Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[signedbewildered]

The knock on Krakaeur has always been that he's a lazy researcher. Clearly that's the case here if he never spoke to the Administration. I wonder, in fact, if he spoke to anyone in Missoula.

Possibly lazy. More likely just another "selective" researcher. (Gwen)

*Gag*

If there are facts that don't support the story you want tell it's best not to ask or to simply look the other way.

 

[PlayerRep]

In his speech tonight, Engstrom said that Krakauer didn't interview any UM officials for the upcoming book. Looks like Krakauer didn't make any attempt to getting the full story or having any balance.

 

[EverettGriz]

Very possibly. He certainly fought the evidence which was contrary to his position that poisonous berries did in the Into The Wild dude. A good writer would welcome such criticism.

 

[grizpack]

On Wednesday, Engstrom said the budget is "100 percent tied to enrollment" and "that's an important realization for all of us."

Shocking "realization" there Royce!!! I'm pretty sure most people had no idea that they were even related..... :roll: :roll:

 

[UMGriz75]

On Wednesday, Engstrom said the budget is "100 percent tied to enrollment" and "that's an important realization for all of us."

Shocking "realization" there Royce!!! I'm pretty sure most people had no idea that they were even related..... :roll: :roll:

"... that's an important realization for all of us."

Seriously?

That was mandated in the 1975 session of the Montana Legislature, under the forceful advocacy of Legislative Budget Analyst John LeFavre who, for some reason, really had it "in" for UM, and the policy was implemented under Governor Tom Judge's brother-in-law, commissioner of higher education Larry Pettit. It was a huge change in funding, which had favored formerly the smaller, professional school classes at UM.

 

[Grisly Fan]

On Wednesday, Engstrom said the budget is "100 percent tied to enrollment" and "that's an important realization for all of us."

Shocking "realization" there Royce!!! I'm pretty sure most people had no idea that they were even related..... :roll: :roll:

"... that's an important realization for all of us."

Seriously?

That was mandated in the 1974 session of the Montana Legislature, under the forceful advocacy of Legislative Budget Analyst John LeFavre who, for some reason, really had it "in" for UM, and the policy was implemented under Governor Tom Judge's brother-in-law, commissioner of higher education Larry Pettit. It was a huge change in funding, which had favored formerly the smaller, professional school classes at UM.

At this point what shocks me most is that anyone is surprised by the administration's lack of comprehension. I have a pretty strong feeling that they will soon have breakthrough in understanding that when it is snowing it must be cold outside.

 

[UMGriz75]

On Wednesday, Engstrom said the budget is "100 percent tied to enrollment" and "that's an important realization for all of us."

Shocking "realization" there Royce!!! I'm pretty sure most people had no idea that they were even related..... :roll: :roll:

"... that's an important realization for all of us."

Seriously?

That was mandated in the 1974 session of the Montana Legislature, under the forceful advocacy of Legislative Budget Analyst John LeFavre who, for some reason, really had it "in" for UM, and the policy was implemented under Governor Tom Judge's brother-in-law, commissioner of higher education Larry Pettit. It was a huge change in funding, which had favored formerly the smaller, professional school classes at UM.

At this point what shocks me most is that anyone is surprised by the administration's lack of comprehension. I have a pretty strong feeling that they will soon have breakthrough in understanding that when it is snowing it must be cold outside.

I have changed my post to note that this was likely in the 1975 session. Unfortunately, UM had a new president, Richard Bowers, who reminds me very much of Engstrom and he was incapable of defending the UM funding system. Indeed, being "new" he wanted to give every appearance of "going along," and did little to defend his institution. The resulting budget cuts were a slaughter at UM.

Apparently, I am the only one left at UM with any institutional memory and it somewhat shocking that the current administration did not know that the Montana University System is operated by "numbers driven enrollment" budgeting, and has been for 40 years.

 

[getgrizzy]

Very possibly. He certainly fought the evidence which was contrary to his position that poisonous berries did in the Into The Wild dude. A good writer would welcome such criticism.

horse pucky. for an author his research is top notch. krakauer never stated the kid died from poisonous seeds. he hypothesized it based on the kids writing "extremely weak. fault of poisonous seed" and had that notion tested by expert scientists in the field. the scientists studying that have gone back and forth on it for years. he's adamant about finding out because the redneck hunters in the area have implied the kid was green and didn't have a clue about what he was doing despite the fact that he lived out of that bus for 100 days in a manner none of them could. the latest research he has requested is up for peer review. very few authors go to this extent to get to the truth. his research is substantial whether you like it or not.

 

[UMGriz75]

he's adamant about finding out because the redneck hunters in the area have implied the kid was green and didn't have a clue about what he was doing despite the fact that he lived out of that bus for 100 days in a manner none of them could.

Well, he died there. Isn't that the penultimate fact?

The redneck hunters apparently believed, and apparently correctly, that it would foolish to try and live for 100 days in the woods in an abandoned bus in Alaska, since McCandless in fact proved them correct. How did he prove them wrong?

