Mark has a very heartfelt article "Why we Climb...." that I'm sure many have read. One SPer has left a message to the article lambasting Mark and his actions. Maybe I shouldn't start this thread and this guy just goes away, or maybe he needs to be heard from some others on the subject. I can't speak from a technical perspective but from a humanistic standpoint, I can. I found his message to Mark rather disgusting. I'd also like to note I have never met Mark or spoke with him, so there isn't a personal motive here regarding Mark.

Neophiteat48 wrote: I found his message to Mark rather disgusting.

+1.

The fact that Whillhite deleted his original comments says it all. But he didn't stop there. According to Whillhite: “It is a climbers responsibility to dissect any mountaineering incident in order to learn from the mistakes.” [grammar error in original]. Maybe so, we all learn from our mistakes and those of others. But a climber has no responsibility to shove their dissection into the face of the person involved in the incident. Really, really bad form. Hopefully he will delete this mistake too.

Whillhite’s analysis of Mark’s/Tom’s actions is just hindsight. If I adopted his view of acceptable risk, my pack would weigh 90 pounds and I would never ascend above 8,000 feet.

Finally, not all incidents involve mistakes. Sometimes bad things just happen. That’s the “lesson” I got from this incident.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:To turn this to a more constructive purpose - given the sensitive nature of the incident (SP members involved) where and when IS the appropriate venue for accident analysis and critique?

I would tend to agree its not the comments section after an article. But I also seem to remember site mgmt stating quite clearly such discussions weren't going to be tendered in the Medicine and Rescue forum either.

So for someone removed from the personalities involved, when and where should these analysis discussions be conducted?

I think we will find the very nature of this sad event presents us with the schizo need to at once analyze and at the same time placate, feelings. Those cannot coexist, I'm afraid.

This topic is (sadly) cyclical and I have never seen a once size fits all answer. But we all know - making it into a personality pissing match won't address the underlying issues, no matter what else.

DMT

I would suggest that the "other" SPer should have contacted Mark for some definitive answers to his questions. DMT, did you read the comments this guy left? If someone is going to be so inclined to write comments on such a sensitive subject, should they make sure they're very, very accurate with their aligations? Apparently, based on Marks' article he was able to come to his conclusions, he owed Mark the decency and respect to send a PM at least to have a dialogue. Then if he still felt the need to raise his questions and make his statements, he at least would have given Mark the right to refute, correct or state, "from the horses mouth", first hand.

And as you said, posting his comments after his article????? And was his comments meant to be constructive? NO. If he wanted to try to be of help to fellow climbers, if his goal was to try to help Mark with some desicion making or to teach Mark something that Mark was unaware of, that would be different. This guys motives were very clear.

If discretion is such a valued matter here, then why is this issue being dragged out into the forums?

Post-accident dialogue is always going to be a prickly and sensitive subject, and climbers tend to come down hard on one side of the issue or the other. If anyone’s expecting the find some resolution to this argument in this forum, I’m afraid they’ll be sadly disappointed.

Maybe the article should be retitled,

"Why I Climb..."

Might change the reaction level a tad bit by generalizing everyone into his reasoning by titling it such.

Nice article on his part. But surely is not the reason why I personally climb nor any where close to why I started playing this game some 42 years ago.

Evaluating any "incident" involving a close friend or partners demise, is a good thing. Helps all to learn from it and allows closure for those that were involved, trust me. Been there and done that too many times and am well acquainted with post incident investigations etc.

sarah.simon wrote:If discretion is such a valued matter here, then why is this issue being dragged out into the forums?

Post-accident dialogue is always going to be a prickly and sensitive subject, and climbers tend to come down hard on one side of the issue or the other. If anyone’s expecting the find some resolution to this argument in this forum, I’m afraid they’ll be sadly disappointed.

Did you read what he wrote? I wouldn't consider that "dialogue". I think what Whilhite wrote says it all and what it says about him. It doesn't really matter where the proper place is for the dialogue, it's one's approach to it. It's their intent. And I just think his comments were disgusting, and because of his comments really questions what his motives were behind his actions.

