Mugz
Splendid
- Oct 27, 2006
- 7,126
- 0
- 25,790
Baka!
Let's say some schmuck breaks an arm and a few ribs in a fall on a mountain. His/her/its buddy(s) somehow contact mountain rescue. We're the idiots that have to go out with stretchers, plum-squeezer safety harnesses and enough abseiling equipment for Everest to retrieve the idiot off the mountain and drop said idiot into an ER or similar.
Let's say some schmuck breaks an arm and a few ribs in a fall on a mountain. His/her/its buddy(s) somehow contact mountain rescue. We're the idiots that have to go out with stretchers, plum-squeezer safety harnesses and enough abseiling equipment for Everest to retrieve the idiot off the mountain and drop said idiot into an ER or similar.
VBDude
Distinguished
- Nov 8, 2006
- 2,285
- 0
- 19,790
:roll:
How tall are your mountains? I didn't ask, "How many feet above sea-level does a hill have to be to get the designation of 'mountain'?" I asked, "What is the average and peak elevation of those mounds of earth that you refer to as 'mountains'?"
Sorry, I'm just curious. With the Olympics and Rockies out in the west end, I have high expectations... (No pun intended.)
How tall are your mountains? I didn't ask, "How many feet above sea-level does a hill have to be to get the designation of 'mountain'?" I asked, "What is the average and peak elevation of those mounds of earth that you refer to as 'mountains'?"
Sorry, I'm just curious. With the Olympics and Rockies out in the west end, I have high expectations... (No pun intended.)
Mugz
Splendid
- Oct 27, 2006
- 7,126
- 0
- 25,790
My mountains? I don't own any, unfortunately.
Sorry, I have this bad habit of being facetious on occasion.
Helderberg (Somerset West, where I live) is 1,137m (~3,600ft)
Table Mountain (Cape Town) is 1,086m (~3,500ft)
The Drakensberge ('Dragon Mountains') - the highest in SA, the highest point (Thabana Ntlenyana) is 3,482m (~11,500ft) - wiki.
There are a number of others, the Cederberg (~2,000m), Hottentots Holland (Helderberg is considered, incorrectly, as a part of this range), the Stellenbosch mountains (~1,500m), the Paarl ranges (~2,500m), and the Overberg ranges (~1,900m).
So, how does that little lot measure up?
Sorry, I have this bad habit of being facetious on occasion.
Helderberg (Somerset West, where I live) is 1,137m (~3,600ft)
Table Mountain (Cape Town) is 1,086m (~3,500ft)
The Drakensberge ('Dragon Mountains') - the highest in SA, the highest point (Thabana Ntlenyana) is 3,482m (~11,500ft) - wiki.
There are a number of others, the Cederberg (~2,000m), Hottentots Holland (Helderberg is considered, incorrectly, as a part of this range), the Stellenbosch mountains (~1,500m), the Paarl ranges (~2,500m), and the Overberg ranges (~1,900m).
So, how does that little lot measure up?
VBDude
Distinguished
- Nov 8, 2006
- 2,285
- 0
- 19,790
Those qualify. 😛 Actually, those pics look like it would be fun to climb. 
It's those people in southern Ontario that got me started on this tirade. They have the Niagara Escarpment, a long cliff over which the Niagara Falls...um, fall. I think it only gets about 500ft above sea level where I was staying in Hamilton, but they still call it "The Mountain". :roll:
The Rocky Mountains actually just miss WA, so I can't really include them. But the Olympic (western WA) and Cascade Mountains (central WA) are pretty decent in size.
The tallest point in the Olympics is Mt. Olympus, which measures around 7965 ft (2428 m). The Cascades have much higher peaks, and those are volcanic. According to Wiki, "The valleys are quite low, resulting in great local relief, and major passes are only about 1000 m (3300 ft) high."
The highest peak, Mt. Rainier, which is only about a half-an-hour drive from my house, is 14,411 ft (4392 m). There's a decent pic about a third of the way down the page. I live closer than Tacoma.
In this pic you can see Tacoma in the top left corner. SE of that, you can triangulate my position between Sumner, Orting, and Buckley. That empty region that everything flows around is the hill I live on. (SE side.)
Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980, is 8,365 ft (2,550 m).
And that's the end of my geography lesson.
It's those people in southern Ontario that got me started on this tirade. They have the Niagara Escarpment, a long cliff over which the Niagara Falls...um, fall. I think it only gets about 500ft above sea level where I was staying in Hamilton, but they still call it "The Mountain". :roll:
The Rocky Mountains actually just miss WA, so I can't really include them. But the Olympic (western WA) and Cascade Mountains (central WA) are pretty decent in size.
The tallest point in the Olympics is Mt. Olympus, which measures around 7965 ft (2428 m). The Cascades have much higher peaks, and those are volcanic. According to Wiki, "The valleys are quite low, resulting in great local relief, and major passes are only about 1000 m (3300 ft) high."
The highest peak, Mt. Rainier, which is only about a half-an-hour drive from my house, is 14,411 ft (4392 m). There's a decent pic about a third of the way down the page. I live closer than Tacoma.
In this pic you can see Tacoma in the top left corner. SE of that, you can triangulate my position between Sumner, Orting, and Buckley. That empty region that everything flows around is the hill I live on. (SE side.)
Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980, is 8,365 ft (2,550 m).
And that's the end of my geography lesson.
Mugz
Splendid
- Oct 27, 2006
- 7,126
- 0
- 25,790
I've hiked in all weathers. I prefer partly cloudy to overcast, with temps in the 18ºC to 28ºC range. Less and my protective gear gets too heavy, more and I lose at least 10KG on a hike due to sweating it out faster than I can get it in - I need a stillsuit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question Asrock B450 Steel Legend motherboard is not loading the OS installer from pendrive ?
- Started by surya_sapui
- Replies: 9
-
-
Question RAID 10 disk failure and reallocated sectors count ?
- Started by rcfant89
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram