc. aren't controlled by people. Some practices lower the
risk, but if Glacier Point decides to fall on you some sunny afternoon
it
doesn't matter if you're a climber or a tourist having lunch at Curry
Village.
So don't gimme that "You didn't have to be there" crap.
To pursue big risks, risks that you control, on a regular basis is a
different matter. I'm claiming, for the sake of discussion, that Dan
was in the Russian Roulette mindframe and not a climber's mindframe.
Now we can argue until Hell freezes where the line is between the
two, but with the premise intact, I think we can be saddened by
Dan's death, but not surprised.
- Lord Slime
Kelly Rich
> Daniel Eugene Osman, a 35 year old climber from Reno, Nevada, died
> yesterday after falling from the "Leaning Tower" in Yosemite
> National Park.
A moment of silence.
:- k
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Mike Yukish wrote:
> > Taken from the NPS Yosemite web site:
> > This is the fifth accidental death in the park this year.
>
> for being insensitive and non-PC: shove it where the sun don't
> shine. Now that we have that clear...
>
> I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death. The
> word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
> overdue".
>
> ways: speed solo climbing, roped jumping, base jumping,
> ghetto crashing, speeding cars, etc. He has built his
> reputation and (I believe) his livelihood on repeatedly
> embracing death and selling the vicarious thrill to dozens
> of entertainment media.
>
> In doing this, his safety margins have been razor-thin if
> they existed at all (Remember that almost-failed dyno during
> his speed soloing?). It seemed the closer the brush with death
> the better he liked it, and the more the media hyped it up!
>
> Roulette is.
>
(eg, free soloists and rope jumpers), and the one thing you and they
know is how they're going to die. Did anyone have any doubts about this
one?
Glenn Dowdy
Hugh Grierson
>Avajane wrote:
>> ...Dan
>> decided long ago that he didn't need to be roped in. He liked the feeling of
>> falling.
>> Is anyone surprised he's dead? I don't think so. Does his death
>> mean he wanted to die?
>
>Well that's the question I raised, in other words. Take the Russian
>Roulette example. People who play don't want to die, but their death
>is not accidental (it's statistical).
How is that different from any other "accidental" death. We know, or
can theoretically obtain, the statistical death rates for all the
activities we do, from driving to climbing. So whether the chances are 1
in 6, or 1 in 100000, it's still an accident. At 1 in 1 it isn't anymore.
>To pursue big risks, risks that you control, on a regular basis is a
>different matter. I'm claiming, for the sake of discussion, that Dan
>was in the Russian Roulette mindframe and not a climber's mindframe.
That seems plausible. Most climbers try to minimise the risks. Some try
to maximise them.
>Now we can argue until Hell freezes where the line is between the
>two, but with the premise intact, I think we can be saddened by
>Dan's death, but not surprised.
-H
rick d
Thing about Tobin was, "god was there to save him if he fell". At least
that what he believed.
rick D
James Bliehall
surely had to put him near death on several occasions and he probably
realized it.
When you don't back off at that point but keep pushing, you have
psychological needs and desires I do not understand.
James
Avajane
>> >So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
>> >Roulette is.
>
>True, but we are not all going to die accidentally.
>
> I
>> decided long ago that he didn't need to be roped in. He liked the feeling
>of
>> falling.
>> Is anyone surprised he's dead? I don't think so. Does his death
>> mean he wanted to die?
>
>Well that's the question I raised, in other words. Take the Russian
>Roulette example. People who play don't want to die, but their death
>is not accidental (it's statistical).
>
>> yourself (and the level of risk you live with) and ask the same question.
>Do
>> you want to die? If you get chopped by rockfall did you want it? You
>didn't
>> have to be there right?
>
>Well let's get objective dangers right out of this discussion.
Sorry, I'm not taking it out of the discussion. If you get taken out at the
Terrace Bar while drinking a Michaelob Dark on Draft then, yea I'll take that
out. If you get taken out at the base of Rixon's Pinnacle on you're way to
climb the West Face that stays in. It's a choice you make when you decide to
climb. To paraphrase DMT ........to a lot of people we are all reckless and
bound for trouble.
>Rockfall,
>earthquakes, etc. aren't controlled by people. Some practices lower the
>risk, but if Glacier Point decides to fall on you some sunny afternoon
>it
>doesn't matter if you're a climber or a tourist having lunch at Curry
>Village.
>So don't gimme that "You didn't have to be there" crap.
Sorry - see above -
>To pursue big risks, risks that you control, on a regular basis is a
>different matter. I'm claiming, for the sake of discussion, that Dan
>was in the Russian Roulette mindframe and not a climber's mindframe.
Now we're talking. Lets discuss this Russian Roulett "state of mind". I know
this is quite ironic, but I once knew the two guys that put up Russian Roulett.
