The Chief wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:In a debate, I got $100 on Palin

She wouldn't last two minutes. The Queen of hypocrisy would run in minutes if we ever met.

Besides, she don't climb. Thus I wouldn't waste my time with that dumbass quiter bitch.

Might not climb but a hell of a "outdoorsman". And that's not a nice way to talk about our next VP. She can't be the GOP Prez canidate, we would not win that election..............but wait, the way Obama is ruuning this place.......UUHHHMMM.

Neophiteat48 wrote:Might not climb but a hell of a "outdoorsman". And that's not a nice way to talk about our next VP. She can't be the GOP Prez canidate, we would not win that election..............but wait, the way Obama is ruuning this place.......UUHHHMMM.

outdoorsman = shooting wolves from a helicopter

all right... that's your 'opine' I suppose.

Neophiteat48 wrote:Might not climb but a hell of a "outdoorsman".

GTFO! She has never spent one night out alone anywhere in any wilderness.

Here's her accommodations while in the great Alaskan outdoors:

So "we" was "Tom and Mark". I thought folks were overreacting to the use of a fcking pronoun.

Chief - "We" sounded smoother, but I was wary as to whether it would be misinterpreted, so I fixed that.

Sadly the emphasis of the piece has shifted due to Eric's attacks, and Chief, if you read the full dialogue from earlier (which sadly were deleted), they are attacks. And I DO welcome criticism, but only if it is constructive and informed. Eric's claims are aggressive, with no meaningful solution, and they are based on gross generalizations, which I have hinted are false. He is also using a lot of fuzzy logic, so I'm dismissing him out of hand.

I think Eric should be allowed to say what he wants, given that this is public, and I'm posting publicly. Perhaps the most appropriate way for this to be handled is to let him spew his garbage and see how it looks in light of the general community's opinion or what comes out when I finally get the trip report online. I appreciate people being open on their opinions of what either of us say, and let that be how others may interpret the exchange.

Initially I was only planning on posting the "Lessons Learned" since this is fitting in the attitude that Tom and I shared. Now I'm posting the "Why I Climb" and the trip report publicly because the public side of this issue has not gone away for me, and at the very least it is helpful to have some "primary source" to refer people to when they ask about the tragedy, whether they mean well or not. This is also why I will be posting a trip report.

And since people were asking about Accidents in North American Mountaineering: I talked with the climbing ranger that feeds the Mt. Shasta reports to the publication. I asked him how I might say what happened to ensure none of the incorrect reporting is included, and that any criticisms are based on informed opinions of what happened. He insisted that I write most of the account (he'll be getting me in touch with the publication's author), and then he may add some addendum to it, mostly about the SAR side that I couldn't witness. But he is in agreement that our decisions were appropriate, and that sometimes things just happen, no matter how well prepared you are.

Brad Marshall wrote:

kozman18 wrote:DMT asked the right question: how do you discuss a mountaineering incident in order to learn from it and yet try to respect the people involved? Tough question.

With tact!

Exactly. That quality was sorely lacking in eric...'s original, now deleted post. I suspect many here would have come unraveled if that original post would have been directed at them. Mark was the epitome of restraint in his response trying to keep the tone civil.

I certainly agree the guy had every right to comment since Mark's article was put out there in public and Mark could have anticipated commentary, whether complimentary or critical. But the first post was couched in insensitive accusation and one had a hard time divining any "let us learn from this" motivation.

PellucidWombat wrote: This is also why I will be posting a trip report.

Just read your newest addition, Reflections and Lessons from Mt. Shasta.

Very well written and well researched.

But sadly, you forgot the most important component that so many out there these days neglect to consider and practice to the tee...

Proper Acclimatization Practices & Protocols.

I see this as the most neglected and ill practiced protocol throughout the mountains these days. Far too many think that they can drive up to 8k from Sea-Level in fours hours, get out of their vehicles and then begin climbing to altitudes of up 14k without even knowing or following the proper Acclimatization Protocol.

Many very quickly fall prey to the grips of AMS and continue thinking that they can "mind over matter" their way through this potentially physiological fatal situ. Many times giving way to death via HACE and as in my recent sad experience, HAPE, both very quickly.

PellucidWombat wrote:Chief - "We" sounded smoother, but I was wary as to whether it would be misinterpreted, so I fixed that.

