Zzyzx wrote:

Mihai Tanase wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Lolli wrote:I will do the same.

You will pretend that you don't exist?

What is your opinian about this topic ?

Which topic? ...13-year old climbing Everest?

Zzyzx wrote:As far as the 13-year old kid goes, I think it's an irresponsible decision on part of the parents, specifically the father. Climbing is about a personal fulfillment, but in this case it's all about publicity. When you make a big deal about being the youngest, the oldest, the tallest, the shortest or whatever else, to climb 7 peaks / Everest it becomes more about recognition of others and finding sponsors than doing what you are passionate about.

The risk on Everest would be much higher than on Denali because of all the physiological effects at this altitude and very limited possibilities of a rescue when something goes wrong.
This kid may be a very good mountaineer for his age and strongly motivated, but he simply doesn't have enough life experience to understand all the risk involved in it. Is being the youngest to summit worth the possibility of not just dying but also living with the consequences of a severe frostbite, such as loosing your fingers, toes, hands, feet or the nose?
If it really was about personal fulfillment you'd enjoy it regardless of whether you so it at the age of 13 or 25 or 50 and regardless of whether the whole world knows about it or not. If I wish I'd started climbing when I was 13 it's because I'd have so much more time to climb so much more, not because I'd be the youngest to summit whatever peaks I could summit.

kozman18 wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:As far as the 13-year old kid goes, I think it's an irresponsible decision on part of the parents, specifically the father. Climbing is about a personal fulfillment, but in this case it's all about publicity. When you make a big deal about being the youngest, the oldest, the tallest, the shortest or whatever else, to climb 7 peaks / Everest it becomes more about recognition of others and finding sponsors than doing what you are passionate about.

The risk on Everest would be much higher than on Denali because of all the physiological effects at this altitude and very limited possibilities of a rescue when something goes wrong.
This kid may be a very good mountaineer for his age and strongly motivated, but he simply doesn't have enough life experience to understand all the risk involved in it. Is being the youngest to summit worth the possibility of not just dying but also living with the consequences of a severe frostbite, such as loosing your fingers, toes, hands, feet or the nose?
If it really was about personal fulfillment you'd enjoy it regardless of whether you so it at the age of 13 or 25 or 50 and regardless of whether the whole world knows about it or not. If I wish I'd started climbing when I was 13 it's because I'd have so much more time to climb so much more, not because I'd be the youngest to summit whatever peaks I could summit.

Agreed -- a 13 year old doesn't have the perspective to accept the risk in a meaningful way. Well put.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

What, your wife also wanted to have sex with an atractive female teacher?

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

What, your wife also wanted to have sex with an atractive female teacher?

I think "that he had" is quite unambiguous!

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

What, your wife also wanted to have sex with an atractive female teacher?

I think "that he had" is quite unambiguous!

quite

Arthur Digbee wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

What, your wife also wanted to have sex with an atractive female teacher?

I think "that he had" is quite unambiguous!

quite

Don't back off the joke, charles. "He had" is quite unambiguous but "my wife agrees" is not unambiguous.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I can only say this, when my boy was 13 I would much rather have had that he had sex with an attractive female teacher, than try climbing Everest. (My wife agrees.) At least there would be no physical damage, and any mental damage is more of a postulate. While with Everest you never can tell if the weather suddenly turns as bad as it did in 1996, and then he might not even survive. Still his father will not be punished even if that happens!

What, your wife also wanted to have sex with an atractive female teacher?

I think "that he had" is quite unambiguous!

quite

Don't back off the joke, charles. "He had" is quite unambiguous but "my wife agrees" is not unambiguous.

ScottyP wrote:politics aside you gotta admit the technology they have running is quite awesome..
http://www.jordanromero.com/2010/04/liv ... n-everest/