An A5 route on Leaning Tower, by the way. Earl did seem rather crazy, but
Tom, I think, was quite sane. I can clearly remember Tom talking about Russian
Roulett and how he would lead up to the point where he KNEW he would die if he
fell. He would go a bit more, and then and only then, place a bolt. Tom
wasn't looking to die; he was only looking to keep with the ethics of the time
and to be bold. Can't we just say that Dan Osman was a talented climber who
liked to push the envelope?
>Now we can argue until Hell freezes where the line is between the
>two, but with the premise intact, I think we can be saddened by
>Dan's death, but not surprised.
Agreed.
Eric Angel
of exhilaration that comes from going way beyond what what the average
comfort level. I can somewhat relate to what he was doing and understand why
he was doing it even though I could never do what he did at his level.
His free solos were intense, on the edge climbs, well executed and
beautifully done. They were not haphazard attempts seeking only an adrenaline
fix. While many of us would not choose to participate in free soloing or his
well mechanized stunt falls, this does not mean that he was on a death wish
or irresponsible, he just had a different perspective. May we remember Dan
as a man who sought to live life to its fullest, and died doing what he
wanted to do. It would have been much more tragic for him to die at the
hands of a drunk driver etc. . .
Eric Angel
James Bliehall wrote:
--
****** Eric Angel <ean...@mindspring.com>
**** Contact- Blue Ridge Greens
**\_0 http://eangel.home.mindspring.com
* __/> Get my latest PGP Encryption Key at: www.pgp.com
*/ "
*
Derek Hanrahan
Mike Riches
element are starting to write about, so for now I'll just say this......
Dereck, If the risks are unaceptable to you don't climb. You come here
and post this type of a responce with an "I'm a climber address".
Methinks you should'nt be throwing to many stones.This goes for the rest
of you that think Dan was any less of a father because he was an
extremist. These are judgements you are not qualified to make and you
are showing your lack of knowledge and sensitivity on the subject.
But, then again if you die on the frewayy you can bet I'll be the
first one to remind your families that you were an asshole for driving
when you knew the risks involved and made that personal decision to do
it anyway. (This is just one example of many.)
Please take your selfrightous drivel and make your way over
alt.spiritual.righteous.kissmyass.needaclue.net and post your
condemnations there.
The Rockrat
Hbrennan
kath...@flash.net
>
>> have some respect or don't you have anything better to do than post
>> meaningless slander about someone you don't even know. Dan's
>> courage is something most of us can only dream of. Most of us will
>> never have 1/16 the balls he had. Rather than appreciate his
>> greatness and courage and accept your own limitations in their wake,
>> it is easier to judge him as being reckless so you feel better about
>> your own pathetic boundaries.
>
>> Dan was not only a friend but one of the nicest guys I have ever met
>> - there are tons of armchair critics out there, obviously. Few of
>> them dream on a grand scale, and even fewer follow their dreams and
>> risk their lives to achieve them. Dan embraced risks and was a
>> visionary in his own way. Dan was also very unselfish and would
>> never talk badly about anyone. He loved to fly and spend huge
>> amounts of efforts helping others feel share in his exhilaration.
>> I watched 5 or 6 of the successful jumps he made off the tower, it
>> was an amazing stunt. His grace is unparalleled.
>
> 100 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> bravery and heroic deeds. But in a modern world where there are few
> heros, he is met with judgments of recklessness and slander. Dan was
> definitely a hero to many - just because you haven't achieved such
> status with your peers doesn't mean you should rationalize away his
> bravery.
>
> Mike Yukish wrote:
> > Taken from the NPS Yosemite web site:
> > This is the fifth accidental death in the park this year.
>
> Here's a discussion topic. But before starting this, let me
> say that all of you who are already thinking of flaming me
> for being insensitive and non-PC: shove it where the sun don't
> shine. Now that we have that clear...
>
> I'm not sure, if I were the one writing that NPS report, that
> I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death. The
> word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
> overdue".
>
> Dan has for many years reveled in taunting Death in many
> ways: speed solo climbing, roped jumping, base jumping,
> ghetto crashing, speeding cars, etc. He has built his
> reputation and (I believe) his livelihood on repeatedly
> embracing death and selling the vicarious thrill to dozens
> of entertainment media.
>
> In doing this, his safety margins have been razor-thin if
> they existed at all (Remember that almost-failed dyno during
> his speed soloing?). It seemed the closer the brush with death
> the better he liked it, and the more the media hyped it up!
>
> So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
> Roulette is.
>
> - Lord Slime
kath...@flash.net
meaningless slander about someone you don't even know. Dan's courage
is something most of us can only dream of. Most of us will never have
1/16 the balls he had. Rather than appreciate his greatness and courage
and accept your own limitations in their wake, it is easier to judge him
as being reckless so you feel better about your own pathetic
boundaries.
Dan was not only a friend but one of the nicest guys I have ever met -
there are tons of armchair critics out there, obviously. Few of them
lives to achieve them. Dan embraced risks and was a visionary in his
own way. Dan was also very unselfish and would never talk badly about
of energy helping others share in his exhilaration. I watched 5 or 6 of
the successful jumps he made off the tower, it was an amazing stunt.
