Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > 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.
Oh, I was just prattling. I wasn't deluding myself into thinking hill climbing to be considered of proverbial importance. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