Neophiteat48 wrote:

sarah.simon wrote:If discretion is such a valued matter here, then why is this issue being dragged out into the forums?

Post-accident dialogue is always going to be a prickly and sensitive subject, and climbers tend to come down hard on one side of the issue or the other. If anyone’s expecting the find some resolution to this argument in this forum, I’m afraid they’ll be sadly disappointed.

Did you read what he wrote? I wouldn't consider that "dialogue". I think what Whilhite wrote says it all and what it says about him. It doesn't really matter where the proper place is for the dialogue, it's one's approach to it. It's their intent. And I just think his comments were disgusting, and because of his comments really questions what his motives were behind his actions.

That's his opine and right.

Just cuz you don't agree with it, doesn't follow your opine of what appropriate dialogue is, does not deem it wrong or inappropriate.

I agree strongly with Rick (Chief) and Sarah on this subject. I am way to private to write about such personal stuff myself....but if one does feel the need to express these thoughts in public and inserts "we" in there....it does rub a few of us the wrong way no doubt.

I have no idea what the original comments were and cannot therefore comment on them. But these incidents produce strong feelings from different viewpoints. Criticism, even tough criticism, is fair. Attacks are not. And if you are going to open up in public, you had better accept that not all will see it your way.

On this site, I find that far too often members are happy to rip into strangers but feel it's some kind of no-no to criticize other members. You can't have it both ways. And there's also a contingent that seems to think we should never criticize another climber. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

That being said, I want to reiterate my preference for civil discussion and constructive criticism. I think Pellucid had a lot of guts to write what he did, and I thought it was a good article; I read it and voted on it several days before it was on the front page and was among the first to do so, so I haven't jumped on some feel-good bandwagon here.

My "opine" (misuse of this word has become rampant on SP the last few days) on the matter is that this is an f'n public forum. If you post your thoughts, expect them to be picked apart. Sometimes one's 'opinion' is not popular. So be it.

cp0915 wrote:My "opine" (misuse of this word has become rampant on SP the last few days) on the matter is that this is an f'n public forum. If you post your thoughts, expect them to be picked apart. Sometimes one's 'opinion' is not popular. So be it.

Really now...

From Websters:


Main Entry: opine
Pronunciation: \?-?p?n\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): opined; opin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French opiner, from Latin opinari to have an opinion
Date: 15th century

intransitive verb : to express opinions
transitive verb : to state as an opinion

Doubled up...

The Chief wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:

sarah.simon wrote:If discretion is such a valued matter here, then why is this issue being dragged out into the forums?

Post-accident dialogue is always going to be a prickly and sensitive subject, and climbers tend to come down hard on one side of the issue or the other. If anyone’s expecting the find some resolution to this argument in this forum, I’m afraid they’ll be sadly disappointed.

Did you read what he wrote? I wouldn't consider that "dialogue". I think what Whilhite wrote says it all and what it says about him. It doesn't really matter where the proper place is for the dialogue, it's one's approach to it. It's their intent. And I just think his comments were disgusting, and because of his comments really questions what his motives were behind his actions.

That's his opine and right.

Just cuz you don't agree with it, doesn't follow your opine of what appropriate dialogue is, does not deem it wrong or inappropriate.

I agree with all of the above. He can and did opine, as did I. Mine is just that, an opinion, nothing more. I personally, if I had the skills to climb what Mark and Whillhite can, I would not take the road Whillhite took with his accuasations. Just me- we're all different, but my opinion won't change on how this guy conducted his "dialogue"

MikeTX wrote:verb forms:
i opine
you opine
we, she or it opined.

however, to say "i have an opine" is just plain incorrect. sorry, chief.

RTFP MIKE FROM TX....

The Chief wrote:That's his opine and right.

Just cuz you don't agree with it, doesn't follow your opine of what appropriate dialogue is, does not deem it wrong or inappropriate.

Clearly stated in the transitive verb context. I know, I wrote it.