His grace is unparalleled.
200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
vicious slander. Dan was a great humble guy as well as definitely a
hero to myself and many - just because you haven't achieved such status
within your own peer group, doesn't mean you should rationalize away his
bravery.
Climbing is about calculated risks, it could be anyone of us - no
matter how how smart, safe or experienced we think we are. Don't kid
yourself by pointing the finger at Dan, all of climbing includes risk
taking - that is unless you lessen the odds by clinging to the walls of
your local sport climbing gym on toprope (not to offend anyone that
does). It is often on 5.7 that people bite it - not soloing 5.12. It's
too bad that we don't support each other rather than compete and rip
each other down, I think we all would be climbing stronger and have more
fun as a community if we did...
Kathy
Mike Yukish
>Have some respect, or don't you have anything better to do than post
>meaningless slander about someone you don't even know. Dan's courage
>is something most of us can only dream of.
[snip]
>200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
>bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
>there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
>vicious slander.
I'm sorry, but I think there is some middle ground here. I am sure
there was more than one person 200 years ago who was doing outlandish
things, but wasn't doing them for the greater good or some other
noble cause, and was therefore not knighted or noted in the history
books. Dan was, by his own cultivated media presentation, the ultimate
Mountain Dew/rad dude guy alive. He wasn't jumping into burning
buildings and rescuing families, he wasn't jumping onto hand grenades
and saving his platoon, he wasn't discovering the south pole or the
cure for the common cold, he was just hanging it out there for a
little profit and a lot of fun. And he did it well.
John Byrnes
> >Well let's get objective dangers right out of this discussion.
>
> Sorry, I'm not taking it out of the discussion. If you get taken out at the
> Terrace Bar while drinking a Michaelob Dark on Draft then, yea I'll take that
> out. If you get taken out at the base of Rixon's Pinnacle on you're way to
> climb the West Face that stays in. It's a choice you make when you decide to
> climb.
True. I just wanted to simplify the discussion to choices that
one could easily control. However I concede your point. We could
(if we wanted to) compare the risks taken by someone like Joe Simpson
(who seems to attract bad luck like a magnet) and Dan Osman who seemed
to enjoy maximizing the risk.
> >To pursue big risks, risks that you control, on a regular basis is a
> >different matter. I'm claiming, for the sake of discussion, that Dan
> >was in the Russian Roulette mindframe and not a climber's mindframe.
>
> Now we're talking. Lets discuss this Russian Roulett "state of mind". I know
> this is quite ironic, but I once knew the two guys that put up Russian Roulett.
I'm afraid to ask about the "once knew"... :-)
> An A5 route on Leaning Tower, by the way. Earl did seem rather crazy, but
> Tom, I think, was quite sane. I can clearly remember Tom talking about Russian
> Roulett and how he would lead up to the point where he KNEW he would die if he
> fell. He would go a bit more, and then and only then, place a bolt. Tom
> wasn't looking to die; he was only looking to keep with the ethics of the time
> and to be bold. Can't we just say that Dan Osman was a talented climber who
> liked to push the envelope?
Uhhhh... I'd state that differently. I'd say he was an adrenaline
junkie who pushed *many* different envelopes *often*. One of the
envelopes was climbing.
- Lord Slime - Finally, a rational response.
John Byrnes
> Have some respect, or don't you have anything better to do than post
> meaningless slander about someone you don't even know.
Are you responding to me? I haven't slandered (or libeled) Dan
one iota, yet you and several others are all over me.
Dan is/was a public figure, independent of his friendship
with you and anyone else. He liked being a public figure
(There, I'm attributing something to him I don't really know,
but I'm pretty certain this is true because of his actions.).
So when he does something, especially something as dramatic
as dying, you should expect people to dissect it. You can't
blame *us* for reacting, discussing, and arguing about
it just like the other things he did in life.
> Dan's courage
> is something most of us can only dream of. Most of us will never have
> 1/16 the balls he had. Rather than appreciate his greatness and courage
> and accept your own limitations in their wake, it is easier to judge him
> as being reckless so you feel better about your own pathetic boundaries.
I'm quite happy with my pathetic boundaries, thank you. On the other
hand,
Dan would never get on my "hero list" because he *was* reckless. He
took risks for the sake of taking a risk. That was his primary goal,
no?
>
> 200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> bravery and knighted for heroic deeds.
Huh? Like what heroic deed did he do? Heroism is rooted in
selflessness; please cite some great examples of Dan's selflessness.
>
> Climbing is about calculated risks,
True. No argument. Now, what about jumping off of towers
in Yosemite...? How much calculating did Dan do before jumping?
I'm sorry that you lost an admired friend. Unfortunately, that
doesn't change the facts.
