Observation Rock avalanche

One more thing, was there a link to the mtnphil report in another thread? I'm having a hard time understanding why people feel it doesn't belong in this thread. Maybe someone can eleborate? Did everyone in this thread read it prior to me posting it?

Ops, I'm uncertain as to the controversy. I read Phil's report last year and don't recall it being a secret--whether it's in this thread or otherwise. It's important-but-old news. Does that clear up the matter any?

So Ops do two wrongs make a right?<br><br>Can't we all just get along.<br><br>Don't bust on Paul too much. He might have to reprogram a robotic fish to swim thru your plumbing. <br><br>Hey Paul wuz up.

Ops, Phil posted the TR so people could learn from out mistakes. I posted on TGR for the same reason, since in early season excitement to ski often overrules logical though. I know it did for me. <br><br>I don't see anything being 'swept under the carpet'. We made mistakes, we paid for them, we learned. Whether any of us decide to make it public is up to us, not you. Phil's site is well known, the link is obvious. If someone is curious about what happened, the information is easy to find. If you really have that big a problem with it, feel free to contact me. <br><br>As for the Blum thread, I would first like to say that I admire and respect Lowell Skoog greatly. However, having seen the video of the huck in question, and having talked to the Hummels and Sky, I do not believe that their decision to jump rather than downclimb was unduly reckless. No more reckless than the decision to throw a helicopter off a windlip on the Ptarmigan Traverse, as Lowell showed in his photo (which I saw posted on cascadeclimbers.com). No offense was meant, which is why I edited my original, somewhat overly harsh, post.<br><br>

In my mind Lowell is one the most respected and distinguished mountaineers in the PNW. Criticizing him in the petty and patronizing way pbelietz did I find similar to criticizing a religious figure that you may find sacred.

<br>Why you deify Lowell Skoog is your own business; however, it does not give you the right to attack, insult, or otherwise slander me. <br><br>In the future I will do my best not to disagree with anyone that you find 'sacred', to spare myself the mighty wrath of 'Ops'. <br><br>Now how about identifying yourself? Or perhaps you are 'ashamed' to?

That's a very genuine, fair and level-headed response, pb. I really appreciate that post. <br><br>I do wonder, if I had not posted would you have edited your post anyway?<br><br>Actually who cares. How about we kiss and make up now?<br><br>Love,<br><br>Ops

Sigh. Ops, whoever you are and whatever your motivation, I did read Paul's orginal post targeting Lowell. I took it as an elaborate, well-intentioned joke, though not in the best of taste and obviously susceptible to misinterpretation. I was also aware of the incident last fall, including the identities of those present at the time.<br><br>In my relatively brief internet-literate time, I've noticed that when I respond to posts which I think inappropriate with sarcasm or attacks, conversations rapidly deteriorate. What's more, in such cases I am not seen as the defender of truth and justice which I believe myself to be, but rather as just another sarcastic, attacking poster (of whom there is apparently a limitless supply). I learned these things from Lowell, among others. <br><br>In general, when I feel an overwhelming need to ventilate sarcastically, I try to do it by backchannel. This has been working pretty well for me, and might be worth a try.<br><br>Hope that helps,<br><br>Mark