MoapaPk wrote:Nothing will kill a 13-year-old faster than global warming (or reality TV). Instead of Everest, he should try for the Four Cousins, the highpoints of countries that begin with "D."

Funny

billisfree wrote:Remember the 8-year old girl whose father wanted her to be the youngest to fly a plane across the USA?

She, her father, her instructor... all died in a crash half way across.
The FAA made new rules after that.

No sooner than this 13-year old succeeds, some sick parent will try to get their 10-yr old to climb Mt. Everest. On and on it goes...

STOP trying to be the youngest person to do THIS and THAT!

These kids belong in school! Got a problem with that?

Ditto

dynamokiev98 wrote:

Mihai Tanase wrote:For my last speech on the subject, let me paraphrase the famous quote "War is too important to be left to the generals." from the Tiger of French politics during WWI, Georges Clemenceau : Everest is a mountain too serious to let the kids play on it.

Did you just quote someone from FRANCE on subject of WWII/war in general???? France surrendered without a fight as I remember.

Ahhh, he quoted GC on WWI, NOT WWII. And IIRC, France had a serious underground outside the Vichy gov't; it's a bit tougher when war is on your own soil. The Maginot sentries kept pounding the axis long after the "surrender" was finished in WWII.

robgendreau wrote:Somebody quoted a 4.4% death rate. Is there anyone that can find a children's activity that has such a mortality rate?? (Perhaps children will expire at a somewhat lower rate, or maybe higher. Who knows?)

Everest is simply too dangerous an activity for a kid. Parents are supposed to protect their kids from activities that are simply too dangerous.

The alternative for this kid isn't becoming a fat couch kid, but rather hiking and climbing on safer mountains.

I think back to when I was 13....

I can't summon the necessary Ward Clever to go all Curmudgeon on this kid and his dad.

I think the kid has drive. Sure he gets a lot from his dad, how could he not. But I know pretty well its hard to force a kid to climb a mountain she doesn't want to. That willful, stubborn act, of putting one foot in front of the other....

OK there's the record book aspect of it all... but that's just a funding mechanism, the same way Tiger Wood's penis is a funding mechanism for golf right now: YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FUNDING MECHANISMS, YOU DON'T LOOK THEM IN THE MOUTH (esp. Tiger Woods'!!

Anyway... as far as brain damage and all that, if he stays on the 02 gets a little luck with the weather, he just might do it.

I hope he does! Sometimes I think its appropriate to throw a lot of caution into the wind, with kids, with the right kid... time will tell.

JUDGE NOT!!!111

DMT

Finally.
I have been wondering... what's it to you, if he wants to climb Everest? It's up to him.
You cannot force a kid up a +8000 mountain. The drive must be there, within himself.

If someone else is to be whatever, youngest/oldest/blind/crippled/, doesn't demean somebody else of what they achieve. Live and let live.
If he wants to try, it's his call. Provided that he got the means - it also seems to be some jealousy of fact that he's got funding.
Well, as I see it, if you want something bad enough, you make it happen. There's always priorities - excuses are for those who doesn't want it, deep down.

Besides, there are mature and immature 13 year olds. Some hasn't left childhood att that age, some already provide for their entire family.

Didnt that Lord Tennyson guy say; It is better to have climbed and lost, than to have never climbed at all.

dynamokiev98 wrote:I don't need to brush up on anything
1940s WWII timeline: ...
I think if you are to quote someone from that era it would have to be someone from Soviet Union, Britain, or US...those 3 actually lasted : )

Dude, Clemenceau was from World War I. And the post you were ridiculing said so. But as a dad who was once asked, "Dad, which came first, World War I or World War II," I won't be too hard on you, grasshopper. Sigh. It's a generational thing.

dynamokiev98 wrote:

Patrick B wrote:

In your opinion there is "more than 75% chance he will doe or be hauled up that freaking mountain with severe consequences.????"
1) There is a chance to die, BUT death vs summits rate since 1990 is 4.4%..Where the hell did you get 75?
2)Please find me a picture of one person getting hauled up mt. Everest. There are hundreds of people attempting to summit during weather windows. If there was someone getting a piggy back ride there owuld be 100s of pictures and stories about it online, who would consent to that emberassment in order to get to the top?