- Lord Slime
rick d
>
>> 200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
>> bravery and knighted for heroic deeds.
>Huh? Like what heroic deed did he do? Heroism is rooted in
>selflessness; please cite some great examples of Dan's selflessness.
I think you loose ms. Dee.
Rick
kath...@flash.net
Ok, I agree, but today there aren't really alot of South Poles left to
discover, not alot of North America's to sail to and not alot of Wild
West's to win- what avenue does a person with the same kind of sprit
have left? Not as many as they once did.. I think rope jumping was an
arena Dano found that had not yet been saturated. He was a pioneer in
the field - and you're right - he did do it well....
kath...@flash.net
> with you and anyone else. He liked being a public figure
> (There, I'm attributing something to him I don't really know,
> but I'm pretty certain this is true because of his actions.).
Public figures do not ask for attention, they inspire it. Dan's ability
to inspire others to overcome their fears and to reach deep inside
themselves was living proof of selflessness. Dan actively sought out
people who he felt would benefit from his inspiration. There were over
150 people at his services who would feel Dano was an inspiration and
completely selfless - among these were some of the best climbers in the
world.
Dano was a hero to us all.
>
kath...@flash.net
rick d
>Ok, I agree, but today there aren't really alot of South Poles left
> to discover, not alot of North America's to sail to and not alot
> of Wild West's to win
Two words people-"gully descent"
the wave of the future.
1)higher points for no gear, no body armor
2)most miserable thrashing vegitation
3)greatest blood loss
in 10 years, I will be a hero.
rick d
Avajane
>> Slime wrote:
>> >Well let's get objective dangers right out of this discussion.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not taking it out of the discussion. If you get taken out at
>the
>> Terrace Bar while drinking a Michaelob Dark on Draft then, yea I'll take
>that
>> out. If you get taken out at the base of Rixon's Pinnacle on you're way to
>> climb the West Face that stays in. It's a choice you make when you decide
>to
>> climb.
>
>True. I just wanted to simplify the discussion to choices that
>one could easily control. However I concede your point. We could
>(if we wanted to) compare the risks taken by someone like Joe Simpson
>(who seems to attract bad luck like a magnet) and Dan Osman who seemed
>to enjoy maximizing the risk.
>
>
>> >To pursue big risks, risks that you control, on a regular basis is a
>> >different matter. I'm claiming, for the sake of discussion, that Dan
>> >was in the Russian Roulette mindframe and not a climber's mindframe.
>>
>> Now we're talking. Lets discuss this Russian Roulett "state of mind". I
>know
>> this is quite ironic, but I once knew the two guys that put up Russian
>Roulett.
>
>I'm afraid to ask about the "once knew"... :-)
Yea, me too!
>> An A5 route on Leaning Tower, by the way. Earl did seem rather crazy, but
>> Tom, I think, was quite sane. I can clearly remember Tom talking about
>Russian
>> Roulett and how he would lead up to the point where he KNEW he would die if
>he
>> fell. He would go a bit more, and then and only then, place a bolt. Tom
>> wasn't looking to die; he was only looking to keep with the ethics of the
>time
>> and to be bold. Can't we just say that Dan Osman was a talented climber
>who
>> liked to push the envelope?
>
>Uhhhh... I'd state that differently. I'd say he was an adrenaline
>junkie who pushed *many* different envelopes *often*. One of the
>envelopes was climbing.
>
>- Lord Slime - Finally, a rational response.
Agreed
Neal Weiss
> > 200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> > bravery and knighted for heroic deeds.
>
> Huh? Like what heroic deed did he do? Heroism is rooted in
> selflessness; please cite some great examples of Dan's selflessness.
Nietzsche would take you to task on that.
His reading of heroic greatness involves both egoism and selfishness, both
of the latter being in his cosmology (and mine) mainline virtues.
Can't say if Dano had these or not. I respect his deeds though.
His jumping had me motoring in my mind when I first learned of it, and his
death had me reaching in an attempt to envelope the accomplishment (that
is to say, the prior successful jumps [did he set a record there? ] and
whatever 'courage' and presence of mind was involved in those actions.
Unfortunately, such first person psychic information is unavailable to any
of us as it has gone with Dano). Those actions still outdistance me:
whenever my mind goes there, when I filter through a fantasy rerun of the
jump, I am still left with an incomprehensible action...incomprehensible
for me. Its value lies in my attempts to bridge that gap and come to terms
with it...and therein lies some of the public and communal fruits of
Dano's jumps.
As a matter of fact, like it or not, I believe the 'mythic' effects of his
actions are already working on me, unconsciously, and obviously making
their way slowly into consciousness. A standard is being defined. A
possibility of action beyond all possible points of navigation...an entry
into some sort of redefinition of limits and possibilities.
