because when i did, it always showed up in the mailbox trashed by the postal service.
I can pick it up two weeks earlier and in pristine condition at my local shop.
Otherwise, the mag's not for pebble-wrasslin weenies who can't afford to spring for a rope, nope sir-ee. It's for hardmen and dreamers, daring to compare their last sufferfest against the tales of the times and aspiring for more.
There's no need for tech tips in that mag, cause if you don't know by the time you get to the real mountains, you'll never need to know it where you're going to be in quick order.
Me? I'd rather lounge in the lazy-boy and drink another beer. I don't even read the mag. I just look at all the pretty pictures
Feb 21, 2007, 6:00 PM
Post #27 of 35
(572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 840
Re: [stymingersfink] Why you don't subscribe to ALPINIST
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Well I guess alpinist is not giving a super good deal to access fund members any more. Surprise motherfuckers! I have also heard they aren't too happy to have me put the original forum posts up, they would rather figure it out themselves.
I sure hope you guys are wrong about getting your issues late and tore up, I'll be good and pissed if that is the case.
and that guy's idea of 'purity' included yarding up a ladder of fixed pins in to order to avoid struggling on 5.10d free moves. How 'pure' is that?[/qwuote]
i buy every issue and love it. didn't renew because my subscription came 2weeks plus later than they got them at the gym. Isn't the whole point that they come earlier??
I've bought every issue put out so far, even back-ordered #0 just to have a complete collection. The photography and beta is incredible and for its genre is first class. However, I have a short story to tell.
The Mountain (New Routes) Editor lived in my community when the mag first came out. I questioned him about the possible inclusion of coverage on a first Winter ascent of a difficult (5.8 easy way) 10,000' wilderness peak we were planning that year. The response was, "We ONLY cover and report on Grade V climbs or harder."
After the bouldering issue hit the stands, my opinion of the mag and the people associated with it changed. I still buy it, but am more aware that profit lies at the heart of the material published--and when they need stories, they call their friends to contribute anything climbing related to fill the pages.
I subscribe because it is the best sports mag I've read. I stopped my subscriptions to other mags that just make me want to buy more gear. I am happy to only get 4 a year, and I look forward to them. They last a lot longer than old mags used to, and when I'm I give them to the local library. The people there thought it was the coolest thing and apparently people are checking them out. I haven;t minded the addition of some non-alpinist content, like the peice on Fontainbleu, because they mix it up and give some history to a sport that is rich in it. I am happy that they haven't conformed to the lowest common denominator to get the maximum reader base, and I hope enough people are interested in the narrow scope and high quality to keep the mag going. It would be a shame if they changed up.
First off the title is way stupid, since a considerable amount of the content is about, for example, climbing in Patagonia, which, I'm sorry to say, just ain't got nothing to do with the alpes.
this HAS to win a retarded post of the day award, can i get a gold star over here?
apparently you don't know what "alpinism" is, because if you did, you would know that being an "alpinist" doesn't have much to do with climbing in the alps (note the spelling).
a magazine about overweight, middle age boulderers appeals to no one. i don't care that you need help sending V0 with a three foot fall potential. that isn't interesting, nor is reading about some lard ass learning to overcome the fear of falling onto a bolt on a 5.8 crux. although i bet those would make for a great photo spread.
alpinism is alive and well in the Canadian Rockies, there is a slew of talented and bold climbers that continually strive to push the envelope a little further. it is not a "myth," it only appears as such because you haven't managed to make it past the sport crags yet.
apparently you don't know what "alpinism" is, because if you did, you would know that being an "alpinist" doesn't have much to do with climbing in the alps (note the spelling).
You're right, I AM confused about all this 'alpinism' stuff.
So what does it mean? Who are the 'alpinists'? What makes them 'alpinists'?. What distinguishes an 'alpinist' from a 'mere' climber? Are you an 'alpinist'? Is dingus an 'alpinist'? I guess John Gill must be an 'alpinist', because I saw his picture in the magazine. Bridwell's picture was there too, and he actually did climb in the alps (on the Eiger with Silvia Fitzpatrick, who climbed right here in Balcarce on some of the boulders and routes I put up). But I don't recall seeing vivalargo's picture, so I wonder if he's an 'alpinist'? I guess Beth Rodden and Yuji Hirayama are 'alpinists', since long 5.13 routes in Yosemite valley are apparently 'alpine'. As is bouldering in Fontainbleau and certain 1-pitch routes in Eldorado (although it seems like 1-pitch routes have to be dangerous in order to be 'alpine'). We could all agree that Michel Piola is an 'alpinist', because he put up gobs of interesting routes in the alps. But does that make me an 'alpinist' just because I've done a number of his routes?
gargrantuan wrote:
a magazine about overweight, middle age boulderers appeals to no one. i don't care that you need help sending V0 with a three foot fall potential. that isn't interesting, nor is reading about some lard ass learning to overcome the fear of falling onto a bolt on a 5.8 crux. although i bet those would make for a great photo spread.
Uhhhh .... right. Next time you head down to Argentina, get ahold of me. You can show me what you got. It must be some real bad-assed stuff. The local rock here is pretty good, even if it isn't 'alpine'. Just don't go running off and locking yourself in the bathroom with any of my back issues of 'Alpinist'. It seems like you might be tempted.
gargrantuan wrote:
alpinism is alive and well in the Canadian Rockies, there is a slew of talented and bold climbers that continually strive to push the envelope a little further. it is not a "myth," it only appears as such because you haven't managed to make it past the sport crags yet.
'Yet'. That's funny. Let me guess: you're about 15? Or is that just your mental age?
But I AM still fuzzy about this 'alpinism' stuff. What is it that makes some climbers in the Canadian Rockies 'alpinists'? Is it the fact they're bold AND talented? Or maybe only one of these qualities is sufficient? Does alpinism imply 'pushing the envelope'? Or is this logically independent of alpinism'? Could a bold climber, who's not too talented, but pushed the envelope, be an 'alpinist', even though she climbed in Canada, but not in the Rockies? And just how far does the envelope have to get pushed? Is the envelope, for example, relative to local standards? And exactly how many 'alpinists' does it take to make a 'slew'?
'Slews' of alpinists. Now that's an image I'd just as soon forget.
(This post was edited by yanqui on Feb 23, 2007, 5:32 PM)
3 /
7%
