Canyoneering Book

[Mike C.]

Anybody seen this book yet? http://tinyurl.com/l9n6ee Just curious.

Mike C.

[Iceaxe]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5179On19xgL._SS500_.jpg

Product Description
Canyoneering is not a sport to be taken lightly. The technical descent of a canyon with swift moving water, keeper potholes, and/or committing slots completed by a team of individuals is a complex mental and physical challenge. Canyoneering: Anchors and Basic Rope Systems shows the reader an informative and entertaining look at the basics of the sport while explaining some of the safest descent methods known to the industry. The occasional personal accounts and examples lend further proof to the experience level and well thought-out systems of the authors. These WCCM certified methods will only help to add to your personal canyoneering skillsets leading to safer and more efficient canyon descents. Topics covered in this volume include:

[Iceaxe]

I do have a legitimate question.....

What exactly is the [i][b]

[travis]

I guess it's time lose my Bogley virginity. I'm a little nervous so some hand holding would help... :Ahnuld:

I'll keep the answer fairly succinct and let others draw personal conclusions....

The WCCM refers to a set of procedures that we suggest for others to follow while participating in the sport of canyoneering. It refers to a multitude of options including rappel methods, rescue methods, clothing options, team interactions and movements, expedition planning, and debriefs.

It originated as a way to distinguish ATS as an individual entity and assign a name to our customs in relation to the sport. Our company extends into many more sectors than canyoneering so rather than referring to individuals and outside companies as ATS-certified (which would be really broad-based) we developed a canyoneering specific certification.

Any questions/comments on the sideband are more than welcome. I don't have regular internet access (40 weeks away from the office last year!), but try to get to emails when I can. Thanks!

[rcwild]

Here's how the founder of WCCM, Darren Jeffrey, described it:

"In the late 1990's, a new method for Canyoning arose along the

[Brian in SLC]

West side, east side, Notorious BIG, 2pac...

All very confusing, who did what, where, and when...

Yuck yuck yuck...

-Brian in SLC

[Iceaxe]

The WCCM refers to a set of procedures that we suggest for others to follow while participating in the sport of canyoneering. It refers to a multitude of options including rappel methods, rescue methods, clothing options, team interactions and movements, expedition planning, and debriefs.

It originated as a way to distinguish ATS as an individual entity and assign a name to our customs in relation to the sport. Our company extends into many more sectors than canyoneering so rather than referring to individuals and outside companies as ATS-certified (which would be really broad-based) we developed a canyoneering specific certification.


Thanks Travis, that was exactly the type of answer I was looking for. :nod:

Always nice to get info direct from the horses mouth.....

And welcome to Bogley. :2thumbs:

.

[tanya]

I guess it's time lose my Bogley virginity. I'm a little nervous so some hand holding would help... :Ahnuld:

I'll keep the answer fairly succinct and let others draw personal conclusions....

The WCCM refers to a set of procedures that we suggest for others to follow while participating in the sport of canyoneering. It refers to a multitude of options including rappel methods, rescue methods, clothing options, team interactions and movements, expedition planning, and debriefs.

It originated as a way to distinguish ATS as an individual entity and assign a name to our customs in relation to the sport. Our company extends into many more sectors than canyoneering so rather than referring to individuals and outside companies as ATS-certified (which would be really broad-based) we developed a canyoneering specific certification.

Any questions/comments on the sideband are more than welcome. I don't have regular internet access (40 weeks away from the office last year!), but try to get to emails when I can. Thanks!

Everyone is nice here... no need to be afraid. :nod:

[ratagonia]

I guess it's time lose my Bogley virginity. I'm a little nervous so some hand holding would help... :Ahnuld:

I'll keep the answer fairly succinct and let others draw personal conclusions....

The WCCM refers to a set of procedures that we suggest for others to follow while participating in the sport of canyoneering. It refers to a multitude of options including rappel methods, rescue methods, clothing options, team interactions and movements, expedition planning, and debriefs.

It originated as a way to distinguish ATS as an individual entity and assign a name to our customs in relation to the sport. Our company extends into many more sectors than canyoneering so rather than referring to individuals and outside companies as ATS-certified (which would be really broad-based) we developed a canyoneering specific certification.

Any questions/comments on the sideband are more than welcome. I don't have regular internet access (40 weeks away from the office last year!), but try to get to emails when I can. Thanks!

Travis -

looks like a good effort. Are you wholesaling this directly? Or is it available through another press or retailer?

Tom

[Iceaxe]

Bump

When this thread first began the book was not yet available so I thought I'd give it a bump now that you can actually get your hands on a copy..... If someone has the book posting a short review and maybe a table of contents on Bogley would be appreciated.

:user:

[xxnitsuaxx]

As long as nobody tries taking credit for the Midwest Canyoneering Method (MWCM) that I'm pioneering. It's currently the most popular system of protocols for canyons in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, and we're gaining lots of ground in Iowa.

"Subway" section in typical Kansas canyon
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4584120/cornfield-main_Full.jpg

Natural anchor in South Dakota
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/AJD07M.jpg

Class C Canyon in Iowa
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/pictures/irrigation.jpg

[Iceaxe]

I still haven't read the book.... but I did see the video....

And I missed the "Midwest Canyoneering Method" earlier.... pretty dang funny... I particularly like the Subway. :haha:


http://vimeo.com/9186013

[Scott Card]

That was an odd video. Didn't know if that was canyoneering or astronomy?

As for the Midwest Canyoneering Method, I missed that too. But to appropriately reply, :roflol::roflol::roflol:

:2thumbs:

[moab mark]

Just dropped $30 at amazon to learn about the WCCM.

[moab mark]

My book showed up today. Learned a few new things. If someone wants to send me say $25 gladly pass it on. They have a retrievable system like my washer retrievable concept, they call it Slick Draw. 90% of it is on anchors with alot about the strengths of the equip.

Mark

[oval]

From what I've heard, they are much more focused on class C stuff... more along the lines of Euro "canyoning". I guess you have to be when the sierras are you testing ground = always moving water :P

I'd like to pick that book up from you, Mark. I think it'd be a great way to learn more about how people outside of utahs typical class B stuff have learned to deal with moving water on a more tested basis.

I live in SLC... lemme know if you are ever down in the area.
Thanks,
Peter

[moab mark]

The only comment I remember about Class C was whether to use an autoblock in moving water. It is a very basic book. Mainly about anchors. My neighbor wants to read it so Ill have to hold off on giving it up yet. IMO Dave Blacks book is a better all around introduction to Canyoneering.

