Saturday, April 15, 2006
Rose the magazine cover you're thinking of is People.
I think for their May issue Outside is going with an passage from the book by one of the Rugby players whose plane crashed in the Andes. Can't think of the name right now, but that should give you an idea of where the magazine is at in terms of editorial direction.
I think for their May issue Outside is going with an passage from the book by one of the Rugby players whose plane crashed in the Andes. Can't think of the name right now, but that should give you an idea of where the magazine is at in terms of editorial direction.
Here ya go Rose;
LMAO = Laughing my ass off
YMMV = Your mileage may vary (this one is a classic from SJC)
IMHO = In my humble opinion
And Magoo I think we're thinking of the same story, althought the protagonist's country of origin isn't really important. I guess that what's important here is that niether side has been able to provide proof beyond speculation. However the potential collateral damage is very interesting.
LMAO = Laughing my ass off
YMMV = Your mileage may vary (this one is a classic from SJC)
IMHO = In my humble opinion
And Magoo I think we're thinking of the same story, althought the protagonist's country of origin isn't really important. I guess that what's important here is that niether side has been able to provide proof beyond speculation. However the potential collateral damage is very interesting.
Okay, for old time sake.... Just so Carrrie can keep the FAQ list updated- what is LMAO and YMMV? I got it that IMHOYMMV is a variant of YMMV. ;-)
Does anyone know whether anyone including OO is doing a 10 year retrospective piece of '96? There is a magazine on the stands now about surviving disasters and close call. Sorry I can't remember which major magazine title put it out. It has a montage of photos on the cover - one of which looks like a photo from '96 above the Hillary Step - climbers going for the summit anyway. I thought- aha- a remembrance of '96. But when I looked inside briefly (at the supermarket waiting for checkout) the mountaineering survival story had to do with Joe Simpson and TTV. I had to laugh. '96 seemed so important at the time but it may have totally passed from the radar screen. ;-)
Best regards,
Rose
Does anyone know whether anyone including OO is doing a 10 year retrospective piece of '96? There is a magazine on the stands now about surviving disasters and close call. Sorry I can't remember which major magazine title put it out. It has a montage of photos on the cover - one of which looks like a photo from '96 above the Hillary Step - climbers going for the summit anyway. I thought- aha- a remembrance of '96. But when I looked inside briefly (at the supermarket waiting for checkout) the mountaineering survival story had to do with Joe Simpson and TTV. I had to laugh. '96 seemed so important at the time but it may have totally passed from the radar screen. ;-)
Best regards,
Rose
For an example of what I’m talking about, drop me an email and I’ll tell you a story regarding lawyers, a Web site and a questioned Everest summit.
Are you talking about a Canadian climber who tried to pass off another climber as himself summiting Everest? Was it not true, or was the Canadian climber upset because he was outed?
Are you talking about a Canadian climber who tried to pass off another climber as himself summiting Everest? Was it not true, or was the Canadian climber upset because he was outed?
I appreciate your backhanded attempt to get me to lay out for OO why they should open up the old SJC for a brief period in May.
LMAO! If you were serious with this comment, which I doubt, but just in case I can assure you that I have no agenda in play to get you state your case for the reopening of the SJC.
You are quite an evil genius.
You’re batting .500 with that comment there Slugger. LOL
People cannot contribute to this blog without joining, but they can send email via the link at the right of page. I do get emails from people saying they enjoy our blog. David Lim has a link to this blog on his website, have you seen it? It's a button that directs people to this URL. http://www.everest.org.sg/
Again, so what? I often find this link from Tim’s old photo site. Emails are one thing, participation is the real measurement.
Blogspot is not perfect in that people cannot contribute freely like they could on the old OO site.
Exactly why almost all sponsored forums or blogs require some type of registration – interestingly the same reason hotmail and yahoo email accounts are still popular for creating false accounts.
Even though the old OO chat attracted a few trolls, it was also a great opportunity for anyone to contribute.
