Your original post stated you were looking to explain things to your students. In your private letter you belittled my freely given response and let slip at least some of your original intent in your vague and poorly worded original inquiry.

I am aware that Outdoor recreation leaders have an unclear status on campus - somewhere above many staff members, but below most faculty. My empathy for the politics you suffer on campus, but you should either confront those problems or leave, not foist them off on others, especially your students.

My original, private request still stands. Please make your intent with this post completely clear.

The only thing that is personally attacking you is yourself, and it appears quite rightly. I am explicitly challenging your professional qualifications as a river guide, as an educator, and as a public employee based on this thread.

Would you like me to explain that to you again?

-Douglas Tooley
"Eric" wrote in message ...
Since you don't know me as an individual, please take the time to clarify your questions before making an accusation such as this one.

You have never been on any sort of river with me or worked with me in any of the programs that I have spent time at in my 10+ years in outdoor education and recreation.

I asked for simple information. I received some good answers. However, I now find myself being attacked on a personal and professional level for reasons with which I am not entirely clear.

If you have questions, please contact me personally and do not attack me in a public forum unless you can be sure of what you are saying.

Eric Henkel

D.L. wrote:

I've received a rather strange reply from the originator of this thread
which clarifies the real intent of the original, 'rambling' post. Although
the question is still good - the reason for it is intentionally misstated.

I've challenged the guy privately in response to his e-mail and I'll wait
for his response today before I post the rest.

But do take the warning that this guy is a risk to both his students and
perhaps even yourself.

-Douglas Tooley
"Felsenmeer" wrote in message
.. .
"ChuckB" wrote
It is my understanding that the level (feet) as measured by a USGS
gauge is not standardized (across many gauges). So the level on one
gauge on a river many not have anything to do with the level on
another gauge on the same river or a different river.
That's correct- the level is based on a somewhat arbitrary datum, thus "5
feet on the gauge" just means that the level is 5 ft. above the datum.
The
datum is tied to sea level, so you might have a datum of 0 at 800 ft.
above
sea level, so when the gage is at 5 ft., the water surface elevation is at
805 ft. MSL. 0 ft. does not equate to the stream bed either, in many (if
not most) cases.