One thing is certain here: I have a ready access to my imagination and a
place in it for this man and his accomplishments. In the end, technical
failures, likes or dislikes, recklessness or boldness doesn't matter very
much at this level...again, he is being transformed into something mythic
and for my own personal uses...whether or not this entire process
coincides literally with 'reality' is rather besides the point (myths work
in unusual ways and according to their own logic). [My trying to convince
you of this is as besides the point as my feeling a need to defend it].
In some distant kingdom of my mind, I think Dano already has been
'knighted', its a done deed.
Like it or not, agree with me or not, Dano's jumps as statements in
themselves ARE great acts: Dano's real value will lie in what I will be
able to do with this energy, which is REAL, palpable, accessible, and
infinitely more usable, head and shoulders above the energy produced
through the opinions, craven or kind, and enacted on our keyboards, like
so many frantic ants digesting a corpse on an autumn night.
Right-On Dano!
(Thankful you did it your way)
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
kath...@flash.net
as I have. I guess you have never flown through the air as full speed,
and dangled a thousand feet from the ground at the end of a rope as I
have.... I'm glad you think you know what the experience was all about
- just like climbing is a lot more than making it to the top of a route
or rock - jumping is a lot more than just jumping off a cliff. I guess
if you don't know first hand, then it would be hard to fathom.... It's
not worth my time trying to explain.... No insults intended, but it
would be like getting my mother to understand big wall climbing....
Kathy
John Byrnes
>
> > Dan is/was a public figure, independent of his friendship
> > with you and anyone else. He liked being a public figure
> Public figures do not ask for attention, they inspire it.
What?! Sorry Kathy, but in Dan's case, that's bullshit.
Dan did a *lot* of stunts for the camera, and only for the
camera (and the money).
> Dan's ability
> to inspire others to overcome their fears and to reach deep inside
> themselves was living proof of selflessness.
Oh brother. You're too far over the edge. Come back and read
what you just wrote 10 years from now.
> Dano was a hero to us all.
Not to me.
- Lord Slime
rick d
>I guess you did not stand on top of the Leaning Tower and watch
> the jump..(snip)
WHAT?
What the hell does that BS have to do with new adventures beyond arctic
discovery? I said we (those brave and stupid) should explore the paths
least taken (or never taken). Gulleys man!, brush filled, cliff
infested, termite eating, mud in your eye descents. Walk where no human
dare walked (or jumped, or fell, or got cut, or mated with a catclaw-or
thistle...). I was suggesting an alternative.
One further note. Why Yosemite for the Dano big show? Could next time
the big rope tricks be moved away from a wilderness setting. Set the
rig up between the world trade centers or something man made. Leaning
tower etc is NOT the place for high flying stunts. I hope the NPS bans
that crap. Base jumping is much more low key.....
Rick D
tims...@io.com
kath...@flash.net wrote:
> I guess you did not stand on top of the Leaning Tower and watch the jump
> as I have. I guess you have never flown through the air as full speed,
> and dangled a thousand feet from the ground at the end of a rope as I
> have.... I'm glad you think you know what the experience was all about
> - just like climbing is a lot more than making it to the top of a route
> or rock - jumping is a lot more than just jumping off a cliff. I guess
> if you don't know first hand, then it would be hard to fathom.... It's
> not worth my time trying to explain.... No insults intended, but it
> would be like getting my mother to understand big wall climbing....
The other guy seemed to be wanting to take some of the steam out of the whole
practice of rope jumping. Why, one wonders? Personally, in no way affects
my enjoyment of my own adventures to see or hear of other people doing
different and perhaps more daring things. Although, I did once kind of look
down on skydiving. I'm not entirely sure why, but perhaps the hype irked me.
Then of course, I went and tried it. Fun stuff! Actually, it was much
cooler than I imagined. So I concur; don't knock rope jumping until you have
some idea about it, preferably personal experience.
I think that I may have included enough typos in this for Mr. Shull. ;-)
-Tim Stich
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Douglas McMullin
>
>200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
>there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
>hero to myself and many - just because you haven't achieved such status
>within your own peer group, doesn't mean you should rationalize away his
>bravery.
A Hero is not called Hero because of self serving stunts... If he
was alive to raise his child as a decent human being, I might then
call him a hero.... He may have been humble, and I have heard he was
very nice, but he did what he did for his own reasons, not to serve
others. (and he alone enjoyed his success and he alone died)
Yegor
hand.
Douglas McMullin <NOSPA...@revnetx.net> wrote in article
<36653788...@usegroups.revnetx.net>...
>
> >
> >200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> >bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
> >there are fewer hero-s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
Scott Linn
: Dano was a hero to us all.
Speak for yourself. He was not a "hero" to us all.
Carleton Krefting Johnson
but I cannot tolerate people lionizing him for his "accomplishments".
Carl
Neal Weiss
NOSPA...@revnetx.net (Douglas McMullin) wrote:
> >
> >200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> >bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
> >there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
> >vicious slander. Dan was a great humble guy as well as definitely a
> >hero to myself and many - just because you haven't achieved such status
> >within your own peer group, doesn't mean you should rationalize away his
> >bravery.