Yep, those were the days weren’t they? I also remember folks posting and promoting rival web sites, forums for publications; the outing of individuals who had reason to fear such things; banter that bordered on slander; and comments regarding equipment companies that were advertisers with the parent magazine. For those reasons alone, not to mention the effort required to monitor a money losing set up why would Outside be expected to continue? For an example of what I’m talking about, drop me an email and I’ll tell you a story regarding lawyers, a Web site and a questioned Everest summit.
The SJC served the purpose for what it had been designed to do. In fact it stayed up long past its best before date. The pendulum of interest swung away.
LMAO! If you were serious with this comment, which I doubt, but just in case I can assure you that I have no agenda in play to get you state your case for the reopening of the SJC.
You are quite an evil genius.
You’re batting .500 with that comment there Slugger. LOL
People cannot contribute to this blog without joining, but they can send email via the link at the right of page. I do get emails from people saying they enjoy our blog. David Lim has a link to this blog on his website, have you seen it? It's a button that directs people to this URL. http://www.everest.org.sg/
Again, so what? I often find this link from Tim’s old photo site. Emails are one thing, participation is the real measurement.
Blogspot is not perfect in that people cannot contribute freely like they could on the old OO site.
Exactly why almost all sponsored forums or blogs require some type of registration – interestingly the same reason hotmail and yahoo email accounts are still popular for creating false accounts.
Even though the old OO chat attracted a few trolls, it was also a great opportunity for anyone to contribute.
Yep, those were the days weren’t they? I also remember folks posting and promoting rival web sites, forums for publications; the outing of individuals who had reason to fear such things; banter that bordered on slander; and comments regarding equipment companies that were advertisers with the parent magazine. For those reasons alone, not to mention the effort required to monitor a money losing set up why would Outside be expected to continue? For an example of what I’m talking about, drop me an email and I’ll tell you a story regarding lawyers, a Web site and a questioned Everest summit.
The SJC served the purpose for what it had been designed to do. In fact it stayed up long past its best before date. The pendulum of interest swung away.
Bruce,
I appreciate your backhanded attempt to get me to lay out for OO why they should open up the old SJC for a brief period in May. You are quite an evil genius. But, if I may, I'd like to address two comments that you've made.
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts.
People cannot contribute to this blog without joining, but they can send email via the link at the right of page. I do get emails from people saying they enjoy our blog. David Lim has a link to this blog on his website, have you seen it? It's a button that directs people to this URL. http://www.everest.org.sg/
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
Blogspot is not perfect in that people cannot contribute freely like they could on the old OO site. That's a hinderance, IMO. Jay still can't get on for whatever reason. Even though the old OO chat attracted a few trolls, it was also a great opportunity for anyone to contribute.
I appreciate your backhanded attempt to get me to lay out for OO why they should open up the old SJC for a brief period in May. You are quite an evil genius. But, if I may, I'd like to address two comments that you've made.
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts.
People cannot contribute to this blog without joining, but they can send email via the link at the right of page. I do get emails from people saying they enjoy our blog. David Lim has a link to this blog on his website, have you seen it? It's a button that directs people to this URL. http://www.everest.org.sg/
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
Blogspot is not perfect in that people cannot contribute freely like they could on the old OO site. That's a hinderance, IMO. Jay still can't get on for whatever reason. Even though the old OO chat attracted a few trolls, it was also a great opportunity for anyone to contribute.
You see kids, THAT’S how you write blog entry that gets a response. LOL
Let me state once more that I hold the bizarre cyber friendships that I made at the SJC in very high regard. And yes, I also agree that there were flashes of real brilliance displayed at times, as my own interest in the mountains was elevated by many of the members. However, I don’t think that this experience is any different than if I had sat down at a kitchen table and listened in to the same people as they talked.
Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time.
