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.