No, that isn't what I was saying. Not quite sure why you got that impression? I clearly said there were some things he could have done differently. I just don't think he was as totally unprepared as you seem to believe.

Regarding my "Would this have changed the outcome?" question, I said it was one tool, but I did not suggest that it is the only appropriate tool. Note that in applying that tool to your three points that 1) he didn't take food, 2) he didn't have first aid gear, and 3) he had no means signaling), I said that the first case (lack of food) didn't matter in this case but could have if it had taken longer to find him, the second case (lack of FAK) probably didn't effect the outcome since he was able to improvise a splint, but that the third case (lack of means to signal) most certainly did mean that it took longer to find him than it should have.

I absolutely did not say that because he survived he was properly prepared. I said he passed the survival test. I also said did some things right, and he did some things wrong. Although he did some things wrong, I don't believe that automatically means that "He was obviously a very inexperienced hiker and uneducated in preparedness" which was what you explicitly stated.

One issue I have with some of the discussions of survival on ETS is that people often assume a very judgemental attitude. There is all too often the implicit assumtption that we would never get into the same kind of trouble because we are way too prepared, and that anyone who does get into trouble must therefore be inexperienced and unprepared. I try to take a more humble view. There have certainly been times I have found myself in situations that I was not properly prepared for. When I read stories about survival situations I try to learn what I can from other people's mistakes, but also give them credit for what they did right.