Absolutely bang on comment Magoo – but the keyword is “non-profit”. The original OO model was decidedly non-profit as was much of the Web prior to the crash. Traditional media had no clue how to churn readers into dollar signs and the investment required payback. The new model requires targeted content and partnerships that add to the bottom line (thus the joining with away.com) not the allocation of infrastructure to something of limited albeit brilliant appeal.
Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault.
Again, I absolutely agree if you’re running a different business model. I guess that there’s obviously a fine line between lacking imagination and not grasping reality, but Outside as a magazine needs money to run and if when they check the accounting they see that an item isn’t contributing to that, then they have to pull it. I would also note that Outside has survived the launch of several really good magazines in their genre over the past few years, so they must be doing something right.
I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts. The new readers of OO since the partnership with away.com are arriving from very different audience streams than we did. You’d have better luck comparing apples and oranges…(Right at this moment my buddy Pbob is typing a beautifully flowing ‘graph about how apples and oranges can be compared because they’re both round and grow on trees. He’ll then mention that if we all remember that our ancestors climbed out of the trees before strolling across that ancient Serengeti, then maybe the apples and the oranges wouldn’t be fighting in the middle east. On the other hand my other buddy CSTerry will post that he LIKES to eat apples and oranges…)
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter.
The other day a friend of mine described blogs and forum as being like public access TV in the 70s and 80s. I don’t know if you had this in the States, but up here cable companies had to set aside a channel and allow regular folk to create their own programs. The result was a lot of crap, some good and not a few pot-fueled laughing fits watching as two old Ukrainian women played the drums and a Hammond organ to classic rock anthems.
I think that this description pretty much sums up the egalitarian nature of the Web. YMMV
But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter.
Gotta, go with the “chicken or egg” argument on this comment. OO provided the space for people to spew. The people filled that space, but to refer to it as “content” is not really accurate. IMHOYMMV
We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
Some principals? One, maybe two tops. Likely a lot of people looked in, as everyone was trying to figure out what this new medium could deliver.
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
Email newsgroups are a closed community, not mass or open media by any stretch so I have not doubt that they can hold together, not unlike how the core of the SJC has held together. We are a closed community, sure we’re available to join, but if I’m being realistic – which I’m trying to be – what happens with the SJC only matters to us. And THAT’S GREAT! There are at least ten Everest 96 stories that I can think of that take precedence over the short-lived moments that were the salad days of the SJC.
And while the effort of remembering the tragedy of 96 might be worthy, I have to say that it feels disingenuous to me. What I’m hearing is not about remembering them, but us.
Again, worthy of contemplation, but I don’t believe that when asked to choose between reading the thoughts of Rob Hall’s child or those of Carrie that the decision would be difficult. I only use Carrie as an example because she’s, you know, so good and everyone likes her.
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
Let me state once more that I hold the bizarre cyber friendships that I made at the SJC in very high regard. And yes, I also agree that there were flashes of real brilliance displayed at times, as my own interest in the mountains was elevated by many of the members. However, I don’t think that this experience is any different than if I had sat down at a kitchen table and listened in to the same people as they talked.
Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time.
Absolutely bang on comment Magoo – but the keyword is “non-profit”. The original OO model was decidedly non-profit as was much of the Web prior to the crash. Traditional media had no clue how to churn readers into dollar signs and the investment required payback. The new model requires targeted content and partnerships that add to the bottom line (thus the joining with away.com) not the allocation of infrastructure to something of limited albeit brilliant appeal.
Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault.
Again, I absolutely agree if you’re running a different business model. I guess that there’s obviously a fine line between lacking imagination and not grasping reality, but Outside as a magazine needs money to run and if when they check the accounting they see that an item isn’t contributing to that, then they have to pull it. I would also note that Outside has survived the launch of several really good magazines in their genre over the past few years, so they must be doing something right.