California? maybe.

Alaska? No

 

[PlayerRep]

I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.

 

[getgrizzy]

I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.

of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.

 

[getgrizzy]

he's adamant about finding out because the redneck hunters in the area have implied the kid was green and didn't have a clue about what he was doing despite the fact that he lived out of that bus for 100 days in a manner none of them could.

Well, he died there. Isn't that the penultimate fact?

The redneck hunters apparently believed, and apparently correctly, that it would foolish to try and live for 100 days in the woods in an abandoned bus in Alaska, since McCandless in fact proved them correct. How did he prove them wrong?

California? maybe.

Alaska? No

dying would be the last fact not the second-to-last fact, wouldn't it?

lots of experts have died performing their craft. alex lowe, scott fischer, rob hall, anatoli boukreev were all expert climbers and they all died on climbing expeditions. are you saying that since they died climbing they were green and didn't know what they were doing?

 

[UMGriz75]

lots of experts have died performing their craft. alex lowe, scott fischer, rob hall, anatoli boukreev were all expert climbers and they all died on climbing expeditions. are you saying that since they died climbing they were green and didn't know what they were doing?

In a world apparently created on assembling logical fallacies -- this one, the "straw man" -- of course, that is exactly what I said, that the climbers were green, when I hadn't mentioned climbers, isn't it?

Upon what basis are you claiming that by comparison McCandless was an equal "expert" to his "redneck" critics?

The fact that he's dead and they are alive?

How is sitting in a chair in the woods next to an abandoned bus for 100 days, not taking any efforts to "get out," a measure of "expertness?" What did he do that conveys "expertness?" Taking "selfies?"

I'd be giving the so-called "red necks" the credit for being the true experts, since, even in mountain climbing, being an expert has to presumptively account for enhanced survival, not inevitable death.

 

[UMGriz75]

dying would be the last fact not the second-to-last fact, wouldn't it?

Dying was the second to the last fact. The last fact question was "why?" without which you have nothing. "He's dead, Jim!" and that's that?

 

[UMGriz75]

of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.

Sabrina Rubin Erdely claimed to be doing this in her recent "Rolling Stone Article," and was, herself, exposed as a complete fraud. If she is included in your definition of "every author," her example demonstrates that "every author" also includes outrageously dishonest ones.

 

[Counter Assault]

I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.

I don't entirely agree with the handful of posts about not talking to UM officials. I will make an analogy to the stock market. If you are shorting a stock (you are betting it goes down) because something bad is happening at the company, management will tell you nothing but positive things because they don't want to see their stock decline.

I see a similar situation here. First, UM officials don't want their own reputations nor that of UM decline. Second, they may not be able to say much anyway legally. If you were their lawyers - would you want them to talk about a rape scandal in their system and based upon decisions they made to a famous author? I would think not.

 

[getgrizzy]

of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.

Sabrina Rubin Erdely claimed to be doing this in her recent "Rolling Stone Article," and was, herself, exposed as a complete fraud. If she is included in your definition of "every author," her example demonstrates that "every author" also includes outrageously dishonest ones.

yep. there are dishonest authors. no one has proven krakauer to be dishonest. these things are typically done on a case by case basis. just because erderly is dishonest doesn't make him dishonest although you probably would like that to be the case.

 

[PlayerRep]

I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.

of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.

Who was he exposing to be a fraud in Into Thin Air, the Alaska book, and the Pat Tillman book? The climbers who didn't come to the rescue with air tanks, the kid who died, Pat Tillman? Why does Tillman's brother have such a low opinion. Maybe someone should check to see if Krakauer is defrauding his readers.

 

[PlayerRep]

I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.

I don't entirely agree with the handful of posts about not talking to UM officials. I will make an analogy to the stock market. If you are shorting a stock (you are betting it goes down) because something bad is happening at the company, management will tell you nothing but positive things because they don't want to see their stock decline.

I see a similar situation here. First, UM officials don't want their own reputations nor that of UM decline. Second, they may not be able to say much anyway legally. If you were their lawyers - would you want them to talk about a rape scandal in their system and based upon decisions they made to a famous author? I would think not.

Sorry, but writing a book has nothing to do with shorting a stock. It is a significant problem of credibility for Krakauer not to have tried to talk to UM officials. Someting probably would have been said, or explained. Even if UM said they wouldn't or couldn't talk to him, he could have stated that in the book--and that would have helped the credibility of his book.

 

[Counter Assault]

Like I said, that was an analogy. I think it fits. Krakauer is clearly trying to pursue the debacle of this entire handling. The UM officials' actions are mostly in public record anyway, the gray area is after the commissioner repealed their decision. He didn't need to talk to them. They will have their say after the book is published. Lastly, I reiterate, any officials being consulted by a lawyer would not further incriminate themselves to a famous book author... zero upside for them.