No Heroes In Thin Air

[scribblet]

It is beyond me how these people could just walk by a dying man - 40 people did.

Talk show hosts yesterday were going on about it, I was surprised at the number of callers who thought it was okay, its the climb you know. I'm not sure if he would have survived had they got him down.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...fe-864aa2551b16

No heroes in thin air

How could one climber leave another to die on a mountain? A better question is how could 40 climbers do so? It is hard to imagine any justification for the behaviour of the group, which included double-amputee Mark Inglis of New Zealand, who last week turned their backs on a stricken British climber and carried on to the summit of Mount Everest.

Death on Everest is not unusual. There have been some 200 deaths on the world's highest mountain over the years -- and seven already this year -- testimony to the ghastly risks that climbing at extreme elevations entails. But the circumstances of the death last week of David Sharp, who is thought to have expired of oxygen deprivation at about the same time Mr. Inglis and others were posing for triumphal photographs on the summit, leaves a stain not only on those directly involved in the incident, but on the sport.

[geoffrey]

This probably isn't a 'Federal Politics' issue unless I'm missing some kind of metaphor.

With Everest in particular, and most high altitude climbs, it would be nearly impossible to carry someone down from the mountain without really risking your own life. Remember that beyond 10,000 feet, your body is suffering from oxygen depletion. The highest I've been is 13,000 feet and I'm telling you, you can't move far without losing your breath and you'll never catch your breath again until you descend. Sleeping at that elevation is tough, it can take 12-14 hours to get the same effect as sleeping 6 hours below 10,000 ft.

Carrying a body down Everest, near 30,000 ft., would be a serious risk.

In the newspaper story I read, they were pretty sure he was nearly dead anyways. It wouldn't have saved him.

You can't helicopter people off Everest, its too risky for the pilots. It takes about a month to aclimatize enough for the summit. In the event of a crash, the helicopter crew would die within hours, with little chance of survival. The few that have helicoptered people off the mountain... only in perfect weather... are trained that in a crash, they run directly down the mountain, jump off clifs, whatever, to get to the bottom within a few hours or they die.

Oxygen deprevation is actually quite painless, you are delusional before you die, you don't feel anything.

I wouldn't hold them responsible for his death, there wasn't anything that could be done anyways.

[Riverwind]

How could one climber leave another to die on a mountain? A better question is how could 40 climbers do so? It is hard to imagine any justification for the behaviour of the group, which included double-amputee Mark Inglis of New Zealand, who last week turned their backs on a stricken British climber and carried on to the summit of Mount Everest.

Anyone who climbs Mt Everest is a thrill seeker that choose to participate in an activity that could kill them. As Geoffry pointed out, why should anyone else risk their life to save someone else who choose to put their life in danger. When a skier gets lost out of bound the search and rescue crews will only help if it is safe for them to do so. If the weather is so bad that the lives of the rescuers are put at risk then the person is left to die - nobody has ever complained about that policy.

[geoffrey]

How could one climber leave another to die on a mountain? A better question is how could 40 climbers do so? It is hard to imagine any justification for the behaviour of the group, which included double-amputee Mark Inglis of New Zealand, who last week turned their backs on a stricken British climber and carried on to the summit of Mount Everest.

Anyone who climbs Mt Everest is a thrill seeker that choose to participate in an activity that could kill them. As Geoffry pointed out, why should anyone else risk their life to save someone else who choose to put their life in danger. When a skier gets lost out of bound the search and rescue crews will only help if it is safe for them to do so. If the weather is so bad that the lives of the rescuers are put at risk then the person is left to die - nobody has ever complained about that policy.

I had a similar issue in the Alberta rockies. I was out of bounds and got stuck in a gulley after dark, couldn't get out. SAR wouldn't do anything because it was getting dark and it was only accessible by snowshoe, so we just camped it until the next day and then got out with some help from a couple of friends that came up from the camp. Saved us our rescue costs.

But ya, its a risk you take, and you should be able to get yourself out of any possible situation, that's what preparation is.

This guy was soloing Everest. That's a huge risk, and he was on the losing side of that gamble.

[BHS]

So here's a tangental question: would this guy end up being mummified up there? Is there enough bacteria activity to decomposed a body, or would it just dehydrate? In other words, is this guy's corpse going to be acting like a landmark and keeping climbers company for the next thousand years?

