|
Trixie
Dec 29, 2009, 1:01 AM
Post #2 of 34
(17306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Posts: 80
|
majid, can you provide any more information? The link you have provided is brief to the point of obscure.
|
|
|
|
|
matt
Dec 29, 2009, 1:07 AM
Post #3 of 34
(17304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2001
Posts: 1703
|
Related to this? http://www.newser.com/story/76995/7-die-in-avalanches-in-italian-alps.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Dec 31, 2009, 10:13 PM
Post #5 of 34
(17167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here:
- "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them.
- "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link).
- "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Dec 31, 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #6 of 34
(17154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
theguy wrote: A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here: - "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them. - "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link). - "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue.
huh???
Are you from Dusseldorf or Dusseldork?
Thank you Majid. Happy New Year.
(This post was edited by Adk on Dec 31, 2009, 10:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Jan 4, 2010, 6:16 PM
Post #8 of 34
(17012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
Adk wrote: theguy wrote: A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here: - "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them. - "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link). - "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue. huh??? Are you from Dusseldorf or Dusseldork? Thank you Majid. Happy New Year.
theguy makes valid arguments, especially given Majids love of posting sensational headlines and then disappearing. He likes to act like an expert, but almost never gives follow ups to his own posts, just arrows and pretty colors to point out his own interpretations of other peoples mistakes.
The second link is also no more than look at me sensationalism.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2010, 6:51 PM
Post #9 of 34
(16984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
theguy wrote: A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here: - "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them. - "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link). - "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue.
I don't even see the Designated Mod following these rules, don't make up some shit just for majid.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2010, 6:52 PM
Post #10 of 34
(16982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Shroom wrote: Adk wrote: theguy wrote: A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here: - "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them. - "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link). - "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue. huh??? Are you from Dusseldorf or Dusseldork? Thank you Majid. Happy New Year. theguy makes valid arguments, especially given Majids love of posting sensational headlines and then disappearing.
The guy quoted rules no one follows not even the mods. Now you say this is spot on BECAUSE its majid.
Please.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Jan 4, 2010, 7:27 PM
Post #11 of 34
(16941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
dingus wrote: I don't even see the Designated Mod following these rules
Neither do I, but that's because there isn't a single OP by mods in A&IA for 2009. A sample size of zero is not statistically valid, as JT would no doubt point out.
dingus wrote: don't make up some shit
I won't: in case you missed the link, the posting guidelines are provided by the mods.
dingus wrote: just for majid
The posting guidelines apply to everyone who chooses to post in A&IA; since Majid is responsible for over 25% of the OP's in 2009, he is more often represented in reminders to adhere to the guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2010, 7:55 PM
Post #12 of 34
(16932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Those rules were written specifically targeting Majid and are suspect from the inception. And the person who wrote them doesn't adhere.
This forum is not policed except to pick on majid.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
onrockandice
Jan 4, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #13 of 34
(16924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355
|
dingus wrote: This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT
I'm glad someone else sees this too.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jan 4, 2010, 8:45 PM
Post #14 of 34
(16890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
onrockandice wrote: dingus wrote: This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT I'm glad someone else sees this too.
+ another
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Jan 4, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #15 of 34
(16877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
Who is the designated mod for this forum, anyway? I can't find that anywhere. RC, you should make that more obvious.
And why is it wrong to blame majid for posting 25% of a forum's posts without adding any significant content or follow thru? It appears that he likes to hook his wagon to any passing accident as if to reinforce his standing as an expert in his own right.
I don't check out car forums, but do they have majid wannabbees who link every automotive accident as a public service to not run a stop light, hit a deer, or drive drunk?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2010, 9:07 PM
Post #16 of 34
(16870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Shroom wrote: And why is it wrong to blame majid for posting 25% of a forum's posts without adding any significant content or follow thru?
Because 98% of the posters to this site and 98% of the posts contain exactly the same value added content.
In reply to: It appears that he likes to hook his wagon to any passing accident as if to reinforce his standing as an expert in his own right.
Right. So lets craft some bullshit rules designed specifically for him, and then only enforce them on him. Why? Because he bugs some very tightly wrapped people, no other reason. None.
