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.

jspeigl wrote:

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.

Well I disagree with your opinion. Opinion's are brought on by thought. Those thoughts may be reasonable or not. Logical or irrational. To take it to the extreme to make my point; If two people want to debate the issue of steroid use among high school athletes and one opinion is that steroids are not harmful to young kids and they should be allowed with in high school sports. Well that opinion is irrational or not logical. The differing opinion would be logical.

So Neophite et al., are you actually going to do something about this, like finding out who the kid's sponsors are so you don't support them? Or are you content to just call us idiots?

drjohnso1182 wrote:So Neophite et al., are you actually going to do something about this, like finding out who the kid's sponsors are so you don't support them? Or are you content to just call us idiots?

Well did I directly call you an idiot? And based on the opinions of some here, my inept hiking resume doesn't give the right to have an opinion anyways. So why worry about what I think. As far as the sponors: BUFF, Network Innovations, Nuun, OMEGA XL, Polartec, Smith Optics & SOLE , There you go.

And to be very clear here. I watched his interview, he is very mature. He is a very skilled hiker, obviously, and he has a resume second to none based on his age. But based on his age, I think it's sad. What will people say when a parent comes along and his childs goal will to break this record and then again, and again. When a 8 year old is going up Denali, will all you out there support that as well? When is it too young? And again, I can't believe that all you who are fine with this will have that same opinion if a tragedy happens up there.

Again, from the article linked in the OP:

She said her son is taking two months of homework to Nepal so he can keep up with school.

Let's see . . . 13 years old; that's middle school. So there is no homework (unless you're a nerd ), but that's still about 5 hours of class time 5 days a week (ignoring phys. ed., of course). There is no amount of homework this kid could possibly bring with him (and actually work on during the expedition ) that would even make up for a fraction of the academic class time lost!

So, seriously, I'm still wondering how the fuck this kid gets to just take off 6 (or 8?) weeks during the school year.

Neophiteat48 wrote:OK, line up, Idiots on the left, I mean pro 13 yr old hiker on the left, and, well responsible parent on the right. Sound off!!

Sounds pretty direct to me.

jspeigl wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:OK, line up, Idiots on the left, I mean pro 13 yr old hiker on the left, and, well responsible parent on the right. Sound off!!

Sounds pretty direct to me.

Did I directly call YOU an idiot?

Neophiteat48 wrote:When is it too young?

From a practical, legal, or medical perspective, I have no idea. From an arbitrary ethical point of view, let's say 12.

Neophiteat48 wrote:

jspeigl wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:OK, line up, Idiots on the left, I mean pro 13 yr old hiker on the left, and, well responsible parent on the right. Sound off!!

Sounds pretty direct to me.

Did I directly call YOU an idiot?

I think this 13-year-old is more mature than some 48-year-olds, though I won't directly say which. He's definitely more mature than me.

dynamokiev98 wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:

drjohnso1182 wrote:So Neophite et al., are you actually going to do something about this, like finding out who the kid's sponsors are so you don't support them? Or are you content to just call us idiots?

Well did I directly call you an idiot? And based on the opinions of some here, my inept hiking resume doesn't give the right to have an opinion anyways. So why worry about what I think.

After you do a double traverse of 2517 ft Mission peak you will have our respect! ; )

You have the right to have your own opinion and does not agree with the others. But before you laugh at others look at your self in a mirror. You talk about respect as a young beardless. Please check the true sense of the word before writing it. And speak in your name.