|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 28, 2009, 12:24 AM
Post #26 of 31
(1762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jakedatc wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Johnny_Fang wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members. don't drag me into this as someone who needs an explanation; i can read the newspaper article as well as you can. i think it is absurd that the mods would want you to summarize it when the newspaper article already described it so succinctly that was my point from the very beginning, which is why i thought your original post was appropriate. my point is that there IS an analysis, it is in the paper, people should feel free and open to comment on that analysis. the idea that a family member is going to be upset to see that a newspaper article is linked in an 'accident and incident analysis' section of a website about rockclimbing without the poster typing condolences is complete and total bullshit. christ, they've got enough to be upset about. the newspaper article didn't print a condolence, either. give me a break. anyway, let's get back to the original point of this forum. why didn't the leader (from my understanding was the rock guide/sister-in-law) build the anchor before bringing up her second? why was the second building an anchor? that seems completely bizarre. and what is the comment about the brother going down from the top of the cliff? so... the brother and the leader were up top with no anchor? This is why i think you have no idea what you are talking about. NO ONE leads a route and does not set an anchor.. NO ONE. how the hell would you catch a second if there was no anchor built? you call me a noob? seriously?
Jake
what do you make of this ?
In reply to: Dyal-Silva's husband, Bobby Silva, had been on top of the cliff but went down to get the families' children out of the sun, Myer said.
did you think all three hiked to the top and one decided to hike back down or he rapped down on a single nut ?
I think, all three hiked to the top
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 28, 2009, 12:49 AM
Post #27 of 31
(1747 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
jakedatc wrote: you call that article analysis?? All it says is that the stopper blew out of the rock instead of the stopper failing itself. It does not mention: 1) why 2 people were at the edge of a cliff not tied into something 2) if they had led the route, were setting up a TR, etc. basically how they got to that edge. and more that i'm not thinking at the moment
so... you think majid should have made ups some information that wasn't in the paper and call it analysis? then you would have been happy?
of course it was an analysis in the paper--the best we have here, anyway. prior to that article, all i knew was two people died after falling, tied together.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 28, 2009, 12:49 AM
Post #28 of 31
(1747 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
It does not say how the leader got to the top. Johnny was speculating that she had led the pitch and brought up the second. I agree that they probably hiked up but that was not his question.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 28, 2009, 12:54 AM
Post #29 of 31
(1744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: jakedatc wrote: you call that article analysis?? All it says is that the stopper blew out of the rock instead of the stopper failing itself. It does not mention: 1) why 2 people were at the edge of a cliff not tied into something 2) if they had led the route, were setting up a TR, etc. basically how they got to that edge. and more that i'm not thinking at the moment so... you think majid should have made ups some information that wasn't in the paper and call it analysis? then you would have been happy? of course it was an analysis in the paper--the best we have here, anyway. prior to that article, all i knew was two people died after falling, tied together.
he said that the article itself was analysis enough in itself and did not need anything else. I find it really poorly written by a non climber and even the investigation was not done by climbers since the terminology is all semi-wrong (if there was a report done by climbers that the reporter was paraphrasing from then the terms would be correct)
to me all it says is 2 people died, user error not gear failure. not very much to discuss.. which is why i wonder why it was even brought up. perhaps linked to the original thread would have been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 28, 2009, 1:49 AM
Post #30 of 31
(1726 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jake I do not want to become involved with analysis and I have my own reasons . I only did this for Johnny cause he sounds like he cares and wanted to understand the causes so i did my best to explain what I felt went wrong . if you ever care to know about my other analysis then PM and I will be happy to send them to you privately. This is only to keep the flame down and not disrespect the friends and the family members. don't drag me into this as someone who needs an explanation; i can read the newspaper article as well as you can. i think it is absurd that the mods would want you to summarize it when the newspaper article already described it so succinctly that was my point from the very beginning, which is why i thought your original post was appropriate. my point is that there IS an analysis, it is in the paper, people should feel free and open to comment on that analysis. the idea that a family member is going to be upset to see that a newspaper article is linked in an 'accident and incident analysis' section of a website about rockclimbing without the poster typing condolences is complete and total bullshit. christ, they've got enough to be upset about. the newspaper article didn't print a condolence, either. give me a break. anyway, let's get back to the original point of this forum. why didn't the leader (from my understanding was the rock guide/sister-in-law) build the anchor before bringing up her second? why was the second building an anchor? that seems completely bizarre. and what is the comment about the brother going down from the top of the cliff? so... the brother and the leader were up top with no anchor?
