UKC

After thinking a lot about the issues with Ben, I would like to make a few things clear.
I will hopefully be meeting with Ben to discuss and clear things up shortly. One way or another the truth will come out, if i am wrong, I will publically apologise to Ben via magazines and on the internet. I will also clear up any rumours (of which their are several) about Ben and his climbing therefore allowing Ben to receive the rewards he well and truly deserves.
It may look as if I have set out to sabotage Ben, i haven’t, and all in all I think he is a nice guy. All I have wanted is for the rumours to be cleared up and for Bens ascents to either be rewarded in history or removed.
I also realise that I may not have gone about this the right way, but is their a right way to go about this? and lets not forget that I am the only person to have left the crowds of rumour spreaders and tried to find out the truth, this automatically leaves me open to criticism, which I have received and may or may not deserve.
I feel that the thread should be archived until the matter has been resolved. Both me and Ben have exchanged emails with each other, and have both been very friendly to one another, we have tried our best to help each other, so that the truth can come out as easily as possible.
I must say I respect the way Ben has dealt with me.
Although this situation has not gone the best way, I feel the result will have been worth it, if Ben is honest like he says he is, then their will be no more slandering and Ben will be allowed to continue to impress the climbing scene, without shadows of doubt or criticism. He will also be given the full respect that he deserves and I will make sure of this by putting a stop to rumours.
The one thing both me and Ben have in common is that we both are very passionate about climbing and will always do what we feel right to protect our sport. But obviously sometimes our opinion of what is right will clash.

I feel the more negative responses on the net the more difficult it makes for the truth to come out, so I ask please wait a while. Let the two people involved sort it out in a manner that is fair for the aggrieved person. Both me and Ben will get back to you about what we agree. But give us time to come to a conclusion. You know it makes sense.

Lets keep things positive for once, for both myself and bens sake. If you have any negative comments please please please dont add them to this thread. It will not help anyone in the long run.

Thanks a lot Rich Simpson

In reply to R Simpson:

Lessons learned about the internet all round then. Let's hope everyone has truly learned them. Well done for honesty and adaptability. Hope for a decent resolution.

In reply to Steve Parker: Agree with that.

Is there anyway this thread can be changed so as not to accept replies?

In reply to Oli:

What, like this one?

In reply to Steve Parker: I think it should be paid for as a Premier Post, then closed.

In reply to Chris Fryer:

Why? People want to bring things up on the Interweb (because they realise it's influence, compared to traditional methods?).

I think the OP has already been cut too much slack.

In reply to R Simpson:

Fair play Rich...

Si

In reply to R Simpson: I think you have definitely gone about this the wrong way and have ended up making yourself look like a bit of a fud, too late now though..

In reply to Erik B:

not with the people that matter darling......

In reply to e4 5c: and who are 'they'?

In reply to e4 5c:

Dear e4

Or with the big sponsors as well.

Norrie

In reply to Erik B:

Dear Erik

Big sponsors.

Norrie

In reply to Erik B:


Anonymous internet tosspots like E4 5c who are brave enough to post anonymously, of course.

jcm

In reply to Norrie Muir: Im sure R Simpson (who is R Simpson anyway?) stated in his other thread that he wasnt posting on this site again, maybe he is getting sponsored per written word?

In reply to R Simpson:
i heard of this drama today, so i'd thought i'd check it out. having missed the original posts, you all must excuse any missed elements. how i see it in a nut shell, ben heason claimed he has climbed several routes/problems at a level we're it matters in the sports history/direction/and elite level at this current time. these claims have been reported in the climbing media hence became public matter. rich simpson was mature enough to ask ben about these claims. to which i understand the answer wasnot good enough so he used the interenet to find out the truth.



so far i haven't come across a reply from BH proving with evidence, to support his claims.
to me, if bh wants to say to his mates he's done something well that's his perrogative. it is, however i feel, the climbing media fault for not using journalistic skills to investigate any stories before putting them to print.
also if BH or any other top climber is attempting to climb something at this level i would suggest putting it on film in its entirity. then things like this would be avoided. in this day and age it is not difficult to film something, even mobiles have this option. ben moon has done this with all his difficult problems of later years. a sign of professionalism, for which ben heason unfortunately hasn't shown.
if all top climber's would follow ben moon's lead of filming their achievements it would become the accepted norm. it also makes good veiwing when we're fat and really old to reflect on your own personal achievements.
so next time bh get it on film then this whole sordid mess can be avoided. having a reputation of being liar in climbing is hard to shake, ask john dunne. if you can't get proof then just get out there and show them what yr made of.
gav

In reply to R Simpson:

If you truly take joy and pride in your own climbing acheivement - as you undoubtedly should - the efforts or failings of others should surely be irrelevant.

