Observation Rock avalanche

I think everybody on the net deserves to be treated with respect even (or especially) if you don't know them. I don't deserve to be treated any better--or any worse--than anybody else. One thing I've seen over the years, especially in climbing bulletin boards, is a tendency to defer to hot-shot climbers. It's as though being a good athlete means your ideas are worth more than somebody else's. I don't buy that. Ideas on the net need to stand on their own merits, and not depend on who is promoting them. That's a big part of the fun of it, in my opinion.<br><br>"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" (from a cartoon in the New Yorker)

I find the TR mentioned above extremely helpful and they should be posted.  Here is a link since it was removed above www.mtnphil.com/ORock3/ORock3.html <br><br>I love the topic of risk, as people have such strong opinions......Soap box please...<br><br>How much is acceptable and by who's definition?  "You took too much risk doing that" is one of my favorites. <br><br>My view is different than most as the saying goes, "if it does not kill you, it makes you stronger" but then again I'm a dumb 29 year old male.  Statistics don't lie, you become safer as you get older, your "tolerance" or acceptance of risk decreases. <br><br>Why go (insert favorite sport here) that could be dangerous.  We have a fine example here of a group at the cutting edge of BC skiing, but the specific sport does not mater, it could be surfing, skiing mountain biking, motorcycles etc.  The choice of a 30 foot drop or a 360 all seem perfectly harmless at the time....  The groups in question determined the risk was acceptable, that's enough IMO.  <br><br>Call me an 'idiot', but don't keep or restrict me from being an 'idiot.'<br><br>EDIT to clarify my rambling, as it read wrong.

I missed the thread the first time around, so I'm glad it resurfaced, despite the etiquette controversy and crossover with the also-intriguing Mt Blum thread. <br><br>What I found most interesting were the insights from both Phil and Paul regarding their states of mind - the "it's still summer" mode they seemed to have been in despite the evidence that surrounded their legs. I have to guess that these guys are neither more nor less careless than me, so there's a good reminder for me about checking the assumptions that you carry to the trailhead against what you see on the hill (whether it's about time of year or the latest avy report).<br><br>Thanks for sharing, guys.

How much is acceptable and by who's definition?  "You took too much risk doing that" is one of my favorites....<br><br>Why go (insert favorite sport here) that could be dangerous...<br><br>The group in question determined the risk was acceptable, that's enough IMO.

<br><br>Safety analysis happens all the time in high risk sports. Most people think it's a good thing. Usually it happens post mortem (literally). That's unfortunate.<br><br>I added some more thoughts over in the Mt Blum thread that explain why I think it is worth discussing here.<br>

My thigh is still a little numb...

My comments are only directed at the hind sight comments that normally follow or "post mortem," as Lowell said, not in this thread(any more) or the Mt Blum thread, but in general. Several current threads in the avalanche section of www.telemarktalk.com make quick judgment of accidents and cast blame immediately Durand(sp?). This board does not do it much...thank you.

I totally agree, risk analysis is a good thing and always must be done. The part that I disagree with is the 20/20 hindsight, you should have done this or that comments. There is no question one must think of the location, time, what will happen if scenarios...etc. Every story has many possible endings, discussing the alternate endings to raise awareness is necessary, but must stop short of casting blame. Your comments, Lowell, are well written, don't blame and deserve to be heard, a fine example of what should be done.