[scribblet]

So here's a tangental question: would this guy end up being mummified up there? Is there enough bacteria activity to decomposed a body, or would it just dehydrate? In other words, is this guy's corpse going to be acting like a landmark and keeping climbers company for the next thousand years?

What about the other 200 who've died up there, are there bodies mummified or whatever?

I didn't realize this guy had gone solo, now that was dumb.

[Renegade]

So here's a tangental question: would this guy end up being mummified up there? Is there enough bacteria activity to decomposed a body, or would it just dehydrate? In other words, is this guy's corpse going to be acting like a landmark and keeping climbers company for the next thousand years?

What about the other 200 who've died up there, are there bodies mummified or whatever?

I didn't realize this guy had gone solo, now that was dumb.

I don't know if you have read or seen the documentary on the teams which tried to scale Everest in 1996 and ended in tragedy. Many died in the attempt. Rob Hall one of the team leaders was one who died. To this day climbers who reach the summit pass Rob's body.

RIP Rob Hall

If you haven't seen the IMAX documentary on Everest it is worth watching. The tragedy is heartbreaking. link

[RB]

We have applied for permission to climb Mt Everest 2009, I think for now safely to camp 2 or 3 - I believe it is a personal feat one sets out to accomplish, hopefully that you will be successful but also knowing the dangers that is involved, knowing that it proposes to be a very selfish venture, everyone to take care of themselves. The consolation is that perhaps you have a group a people whom you know....being alone is no fun at all.

Inexperience is one thing, lack of training is another.

This is why folks should be serious in the lots of time invested in training, money involved with climbing, so might put some safety net on and invest in a guide who supposedly points a right path.

No one should be allowed to take such a "literally" heavy burden of being a being a defeated hero on their shoulders that are already weary.

My thing is people take their risk with every advanced climb and they will be silly not to calculate their probability of return.

Everest is the ultimate climb.

The question I ask is are you ready? and is this the right time?

Then you stake the chances to your demise.

[KrustyKidd]

Going to weigh in real quick on this. If I was ever inclined to climb Mt Everest or K2 whatever, and, had the financial, physical and mental commitment to do it. It would take yeas of saving, planning, training and such to do that one thing - get to the top. I had sacrificed weekends with friends and family to do overtime, gotten up early to train, taken vacations to practice climbing and such. If I were lucky engough to have a shot at one of the big mountains and, after spending weeks in base camp eating crap food, preparing and waiting for the weather and was finaly within reach of the top, nothing would stop me. Not risk of death, not the weather, not family and not friends. Certainly not a climber who had overestimated his ability and is most likely beyond saving.

Not being a great climber myself, I can however see the work, the mindset of years of dreaming and preparing all focused into one last push. In that moment, not even life itself holds the same value up there as it does down here. To give up the opportunity to realize a dream millions have for anything less than lack of ability is to give it all up. Making the years before wasted and meaningless.

In short, people who do it for ego would have given up a long time before, it is actually a spiritual thing in my mind. From our armchairs where the biggest adventure many have had is to get married, people who persue such things may seem reckless or vain but in reality, who wouldn't wish they had climbed Everest? It's just how bad you wish it is all. And once you commit to it, the cost of not seeing it through go up step by step.

You can't helicopter people off Everest, its too risky for the pilots.

Interesting about the SOP for pilots to get off the mountain in the event of a crash, never heard of that or, considered it. I do know from working in a chopper unit that the higher you get, the less control you have over a helecopter due to the thin air. This makes it extremely difficult to do what a helecopter is specificly designed to do - hover.

I didn't realize this guy had gone solo, now that was dumb.

Yep. And vain. Probably would have done it with a blindfold on the next time had he survived. And, was undoubtably a vetran of many high altitude climbs so this was a stunt for show to his clique.

But the circumstances of the death last week of David Sharp, who is thought to have expired of oxygen deprivation at about the same time Mr. Inglis and others were posing for triumphal photographs on the summit, leaves a stain not only on those directly involved in the incident, but on the sport.

The forty or so people were not engaged in a sport. They were two separate entities - tourists and guides. For the tourists to be expected (Inlis the double amputee included) to be faulted for not saving this guy and giving up the 100 plus thousnad dollars they paid to have a crack at the summit is unrealistic. Second, for the guides to drop their charges and tell them they are on their own, their millions of dollars are up in smoke because of this guy who has nothing to do with them and then to tell them they are on their own while they try to save this guy is irresponsible.

