Has anybody else noticed it in Alpinist 30? Pretty cool, huh?

I don't have it, so I can't quote (I saw it in a store). It's just a brief reference to SP as a source of information about a particular climb. Still, I think it's cool that a magazine like Alpinist would use SP as a source.

Zzyzx wrote:Has anybody else noticed it in Alpinist 30? Pretty cool, huh?

I thought I read all of Alpinist 30 last week but summitpost didn't pop up. Either I didn't read the small print or you mean issue 31? Anyway, they usuallly quote supertopo and did so again in issue 30...

one day PnP will be mentioned if i have anything to say about it...

peladoboton wrote:one day PnP will be mentioned if i have anything to say about it...

When did you get so aggressive Ben? You used to be such a sweet young lad!


I remember when SP was the centerpiece of that LA Times article about renaming North Pal. Lots of classic Chief and Misha photos included in the article… Does anyone have that link anymore? I can't find the article.

NancyHands wrote:

peladoboton wrote:one day PnP will be mentioned if i have anything to say about it...

When did you get so aggressive Ben? You used to be such a sweet young lad!


I remember when SP was the centerpiece of that LA Times article about renaming North Pal. Lots of classic Chief and Misha photos included in the article… Does anyone have that link anymore? I can't find the article.

still miss the absolute chaos of PnP (headache or not to many who ran the place)....the new PnP's have been fun, but i miss when everybody from SP was involved....












































(my wife and my bloodhound still think i'm sweet)

Summitpost gets mentioned on page 57 in a photo caption:

"Ménard, about to bail off the north face of Latok I. In part because of the focus on the North Ridge, and on Latok I, much of the other peaks' potential remains unknown. In July 2009, two Czechs, O. Mandula and J. Pliska, reported climbing 800 meters of new terrain (TD: WI5+) to the summit ridge of Latok IV (Summitpost.org). ...." Alpinist 30, p.57

The profile on Latok is certainly a good one imo, I enjoyed #30 quite a lot actually from cover to cover.

MScholes wrote:Summitpost gets mentioned on page 57 in a photo caption:

"Ménard, about to bail off the north face of Latok I. In part because of the focus on the North Ridge, and on Latok I, much of the other peaks' potential remains unknown. In July 2009, two Czechs, O. Mandula and J. Pliska, reported climbing 800 meters of new terrain (TD: WI5+) to the summit ridge of Latok IV (Summitpost.org). ...." Alpinist 30, p.57

The profile on Latok is certainly a good one imo, I enjoyed #30 quite a lot actually from cover to cover.

Here's a guy who reads his Alpinist carefully

Zzyzx wrote:

MScholes wrote:Summitpost gets mentioned on page 57 in a photo caption:

"Ménard, about to bail off the north face of Latok I. In part because of the focus on the North Ridge, and on Latok I, much of the other peaks' potential remains unknown. In July 2009, two Czechs, O. Mandula and J. Pliska, reported climbing 800 meters of new terrain (TD: WI5+) to the summit ridge of Latok IV (Summitpost.org). ...." Alpinist 30, p.57

The profile on Latok is certainly a good one imo, I enjoyed #30 quite a lot actually from cover to cover.

Here's a guy who reads his Alpinist carefully

Lol, the Latok profile by Conrad Anker was extremely well written hence why when I saw this thread, I knew exactly where to look for the reference.

Well hell, we mention Alpinist often enough here...it's about damned time they return the favor!

Alpinisto wrote:Well hell, we mention Alpinist often enough here...it's about damned time they return the favor!

+1

MScholes wrote: the Latok profile by Conrad Anker was extremely well written ..

I always enjoy the mountain profile section of Alpinist, and this was generally a good one, but there were a number of errors in it and I thought Conrad's contribution overly digressive (like I can talk!). The worst error was the photo caption for p.42 saying that K2 was visible in the distance, when the photo was looking in the complete opposite direction (west), with the peaks visible being Kanjut Sar, Disteghil Sar etc. A pretty major error for something like this, for Alpinist, and makes you wonder what other errors are in there.

I had some correspondence with Katie Ives about it and she admitted she was a bit annoyed with various typos in #30, but she had been quite sick just before publication and was not able to give it the usual attention to detail, so she deserves some slack, and credit for being open about it. Corrections will be published.

Damien Gildea wrote:

MScholes wrote: the Latok profile by Conrad Anker was extremely well written ..

I always enjoy the mountain profile section of Alpinist, and this was generally a good one, but there were a number of errors in it and I thought Conrad's contribution overly digressive (like I can talk!).

The mountain profiles are usually my favourite parts. I usually read the mag from cover to cover but unless I read it multpile times, I probably won't remember that many things off hand.

The profile on the Matterhorn and Trango towers along with Gasherbrum IV are certainly the most read ones by me, however when it comes to a profile such as Latok, I would certainly never have been able to point out errors in the publication as I certainly don't have any experience anywhere near that area of the world. Certainly hope to have that experience one day. Kudos Damien.

dynamokiev98 said:

Sorry..what is PnP?

PnP = Prate and Prattle. A battle ground for SP where many friendships formed and broke.

It was Summit Post's septic tank.