"these mountains were around 2 miles lower than the summit of Everest"
do some research before you talk please..Aconcagua (highest he has been) is 6,962 m, Everest is 8,848 M..1,886M higher. 1KM=1000M 1mile=1,609) so it is about 1mile higher.

Who are you to decide what he can or can't do? Why he is doing it?
Why did you go to mt. Washington?! A guide died there last year, how irresponsible of you to be doing things like that! Or snowboarding?! People die every year skiing/snowboarding! Why do you risk your life?
Sit at home, get some weed, and eat a burger with your buddies while watching family guy! And don't come out of your house, because if you do there is a chance to be hit by a drunk driver! Or be raped by a pedophile! So stay home and watch everything on TV! Enjoy your life!


All of us can have different opinions, but you guys can't speak for this kid. You don't know his intentions, neither do I though. But how many of you stood on top of Denali, Kilimanjaro, Elbrus and Aconcagua?

Sorry for not being super factual. And you're making connections that don't even relate to one another. There is a big difference between crossing the street and Everest. As well as skiing vs. Everest. And I'm not being super factual here. (not) my bad.

The 75% chance thing was more of a bet with myself. And about the two mile thing.... is it really that big OF A DEAL?

This kid should reconsider it. I mean, he has a right to know what he wants to do, but I think someone should tell him its a dangerous thing to do as well and not worth the record.


patb

So you didn't really answer my questions..Going into the mountains is dangerous..also snowboarding is dangerous..why did you ascent mt. washington knowing that people die there almost every year as well? why do you snowboard? knowing that people die every year doing it (more than people who climb). How come you have a choice of choosing a dangerous hobby and he "should think about it?"


I think this "kid" (as you call him, even though you are same age) knows more about high altitude climbing than I and you put together x 3. And he does know it is dangerous obviously. He freaking climbed Denali!!You think he needs your "expert" opinion?

... NSAA - "During the 2004/2005 season, 45 fatalities occurred out of the 56.9 million skier/snowboarder days reported for the season. " In 1993, 129 reached summit of Everest and eight died (ratio of 16:1). And that was its best year of all time. Judging by this I would believe that Everest is a tad bit more dangerous.

According to Mount Washington, Mountain Washington Obsevatory (MWOBS) says that, "The vast majority of the quarter million people who visit the summit each year experience no problems whatsoever. 135 fatalities have occurred on and around Mount Washington since 1849" Once again, it is a little less dangerous.

Of course you are correct in saying that he doesn't need our advice, but I believe someone needs to give it to him anyways. Everesst is dangerous (as proved aboved) and someone in his family should serious just think about it and say no.

patb

2)Please find me a picture of one person getting hauled up mt. Everest. There are hundreds of people attempting to summit during weather windows. If there was someone getting a piggy back ride there owuld be 100s of pictures and stories about it online, who would consent to that emberassment in order to get to the top?

2)

Are you serious? Don' take everything literally! If YOU would have done your research, you would have known that nearly every year ameteurs go up this mountain with Sherpas hauling all their gear. Sure, they carry a pack and an ice axe, but the Sherpas carry one or two packs each in ragtag boots and clothes.

ka-bam!
patb

1) You picked the most or one of the most deadliest years on Everest-1993. Last year I think over 500 people summited with about 6 deaths (not exact #s you could research). So numbers aren't that bad.


Basically climbing

if you read it you would realize i said that it was the BEST YEAR! And I couldn't find any other facts on skiing fatalities.


patb

There are two themes being comingled here: (1) the ability and drive of a 13yo to climb Everest and (2) the ethics and wisdom of letting a 13yo climb Mt Everest. Having not checked in on this thread in a couple days, it seemed to devolve into a mush of both.