While I'm at it, Hillary to say that guided tours of Everest is wrong is bull. Possibly these 'tourists' don't have the skill, physical fortitude that he had when he did it back in the fifties or whenever but, they have something that gave them the power to save their money all those years and train the best they could inbetween working double shifts or whatever. Unlike him, those tourists are using their own money and not benifit to sponsors and the like. He doesn't own the mountain as much as he would like to.

[August1991]

This (true) story comes closer to what this thread title implies.

... Simon and Joe set off to scale the mount in one long push over several days. The peak is reached, however on the descent Joe falls and breaks his leg. Despite what it means, the two continue with Simon letting Joe out on a rope for 300 meters, then descending to join him and so on. However when Joe goes out over an overhang with no way of climbing back up, Simon makes the decision to cut the rope. Joe falls into a crevice and Simon, assuming him dead, continues back down....

BTW, WTH is this thread doing in Federal Politics? [NDLR: We need a new category for such threads... ]

[scribblet]

This (true) story comes closer to what this thread title implies.

... Simon and Joe set off to scale the mount in one long push over several days. The peak is reached, however on the descent Joe falls and breaks his leg. Despite what it means, the two continue with Simon letting Joe out on a rope for 300 meters, then descending to join him and so on. However when Joe goes out over an overhang with no way of climbing back up, Simon makes the decision to cut the rope. Joe falls into a crevice and Simon, assuming him dead, continues back down....

BTW, WTH is this thread doing in Federal Politics? [NDLR: We need a new category for such threads... ]

I put it here because it was a general question to all Canadians, maybe it should have been in moral issues.

IMHO the attitude of climbers is that of extreme self indulgence and hypocrisy. While I don't think the guides should have left their charges, surely one guide and a couple of others could have had some humanity about them and helped the chap.

[crazymf]

I have to agree with Hillary. These people were not on a mission, but a paid individual triumph sport and to abandon it to merely save someones 'life' just wouldn't be financially viable. One could easily trivialize the death by bragging about the summit, but it would be hard to brag about saving someones life while abandoning the summit.

It must be hard for them to climb so high with their heads up their asses. It shows a further degradation of society in the materialistic world we live in.

And to solidify my opinion, where's the money for the expedition to collect all the bodies?

[KrustyKidd]

While I don't think the guides should have left their charges, surely one guide and a couple of others could have had some humanity about them and helped the chap.

And if one of the charges slipped and fell, subsequently dying?

I have to agree with Hillary. These people were not on a mission, but a paid individual triumph sport and to abandon it to merely save someones 'life' just wouldn't be financially viable.

Oh ya. And if they were not getting paid, nobody would have been there to save the guy anyhow. Just an empty mountain waiting for the next person who was 'pure' to come by a few years later.

And to solidify my opinion, where's the money for the expedition to collect all the bodies?

That would be the Nepalese government you would be directing the question to. They charge big bucks for permits to climb there.

Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to conquer Everest and a compatriot of Mr. Inglis, condemned such indifference, saying: "I think it is despicable. Human life is far more important than getting to the top of a mountain."

When the Hall expedition surfered their tragety, Hillary spoke out against commercial tours of Everest. This here is boone for his cause. Hillary can say what he wants as he wasn't paying the bill for his climb though, rather the British Everest Expeditionary Force was. If I worked hard, trained hard and put forth enough sacrifice to pay for all the things I had to get to get there, I would and should be able to make my own decisions based on the realities on the mountain rather than some guy who enjoyed a free climb and rather than pay out, actually made money off it.

Here is the story of 'Sir' Tenzing Norgay (only white guys get knighted on Everest it seems) as Hillary explains it.

Hillary described himself as the strong leader of the team, who not only was working hard making steps in the snow for both of them, but also had to pull Tenzing up those steps, and that Tenzing kept falling to the ground, extremely exhausted.

Later, the weakling founded a company, Tenzing Norgay Adventures, that offers trekking in the Himalaya. Doing commercial tours.

[CrazyCanuck]

I've been to the Everest base camp, and i can tell you that the climbers have literally destroyed the entire region. They shit wherever they want without burying it, they leave their garbage all over the mountain, they disrespect most of the sherpas who basically do all the work for the climbers and they couldn't care less about a single other person on the mountain with them. Its unfortunate that Nepal has no other source of revenue, otherwise they might start restricting the number of permits they give out. And based on the other responses here, i guess the value of a human life is set well below $40 000 (the cost to do the climb), isn't it. How much glory does one get from climbing Everest anymore anyways? I would think that one would feel a much greater sense of gratification from at least TRYING to save a dying man. Are we supposed to give up on anyone who looks like they may die?

