Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

It was obviously not completely forseeable because I don't believe the people who died had a death wish. And multiple disagree with you, by the way. Or at least are trying to tell you you're a jacka$$.

No pretty sure it's just you. The people involve made tragic errors. Not unlike the deaths that occur on Everest. You seem really ignorant about the psychology of events like this. it's obvious why.

DP. Wrong again. Ask Jeff if you don't believe multiple posters disagree with you.

+2

It’s disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:I'm still interested in knowing what they thought they were going to encounter when they got back to their cars.

The cars, unless they were garaged - very unlikely, would have been buried under feet of snow and the roads all around were closed. Someone asked upthread if the guides knew about the roads, and they absolutely would have known about the roads being closed.

They had to know they would be either trapped in their cars or spend hours digging out their cars to likely not be able to go far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

It was obviously not completely forseeable because I don't believe the people who died had a death wish. And multiple disagree with you, by the way. Or at least are trying to tell you you're a jacka$$.

No pretty sure it's just you. The people involve made tragic errors. Not unlike the deaths that occur on Everest. You seem really ignorant about the psychology of events like this. it's obvious why.

DP. Wrong again. Ask Jeff if you don't believe multiple posters disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

It was obviously not completely forseeable because I don't believe the people who died had a death wish. And multiple disagree with you, by the way. Or at least are trying to tell you you're a jacka$$.

On Tuesday morning, the National Weather Service issued avalanche warnings across the region, including the greater Lake Tahoe area, through at least early Wednesday. “Large avalanches are expected across backcountry terrain,” the warning said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

It was obviously not completely forseeable because I don't believe the people who died had a death wish. And multiple disagree with you, by the way. Or at least are trying to tell you you're a jacka$$.

No pretty sure it's just you. The people involve made tragic errors. Not unlike the deaths that occur on Everest. You seem really ignorant about the psychology of events like this. it's obvious why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

It was obviously not completely forseeable because I don't believe the people who died had a death wish. And multiple disagree with you, by the way. Or at least are trying to tell you you're a jacka$$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

You can think all you want about each of your activities. You can also come to a different conclusion than someone else. What I think is rude is blaming the people who died when you weren’t in their position, you don’t have all the information, and no one cares about your opinion.

You do. Clearly. You can't stand the fact that people are judging people who disregard warnings. You aren't going to change minds by continually arguing. Bad decisions were made, tragedy ensued in a completely foreseeable situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.

An “expert” you say? Expert in what exactly?

Don’t be lazy, do your own research. https://blackbirdguides.com/pages/guides

Oh, no thanks. People who use vibes and feelings to disregard common sense. You must be one of them.

Lazy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.

An “expert” you say? Expert in what exactly?

Don’t be lazy, do your own research. https://blackbirdguides.com/pages/guides

Oh, no thanks. People who use vibes and feelings to disregard common sense. You must be one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.

An “expert” you say? Expert in what exactly?

Don’t be lazy, do your own research. https://blackbirdguides.com/pages/guides

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.

An “expert” you say? Expert in what exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.