First off, nobody here on “your” group would have had any idea that Tom had an accident unless they were reading Bogley. Only a couple of hints were made on this Forum and I think it is a shame that Hank(an owner of this Forum), Tom(a heavy hitter) and Ram(another owner) decided to avoid posting about the “incident” here and posted it on some other, more sinister(and more hip), Forum.
Secondly, your Rashoman sucks. Here it is a couple of weeks from the fall and we are getting these reports that are filled with second thoughts rather than telling us what happened. As everyone knows, I am affiliated with you, like you , and I am mostly aligned with your thinking on anchors. I say that to point out that even a strong friend is sickened when they see their associates doing it wrong.
Your method of presenting an accident report reeks of manipulation. Tom’s introduction acually goes so far as to tell us what we should take out of the whole thing. “The anchor system isnt dodgy!”
An accident report is not a Trip Report and should be something that the community can learn from. You guys are so concerned that the sand-trap will get a black-eye out of this that you are attempting to feed us a line of crap which even you aren’t prepared to swallow.
The fact is that you did not make an anchor. As the Emporer often says, an anchor doesn’t fail, or it wasn’t an anchor.
So…you got lucky. An experimental anchor which you were trying to develop failed during testing. No big deal. I’m glad it didn’t fail earlier…yada, yada, yada.
But please just get it overwith. Make your report and let people learn. It has been so long that I seriously doubt that any of you remember things correctly.
That’s the point behind of the concept of Rashoman, right? Everyone has a viewpoint and often it is at varience with other equally respectable witnesses. Everyone there saw something different. Once you wait a couple of weeks they become unreliable witnesses.
Dave
Felicia
> however, i do agree that the rashoman thing is a little… uh, weird? and probably not very effective. i want to know why the thing failed, and that’s about it.
carry on. >
I disagree. I would expect nothing less from a Tom/Hank project. This structure is fresh, organized and educational.
Carry on. ;-))
Felicia
Dan
one point of clarification – it wasn’t because of bogley that the fall went public. it was because of facebook. tom mentioned it within a day or two of getting out of the hospital, and there was something like 60 comments in that thread. it wasn’t kept “secret.” many folks on this board, and bogley, knew what happened a long time ago, minus a few of the specifics.
might be a fair assumption that the post was made on bogley because they WEREN’T trying to cover it up at all? just my guess.
however, i do agree that the rashoman thing is a little… uh, weird? and probably not very effective. i want to know why the thing failed, and that’s about it.
carry on.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1” wrote:
First off, nobody here on “your” group would have had any idea that Tom had an accident unless they were reading Bogley. > Only a couple of hints were made on this Forum and I think it is a shame that Hank(an owner of this Forum), Tom(a heavy hitter) and Ram(another owner) decided to avoid posting about the “incident” here and posted it on some other, more sinister(and more hip), Forum.
Secondly, your Rashoman sucks. > Here it is a couple of weeks from the fall and we are getting these reports that are filled with second thoughts rather than telling us what happened. > As everyone knows, I am affiliated with you, like you , and I am mostly aligned with your thinking on anchors. > I say that to point out that even a strong friend is sickened when they see their associates doing it wrong.
Your method of presenting an accident report reeks of manipulation. > Tom’s introduction acually goes so far as to tell us what we should take out of the whole thing. > “The anchor system isnt dodgy!”
An accident report is not a Trip Report and should be something that the community can learn from. > You guys are so concerned that the sand-trap will get a black-eye out of this that you are attempting to feed us a line of crap which even you aren’t prepared to swallow.
The fact is that you did not make an anchor. > As the Emporer often says, an anchor doesn’t fail, or it wasn’t an anchor.
So…you got lucky. > An experimental anchor which you were trying to develop failed during testing. > No big deal. > I’m glad it didn’t fail earlier…yada, yada, yada.
But please just get it overwith. > Make your report and let people learn. > It has been so long that I seriously doubt that any of you remember things correctly.
That’s the point behind of the concept of Rashoman, right? > Everyone has a viewpoint and often it is at varience with other equally respectable witnesses. Everyone there saw something different. Once you wait a couple of weeks they become unreliable witnesses.
Dave >
TomJones
Hi Dave.
Love you too.
The delay is entirely my fault. Between pain, drugs, and the borken wrist, it took me two weeks to write up my end. Since I am the most-culpable and most-knowledgeable of the group, releasing the report without my contribution was not considered.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1” wrote:
First off, nobody here on “your” group would have had any idea that Tom had an accident unless they were reading Bogley. > Only a couple of hints were made on this Forum and I think it is a shame that Hank(an owner of this Forum), Tom(a heavy hitter) and Ram(another owner) decided to avoid posting about the “incident” here and posted it on some other, more sinister(and more hip), Forum.
Secondly, your Rashoman sucks. > Here it is a couple of weeks from the fall and we are getting these reports that are filled with second thoughts rather than telling us what happened. > As everyone knows, I am affiliated with you, like you , and I am mostly aligned with your thinking on anchors. > I say that to point out that even a strong friend is sickened when they see their associates doing it wrong.
Your method of presenting an accident report reeks of manipulation. > Tom’s introduction acually goes so far as to tell us what we should take out of the whole thing. > “The anchor system isnt dodgy!”
An accident report is not a Trip Report and should be something that the community can learn from. > You guys are so concerned that the sand-trap will get a black-eye out of this that you are attempting to feed us a line of crap which even you aren’t prepared to swallow.
The fact is that you did not make an anchor. > As the Emporer often says, an anchor doesn’t fail, or it wasn’t an anchor.
So…you got lucky. > An experimental anchor which you were trying to develop failed during testing. > No big deal. > I’m glad it didn’t fail earlier…yada, yada, yada.
But please just get it overwith. > Make your report and let people learn. > It has been so long that I seriously doubt that any of you remember things correctly.
That’s the point behind of the concept of Rashoman, right? > Everyone has a viewpoint and often it is at varience with other equally respectable witnesses. Everyone there saw something different. Once you wait a couple of weeks they become unreliable witnesses.
Dave >