[crazymf]

So what you are saying is that Everest has become a bizarre tourist destination for the filthy rich and basically looks like the ditches on any Interstate highway?

And because the ultimate goal is the "SUMMIT" , the next guy be damned, even if he is dying. What a degradation of humanity....

...what a shame.

[KrustyKidd]

I've been to the Everest base camp, and i can tell you that the climbers have literally destroyed the entire region. They shit wherever they want without burying it, they leave their garbage all over the mountain, they disrespect most of the sherpas who basically do all the work for the climbers and they couldn't care less about a single other person on the mountain with them.

And I suppose you were the only good person there? Where did you shit? Why won't the Nepalese government raise the ante a few grand and pack garbage removal clauses into the permits or hire out and reflect that cost?

And based on the other responses here, i guess the value of a human life is set well below $40 000 (the cost to do the climb), isn't it.

Not to mention airfare, work lost in training and the trip itself, aclimitization, equipment, and such. In reality, Doug Hansen paid a hundred thousand to do it plus lost wages. It took him years to save the money so, is two years work the value of human life at 27000 feet? I'm sure everybody would have dropped the guy off a bottle of oxygen if they had five or ten to spare but they don't. And there are no 'spare' Sherpas or staff. To save this guys life if it were possible would have meant people who have sacrificed not getting to the top or jeapardizing their saftety. Are you, as the tour operator going to go bankrupt to make a call? What are you going to do when your client says 'fuck you, I'm a thousand feet from the top of Everest' and goes off without you?

If I went, it would be very hard and very expensive for me to do so. I wouldn't go there to see my reason for the trip be washed away by somebody else. If you wish to bitch and grip about the humanity, don't blame those who paid but rather those who are making the money - the Nepalese government for not having contingencies and the Sherpas and tour operators for same.

How much glory does one get from climbing Everest anymore anyways?

Last trip I made was the Nahanni. Cost me a few bucks. Flew in rather than take a month to drag the boats up stream a couple hundred miles but was fun. A trip up to Everest would be a hoot too. I certainly wouldn't do it for glory and am sure many don't either.

I would think that one would feel a much greater sense of gratification from at least TRYING to save a dying man.

Well, at 49, I cvertainly doubt I would be in any kind of shape at 27 thousand feet as an amatuer to do anything other than hope that I made my next footstep so can only surmise you are blaming the Nepalese government, Sherpas and tour operators. The later two have responsibilities to their clients first.

Are we supposed to give up on anyone who looks like they may die?

Don't know. Were you there? Did you shut down a forty some odd person tour costing millions of dollars to save this guy or just let the amatuers off on their own hoping they all made it either to the top or survived period?

I don't want you to think I'm a hard case that doesn't believe in purity or nature, just that in this argument you are blaming the wrong people. The ones that have sacrifieced and paid money which they have had to work long hours for (and in some case were simply given) are not at fault here. Everybody wants to get what they want for the cheapest price, least amount of effort and such. They are merely doing what humans do. Those operatring the thing are also doing what they have to do and are under pressure to have the best record for getting people to the top at the cheapest price. Call off the tour and you go out of business as the next operator takes your clients. They will, in order to survive cut prices, take chances, leave oxygen bottles, poop packs and whatever debris they have to in order to keep costs down. The only way in which things will change is if it is regulated and to a degree where it is level for all operators and, still profitable.

As we all know, businesses do not do this on their own until they smell the winds of change. Then it becomes an advertising gimmick like 'Ernie Everest's Eco Tours' - We go up, but on the way back, we save lives and pick up poop packs.

Later, the Nepalese government places conditions. Something they should already be doing. They are the only ones that can change the track on this railroad, as much as others on the thread would like to give blame a more greedy and human face.

[CrazyCanuck]

I've been to the Everest base camp, and i can tell you that the climbers have literally destroyed the entire region. They shit wherever they want without burying it, they leave their garbage all over the mountain, they disrespect most of the sherpas who basically do all the work for the climbers and they couldn't care less about a single other person on the mountain with them.

And I suppose you were the only good person there? Where did you shit? Why won't the Nepalese government raise the ante a few grand and pack garbage removal clauses into the permits or hire out and reflect that cost?