In reply to: I don't check out car forums,
Neither do I so why bring it up?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jan 4, 2010, 9:25 PM
Post #17 of 34
(16843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: onrockandice wrote: dingus wrote: This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT I'm glad someone else sees this too. + another
+ 1
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Jan 4, 2010, 9:35 PM
Post #18 of 34
(16835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
boymeetsrock wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: onrockandice wrote: dingus wrote: This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT I'm glad someone else sees this too. + another + 1
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jan 4, 2010, 9:35 PM
Post #19 of 34
(16835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Shroom wrote: Adk wrote: theguy wrote: A reminder on the forum guidelines which you should have read prior to posting here: - "You need to give a brief summary of the details in the article - name(s), place, date and nature of accident as a bare minimum. OP's that are simply a link to an article without these details will be recycled on sight". I believe you are aware of this guideline, as you actually followed up with involved parties in a prior incident to provide them. - "it would be appreciated if you could amend your OP (and especially the title) to cover the key details". Once the thread has been recycled and you repost, please correct the title to indicate that the people the rescuers were searching for were not in fact climbers, but either tourists on snowshoes (your link) or skiers (Matt's link). - "speculation must be clearly labelled as such, and based upon known facts from the case." While it is reasonable to speculate based on the minister's assertion, and the avalanche which killed the rescuers, that the conditions were such that the skiers/snowshoers shouldn't have been there, it is still speculation, and should be labeled as such. Some search organizations operate under a principle of not endangering themselves in a rescue (since this just compounds the problem); if the Italian guides operated under this principle, their decision to go ahead with the rescue could be read as an indication that conditions were judged adequately safe. Famously, members of the mountain guides association to which Bonatti belonged stood by and let several members of his party perish in the French Alps because they judged conditions unsafe for a rescue. huh??? Are you from Dusseldorf or Dusseldork? Thank you Majid. Happy New Year. theguy makes valid arguments, especially given Majids love of posting sensational headlines and then disappearing. He likes to act like an expert, but almost never gives follow ups to his own posts, just arrows and pretty colors to point out his own interpretations of other peoples mistakes. The second link is also no more than look at me sensationalism.
Shroom, Welcome to A&IA.
theguy, You've been around long enough to know that this topic has been discussed ad nausium. If it means that much to you, you and jakedatc should start a poll or something. Quit bringing your gripes to individual threads. It accomplishes nothing but to add noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jan 4, 2010, 9:38 PM
Post #20 of 34
(16832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
el_layclimber wrote: boymeetsrock wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: onrockandice wrote: dingus wrote: This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT I'm glad someone else sees this too. + another + 1 Ooh, ooh me too. Majid is one of my top five RC.com people I don't know who I would let dress me up like a lady and take me aid climbing.
hey, if that's your thing then have to it.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jan 4, 2010, 9:58 PM
Post #21 of 34
(16807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I'm a lot more interested in this accident than picking on Majid.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 4, 2010, 10:05 PM
Post #22 of 34
(16804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
dingus wrote: Those rules were written specifically targeting Majid and are suspect from the inception. And the person who wrote them doesn't adhere. This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT
For once dingus and I agree. If all the "rules" were enforced, 90% of us would get kicked off at some point. I don't understand the obsession with majid bashing. He's different but aren't most of us. Pick on the guy who's english isn't perfect. At least he has an excuse....a lot of his critics haven't mastered it and it's the only language they know.
Back to the topic at hand, terrible accident and may God be with the families of those lost.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jan 4, 2010, 10:48 PM
Post #23 of 34
(16769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
dingus wrote: Those rules were written specifically targeting Majid and are suspect from the inception. And the person who wrote them doesn't adhere. This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT
And if anyone should need this point reinforced all they need to do is look one thread below this one on the main page - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...d;page=unread#unread
Quiteatingmysteak makes an inappropriate/dickish comment and a few posts later a mod gives an update without so much as batting an eye at the bullshit going on above.
You only have ONE forum that actually needs moderation. Get your shit together guys/gals.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 4, 2010, 10:58 PM
Post #24 of 34
(16760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Just to inform both wabbit lover and haters that 90% of your discussions followed by last recent post on this thread will be send out to bin by your favorite A & I agent .
Its ok to blame me for informing you that we been seen more avalanches in the past three years killing more climbers and rescuers and while we guys are adding fuel and compressed air to this fire, we will see more accidents caused by avalanches.
no matter what I write or post , add too much or too little, there is always one unhappy RCers who like to get on my case .
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jan 4, 2010, 10:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jan 4, 2010, 11:51 PM
Post #25 of 34
(16741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
notapplicable wrote: dingus wrote: Those rules were written specifically targeting Majid and are suspect from the inception. And the person who wrote them doesn't adhere. This forum is not policed except to pick on majid. DMT And if anyone should need this point reinforced all they need to do is look one thread below this one on the main page - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...d;page=unread#unread Quiteatingmysteak makes an inappropriate/dickish comment and a few posts later a mod gives an update without so much as batting an eye at the bullshit going on above. You only have ONE forum that actually needs moderation. Get your shit together guys/gals.
FYI, the dickish comment was viewed by me, as a person, who happens to be a mod.
It was then dealt with in no uncertain terms by subsequent posters, many of whom quoted the offending post.
My thought process was the following:
a. Do I delete, move, or recycle the offending post?
b. If I do, I will need to then delete, move, recycle, or hide the resulting responses.
c. If I do a. or b. above, someone will call me a dick.
d. If I don't do a. or b. above, someone will call me a dick.
e. If I give information pertinent to the discussion, I could enlighten those who were, like myself, concerned and interested. In the process, I can help end the speculation, and thus let the offending post slide off the front page, meanwhilst preserving the dickishness of certain comments and the opposition of other users, all without being accused of over-moderation.
I opted for e. and failed miserably.
Now you know. Have a happy New Year,
Signed,
Dick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