Mark

[oval]

Ah, well thanks Mark, I was hoping it would be more focused on class C stuff... I'm pretty good on the other stuff. Thanks for the feedback :D

[ratagonia]

My book showed up today. Learned a few new things. If someone wants to send me say $25 gladly pass it on. They have a retrievable system like my washer retrievable concept, they call it Slick Draw. 90% of it is on anchors with alot about the strengths of the equip.

Mark

Yeah, uh.................

Got a copy from Amazon today. WOW! That is one seriously BAD book, and I mean bad bad, not good bad. It's not just 'a few errors', the authors lack a basic understanding of gear and physics.

Example: Let's start with page 4 - the first page with content.

"If I weigh 200 lbs. and my stick anchor can only hold 200 lbs., I have a 1:1 margin".

This is not the way the word 'margin' is usually used. Normally, this would be described as having ZERO margin. Margin is the difference between the load and the strength, not the ratio of the load and the strength. (OK, maybe I am just an english-language nazi here, but we use language to communicate things, and a printed book is an example of a formal communication device where, unlike casual conversation and internet forums, should, perhaps, maybe, actually use words correctly).

next: A chart of "Gear Strength".

Harness: 5600 lbs

There is a standard for harnesses, which all harnesses sold meet (with certain exceptions in the S&M part of the industry) and that standard is 15 kN = 3372 lb-f. There's a good reason that there is no point in making harnesses stronger - the human body is quite a bit weaker than the 15 kN standard. Some harnesses MAY be stronger, but that extra strength does not make you safer.

Etc. These two pages and the discussion of Safe Working Load and safety margins is... confused.

OK, yes, he has a chart of ropes, and FAILS to include the Imlay Canyon Gear ropes. I can't feel affection for the book as a result of this omission. But really, I am a climbing/canyoneering equipment engineer, and take offense at explanations of all this stuff that is incoherent, incorrect and just plain crazy!!!

So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

Tom :moses:

[moab mark]

My neighbor brought my copy back over the other night and stated that was the most confusing book he had ever read. Needless to say he was dissappointed.
But now that Tom has given it such a raving review I will have to lower the price.:fitz: Say $15.00.

Mark

[Brian in SLC]

My neighbor brought my copy back over the other night and stated that was the most confusing book he had ever read. Needless to say he was dissappointed.
But now that Tom has given it such a raving review I will have to lower the price.:fitz: Say $15.00.

I'd look at it for that. When you headin' to the City? Passing through SLC?

[moab mark]

Headed out in an hour but I live up in Kaysville. Let's try to meet up next week and you can have it.

Mark

[Iceaxe]

whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

Hmmmm.... I didn't really have a major interest in reading the book... but now I want to have a look just so I can see what Tom is whining about... :haha:

I'll pay $10 to rent a copy for a week..... Cash... American... :cool2:

[ratagonia]

Hmmmm.... I didn't really have a major interest in reading the book... but now I want to have a look just so I can see what Tom is whining about... :haha:

I'll pay $10 to rent a copy for a week..... Cash... American... :cool2:

Glad to do my part for the Economic Stimulus Package...

T

[Mojave Silence]

Yeah, uh.................

Got a copy from Amazon today. WOW! That is one seriously BAD book, and I mean bad bad, not good bad. It's not just 'a few errors', the authors lack a basic understanding of gear and physics.

Example: Let's start with page 4 - the first page with content.

"If I weigh 200 lbs. and my stick anchor can only hold 200 lbs., I have a 1:1 margin".

This is not the way the word 'margin' is usually used. Normally, this would be described as having ZERO margin. Margin is the difference between the load and the strength, not the ratio of the load and the strength. (OK, maybe I am just an english-language nazi here, but we use language to communicate things, and a printed book is an example of a formal communication device where, unlike casual conversation and internet forums, should, perhaps, maybe, actually use words correctly).

next: A chart of "Gear Strength".

Harness: 5600 lbs

There is a standard for harnesses, which all harnesses sold meet (with certain exceptions in the S&M part of the industry) and that standard is 15 kN = 3372 lb-f. There's a good reason that there is no point in making harnesses stronger - the human body is quite a bit weaker than the 15 kN standard. Some harnesses MAY be stronger, but that extra strength does not make you safer.

Etc. These two pages and the discussion of Safe Working Load and safety margins is... confused.

OK, yes, he has a chart of ropes, and FAILS to include the Imlay Canyon Gear ropes. I can't feel affection for the book as a result of this omission. But really, I am a climbing/canyoneering equipment engineer, and take offense at explanations of all this stuff that is incoherent, incorrect and just plain crazy!!!

So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

Tom :moses:

You are making some very broad conclusions based on very limited 'evidence' provided in your post.

[ratagonia]

You are making some very broad conclusions based on very limited 'evidence' provided in your post.

Actually, I make a very broad conclusion (one of my specialties) based on many, many erroneous items in the book, of which I provide a minor sampling of in the post. I COULD provide hours of examples - heck they practically jump out at you - if I thought it was worth the bother. I don't.

Tom :moses:

[Iceaxe]

Actually, I make a very broad conclusion (one of my specialties) based on many, many erroneous items in the book, of which I provide a minor sampling of in the post.

OK, I'm not defending the book, I haven't read it.... but... I find the "evidence" you posted to be pretty thin....

Example 1 - What he calls a 1:1 margin you call a zero margin.... I call this a difference in terminology and as an engineer I understood the terminology you both used, and I think most others would also.... six of one, half a dozen of the other....

Example 2 - I know nothing about harnesses strength and if the human body can withstand 15Kn or not.... and I bet few others in these forums know... so.... I'll take your word for it... for now.. care to post any references?

Example 3 - I take this as you are upset your ropes were not included in the book.... not that the info provided on the ropes tested was good or bad....

My thought is if you are going to shred something with only a couple of examples you should pick better examples (obvious or common knowledge)... Anyhoo.... just my 2 cents... guess I'll have to find a copy of the book...

:cool2:

[Mojave Silence]

Actually, I make a very broad conclusion (one of my specialties) based on many, many erroneous items in the book, of which I provide a minor sampling of in the post. I COULD provide hours of examples - heck they practically jump out at you - if I thought it was worth the bother. I don't.

Tom :moses:

If you are not willing to "provide hours of examples" and you don't feel it is "worth the bother" than why bother trashing it in the first place. Seems a bit disingenuous and mean spirited to say the least, and frankly lazy and dishonorable. Not very impressive Tom.