I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
How many of the old group could be bothered to show up here? There simply is no interest in this group, except for the few that are inside this group. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ya’all, but facts is facts. The new readers of OO since the partnership with away.com are arriving from very different audience streams than we did. You’d have better luck comparing apples and oranges…(Right at this moment my buddy Pbob is typing a beautifully flowing ‘graph about how apples and oranges can be compared because they’re both round and grow on trees. He’ll then mention that if we all remember that our ancestors climbed out of the trees before strolling across that ancient Serengeti, then maybe the apples and the oranges wouldn’t be fighting in the middle east. On the other hand my other buddy CSTerry will post that he LIKES to eat apples and oranges…)
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter.
The other day a friend of mine described blogs and forum as being like public access TV in the 70s and 80s. I don’t know if you had this in the States, but up here cable companies had to set aside a channel and allow regular folk to create their own programs. The result was a lot of crap, some good and not a few pot-fueled laughing fits watching as two old Ukrainian women played the drums and a Hammond organ to classic rock anthems.
I think that this description pretty much sums up the egalitarian nature of the Web. YMMV
But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter.
Gotta, go with the “chicken or egg” argument on this comment. OO provided the space for people to spew. The people filled that space, but to refer to it as “content” is not really accurate. IMHOYMMV
We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
Some principals? One, maybe two tops. Likely a lot of people looked in, as everyone was trying to figure out what this new medium could deliver.
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
Email newsgroups are a closed community, not mass or open media by any stretch so I have not doubt that they can hold together, not unlike how the core of the SJC has held together. We are a closed community, sure we’re available to join, but if I’m being realistic – which I’m trying to be – what happens with the SJC only matters to us. And THAT’S GREAT! There are at least ten Everest 96 stories that I can think of that take precedence over the short-lived moments that were the salad days of the SJC.
And while the effort of remembering the tragedy of 96 might be worthy, I have to say that it feels disingenuous to me. What I’m hearing is not about remembering them, but us.
Again, worthy of contemplation, but I don’t believe that when asked to choose between reading the thoughts of Rob Hall’s child or those of Carrie that the decision would be difficult. I only use Carrie as an example because she’s, you know, so good and everyone likes her.
The bottom line here – is the bottom line. If any publication, especially Outside could make money on this, they would. The fact is that they can’t, because the numbers simply don’t line up. And again, I’m all for remembering, “the way we were”, but I think Blogspot is a perfect venue for that.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Interesting thoughts. What would we be commemorating? Back in the '60s, there were things called "happenings" - short term gatherings of whatever sort that occurred and disappeared. But left a mark on those who attended or heard about it. Woodstock maybe?? For me, SJC was an internet "happening" -though more long lived than most. In 1996, the internet was just in it's earliest stages and I was really astonished by how SJC evolved and at the friends I made - most of whom I still have not met. The Union in Boulder would not have happened in the pre-internet age. So for me, remembering May '96 is like remembering Woodstock for those who were there. In the grand scheme of things, not very important, but meaningful for those who participated.
Which is not to say that I have any better ideas than those that have been suggested as to what to do. ;-)
Best regards,
Rose
Which is not to say that I have any better ideas than those that have been suggested as to what to do. ;-)
Best regards,
Rose
Thursday, April 13, 2006
sorry to be a buzz-kill GBS, but I really don't think that this is a good idea. First of all, I am almost certain that OO is not the least interested in contributing the resources needed to create such a space, when if they do anything at all, they'll put their focus on promoting those people who actually involved in the event.
I'm not sure what GBS has planned. I'm certainly not into seeing all the posts uploaded. It wouldn't take much to put together certain posts, then upload that as a .pdf.
I'd just like to see them open up the old Summit Journal Chat page (in a way that we can access it) for a brief period of time around May 10th. Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time. In a sleezy way, it's PR, in an informative way, it's sharing information - doing something interesting for it's readers. Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault. I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
Personal feelings here aside, not to mention possible slander and other libel-chilling postings, what happened on the old chat didn't really matter.
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter. But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter. We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
What exactly would we be honouring by marking May 10 in some way?
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
I'm not sure what GBS has planned. I'm certainly not into seeing all the posts uploaded. It wouldn't take much to put together certain posts, then upload that as a .pdf.