>
> A Hero is not called Hero because of self serving stunts... If he
> was alive to raise his child as a decent human being, I might then
> call him a hero.... He may have been humble, and I have heard he was
> very nice, but he did what he did for his own reasons, not to serve
> others.
What were those reasons? I cannot imagine how YOU could ever possibly know
such information, whether it be involved somehow with serving others or
not.
>(and he alone enjoyed his success and he alone died)
I enjoyed his success.
There goes your theory.
Douglas McMullin
>What were those reasons? I cannot imagine how YOU could ever possibly know
>such information, whether it be involved somehow with serving others or
>not.
>
Ever open a dictionary??? Sure I suppose anyone could be considerd a
hero... Who was that grunge singer that every kid thought was a
hero??? Cobain??? Lets see what did he do???
Oh and what about his daughter??? I guess she will just have to get
by.... Some hero....
m chapman
about. it sounds like neither of you actually knew Dan Osman personally
yet you make presumptious statments about his personality and his
reasons for doing such outlandish stunts. I dont make any claims to know
anything about Dans reasons for his actions, all I know is that he was
one crazy ass son of a bitch who pulled of some mind blowing solo's and
some great eyecandy on film. It sucks to lose his presence on future
films, but we will always be able to revel in his accomplishments from
the films that remain.
Neal Weiss
NOSPA...@revnetx.net (Douglas McMullin) wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 13:28:18 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (Neal
> >
> >What were those reasons? I cannot imagine how YOU could ever possibly know
> >such information, whether it be involved somehow with serving others or
> >not.
> >
>
> Ever open a dictionary??? Sure I suppose anyone could be considerd a
> hero... Who was that grunge singer that every kid thought was a
> hero??? Cobain??? Lets see what did he do???
>
To return to my response:
Douglas McMullin wrote:
>He may have been humble, and I have heard he was very nice, but he did
what he >did for his own reasons, not to serve others.
You did not answer the question, but rather spun of into other topics.
Again, I will ask you the question: What were Dano's REASONS? How could
YOU (or anyone else claiming Dano's experience for their own, including
myself) possibly know?
The varied responses, accusations, etc. to Dano's death, risk and
responsibility, often have more to do with the psychology of the
individual poster, than they necessarily have anything to do with Dano. We
do not know what was in Dano's head (perhaps he didn't fully know his
motivations either, if Freud and theories of the unconscious as shaping
action are worth anything)...what was in Dano's head for us can only be
wild speculation, that information is unavailible to us. Clarification by
the careful wording of posts would help when all and sundry forms of
"intentionality," "value,""motivation,"risk," "reasons," etc. are
erroneously credited to Dano. A suggestion: Claim your OWN experience,
comment upon it, and if you find yourself attributing it to Dano where it
is not appropriate to do so, then examine why you have a need to project
it as Dano's experience. These latter, in addition to the plethora of
reductive, cardboard characterisations of Dano (on the order of characters
in poorly written popular fiction, tabloid journalism, and soft drink
commercials) do little to gain an understanding of the man, and conversly,
succeed only in completely skirting the issues by merely constructing a
thinned down cartoon psuedo-Dano: easily understood, easily attacked,
easily praised, and worse, seemlessly accepted as a stand in for the real
McCoy. What was Dano about?...
I have no issue with whether or not you cared for, worshiped, or despised
Dano; but when you make claims to Danos' reasons (and use these to further
arguements), you have stepped over the line into incredulity.
Risk: The computer industry understood the risk when it made the decision
to program software with a 2 digit date: they knew the problems would have
to be encountered down the road: they declared that it was acceptable
risk. I engage in a similiar dynamic by not having any health or medical
insurance (climbing injury potential aside, I reason that although I am 35
years old, I can wait until I am 40 or 45 until I can afford
insurance...by waiting 5 or so years I am accepting similiar risks). I
imagine Dano also accepted the risks in his sport. This to me appears an
expression of something quite ordinary, even common, rather than some
gross esoteric orientation. This entire relation to risks ACCEPTED seems
to be an expression of normalcy. Why turn it into a monstrous, malicious
construct, with overtones of evil, irresponsibility, moral bankruptcy?
> Oh and what about his daughter??? I guess she will just have to get
> by.... Some hero....
What about his daughter?
Does dying by accident yield us any insight into Dano's love for his
daughter? I remember a school teacher going up in a ball of flame in the
space shuttle a few years back...what about her students? family? Should
she have stayed on the ground and in the classroom to avoid the admonition
of her actions by you and others of your ilk (as well as manufactured
charges of heartlessness and neglect)? Neither she or Dano planned on
dying, they were involved in accidents. Each was engaged in an activity
which although involved risk, was acceptable risk to the participant. Both
died due to equipment failure. Yes as consequence of dying by accident,
perhaps both the aforementioned had let other people down by dying. On the
other hand, by living and never having attempted the challanges which they
had fully embraced (including the risks), perhaps they would in that
instance, have let others down, including themselves: maybe even those
closest to them. Your "either/or" reasoning is another case of far too
simplistic a rational for a very complicated and interelated group of
values.
