Summit Journal Chat

Well, returning to our roots -

Three Sherpas were killed in the Khumbu icefall today. The nightmare of falling serac's that JK spoke about....

Also, major political problems in Nepal. The King had taken over absolute powers some time ago (I think in response to the Maoist insurgency) and there has been much discord as a result. Last year and this year, Kathmandu has been in turmoil during climbing season. It seems as if most of the teams are in place at Base Camp -sorry I haven't been following too closely. But now the King has given up ruling power to an as yet unnamed Prime Minister with a promise to restore democracy. The people I heard being interviewed in Kathmandu on the street seemed to be worried about the absence of democracy with the King's absolute rule. But I guess I am concerned that the Maoists will take over the democracy. Maybe I should not comment on something I don't know much about but on general principles I have not seen much good come from anything Maoist. IMHO ;-)

Rose: Yes you do.... we all have access to it. I think it's under the Settings tab, then the Members tab - you see it on the page that you write your post on. :-)

Re: mounteverest.net OMG! They crack me up, consistently. Who could be one of their main writers - Kurt Diemberger? :-)

Oops, speaking of a Canadian climber, check out mounteverest.net. ...

Easy one, Deb. I don't have a Members tab. Heh, heh! :-)

Best regards,
Rose

Rose,

That sounds like a great thing for *you* to do. You have such a great way with words.

All the member's addresses are listed under the "Members" tab.

I wonder if mounteverest.net will do something to commemorate May 10-11, 1996? I don't go to the site everyday, but when I do, I always find a touching article with gorgeous photos.

Debi,
What are the options at this point? I take it that OO didn't respond?

Is there a keeper of the extended email list to send out an email to those who don't post here? Just keep it to a big email round robin of "Hi, how ya doin", etc?? Ask everyone what their favorite incident on SJC was? Remember Sherpa george and MG? wes and his fishballs? Something else?

I imagine that BBob and Tim will show up, maybe Dave and Liz even without a clarion call.

Best regards,
Rose

ps: Thanks, Bruce. Both for futhering my education and for sparing it. ;-)

I guess I'm just not a huge believer in anniversaries. Not that I don’t mark the passing of time per se, it’s just that to me dates on the calendar don’t hold significance in that way. Is the tenth year more poignant than the eighth? How about even years, are they more important than odd?
Will I think of this group more on May 11 than say September 18? What I can say for sure is that the tragedy of 96 holds no relevance for me other than that it led me to the SJC. I have no emotional connection to any of the players I read about in Into Thin Air – in the same way I have no connection to the people on the Titanic, or Shackelton’s Endurance, beyond the story that they were involved in. Maybe I’ve become desensitized, but having been touched by real events I don’t feel the need to live them vicariously any more. Remembering the dead of 96 is not our place, that’s the sad realm of the families and friends who had their hearts ripped out – and quite frankly should be allowed to mark the event without the glare or influence of voyeurs. Maybe this is why Outside has decided to let the story go.
I have, in a manner of speaking turned the page on ITA, but I have not closed the book on what remains of this group. When I think of this group, I recall a weekend in June spent with PBob in Montana, numerous phonecalls with CSTerry, meeting the Seattle contingent, whose laughter still echoes in my head, and a former poster who passed along a message that quite literally changed my life. And along those lines, I thought that the photo email at Christmas was a brilliant display of what this group is about.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh FFS! (Rose you don't want to know what this one means...)

And on Easter t'boot.

Bruce, I hear all you're saying. Should we or should we not commemorate May 10-11, 2006? If so, how?

Oh FFS! (Rose you don't want to know what this one means...)

Do you spend much time on the Internet? If you do, you should be fully aware of the fact that it seldom a case of what is right or wrong but rather a case of who has money needed to initiate lawsuits, and as follows the money to defend even the most flighty claim.

Disclaimer? Good point - where's the one for this blog, or where was the one for the old SJC? HBO? Apples and oranges again - they ask for full registration and a "clicked" user agreement if my memory recalls correctly. Even they seem to be acknowledging that there is reason to cover their asses - even with these simplistic measures.

You still have failed to address my main point that it isn't worth it for OO to reopen or run a forum based on the old model.

And the fact that in almost two days of posting about the old SJC and strolling down memory lane about the events of 96, we have not once EVEN touched on that issue aside from vague declarations that we should do something, leads me to believe that there is little TRUE appetite to move forward.

And if that is true for this allegedly very focused group, how can you expect OO to be any more interested?

Quite simply, if slanderous things are being posted, then those who “profit” from them are responsible for any damages, or at the very least have to pay to defend themselves against charges.

Meh! You put up a disclaimer. Spend much time on the Net? Think HBO, for example, is responsible for any idiot that spouts off on one of its forums? Come on.

Oh, I'm remembering now. No summit photo. How dare someone have the audacity to question his summit, especially when he'd gone ahead a inserted another climber (passed off as himself) into his motivational video.

The difference here is that the website wrote the article, they were responsible for its content, not forum posters.

The issue wasn’t whether he used a picture that wasn’t his, that was obvious years ago to anyone who followed his climb and knew the colours of his team outerwear. The speculation was over what this picture meant to his summit claim. IMHO, at issue was that neither side could prove whether a summit had or hadn’t been achieved. Also at issue was the use of the term "questioned" and the implications even that has to reputation. And unfortunately even a “libel-chill” lawsuit costs money to defend. Now going back to one of my original points and joining it with one of yours. If you believe that forums create content for organizations, and in turn that content is used to attract audience and with it revenue, it is acceptable to believe that the organization should be concerned about the nature of the content. Quite simply, if slanderous things are being posted, then those who “profit” from them are responsible for any damages, or at the very least have to pay to defend themselves against charges. That simply doesn’t make sense to accept that much hassle for what is really just a sideline to your primary focus. It makes even less sense when as an organization you’ve moved beyond the original issue.

Rose, I know had belonged to a couple of other groups through her interest in Mallory and Irvine. These groups’ trajectory through the ether is identical to ours. Once connected to bigger entities only to be cut loose when the risk exceeded the reward.

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

There you go, again...

Beyond speculation? We must be talking about two different stories. I was speaking about a Canandian climber who inserted footage of a Danish climber and claimed it was himself summiting Everest. There wasn't anything speculative about it - maybe miraculous coincidence? The pictures proved it. I used to have a split screen of it somewhere. I think the Canadian climber threatened a frivolous lawsuit and the website dropped the story. Probably because they didn't want to spend their time, efforts, and money fighting it.

Maybe you could tell me how it was all speculative. If someone tried to make me put in fake footage of a summit, I would refuse to do it. I don't care if the person actually did summit.