I also think that it's a cynical ploy to avoid admitting that their journalistic standards are so low that they've published stuff in the past without any sort of evidence or checking of sources.
If Simpson wants to respond or other evidence comes to light we can unlock it.
This thread is kinda pointless.
I for one think UKC have handled this pretty well all things considered, including the aforementioned news piece which draws some sort of line under things, as well as summarising what is actually a fairly newsworthy happening in UK climbing to folks who don't want to trawl through long and rambling threads.
Until Rich comes out and confirms or deny what happened its pointless discussing it further.
I, and I'm sure I am not alone, find the whole thing quite sad (in a depressing way).
Your sponsorship is in essence based upon you performing high profile work. Is being paid for work that isn't performed considered fraud?
Quote from: chummer on December 16, 2010, 01:07:39 pmRu, by 'history books' I mean it as a generalisation for all that is written on climbing ascents whether that be on the internet, in the history sections in guides, or in other publications. Of course it's up the guide writer but I personally don't think it's an irrelevency. I meant that it was an irrelevancy for most guides as they don't have lists of ascentionists anyway. Clearly it's not an irrelevancy for the few that want to include this information, but then the writers will make a judgement call as they do already.QuoteThere's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about. My point is that there has been lots of fuss about the "historical record" when in actual fact the "record" is just a few trainspotter blokes like me who will do exactly the same thing when writing books and articles as we've always done. Which is to do a bit of googling, a bit of ringing round, then writing whatever we feel like afterwards.
Ru, by 'history books' I mean it as a generalisation for all that is written on climbing ascents whether that be on the internet, in the history sections in guides, or in other publications. Of course it's up the guide writer but I personally don't think it's an irrelevency.
There's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about.
nice ren & stimpy reference
When I read about Joe Brown, Colin Kirkus or whoever, I’d like to think the writing reflects the facts known and opinions help by climbers at the time, not some prettified version put about to keep the peace at the time.
by - Al Evans on - 10 Dec 2010 In reply to Monk: I used to be able to do three one arm pull-ups with either hand (it's actually not difficult if you train for them) but then along came Steve Bancroft who could do one arm pull ups on a single finger, as I remember , any finger!
by - steve webster on - 10 Dec 2010 In reply to Al Evans: although this has nothing to do with this thread.steve could not do one finger pull ups,he could barely manage a one armer.he was one of the climbers weakest stregth wise when he lived in leeds.
I do think that the discussion specific to RS has run its course. Though locking another topic on the subject seems pointless and counter productive to me. What is worth discussing is how to avoid the same shit happening again and again and….
shark is right, bullshit and climbing have always gone hand in hand and every generation has it's dodgy characters. However I also agree with Bonjoy that the above is worth discussing. Why does it seem to be so easy for bullshitters to prosper and what can be done about it? I have absolutely no idea what the answer is though.
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