[Brian in SLC]

Example 1 - What he calls a 1:1 margin you call a zero margin.... I call this a difference in terminology and as an engineer I understood the terminology you both used, and I think most others would also.... six of one, half a dozen of the other....:

Hmmm. "Margin of safety" is usually "failure load/design load - 1" which for equal loads would be "0". When you have a failure load that is smaller than the design load, then you get a "negative margin of safety". I think design margin can be expressed as a ratio (ie 3 to 1).

Margin of itself is a measure or degree of difference. With equal loads, the difference, hence, the "margin" between them would be "0". Although, expressed as "1:1" aka "1 to 1", I suppose it might mean the same thing. Or, that there is no margin.

Er something.

[ratagonia]

If you are not willing to "provide hours of examples" and you don't feel it is "worth the bother" than why bother trashing it in the first place. Seems a bit disingenuous and mean spirited to say the least, and frankly lazy and dishonorable. Not very impressive Tom.

The original question was "have you seen this book", "what did you think?" I answered that.

Now you are asking for a tightly written, thorough, technical review? Suitable for publishing in "Canyoneering Today" magazine? How much you paying?

Yes, I will provide a little of that, but not the whole thing.

Tom :moses:

[oval]

Seems like there are a few people that are opposed to the "WCCM" guide-service... they all seem to be native utahns that like to think that they started it all and know everything about canyoning/canyoneering.

I think this is just one more example of different people in different camps defending there own "turf".

Aside from the "margin" terminology, how was the core information? Was the anchor information right? Because that's what the OP originally said the book was 90% of. Someone can make an accusation to throw it all out because the rope that they sell wasn't posted in it, or that some terminology isn't correct, but really, if most of the book is about anchors, telling someone that the book is "dangerous" is a little bit extreme, to say the least.

ps- my harness is rated way over 15kn, btw.

[ratagonia]

Example 2 - I know nothing about harnesses strength and if the human body can withstand 15Kn or not.... and I bet few others in these forums know... so.... I'll take your word for it... for now.. care to post any references?

My thought is if you are going to shred something with only a couple of examples you should pick better examples (obvious or common knowledge)... Anyhoo.... just my 2 cents... guess I'll have to find a copy of the book...
:cool2:

Your point is reasonable. I can only imagine if someone who knew little of your specialized fields, Engineer Shane and Engineer Brian, wrote a book about it, that you would be in the same place I am - "where do you start?" and "it is hard to provide exacting criticism as it is clear that the author does not have a good grasp of the basic concepts". But to the specific example #2:

Engineering of Harnesses

Credentials: I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering. I was the Harness Product Manager at Black Diamond Equipment for 12 years, and the sewn-technical products manager. My duties included designing, testing and preparing for certification new harness models, approximately one or two a year.

Harnesses sold for rock climbing (and canyoneering) meet the European Union Standard EN 12277 (and are generally Type C - sit harness). Harnesses for industrial work are governed by a different standard. There is an equivalent ASTM standard. Certifying to the standard is required for sale in the European Union, and in Japan. REI requires certification (as might several other vendors). Certification is not REQUIRED in the USA, but it would be a very good idea, even if not selling and certifying in Europe, to at least have good test results that show the product meets the "established international standard". If not, I could see your company's insurance company bailing on you at the key point in a lawsuit, if there was a lawsuit. Certification costs a bunch of money. Not only does the quality assurance system at the manufacturer need to meet certain criteria and be audited, but the product itself needs to be sent to a lab, in Europe, and certified. There are various QA/certification avenues for companies of different sizes. Since Black Diamond makes a lot of life-safety items, we chose to get the full ISO 9001 certification, and it was the best thing that ever happened to the company.

But I digress. I would just quote the standard, if I could, but I can't. Getting a copy of the standard costs about $125.00; and it is copyrighted so even if I had a copy I could not toss the whole thing out there. On the Internets, I see a good explanation of the strength requirements on the Singing Rock site: http://www.singingrock.cz/article.asp?nArticleID=590&nLanguageID=2 and also at the Petzl site: http://www.petzl.com/EPI/normes/norHar_EN.php

The strength standard is 15kN as applied very specifically by the harness dummy to the harness.

The standard works well. Proof is in the pudding: there are very, very few failures of harnesses in the field.

The book in question's statement on page 4, in the chart lower left: "Gear Strength / Harness / 5600 lbs." is incorrect.

My beef with this is not that this one figure is incorrect. My beef is that the strength rating for harnesses is easily discovered by about 15 minutes of google action, and thus is easily fact checked, should one be writing a technical book about this kind of subject.

Tom :moses:

[moab mark]

The book shows several pictures of clipping the biner on a biner block over the rappel strand. They state to do this so that your biner cannot pull thru the rapide. Does anyone do this? Seems it would take away the advantage of changing the angle when pulling?

Mark

[ratagonia]

Seems like there are a few people that are opposed to the "WCCM" guide-service... they all seem to be native utahns that like to think that they started it all and know everything about canyoning/canyoneering.

I think this is just one more example of different people in different camps defending there own "turf".

Aside from the "margin" terminology, how was the core information? Was the anchor information right? Because that's what the OP originally said the book was 90% of. Someone can make an accusation to throw it all out because the rope that they sell wasn't posted in it, or that some terminology isn't correct, but really, if most of the book is about anchors, telling someone that the book is "dangerous" is a little bit extreme, to say the least.

ps- my harness is rated way over 15kn, btw.

This is America, you are certainly welcome to draw whatever conclusion you wish.

My impression is that Darren and Travis do a good job of what they do: teaching people how to safely canyoneer and enjoy the canyons.

I am not a native Utahn. My impression is that to be considered a "native Utahn" you must have ancestors who pushed handcarts across the great plains. I do not. I came to Utah in 1991.

I did not start canyoneering. I did my first technical canyon in 1999. As far as I know, technical canyoneering started in the Pyrenees in the 1930's, by cavers looking for caves with a little better lighting.

I do not know everything about canyoneering - I learn new things every day. I have no beef with anyone who wants to write an accurate book about canyoneering technique, even if their preferences in technique are very different from mine. This is not the beef with the book in question.

I consider technical canyoneering to be my turf, and communicating about technical canyoneering to be my turf. I claim no exclusivity to this patch of grass.

There's quite a bit of good information in this book. But there is also quite a bit of bunk. How is a non-highly-technical reader to tell the difference?

