simpson vanishes...

[slackline]

Any suggestions how one would go about doing that tactfully ?

You have a public website with 7 pages of posts accusing him of lying and you're worried about how to speak to him tactfully? You're probably well past that stage. In the circumstances I think at the very least he should be contacted to give him an opportunity to respond.

The thing is though that the postings of users do not reflect the opinions of the sites owners. As made clear in the About UKB

Moderation policy

We like freedom of expression and are proud of our light moderation policy so the overly-sensitive may wish to click away elsewhere. We think the overall tone of the site (friendly, humourous, irreverent) is a more important focus than fretting over specific content. However posters identified who troll, threaten, spam, promote hatred (sexism, racism, etc) or post illegal content will be banned and have their posts removed. As on all web forums, the views and opinions expressed by posters are their own and UKB has no responsibility for them.

...although clearly the tone of this thread isn't "friendly, humourous, irreferent", but it has remained fairly sensible as Ferret points out.

Perhaps it is because of the nature of the posts that Shark is seeking to clarify the situation in a tactful manner (I don't think such efforts are put into confirming other "news" of ascents or "significant repeats").


The alternative is to have deleted this thread and all subsequent postings which isn't really in keeping with past moderation of the site and would be more akin to UKC policy which this site isn't (thankfully).

 

[Stahl]

The views weren't Shark's, but he was still proposing to do some digging and phoning round. The website is still his and Toby's.

Whilst it is lovely that Shark was concerned about how to approach Rich tactfully, it was, I think, a secondary concern to contacting him at all. Anyway, it doesn't matter, Doyle spoke to him yesterday and I did last night.

 

[Simon Lee]

slack--line, Your loyalty to the site is tremendous. I should point out that the 'Heason' thread was pulled here but retained on UKC something that I disagreed with at the time as an observer.

Ru - On reflection my reference to being diplomatic was too flippant. Sorry. The point I was trying to make was that Simpson positioned himself so that you could only legitimately ask him for evidence if you stated you doubted him. Either this is because he is difficult and prickly or it is a way of deflecting the need to supply it or both. You said it was easy to ask - the way he has positioned himself makes it very difficult to ask. Simpson has been asked and had the opportunity to respond with evidence in the past and more recently with his sponsors. He hasn't come up with the goods yet. As a UKB member he still can now.

I also think that you describing this thread as being 7 pages of posts accusing him of lying is overstatement. The lack of evidence so far to support specific claims has raised serious doubts which have been expressed and explored here. I don't describe that as 7 pages accusing him of lying. That is the type of polarisation that Simpson was forcing in that quote. The evidence I am talking about being the naming and testimony of belayers/witnesses or video of actual ascents. Not even all of them - though I hope that if offered it would relate to AD as I personally think this is the most important claim. Notwithstanding witness or video evidence of any hard ascent would help support his other claims. He has claimed numerous ascents in the 8c and above category. If he has done what he has claimed then there will a belayer and therefore a witness for each one. Given the crags they are on in all probability there will have been bystanders too.

 

[slackline]

The views weren't Shark's, but he was still proposing to do some digging and phoning round. The website is still his and Toby's.

It doesn't matter who's site it is!

The fact that one of the owners appears to be making reasonable and rationale attempts to obtain FACTS is a good thing as it will hopefully stem the speculation by others (and being polite/tactful in going about that is good too as its civilised).

Whilst it is lovely that Shark was concerned about how to approach Rich tactfully, it was, I think, a secondary concern to contacting him at all.

Yes it was secondary as Shark's posts in this thread show he'd already started making efforts to corroborate information (in the absence of having Rich's phone number himself) before he posted the "tactfully" question (several posts prior to yesterdays).

Anyway, it doesn't matter, Doyle spoke to him yesterday and I did last night.

Yes I clocked that, not everyone has his contact number to be able to do this (as you had previously suggested Shark do). Lets see if his attitude has changed.

 

[Snoopy]

Man, this is depressing

If Rich does get to read all this i'm sure it will just re affirm his decision to leave climbing.

Adios gossip mongers.

I find statements like this ironic considering he instigated and contributed to the internet gossip hunt of Ben Heason. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1

 

[slackline]

I find statements like this ironic considering he instigated and contributed to an internet gossip hunt of Ben Heason. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1

Not read that before, but Rich's first post seems in-keeping with what has been suggested in this thread as sufficient evidence about his claims..

After all recent goings on with Ben heason,

i ask on a well read forum, would anyone who has witnessed Ben heason climb anthing of upper difficulty please contact me via email through this site or a post on this thread. It is important that a full name is given otherwise important information will not be taken seriously.

Please keep this post free of rants and uninformed information. It is important that anyone who has important information speaks out and help to bring out the truth.

 

[mark s]

Wonder if this thread will put an end to a UKC news headline like "simpson gains the lucasian chair at cambridge"

 

[SA Chris]

in my opinion it would be better to stop further postinguntil rich comes forward and says his piece or somebody has some kind of meaningful communication with him thats worth passing on.

What ferret and Ru said - Lock or Logpile time?

 

[carlisle slapper]

Well put Ru, i realised this when i first posted here, and this seems like a decent time to stop, it'd just be nice to hit something concrete rather than permanently pig swilling because every time a question is asked it produces nothing (which only leads to the desire to keep asking), however it looks like the only way that can possibly happen is for it to come from Rich, so i'll drop it.
Thanks for the reply chris.

 

[Simon Lee]

Seems fair and appropriate.

If Simpson wants to respond or other evidence comes to light we can unlock it.