Not everyone who accepts risk needs to be devoid of strong personal
relations. If you want, you can make just as strong an arguement that
having a daughter made it all the more difficult (and admirable) to be as
devoted a climber as Dano became, and made the commitment to his
enterprise,including the risks that that entailed, all the more difficult
to reconcile himself with. Yes, it is tragic that he died for many of us.
I'd like to think that his daughter, as well as grieving and suffering a
sense of loss, has as well much to be proud of, and much to gain by
learning more about and understanding her father. The one does not void
the other.
Hbrennan
appeared in?
Mike Yukish
[snip]
>Not everyone who accepts risk needs to be devoid of strong personal
>relations. If you want, you can make just as strong an arguement that
>having a daughter made it all the more difficult (and admirable) to be as
>devoted a climber as Dano became, and made the commitment to his
>enterprise,including the risks that that entailed, all the more difficult
>to reconcile himself with. Yes, it is tragic that he died for many of us.
>I'd like to think that his daughter, as well as grieving and suffering a
>sense of loss, has as well much to be proud of, and much to gain by
>learning more about and understanding her father. The one does not void
>the other.
A thought came up that I want to pose to the folks who climb under
sponsorship. I come from an aviation background, in the Navy. It is a
high risk profession, and I have a long list of friends who have
perished in accidents. Most of them were of the 2.5 kids with a dog,
garage and a lawn types, great dads, so they tended to leave loved
ones behind.
One of things the Navy provided was a safety net for the family, in
the form of a significant life insurance policy, assistance to the
family in handling their personal affairs, and continuing benefits for
children of the deceased until they are adults. You had to sign up for
the life insurance, but the rest came with the job. While this was not
something to pop into your head a mile or two behind the carrier at
night, and it probably didn't make the families feel like they'd won
the lottery when their loved one tied the minimum altitude record, it
was very important to the well-being of the family post-mishap.
So my question is this. When climbers are sponsored by the gear
companies, such as North Face, are they presented with the option of a
cheap, comprehensive life insurance as part of the compensation? Is
this something the sponsors provide, or consider providing? How about
you, Clyde? Does your magazine help out in this regard, in recognition
of the risk of your avocation versus the benefit they receive by your
climbing?
I'm not judging, just curious.
psycho
It's what we all want.
Isn't It???????
Mike Yukish wrote:
> kath...@flash.net wrote:
>
> >Have some respect, or don't you have anything better to do than post
> >meaningless slander about someone you don't even know. Dan's courage
> >is something most of us can only dream of.
>
> [snip]
>
> >200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> >bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
> >there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
> >vicious slander.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think there is some middle ground here. I am sure
> there was more than one person 200 years ago who was doing outlandish
> things, but wasn't doing them for the greater good or some other
> noble cause, and was therefore not knighted or noted in the history
> books. Dan was, by his own cultivated media presentation, the ultimate
> Mountain Dew/rad dude guy alive. He wasn't jumping into burning
> buildings and rescuing families, he wasn't jumping onto hand grenades
> and saving his platoon, he wasn't discovering the south pole or the
> cure for the common cold, he was just hanging it out there for a
> little profit and a lot of fun. And he did it well.
Ken Muldrew
> I remember a school teacher going up in a ball of flame in the
>space shuttle a few years back...what about her students? family? Should
>she have stayed on the ground and in the classroom to avoid the admonition
>of her actions by you and others of your ilk (as well as manufactured
>charges of heartlessness and neglect)? Neither she or Dano planned on
>dying, they were involved in accidents. Each was engaged in an activity
>which although involved risk, was acceptable risk to the participant. Both
>died due to equipment failure.
Good analogy. The teacher accepted the risk based on an outrageously
low estimate of the likelihood of catastrophic failure (NASA claimed 1
in 100 000). Lots of the engineers involved thought this likelihood
was closer to 1 in 300 but were ignored. Subsequent examination of the
reasons for failure led to improvements in both the technology and the
understanding of the risks. Examination of the rope-jumping accident
may also prove useful for those who wish to participate in this
activity in the future. It may also be relevant to climbing since the
equipment that failed is the same equipment that is used in climbing
(although it was used in a different manner). This examination has to
include an estimate of the "recklessness" of Dan Osman, especially by
those who didn't know him.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
David Kramp
might be Dano, all I can say is ROCK ON.
As for those who slander, may may rats chew and piss on your ropes.
Reste-Attache,
Dave
kath...@flash.net wrote:
> Have some respect, or don't you have anything better to do than post
> meaningless slander about someone you don't even know. Dan's courage
> is something most of us can only dream of. Most of us will never have
> 1/16 the balls he had. Rather than appreciate his greatness and courage
> and accept your own limitations in their wake, it is easier to judge him
> as being reckless so you feel better about your own pathetic
> boundaries.