I'd just like to see them open up the old Summit Journal Chat page (in a way that we can access it) for a brief period of time around May 10th. Being a webmaster myself and serving on the board of directors of an international non-profit organization, we do these things all the time. In a sleezy way, it's PR, in an informative way, it's sharing information - doing something interesting for it's readers. Ultimately, anything that you can do for your readers to get them excited always turns into dollar signs for you. Now if you're too inept to pick up on that or you lack imagination - that's your own fault. I mean what better way to show the readers of OO that they matter, than to do an online piece on a group formed by reading OO that have been in communication for 10 years?!!
Personal feelings here aside, not to mention possible slander and other libel-chilling postings, what happened on the old chat didn't really matter.
It did and it didn't. If you're speaking of someone who lacks imagination and a concept of what the internet is, then yes, we didn't matter. But if you're talking about someone who understands that SJC participants provided content for OO for free, then maybe we did matter. We did attract some principals of the tragedy of May 1996. That is not something that "didn't really matter", in my opinion.
What exactly would we be honouring by marking May 10 in some way?
We would be remembering the tragic events on Everest, May 1996, an event that has brought a group of people together for 10 years. That's not something to put your nose up at. Frankly, I've never seen it happen in my online experiences (except for email newsgroups - which have been together since the beginning of internet time).
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
sorry to be a buzz-kill GBS, but I really don't think that this is a good idea. First of all, I am almost certain that OO is not the least interested in contributing the resources needed to create such a space, when if they do anything at all, they'll put their focus on promoting those people who actually involved in the event.
Personal feelings here aside, not to mention possible slander and other libel-chilling postings, what happened on the old chat didn't really matter.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed much of what was posted, but I don't seriously consider it to be of interest to an unengaged reader. A far more interesting article would be about the effect of the new media and the new voyeurism it generated and the effect THAT had on adventure reporting and writing. Without the Internet allowing us to watch death in real time there wouldn't have been a story. And without the story, I highly doubt if we would have seen the incredible growth of the outdoor book industry or motivational speaker engagements.
My other problem with collecting the posts for publishing is that they were never intended to be used as such. while we all (like any forum) took on the role of panelists and spouted opinions that were occasionally even on topic, we were nothing more than a cyber coffee klatch - albeit a fairly smart and good looking one.
But let me end with this question; What exactly would we be honouring by marking May 10 in some way?
Personal feelings here aside, not to mention possible slander and other libel-chilling postings, what happened on the old chat didn't really matter.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed much of what was posted, but I don't seriously consider it to be of interest to an unengaged reader. A far more interesting article would be about the effect of the new media and the new voyeurism it generated and the effect THAT had on adventure reporting and writing. Without the Internet allowing us to watch death in real time there wouldn't have been a story. And without the story, I highly doubt if we would have seen the incredible growth of the outdoor book industry or motivational speaker engagements.
My other problem with collecting the posts for publishing is that they were never intended to be used as such. while we all (like any forum) took on the role of panelists and spouted opinions that were occasionally even on topic, we were nothing more than a cyber coffee klatch - albeit a fairly smart and good looking one.
But let me end with this question; What exactly would we be honouring by marking May 10 in some way?
Sunday, April 09, 2006
I would like for us to do something for the 10th.
Would anyone like to gather all the posts together?
If we go to OO on-line, then we should have something ready in the way of a paper or some other interesting item that can be published on-line or in print. Images, topics, portions of our past posts etc.
What about that?
Would anyone like to gather all the posts together?
If we go to OO on-line, then we should have something ready in the way of a paper or some other interesting item that can be published on-line or in print. Images, topics, portions of our past posts etc.
What about that?
Thanks, Debi. The Summit Journal site is still up - you can still pull up the dispatches from the mountain and JK's interview after coming down. The link to the Chat site is inactive, though.
Best regards,
Rose
Best regards,
Rose