Terminology and use of the language matter. I realize this is a controversial statement in Utah. Words are used to communicate ideas; technical terminology is established to communicate technical ideas. Terms such as "force", "strength", "stress", "rating" have very specific meanings in a technical sense. A book about a technical subject should, I claim, use these technical terms correctly. The example was a poor example.

If the book is filled with flagrant errors, then I believe I have a duty to tell my friend Mark that the book is "dangerous". If you do not respect my opinion, that is your choice. But Mark is my friend (you know, in the real world, not just on Bogley), has a wonderful family and friends, and deserves to live. I have less of a duty to you, Mr. Oval, but you got in on the conversation anyway.

I would be curious as to what harness you have, and how you have determined that it is rated to "way over" 15 kN. Picture?

Tom :moses:

[Iceaxe]

Mark... is the book describing something like this?

33814

If so.... No, I don't do it.... but I now know of two death's it would have prevented.... in both cases the initial setup was wrong and had problems, but in both cases this would have prevented death when the initial system failed.

[ratagonia]

The book shows several pictures of clipping the biner on a biner block over the rappel strand. They state to do this so that your biner cannot pull thru the rapide. Does anyone do this? Seems it would take away the advantage of changing the angle when pulling?

Mark

This is a technique in common use in Europe, and is shown often on the Petzl website and catalog. When the pull is clean and clear, it should present no problems. If the pull down is not line of sight, the clipped rope could get tangled on sticks, branches or across and edge.

This clipping technique would be considered a "backup" technique. I am not opposed to using backup techniques, but I am opposed to treating "backups" as the primary. Making a block that absolutely cannot pull through the ring is JOB ONE, having a backup in place in case it does I guess is a good idea, but... The recent rappel death in Yosemite (Serenity Crack) is related to this - the climber did not understand the block system well; did not set a 100% block; did not set the backup system in place as he usually did; and paid the price.

So there is nothing wrong with this technique. But I see little to no benefit in applying it. You may choose differently, friend Mark.

Tom :moses:

[rcwild]

It is actually not very common in Europe. People have learned that this setup can create more problems than it solves. Not sure why Petzl continues to present it in their documents. As a back-up the only thing it protects against is the possibility that the knot can pass through the rapide. In Shane's photo, it appears that the size of the knot relative to the size of the rapide presents a 0% chance of that happening, so it would be added only to give you a warm fuzzy feeling. If the knot comes untied, the system will fail. If you rappel on the wrong side of the rope, the system will fail.

Curious to know what accidents Shane thinks this could have prevented. The only one that comes to my mind is Keith Biedermann in Heaps. Carabiner blocked on carabiner. Yep, this rig would have prevented that. But I have a problem with the attitude that we should create a backup to our system just in case we rigged it wrong. How about investing that extra time triple-checking the system to make sure it is correct? Is the focus on redundancy lulling people into a false sense of security?

[Iceaxe]

Curious to know what accidents Shane thinks this could have prevented.

If I'm understanding the accidents correctly I'm thinking Keith Biedermann in Heaps and the recent death of Brian Ellis in Yosemite. Anyhoo... those were the two I was thinking of....


How about investing that extra time triple-checking the system to make sure it is correct?

I totally agree with this..... if you have a poor setup to begin with adding a back-up just creates a poor setup with a back-up...

[oval]

If the book is filled with flagrant errors, then I believe I have a duty to tell my friend Mark that the book is "dangerous". If you do not respect my opinion, that is your choice. But Mark is my friend (you know, in the real world, not just on Bogley), has a wonderful family and friends, and deserves to live. I have less of a duty to you, Mr. Oval, but you got in on the conversation anyway.

Less duty to me when you claim to be speaking to everyone with words of warning? Errors on what? Nothing that you've pointed out in the book is "dangerous" or "life-threatening" as you just posted in the above quote, upping the ante even more. Nothing that you've pointed out refers to anchors or any practical technical canyoneering technique... simply quibbling on the definition of a term.

To be fair, you label more than just this book as "dangerous" if you don't agree with it. You have things posted on your website "DANGEROUS THINGS KELSEY SAYS" and the like. In my opinion, you aren't trying to help people, you're trying to de-fame people and get them to listen to you instead of anyone else. Again, this is just my opinion, based on your posts. You and RCWild a very similar in this respect. Of course, this is just my opinion. Obviously both of you have contributed a lot to the "field" of canyoneering, but clearly you both have your soap-boxes that you like to broadcast your thoughts from.

But that's my opinion based on multiple posts that I've seen from you; people can obviously make their own decision to listen to you when you cry wolf or not. Obviously I'm not the only one calling you out on this one.



I would be curious as to what harness you have, and how you have determined that it is rated to "way over" 15 kN. Picture?

I use a metolius All Around... double 10kn belay loops at 20Kn total according to Metolius. Could this break below this point? Possibly, but likely not. It would take some crazy forces to break out just one part of the waist or leg loops alone, which would be pretty nuts to try and isolate one out from the other.

[oval]

It is actually not very common in Europe. People have learned that this setup can create more problems than it solves. Not sure why Petzl continues to present it in their documents.

Because some sport climbers only use a Gri-gri, and this type of setup adds a pretty simple way of dealing with it.

[rcwild]

I have been too focused on a little writing project to do more than scan the articles about the Yosemite accident.

[moab mark]

Less duty to me when you claim to be speaking to everyone with words of warning? Errors on what? Nothing that you've pointed out in the book is "dangerous" or "life-threatening" as you just posted in the above quote, upping the ante even more. Nothing that you've pointed out refers to anchors or any practical technical canyoneering technique... simply quibbling on the definition of a term.

To be fair, you label more than just this book as "dangerous" if you don't agree with it. You have things posted on your website "DANGEROUS THINGS KELSEY SAYS" and the like. In my opinion, you aren't trying to help people, you're trying to de-fame people and get them to listen to you instead of anyone else. Again, this is just my opinion, based on your posts. You and RCWild a very similar in this respect. Of course, this is just my opinion. Obviously both of you have contributed a lot to the "field" of canyoneering, but clearly you both have your soap-boxes that you like to broadcast your thoughts from.

But that's my opinion based on multiple posts that I've seen from you; people can obviously make their own decision to listen to you when you cry wolf or not. Obviously I'm not the only one calling you out on this one.


I use a metolius All Around... double 10kn belay loops at 20Kn total according to Metolius. Could this break below this point? Possibly, but likely not. It would take some crazy forces to break out just one part of the waist or leg loops alone, which would be pretty nuts to try and isolate one out from the other.