+1
I see nothing wrong with what Majid did. I certainly wasn't going to google it to find out. At the very least he started a discussion on the accident, something that very likely would not have happened if he hadn't posted to begin with.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone on this site has any analysis to add unless they were there or a part of the investigation.
Seriously, what he posted is NOT offensive. I think people have jumped unecessarily on Majid here, all in the name of analysis that is never likely to be seen more than the newspaper article. He did a service by bringing the article to light. I just don't understand what is wrong about that.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 28, 2009, 6:51 AM
Post #31 of 31
(1621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I've moved this material here from A&IA. Please continue this here, and leave the A&IA thread for discussion of the actual accident in question.
majid_sabet wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: edge wrote: dingus wrote: edge wrote: If you want to continue to link these sorts of threads, then at least do so with some modicum of respect. I see no disrespect in majid's post whatsoever. None whatsoever. I do see a lot of disrespect targeted at majid in a forum where supposedly this is out of bounds. And I'm forced to wonder - do the mods follow their own rules, or are they above them. So far.... I see some are more equal than others. DMT Dingus, I value your opinion more than 99% of this site's members, and I will accept your opinion here, as well. My point, albeit vague with the hour on the East coast etc, etc, is that I would appreciate it if Majid not only regurgitated news stories off the web, but made an honest effort to explain why he posted them. That is all. Just add some input instead of ambulance chasing. I guess I don't understand what the point is. I mean, all he has to say is that he posted the link "to bring this accident to light" every single time and he's safe from flaming? Sounds kind of sketchy to me. I'm not sure why bringing accidents to light is a bad thing. At the very least it encourages discussion and keeps safety at the forefront of people's minds. And to suggest that he needs to add analysis is ridiculous (I know you didn't say that specifically, Edge, but others have). That will come out with the discussion. I really don't see it as ambulance chasing so much as bringing the accident to light. It's no different that watching the news. I find it more offensive when folks are disingenuous about what they think they know about a particular event when they weren't there. Maybe we need a new forum for reporting accidents? I just think it is foolish to flame him here. If he didn't bring these to light then I personally would never know about them. And believe it or not, sometimes I learn something, so you can't say it isn't educational or at least informative. And for anyone who thinks it is offensive to families, well, then I guss I'll just assume that you NEVER pick up a newspaper, click on a news site, or watch the news on TV. Because if there's an accident on the interstate at 4pm where three people died, it's making the six o'clock news. Everyone should be offended that the newspaper article even came out, because all he did was link it. That's it! How is that any different than a news site linking to an AP story? It isn't. I'd really like to know what he's supposed to say that wouldn't be disingenuous. Seriously, because I see this as folks flaming Majid, and I've seen plenty of posts defending him. I think the mods need to come out with a clear cut example of what he should have done that is different than what he did so that we all know in the future what needs to be said that won't be considered offensive. Please, make it clear so that there is no longer any split between the Majid-haters and those who would like to be informed. [/rant] [/suggestion] this is not about accident report. this is all about few been super sensitive to anything with my name on it. if any one else posted this report, no one would ever complained and this is nothing new. go back and follow my name and you see how many times they either hammered me to death in I&A or deleted my post cause they did not like it. it is very difficult to establish any point when the judges are holding the gun on your face.
That's just the thing, Majid. This forum isn't, and shouldn't be, about you. This thread isn't about you. This thread is about two people who, tragically, died participating in the sport we all love, and trying to learn from the incident.
It's not about you - and yet by persistently failing to follow the rules of this forum, by constantly posting OPs that are nothing but links and an incomprehensible line or two of text, you make it all about you. Time and time again - and by doing so, the productive material gets lost in pages and pages of bickering.
Lift your game, improve your attitude or GTFO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