> Dan was not only a friend but one of the nicest guys I have ever met -
> there are tons of armchair critics out there, obviously. Few of them
> dream on a grand scale, and even fewer follow their dreams risking their
> lives to achieve them. Dan embraced risks and was a visionary in his
> own way. Dan was also very unselfish and would never talk badly about
> anyone. He loved to fly on the end of his rope and spent huge amounts
> of energy helping others share in his exhilaration. I watched 5 or 6 of
> the successful jumps he made off the tower, it was an amazing stunt.
> His grace is unparalleled.
>
> 200 years ago a person of his character would have been applauded for
> bravery and knighted for heroic deeds. But in a modern world where
> there are fewer hero’s, he is met with judgments of recklessness and
> vicious slander. Dan was a great humble guy as well as definitely a
> hero to myself and many - just because you haven't achieved such status
> within your own peer group, doesn't mean you should rationalize away his
> bravery.
>
> Climbing is about calculated risks, it could be anyone of us - no
> matter how how smart, safe or experienced we think we are. Don't kid
> yourself by pointing the finger at Dan, all of climbing includes risk
> taking - that is unless you lessen the odds by clinging to the walls of
> your local sport climbing gym on toprope (not to offend anyone that
> does). It is often on 5.7 that people bite it - not soloing 5.12. It's
> too bad that we don't support each other rather than compete and rip
> each other down, I think we all would be climbing stronger and have more
> fun as a community if we did...
>
> Kathy
>
> John Byrnes wrote:
>
> > Mike Yukish wrote:
> > > Taken from the NPS Yosemite web site:
> > > This is the fifth accidental death in the park this year.
> >
> > Here's a discussion topic. But before starting this, let me
> > say that all of you who are already thinking of flaming me
> > for being insensitive and non-PC: shove it where the sun don't
> > shine. Now that we have that clear...
> >
> > I'm not sure, if I were the one writing that NPS report, that
> > I would classify Dan's demise as an "accidental" death. The
> > word "anticipated" comes to mind, as well as "surprisingly
> > overdue".
> >
> > Dan has for many years reveled in taunting Death in many
> > ways: speed solo climbing, roped jumping, base jumping,
> > ghetto crashing, speeding cars, etc. He has built his
> > reputation and (I believe) his livelihood on repeatedly
> > embracing death and selling the vicarious thrill to dozens
> > of entertainment media.
> >
> > In doing this, his safety margins have been razor-thin if
> > they existed at all (Remember that almost-failed dyno during
> > his speed soloing?). It seemed the closer the brush with death
> > the better he liked it, and the more the media hyped it up!
> >
> > So I don't call it accidental any more than dying playing Russian
> > Roulette is.
> >
> > - Lord Slime
Peter T. Gompper
To laugh often and love much;
To win the respect of intelligent people
And the affection of children;
To earn the approbation of honest critics
And endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;
To give one's self;
To leave the world a little better,
Whether by a healthy child,
A garden patch,
Or a redeemed social condition;
To have played and laughed with enthusiasm
And sung with exultation;
To know even one life has breathed easier
Because you lived...
This is to have succeeded.
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (Neal Weiss) wrote:
>
>I remember a school teacher going up in a ball of flame in the
>space shuttle a few years back...what about her students? family? Should
>she have stayed on the ground and in the classroom to avoid
>the admonition of her actions by you and others of your ilk (as well as >manufactured charges of heartlessness and neglect)? Neither she or Dano >planned on dying, they were involved in accidents. Each was engaged in >an activity which although involved risk, was acceptable risk to the >participant. Both died due to equipment failure.
hawkman
about 5 or 6. Anyone know if this is true?
Hawk
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:32:59 -0500, "Peter T. Gompper"
<gomp...@bms.com> wrote:
>"To Have Succeeded" by Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> To laugh often and love much;
> To win the respect of intelligent people
> And the affection of children;
> To earn the approbation of honest critics
> And endure the betrayal of false friends;
> To appreciate beauty;
> To find the best in others;
> To give one's self;
> To leave the world a little better,
> Whether by a healthy child,
> A garden patch,
> Or a redeemed social condition;
> To have played and laughed with enthusiasm
> And sung with exultation;
> To know even one life has breathed easier
> Because you lived...
> This is to have succeeded.
>
>> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (Neal Weiss) wrote:
>>
>>I remember a school teacher going up in a ball of flame in the
>>space shuttle a few years back...what about her students? family? Should
>>she have stayed on the ground and in the classroom to avoid
>>the admonition of her actions by you and others of your ilk (as well as >manufactured charges of heartlessness and neglect)? Neither she or Dano >planned on dying, they were involved in accidents. Each was engaged in >an activity which although involved risk, was acceptable risk to the >participant. Both died due to equipment failure.
>