Sadly the emphasis of the piece has shifted due to Eric's attacks, and Chief, if you read the full dialogue from earlier (which sadly were deleted), they are attacks. And I DO welcome criticism, but only if it is constructive and informed. Eric's claims are aggressive, with no meaningful solution, and they are based on gross generalizations, which I have hinted are false. He is also using a lot of fuzzy logic, so I'm dismissing him out of hand.

I think Eric should be allowed to say what he wants, given that this is public, and I'm posting publicly. Perhaps the most appropriate way for this to be handled is to let him spew his garbage and see how it looks in light of the general community's opinion or what comes out when I finally get the trip report online. I appreciate people being open on their opinions of what either of us say, and let that be how others may interpret the exchange.

Initially I was only planning on posting the "Lessons Learned" since this is fitting in the attitude that Tom and I shared. Now I'm posting the "Why I Climb" and the trip report publicly because the public side of this issue has not gone away for me, and at the very least it is helpful to have some "primary source" to refer people to when they ask about the tragedy, whether they mean well or not. This is also why I will be posting a trip report.

And since people were asking about Accidents in North American Mountaineering: I talked with the climbing ranger that feeds the Mt. Shasta reports to the publication. I asked him how I might say what happened to ensure none of the incorrect reporting is included, and that any criticisms are based on informed opinions of what happened. He insisted that I write most of the account (he'll be getting me in touch with the publication's author), and then he may add some addendum to it, mostly about the SAR side that I couldn't witness. But he is in agreement that our decisions were appropriate, and that sometimes things just happen, no matter how well prepared you are.

I agree 100%, this guy was out only to be malicious among other things that quite frankly can't be explained. It is very clear who has dignity and respect surrounding them and those that are cheap shot artists, and without dignity.

+10 Mark, I haven't met you but someday I hope I do.

Troy

editing bad quoting

redneck wrote:Keep it up Neophite and you'll see another thread deleted (though I suspect this one was doomed from the opening post).

What did I do now other than speak rationally?

Could the fact that the two of you did not acclimate properly, been a leading contributing factor in Tom's death?

What was the time frame between the time you guys left the Bay Area and the actual time you reached the snow cave where Tom stayed and finally perished?

MikeTX wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:Should I even bother?

yes, what does the english teacher say?

Chief used opine as a noun, specifically as a predicate nominative. Grammatically, it has to be a noun where it is because the possessive pronoun his is modifying it, and possessives modify nouns or stand alone. Moreover, he pairs it with right, also a noun. While it is neither illegal nor impossible to join different parts of speech with a conjunction, it is almost always awkward.

I believe in his argument, Chief is mistaking context for intent.

But he's right on the substance!

ksolem wrote:You're grinding the gears of grammar to crash land the verb in the structure created for a noun.

If you made that up yourself, you should copyright it. It's great!

Neophiteat48 wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote: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.

Even though the original comments were deleted, he came back with more. I would be interested Bob, in all honesty, if you view this guy as giving criticism or he is attacking.

I read the "new" comments. To me, they are a harsh criticism, not an attack. While I would not like to be on the receiving end, I can't, from a neutral perspective, view it as a vicious attack. In poor taste, yes, but criticism nonetheless. Plus, Eric makes his points by using examples from his own and Mark's past experience as support, and he is obviously bothered by the article. I disagree with his assessment of the motive behind the article, and most others here seem to as well, but that does not make his view wrong or mean he lacks the right to express it.

Sorry, but this thread reminds me of the kind of crap that led to the fiasco on this site this past January.

PellucidWombat

By your admission in the new Article, Reflections and Lessons from Mt. Shasta., you all went from Sea Level to 10k in less than 24 hours.

True?

The Chief wrote:PellucidWombat

By your admission in the new Article, Reflections and Lessons from Mt. Shasta., you all went from Sea Level to 10k in less than 24 hours.

True?

In Mark's article he stated that they spent two days at lower elevations:

The probability of Tom developing HACE at 14,000 ft was extremely small, especially considering that the previous two days we slept at 5,000 ft & 10,000 ft, and had ascended to nearly 14,000 ft or higher twice.

I was assuming that the ascents to 14K happened on subsequent days but perhaps Mark could clarify this fact for me.