On 5/26/18, 10:44 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of d...@gnu.org>
wrote:
Entirely subjective which hill is worth dying on: Güllich was the first
to extensively exposed hard "solo" routes, with the final climb being
without protection where a missed or broken-out hold would have been
deadly. Nobody thought he'd live to old age, but nobody imagined he'll
die falling asleep behind the wheel.
I believe the English idiom about dying on a hill makes reference not to dying
on a climb, but rather to warfare, where one would die trying to protect high
ground that has strategic importance in the battle. A 1.5 meter high hill
virtually never has strategic importance; hence it's not worth dying on.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