It is admirable a 13yo wants to climb Everest, as opposed to laze around or play video games. Let's all commend him. But is it wise to let him? Just because he really wants to, and perhaps has the skill, is still not sufficient reason to let him (my opinion).

He may very well come back alive, and may even succeed at all 7 continental summits. And within a year, a 12yo with similar drive will be on the slopes, trying to beat this record. Then an 11 yo. It will keep going like this until one of the kids dies. And it will eventually happen.

At what point does it move from being a 13yo's driving ambition to that of his parent?

This whole theme is asking for trouble. The media loves this sort of nonsense, they eat it up when all is well, then turn on it like a rabid dog when a death occurs. And it will happen.

What bothers me is the "record-setting" aspect. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the media pulled out of all this, to see if the family would still bother (yes, I know they're already on their way). Then, you'd know the real motivation behind all this.

There's a train-wreck undercurrent here and it feels wrong.

So let's keep in mind: yes, he's an admirable 13yo kid, but he's a KID. He may have prodigy-like skill, but he's still just a child. His father...

surgent wrote:There are two themes being comingled here: (1) the ability and drive of a 13yo to climb Everest and (2) the ethics and wisdom of letting a 13yo climb Mt Everest. Having not checked in on this thread in a couple days, it seemed to devolve into a mush of both.

It is admirable a 13yo wants to climb Everest, as opposed to laze around or play video games. Let's all commend him. But is it wise to let him? Just because he really wants to, and perhaps has the skill, is still not sufficient reason to let him (my opinion).

He may very well come back alive, and may even succeed at all 7 continental summits. And within a year, a 12yo with similar drive will be on the slopes, trying to beat this record. Then an 11 yo. It will keep going like this until one of the kids dies. And it will eventually happen.

At what point does it move from being a 13yo's driving ambition to that of his parent?

This whole theme is asking for trouble. The media loves this sort of nonsense, they eat it up when all is well, then turn on it like a rabid dog when a death occurs. And it will happen.

What bothers me is the "record-setting" aspect. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the media pulled out of all this, to see if the family would still bother (yes, I know they're already on their way). Then, you'd know the real motivation behind all this.

There's a train-wreck undercurrent here and it feels wrong.

So let's keep in mind: yes, he's an admirable 13yo kid, but he's a KID. He may have prodigy-like skill, but he's still just a child. His father...

Very well put! I concur, logical points of view are hard to debate against.

MikeTX wrote:wow, ayla brown is hot.

Yeah...I'd hit it!

"One in ten summit attempts ends in death." O RLY???

I think what she meant to say was that for every 10 successful summits, there has been one fatality.

(She's still hot, tho...)

Neophiteat48 wrote:

surgent wrote:There are two themes being comingled here: (1) the ability and drive of a 13yo to climb Everest and (2) the ethics and wisdom of letting a 13yo climb Mt Everest. Having not checked in on this thread in a couple days, it seemed to devolve into a mush of both.

It is admirable a 13yo wants to climb Everest, as opposed to laze around or play video games. Let's all commend him. But is it wise to let him? Just because he really wants to, and perhaps has the skill, is still not sufficient reason to let him (my opinion).

He may very well come back alive, and may even succeed at all 7 continental summits. And within a year, a 12yo with similar drive will be on the slopes, trying to beat this record. Then an 11 yo. It will keep going like this until one of the kids dies. And it will eventually happen.

At what point does it move from being a 13yo's driving ambition to that of his parent?

This whole theme is asking for trouble. The media loves this sort of nonsense, they eat it up when all is well, then turn on it like a rabid dog when a death occurs. And it will happen.

What bothers me is the "record-setting" aspect. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the media pulled out of all this, to see if the family would still bother (yes, I know they're already on their way). Then, you'd know the real motivation behind all this.

There's a train-wreck undercurrent here and it feels wrong.

So let's keep in mind: yes, he's an admirable 13yo kid, but he's a KID. He may have prodigy-like skill, but he's still just a child. His father...

Very well put! I concur, logical points of view are hard to debate against.

Its not logic. Its opinion. Not much in mountain climbing is logical, but we still do it.