Have you read the book?

[ratagonia]

telling someone that the book is "dangerous" is a little bit extreme, to say the least.

Just to be clear, since this has escalated into an argument, I did not use the word "dangerous". You did.

Tom

[rcwild]

Seems like there are a few people that are opposed to the "WCCM" guide-service... they all seem to be native utahns that like to think that they started it all and know everything about canyoning/canyoneering.

I think this is just one more example of different people in different camps defending there own "turf".

Aside from the "margin" terminology, how was the core information? Was the anchor information right? Because that's what the OP originally said the book was 90% of. Someone can make an accusation to throw it all out because the rope that they sell wasn't posted in it, or that some terminology isn't correct, but really, if most of the book is about anchors, telling someone that the book is "dangerous" is a little bit extreme, to say the least.

ps- my harness is rated way over 15kn, btw.


I logged in today because I was told there was a thread here about my book. Mistakenly thought this was it.

There certainly are ego issues within the canyoneering community, especially with those native Utahns. :haha: Glad I'm not one of them either. Canyoneering for 32 years, but have lived in Utah for only the past 8.

Has it occurred to you that there is a risk in discounting people's opinions because you think they are just defending their own turf? If I tell you there are serious problems with the book, will you ignore me and accept the book as fact because I offer courses that compete with ATS? Or because I am working on a book that will compete with this one? Or just because I'm an a**hole?

Just in case you are willing to listen on the off-chance that I might have an objective opinion ...

Tom is right; the book is very poorly written. Typos, spelling errors, poor grammar, incorrect terminology, poor grasp of technical concepts, etc. It is titled "Canyoneering Anchors and Basic Rope Systems". Don't count on finding any basic rope systems. It does have a lot of material about anchors; much of that material attempting to defend bolting. Quite a bit of the material was gleaned from the ACA's forums and from anchor workshops I taught in LA (e.g. the bits about knot chocks). Unfortunately, in attempting their own explanations they missed some of the nuance.

I don't feel there is anything in the book so glaringly bad that someone might get hurt from it. But if you go about the canyoneering community quoting portions of it or using their explanations and terminology, be prepared to be met with some puzzled looks.

[ratagonia]

I use a metolius All Around... double 10kn belay loops at 20Kn total according to Metolius. Could this break below this point? Possibly, but likely not. It would take some crazy forces to break out just one part of the waist or leg loops alone, which would be pretty nuts to try and isolate one out from the other.

It's not.

Here's what Metolius has to say: http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/harnesses.html

They make no strength rating claim for the overall harness other than that it is CE/UIAA Certified, so the certified strength of your harness is 15 kN.

What they HAVE done is think of lots of ways people can mess up, and engineered a backup system. Their 10 kN gear loops may have saved a life or two, hard to say.

The twin 10 kN belay loops are interesting. There is a test standard for the belay loops for CE certification, but I don't remember what the required strength is, for sure. The test is to pull on the harness (on the dummy) with any point shown for attachment of the rappel device; so it is a test of the belay loop against the harness, which is more severe than pulling the belay loop between pins. As I remember, the required strength is 12 kN. Black Diamond belay loops, pulled between pins, were typically 5000 lbs or 22 kN.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

ps- my harness is rated way over 15kn, btw.

And just to be clear, because THIS is a technical discussion, you THINKING that your harness is good for WAY OVER 15 kN, and it being "RATED" for way over 15 kN are two entirely different things. Yes, when I look at the Metolius Climb Safe, I am also under the impression that it would barely even notice 15 kN, and would probably go up to 20 kN or more, before the test dummy exploded. But Metolius makes no such claim, and they are the people to state a rating for the harness.

Tom :moses:

[rcwild]

Because some sport climbers only use a Gri-gri, and this type of setup adds a pretty simple way of dealing with it.

My comment was in reference to canyoneering, not sport climbing.

[oval]

Just to be clear, since this has escalated into an argument, I did not use the word "dangerous". You did.

Tom


If the book is filled with flagrant errors, then I believe I have a duty to tell my friend Mark that the book is "dangerous". If you do not respect my opinion, that is your choice. But Mark is my friend (you know, in the real world, not just on Bogley), has a wonderful family and friends, and deserves to live. I have less of a duty to you, Mr. Oval, but you got in on the conversation anyway.

You're implications don't imply danger or life-threatening ramifications? Interesting how you look at things.

[oval]

My comment was in reference to canyoneering, not sport climbing.
Yeah, but the reason it's in their catalogue is to demonstrate single line rapping with a gri gri. I don't know if they recommend it for canyoneering or not, but climbing is what I've seen Petzl demonstrate it for.

[rcwild]

Yeah, but the reason it's in their catalogue is to demonstrate single line rapping with a gri gri. I don't know if they recommend it for canyoneering or not, but climbing is what I've seen Petzl demonstrate it for.

It is/was in their canyoneering documents. That is the only place I have ever seen it. Felt comfortable inferring a canyoneering context here in the canyoneering forum.

[Randi]

Anybody seen this book yet? http://tinyurl.com/l9n6ee Just curious.

Mike C.

I haven't seen it, but it sure seems to be stirring up a lot of debate!
I wonder why it's priced higher than most books of this genre; Steve Allen's (cept the out of print books), Dave Blacks, Tom Jone's books are all priced considerably lower than the $30 they're asking...

Have you read it Mike? What did you think?

[oval]

Has it occurred to you that there is a risk in discounting people's opinions because you think they are just defending their own turf? If I tell you there are serious problems with the book, will you ignore me and accept the book as fact because I offer courses that compete with ATS? Or because I am working on a book that will compete with this one? Or just because I'm an a**hole?
Still waiting to hear said allegations of "Serious problems" from anyone; Tom, you, or anyone else. Please, by all means enlighten the community.

I have problems with anyone that is pushing their own agenda, mostly because there is biased info as a result. I've heard many good things about your courses, so kudos to you on the information that you've collected and formulated. On the other hand, there are several things that I think are dangerous or negative to the community that you have done that I wouldn't buy into for any amount of money. These are my opinions. These are just my opinions however, and others may feel differently; totally up to people to judge for themself.


I don't feel there is anything in the book so glaringly bad that someone might get hurt from it. But if you go about the canyoneering community quoting portions of it or using their explanations and terminology, be prepared to be met with some puzzled looks.
So you don't think it's dangerous then. Not a well written book, but not dangerous/life-threatening.

[Iceaxe]

Very interesting.....