And based on the other responses here, i guess the value of a human life is set well below $40 000 (the cost to do the climb), isn't it.

Not to mention airfare, work lost in training and the trip itself, aclimitization, equipment, and such. In reality, Doug Hansen paid a hundred thousand to do it plus lost wages. It took him years to save the money so, is two years work the value of human life at 27000 feet? I'm sure everybody would have dropped the guy off a bottle of oxygen if they had five or ten to spare but they don't. And there are no 'spare' Sherpas or staff. To save this guys life if it were possible would have meant people who have sacrificed not getting to the top or jeapardizing their saftety. Are you, as the tour operator going to go bankrupt to make a call? What are you going to do when your client says 'fuck you, I'm a thousand feet from the top of Everest' and goes off without you?

If I went, it would be very hard and very expensive for me to do so. I wouldn't go there to see my reason for the trip be washed away by somebody else. If you wish to bitch and grip about the humanity, don't blame those who paid but rather those who are making the money - the Nepalese government for not having contingencies and the Sherpas and tour operators for same.

How much glory does one get from climbing Everest anymore anyways?

Last trip I made was the Nahanni. Cost me a few bucks. Flew in rather than take a month to drag the boats up stream a couple hundred miles but was fun. A trip up to Everest would be a hoot too. I certainly wouldn't do it for glory and am sure many don't either.

I would think that one would feel a much greater sense of gratification from at least TRYING to save a dying man.

Well, at 49, I cvertainly doubt I would be in any kind of shape at 27 thousand feet as an amatuer to do anything other than hope that I made my next footstep so can only surmise you are blaming the Nepalese government, Sherpas and tour operators. The later two have responsibilities to their clients first.

Are we supposed to give up on anyone who looks like they may die?

Don't know. Were you there? Did you shut down a forty some odd person tour costing millions of dollars to save this guy or just let the amatuers off on their own hoping they all made it either to the top or survived period?

I don't want you to think I'm a hard case that doesn't believe in purity or nature, just that in this argument you are blaming the wrong people. The ones that have sacrifieced and paid money which they have had to work long hours for (and in some case were simply given) are not at fault here. Everybody wants to get what they want for the cheapest price, least amount of effort and such. They are merely doing what humans do. Those operatring the thing are also doing what they have to do and are under pressure to have the best record for getting people to the top at the cheapest price. Call off the tour and you go out of business as the next operator takes your clients. They will, in order to survive cut prices, take chances, leave oxygen bottles, poop packs and whatever debris they have to in order to keep costs down. The only way in which things will change is if it is regulated and to a degree where it is level for all operators and, still profitable.

As we all know, businesses do not do this on their own until they smell the winds of change. Then it becomes an advertising gimmick like 'Ernie Everest's Eco Tours' - We go up, but on the way back, we save lives and pick up poop packs.

Later, the Nepalese government places conditions. Something they should already be doing. They are the only ones that can change the track on this railroad, as much as others on the thread would like to give blame a more greedy and human face.

Typical leftist view, its not the people's responsibility to act properly and to take responsibility for their actions, its the governments responsibility. If people act like degenerates, we should blame society, government and all institutions, because, obviously, people are incapable of acting like anything other than braindead idiots unless someone forces them not to.

[crazymf]

I think both my teenage kids are leftists....

[geoffrey]

This (true) story comes closer to what this thread title implies.

... Simon and Joe set off to scale the mount in one long push over several days. The peak is reached, however on the descent Joe falls and breaks his leg. Despite what it means, the two continue with Simon letting Joe out on a rope for 300 meters, then descending to join him and so on. However when Joe goes out over an overhang with no way of climbing back up, Simon makes the decision to cut the rope. Joe falls into a crevice and Simon, assuming him dead, continues back down....

BTW, WTH is this thread doing in Federal Politics? [NDLR: We need a new category for such threads... ]

Brilliant movie, one of my favourites. The mountain the climbers in that movie get into trouble on is on my list of next 10 out of country climbs, probably do it within 3 years (if anyone wants to come to Peru...).

We have applied for permission to climb Mt Everest 2009, I think for now safely to camp 2 or 3 - I believe it is a personal feat one sets out to accomplish, hopefully that you will be successful but also knowing the dangers that is involved, knowing that it proposes to be a very selfish venture, everyone to take care of themselves. The consolation is that perhaps you have a group a people whom you know....being alone is no fun at all.