Yesterday this was the system posted on the Petzl website under Canyoning Techniques

33816


Today they have new files up promoting the new system below and the old technique is no longer noted.

33817


And for fun and games.... here is what the ACA teach's for a block.

http://www.canyoneering.net/content_img/biner_block.jpg

[rcwild]

On the other hand, there are several things that I think are dangerous or negative to the community that you have done that I wouldn't buy into for any amount of money.

Please enlighten me.


These are my opinions. These are just my opinions however, and others may feel differently; totally up to people to judge for themself.

So isn't that what these forums are all about. You give your opinion. I give mine. Others give theirs. Then everyone draws their own conclusions. So why do you get so upset when Tom or I share our opinions?


So you don't think it's dangerous then. Not a well written book, but not dangerous/life-threatening.

There are some very dangerous things in the book. But I have faith that anyone with average intelligence will recognize them for what they are. Very odd how some of the things are presented, however. For example, in a book titled "Canyoneering Anchors and Basic Rope Systems" there is a chapter (15) titled "Anchors That will Kill You (Maybe)" They state that it is for entertainment purposes only, then go on to say:

"The Greasy Granny is a great system ... this has been an ace in the hole for us ... all things considered this is the strongest and most durable design ... I have personally used this device successfully on a wide range of drops ... "

I guess I don't understand why techniques "for entertainment purposes only" are lauded as great systems. Sounds like they are trying to encourage people to use them. Or just trying to dazzle the reader ??

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has actually used the greasy granny. It seams to be an over-complicated variation of the old piton block:

http://canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1349

The piton block, while dicey, has a specific purpose ... getting down on a single strand of rope and still getting your rope back.

The Greasy Granny is described as useful for situations where you have to tie ropes together, but two strands have to reach the ground for it to work. I understand not passing the rope through the rappel ring if there are knots on both sides. But why not use something more secure like a macrame?

Do I think the technique is dangerous? Yes. Do I think it was irresponsible for them to include it? Yes. Do I think anyone with a lick of sense with actually try it? God, I hope not.

[rcwild]

And for fun and games ... here is what the ACA teach's for a block.

In the collection where you found that photo are several others. All for illustration purposes. The way I currently teach blocks ...

[Ryebrye]

In the collection where you found that photo are several others. All for illustration purposes. The way I currently teach blocks ...

I tried that kind of block once, but damn it was hard to pull. I had to exert around 20 kN of force just to pull my rope! On the plus side, we were able to ghost that anchor ;) :lol8:

(and yes, I'm just being a smart ass, I know you'd unhook it as the last one down)

[rcwild]

... I know you'd unhook it as the last one down)

Unhook it? NO. We teach students to leave the entire rig behind. I sell more ropes and canyon quickdraws teaching it that way.

[ratagonia]

You're implications don't imply danger or life-threatening ramifications? Interesting how you look at things.

(can't seem to quote your entire post, including the quotes, with the new system)...

You quote me out of context, Oval. I only used the word "dangerous" AFTER you did, in rebuttal (essentially). My criticisms did not imply danger or life-threatening ramifications; they did imply that learning anything from this book, filled with simple errors as it is, is probably not a good thing for Mark, who is fairly well-versed in canyoneering technique, but not what I would call a technique-nazi, like me. The examples I presented did not touch on important points, but were instead meant to show that the authors are not well-versed in the topic, or, more specifically, well-versed in WRITING about the topic, and therefore their WRITING about the topic should be considered suspect.

I have not delved into the book looking for significant and dangerous errors of fact. My suspicion is that I will find few to none. Darren and Travis know what they are doing. Yeah, they do a couple of odd things that I would not do - but then again I do a couple of odd things that hardly anyone else does too. I respect them as canyoneers and instructors, but the topic at hand is this book. Not so good.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

I haven't seen it, but it sure seems to be stirring up a lot of debate!

I wonder why it's priced higher than most books of this genre; Steve Allen's (cept the out of print books), Dave Blacks, Tom Jone's books are all priced considerably lower than the $30 they're asking...

Have you read it Mike? What did you think?

I fully support higher prices for canyoneering-related books!! :haha:

And I hope Rich will do a good job of setting the standard high in this matter, as I fully expect Rich's book to be not only really big, but also really good. $40.00 Rich, I expect no less!

Tom :moses:

[Don]

In the collection where you found that photo are several others. All for illustration purposes. The way I currently teach blocks ...

Typically, when using a biner block we (we = my partners and I) will clip the rope to the anchor for all but the last guy down the rope. The last guy will then either clip the rope to the rope as shown above or if that might hamper the rope pull he could just unclip it. Neither option alters the block. Of course the last guy down has to remember to do this or someone is going back up.
This adds redundancy to the system which would have prevented the recent death in CA and would prevent an accident resulting from someone clipping into the wrong side of a blocked rope (to prevent this we also keep the unblocked side of the rope on top until the last guy tosses it or brings it down with him). Of course the priority, job one, should be knowing how to set up and safely use the block in the first place.

[Iceaxe]

I fully support higher prices for canyoneering-related books!!

Most well written how-to books and guidebooks are a bargin... even at twice the cost....

[Scott Card]

I respect them as canyoneers and instructors, but the topic at hand is this book. Not so good.

Tom :moses: There you go again. . . .being able to separate emotion, people, facts, and techniques all neatly put in a box and on their own nice cozy individual shelves. Technical technique nazi is right!!! :haha::2thumbs:

[ratagonia]

There you go again. . . .being able to separate emotion, people, facts, and techniques all neatly put in a box and on their own nice cozy individual shelves. Technical technique nazi is right!!! :haha::2thumbs:

I've watched enough Law and Order to not leave openings for cross. Your witness, counselor...

Tom :moses:

[rcwild]

And I hope Rich will do a good job of setting the standard high in this matter, as I fully expect Rich's book to be not only really big, but also really good. $40.00 Rich, I expect no less!

Sorry to disappoint. You should know by now, Tom. I have never been in this for money. It's all going to be worthless in the very near future anyway, so why get all bent out of shape trying to accumulate it?

[oval]

So isn't that what these forums are all about. You give your opinion. I give mine. Others give theirs. Then everyone draws their own conclusions. So why do you get so upset when Tom or I share our opinions?

Because it's ridiculous to say something is life-threatening without citing something that is a life-threatening. I mean, really, saying someone's book is life-threatening will only making comments about grammar and the definition of a term is counts as LIBEL, not as an opinion. Back it up if you expect people to take you seriously. I'm all about listening if you cite something that we can actually talk about. Making statements like: "Unlearn everything you read in the book ASAP if you want to live" is just asinine without giving reasons. How can anyone even converse or learn anything with opinions like that?



Please enlighten me.

I think using and teaching people to use the Totem in "trolley mode" (as shown on your website) without doing 3 sigma rating on what it can hold in that mode is down-right fool-hardy. Heck, who even knows if you gone beyond doing a few linear pull tests on the Totemand actually done 3 sigma testing on a statistically significant number of samples, let alone testing it in a multitude of rigging modes that you recommend.


There are some very dangerous things in the book.

So in a chapter with a title like that Anchors That will Kill You (Maybe), you think that it's dangerous? The chapter title is telling you these aren't ideal anchors to use. Tell me, do you teach anything in your ACA courses that could be dangerous if done incorrectly? Tentative anchor systems, when nothing else is available? Rapping of natural anchors that may or may not hold and are difficult to judge? Crazy rigging systems for rappelling that could totally cluster your rope if they twist or pop out of place? There are all sorts of ways to screw things up, and there are all sorts of less than ideal anchor systems. We all know there is risk involved with certain types of anchors, the point is that they record some that they've used. How many people know the sheep-shank knot?... the one that you have 3 strands with a loops on either end, cut the middle, but keep tension and you can retrieve your rope, though its shorter. Lot's of people know it, even though it's ridiculously dangerous and should never be used. Does that mean it shouldn't be recorded for people to know about?

I guess I don't get what you're driving at saying that a chapter that discusses sketchy anchor set-ups. So they record some crappy anchor set-ups and tell you that they will be dangerous if you use them, to the point of killing you... I fail to see how this is leading people into danger, or how it's telling people to use them.
The piton block, while dicey, has a specific purpose . So they recorded something that is dangerous, but that there is a specific use for. Seems to justify the reason for recording it. Maybe you would be happier that people just not know, so that they would be safer. IMO, though, the more knowledge, the more ability to survive if you ever hit a situation where that would save your bacon.

[Iceaxe]

for entertainment purposes only

Here... let me translate that for ya..... using the Universal Canyon Translator(tm)

For Entertainment Purposes Only - Were going to show you a bunch of really cool shit but don't blame us when it kills you.

[oval]

You quote me out of context, Oval. I only used the word "dangerous" AFTER you did, in rebuttal (essentially). My criticisms did not imply danger or life-threatening ramifications; they did imply that learning anything from this book, filled with simple errors as it is, is probably not a good thing for Mark, who is fairly well-versed in canyoneering technique, but not what I would call a technique-nazi, like me.
Well, you said this in your original post.


So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.


So probably none of the anchor or rappel methods are right, probably none of the knots are right... basically, nothing is right in this book. I don't see how you could slam it or make any other statement saying that the book is dangerous and using the informations in it will be a big deal. Whic h is funny because you just said this.

I have not delved into the book looking for significant and dangerous errors of fact. My suspicion is that I will find few to none. Darren and Travis know what they are doing.

Wow, confusing listening to what you are saying about this book when comparing your first and second posts. Holy back-pedals, batman!

[rcwild]

Can I get some input from other members of this forum? I am going to copy a section of my post #54 and would like to know if others draw the same conclusions from it as Oval. Not sure if I'm just doing a real bad job communicating or ... ??

I am trying to make the point that there are some dangerous techniques in the book. Yes, they labeled them as "entertainment purposes only", but then told their readers how great the techniques are. Yes, I have shown sketchy techniques to students, including the piton block. But I don't tell them it is my "ace in the hole" or the "strongest and most durable design". I tell them it scares the crap out of me and I would never ever use it unless I absolutely had no other alternative. In other words, I tell them it is for "entertainment purposes only" and send no mixed message.

I stated earlier that, while it is a very poorly written book, I don't believe anyone will get hurt because of it. I said that precisely because they called these techniques for entertainment purposes only. If they made the "ace in the hole" and "strongest and most durable design" comments with the chapter titled "Anchors That Will Save Your Life (maybe)", I would call this an extremely dangerous book that will get someone killed.

I just don't understand the mixed message.


There are some very dangerous things in the book. But I have faith that anyone with average intelligence will recognize them for what they are. Very odd how some of the things are presented, however. For example, in a book titled "Canyoneering Anchors and Basic Rope Systems" there is a chapter (15) titled "Anchors That will Kill You (Maybe)" They state that it is for entertainment purposes only, then go on to say:

"The Greasy Granny is a great system ... this has been an ace in the hole for us ... all things considered this is the strongest and most durable design ... I have personally used this device successfully on a wide range of drops ... "

I guess I don't understand why techniques "for entertainment purposes only" are lauded as great systems. Sounds like they are trying to encourage people to use them. Or just trying to dazzle the reader ??

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has actually used the greasy granny. It seams to be an over-complicated variation of the old piton block:

http://canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1349

The piton block, while dicey, has a specific purpose ... getting down on a single strand of rope and still getting your rope back.

The Greasy Granny is described as useful for situations where you have to tie ropes together, but two strands have to reach the ground for it to work. I understand not passing the rope through the rappel ring if there are knots on both sides. But why not use something more secure like a macrame?

Do I think the technique is dangerous? Yes. Do I think it was irresponsible for them to include it? Yes. Do I think anyone with a lick of sense with actually try it? God, I hope not.

[Scott Card]

No Rich, you were clear. :nod:

[ratagonia]

Because it's ridiculous to say something is life-threatening without citing something that is a life-threatening. I mean, really, saying someone's book is life-threatening will only making comments about grammar and the definition of a term is counts as LIBEL, not as an opinion. Back it up if you expect people to take you seriously. I'm all about listening if you cite something that we can actually talk about. Making statements like: "Unlearn everything you read in the book ASAP if you want to live" is just asinine without giving reasons. How can anyone even converse or learn anything with opinions like that?


But that is NOT WHAT I SAID. It may be what YOU heard, but it is very much NOT what I said.



So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.


It is very difficult, Oval, to have an intelligent conversation with you if you insist on MAKING THINGS UP!

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

Well, you said this in your original post.


So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

So probably none of the anchor or rappel methods are right, probably none of the knots are right... basically, nothing is right in this book. I don't see how you could slam it or make any other statement saying that the book is dangerous and using the informations in it will be a big deal. Which is funny because you just said this.


I have not delved into the book looking for significant and dangerous errors of fact. My suspicion is that I will find few to none. Darren and Travis know what they are doing.