Good luck on the climb, that's amazing. I'm a few years off Everest, want to do more technical climbing while I'm still young, save the endurance ones for my older years.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

I think both my teenage kids are leftists....

Most every kid starts out 'leftist' until they are old enough to have to get a job!

As to this thread, sometimes when entering risky situations one has to acknowledge that you only have 'X' amount of energy to spend. It must be considered, and harder still, under severe stress, that one has to assess a situation and realize "If I spend extra energy helping someone else, we will surely both die."

Having said that, I admit I don't know the whole story, and agree that this should be in the 'morality and religion' section.

[PocketRocket]

IMHO, climbing Everest is akin to bungee jumping.

It's a big personal thrill, but with a potentially disastrous cost.

If someone bungee jumping gets killed because the rope snaps, I have little sympathy.

If you're stupid enough to jump from a high place, putting all your trust in a steroid-laden rubber band, without any sort of safety net, you deserve what you get.

Likewise someone dying climbing Everest, or any number of other silly "thrill" adventures.

Someone climbed Everest because it had never been done.

Now it has.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

[Argus]

IMHO, climbing Everest is akin to bungee jumping.

It's a big personal thrill, but with a potentially disastrous cost.

If someone bungee jumping gets killed because the rope snaps, I have little sympathy.

If you're stupid enough to jump from a high place, putting all your trust in a steroid-laden rubber band, without any sort of safety net, you deserve what you get.

Likewise someone dying climbing Everest, or any number of other silly "thrill" adventures.

Someone climbed Everest because it had never been done.

Now it has.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

Agree completely. You want to devote two years of your life and savings to doing something? How about devoting it to something of value? How about devoting it to helping children in need or serving your country or SOMETHING besides climbing a stupid mountain which has already had legions of people up and down its face.

Now I gotta go. I'm gonna devote the next two years of my life to playing pac man all day every day in hopes of getting the most perfect score ever.

[geoffrey]

IMHO, climbing Everest is akin to bungee jumping.

It's a big personal thrill, but with a potentially disastrous cost.

If someone bungee jumping gets killed because the rope snaps, I have little sympathy.

If you're stupid enough to jump from a high place, putting all your trust in a steroid-laden rubber band, without any sort of safety net, you deserve what you get.

Likewise someone dying climbing Everest, or any number of other silly "thrill" adventures.

Someone climbed Everest because it had never been done.

Now it has.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

I have trouble with people dismissing the ease of an accomplishment when they haven't done it, or something even relatively difficult, themselves.

[KrustyKidd]

If people act like degenerates, we should blame society, government and all institutions, because, obviously, people are incapable of acting like anything other than braindead idiots unless someone forces them not to.

The people are paid tourists, not long term residents of Nepal. My 'leftist' view of things gives people who have worked and paid money, the right to do what is legal. If that price includes shitting on rocks, so be it. They won't come back so if you wish somebody to pick it up and be moralistic about it all, give them a cut rate for doing an oxygebn bottle return or something, fine the operators or, get the government to place the restrictions on them. That's a right wing view BTW, and, so is the next observation; If they were doing that in my country where I live, I'd be out there with a gun making them pick it up.

Agree completely. You want to devote two years of your life and savings to doing something? How about devoting it to something of value? How about devoting it to helping children in need or serving your country or SOMETHING besides climbing a stupid mountain which has already had legions of people up and down its face.

No thanks. I gave at the office. I'd rather climb K2 or Everest to be at the top of the world. Not as an accomplishment but to just know I have been there. Kinda like being at Petra, Jerusalem, the Pyramids and so on.

[PocketRocket]

I have trouble with people dismissing the ease of an accomplishment when they haven't done it, or something even relatively difficult, themselves.

Sorry, GEOFFREY, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

It's not the so called "ease" that I am dismissing.

Climbing Everest would be anything BUT easy.

But it is an extremely high-risk endeavour, and one which I consider foolish.

If you want something to test your endurance, try a marathon, or an iron-man competition, or a triathlon, or any number of other physically demanding endeavours.

Everest is unforgiving. Fatally so.

In that regard my sympathy is limited for someone who simply climbs Everest for the sport or prestige of having done so.

If you run a marathon, there oare doctors on hand in case of physical breakdown.

No such luxury on Everest.

It's like an amateur trying out the flying trapeze.....without a safety net.