Wow, confusing listening to what you are saying about this book when comparing your first and second posts. Holy back-pedals, batman!

Oval - either you are being deliberately provocative, or your grasp of English and logic is not so good. What I said and your version of what I said are VERY DIFFERENT. It's a free country, you are welcome to read into my statements whatever you want. But that does not make it 'what I said'.

Defense rests.


Tom :moses:

[jman]

But that is NOT WHAT I SAID. It may be what YOU heard, but it is very much NOT what I said.



It is very difficult, Oval, to have an intelligent conversation with you if you insist on MAKING THINGS UP!

Tom :moses:

This isn't my battle here, but Tom, you say that Oval was "MAKING THINGS UP!" by quoting you as saying thus:


So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

I looked back at the initial pages, and technically you said that, with 2 other people quoting that exact phrase in it. To be technical, that is. I'm not on either side, just observing, like Rich asked earlier.

[ratagonia]

This isn't my battle here, but Tom, you say that Oval was "MAKING THINGS UP!" by quoting you as saying thus:

I looked back at the initial pages, and technically you said that, with 2 other people quoting that exact phrase in it. To be technical, that is. I'm not on either side, just observing, like Rich asked earlier.

What Oval said I said: "Unlearn everything you read in the book ASAP if you want to live"

What I said: "So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct."

Can we agree, Jman, that these are not the SAME thing? Therefore, I posit that Oval is making things up.

(that the post quoting system has changed with the new Bogley is not helping matters)

Tom

[trackrunner]

This isn't my battle here, but Tom, you say that Oval was "MAKING THINGS UP!"



So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct.

still not seeing the word "dangerous" in that quote.

using the search thread feature the first poster to use the word "dangerous" is http://www.bogley.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17461 in this post http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?36727-Canyoneering-Book&p=401705&viewfull=1#post401705

:popcorn:

not my fight
:doorpeak:

[ratagonia]

This isn't my battle here, but Tom, you say that Oval was "MAKING THINGS UP!" by quoting you as saying thus:

I looked back at the initial pages, and technically you said that, with 2 other people quoting that exact phrase in it. To be technical, that is. I'm not on either side, just observing, like Rich asked earlier.

Allow me to clarify it a little more. There are multiple responses to things, so the back and forth is hard to follow. Look at Post #70 for the original response to Oval's making things up. In that case, he placed in quotation marks what he thought I said - usually an indication of a direct, literal quote. It was not a direct literal quote, nor was it a paraphrase with no significant change.

The second example of Oval making things up is:

Ratagonia: "So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct."

Oval: "So probably none of the anchor or rappel methods are right, probably none of the knots are right... basically, nothing is right in this book. I don't see how you could slam it or make any other statement saying that the book is dangerous and using the informations in it will be a big deal. Which is funny because you just said this."

In this case, he quoted me correctly, when quoting me. Then he states as the second sentence what he says I MEANT. But it is not. Oval's re-interpretation of what I said is not equivalent to what I said. And, when I post, I mean EXACTLY what I say, no more, no less. Reading extra stuff into what I said is not the same as my having said the extra stuff.

Can we agree, Jman, that these two statements are not equivalent?

Tom :moses:

[Ryebrye]

I went to canyoneeringusa.com to try to pick up a copy of this book, but cant find it. Is it backordered?

I want to learn the west side style so if I am canyoneering in california I wont be such an obvious colorado plateau canyoneer.

[ratagonia]

I went to canyoneeringusa.com to try to pick up a copy of this book, but cant find it. Is it backordered?

I want to learn the west side style so if I am canyoneering in california I wont be such an obvious colorado plateau canyoneer.

Oh man, sorry dude. I've only got one copy in stock, and those first couple pages are getting really worked...

T :moses:

[ratagonia]

still not seeing the word "dangerous" in that quote.

using the search thread feature the first poster to use the word "dangerous" is http://www.bogley.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17461 in this post http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?36727-Canyoneering-Book&p=401705&viewfull=1#post401705

:popcorn:

not my fight
:doorpeak:

That would be Oval's first post in the series, post #31.

T

[ratagonia]

Page 13: he has a section on "redundanitis". I really like this. No, really, I LIKE this. Also one of my pet peeves - an earnest and blind faith in adding more gear to the system.

Thank you Darren and Travis, an entertainingly written section on one of my pet peeves.

Tom :moses:

[jman]

Allow me to clarify it a little more. There are multiple responses to things, so the back and forth is hard to follow. Look at Post #70 for the original response to Oval's making things up. In that case, he placed in quotation marks what he thought I said - usually an indication of a direct, literal quote. It was not a direct literal quote, nor was it a paraphrase with no significant change.

The second example of Oval making things up is:

Ratagonia: "So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct."

Oval: "So probably none of the anchor or rappel methods are right, probably none of the knots are right... basically, nothing is right in this book. I don't see how you could slam it or make any other statement saying that the book is dangerous and using the informations in it will be a big deal. Which is funny because you just said this."

In this case, he quoted me correctly, when quoting me. Then he states as the second sentence what he says I MEANT. But it is not. Oval's re-interpretation of what I said is not equivalent to what I said. And, when I post, I mean EXACTLY what I say, no more, no less. Reading extra stuff into what I said is not the same as my having said the extra stuff.

Can we agree, Jman, that these two statements are not equivalent?

Tom :moses:

Hmm, now that's interesting. I thought I was reading everything correctly from the beginning...and now having you explain that, I can see the misinterpretation. Thank's for clarifying that Tom.

[oval]

What Oval said I said: "Unlearn everything you read in the book ASAP if you want to live"

What I said: "So, Mark, whatever you 'learned' from that book, 'unlearn' it right away, because it is probably not correct."

Can we agree, Jman, that these are not the SAME thing? Therefore, I posit that Oval is making things up.

(that the post quoting system has changed with the new Bogley is not helping matters)

Tom

Getting comical. Your post #34:

If the book is filled with flagrant errors, then I believe I have a duty to tell my friend Mark that the book is "dangerous". If you do not respect my opinion, that is your choice. But Mark is my friend (you know, in the real world, not just on Bogley), has a wonderful family and friends, and deserves to live. I have less of a duty to you, Mr. Oval, but you got in on the conversation anyway.

So you quote my use of "dangerous", then express that you have an obligation to Mark to make sure he lives. It's plain english that you are using. You can claim I'm making things up, but it's pretty clear you are talking about life and death from the mis-information you claim the book has.