Do Ben's actions honestly impact on you in any tangible way? Live and let live, and just go climbing.

In reply to Erik B:

r. simpson is britains best sports climber and trad climber actually, for those who really know...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Dear john

Please moderate your language, children like e4, may start crying you for calling him/her a "tosspot".

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir: I don't understand all this talk of big sponsorship. Whenever I have read anything about these guys they are always skint and sleeping in cars or on floors etc.

In reply to e4 5c:

Dear e4

The big sponsors don't think so.

Norrie

In reply to e4 5c:

That's a tad subjective don't you think?

In reply to Marts:


Dear Marts

That is because they don't have big sponsors.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:


9a rp
8b o/s
e9 o/s


no argument

In reply to e4 5c:


In as much as it is a competition, he ranks very highly as a sport climber. However, I'd be interested to know what routes you base your assesment of him as our best trad climber. Personaly I'd be looking for logbook experience in the Greater Ranges before making this claim.

So why all the talk of it effecting the sponsors. thats comeup alot in these threads and realy doesn't seemto be relivent if they don't exist.

In reply to e4 5c:

E9 on-sight? Hardcore; what route(s)?

In reply to e4 5c: thanks for letting me know that as Ive never heard of the guy apart from on these two bizzare threads.

In reply to e4 5c:
>> no argument

Dear e4

If, I was Mystic Meg, I could read your mind and know what you meant by that post.

Norrie

PS Do you get paid in peanuts for climbing E4 5c or don't you train hard enought to climb E5?

In reply to Erik B:

It's actually all rather amusing, seems to me Ben Heason really doesn't give a shite what this guy and his cronies twitter on about, imagine he's got better things to do and more important stuff to worry about, afterall it's nearly Christmas and he's probably ouy shopping and what not.

It's all a bit playground isn't it, you know, my dick's bigger than yours etc. Actually, for the record, we never had those conversations at my school !!

In reply to unclemidge: "I think your a great guy BUT I dont believe you, but I do believe that you may in fact be a liar.. therefore I will ask 80,000 UKCers if they know THE TRUTH"

bizzare, but now Ive been told that R Simpson is britains best climber I will take a step back, bow down and continue to peruse these bizzare threads from a non contributory and safe distance.

In reply to Erik B:

No idea about the guy, but I imagine he's probably sunning himself somewhere and laughing at this and the other threads.

But you are right, time to return to anonimity as I really have nothing constructive to say.

If I hang around I will feel compelled to verbally duel with the searing logic and wit of e4 5c....you reckon that's his real name ?

In reply to unclemidge:
e4 5c....you reckon that's his real name ?


May be a carelessly typed Sicilian

In reply to e4 5c:


Has Steve McClure died recently?

In reply to myoldfella:

Precisely. It might be regrettable to those romantics who still picture Joe Brown sprinting up Right Unconquerable and not remembering it, but we're in a new age now.

In reply to Simon22:

Or John Gaskins (9a+) for that matter ?

In reply to wert10:

What's your point about Joe Brown and RU? Explain.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Echoed my thoughts there Gordon, seem to remember Joe had a photographer AND a belayer...

In reply to Adam L:

Yes, the famous picture by Ernie Phillips of Joe making the first ascent of RU in 1949 is one of the best known in British rockclimbing history (it was one of the pictures I chose for the Kendal 25th anniversary exhibition, The Crux). I have met Ernest Phillips too - indeed borrowed the original negatives from him for my Peak book - and have heard a detailed account from him. Although Joe was leading, with a rope, he used no runners at all and did it very fast indeed.

I also photographed Joe doing it again at the age of 67 for my Peak book. On this occasion he used only about 3 runners.

In reply to R Simpson:
What ever people’s views, I don’t think people can be publicly commenting on whether they do not believe Ben Heason as no one can positively prove or disprove his un witnessed ascents. What seems to be an issue here is should a climber be able to claim publicly an ascent that they cannot prove? Climbers can climb things in any manor and with who ever they choose but there is a difference between climbing something for yourself and claiming it in public. Is there another sport that will allow someone to put themselves at the top purely by claiming to have done something without any need to validate it? If I’m not mistaken the hardest sport route and the hardest boulder problem in the UK are both un witnessed ascents, is that valid and does it not reduce the credibility of our sport? If a climber wishes to put themselves in the public eye and claim to be climbing at the highest level or at a new level then they surely must be able to prove their most impressive achievements, not by reputation but by evidence, and isn’t it their responsibility to do so. I’m not questioning whether people have climbed what they said they have, merely that the process of recording climbing achievements is wrong. Any top climber who wants to put themselves up there in the public arena should expect to be able to prove themselves, if they are not willing to then they should just climb for themselves and not involve the media.
A large proportion of this problem does seem to lie with the climbing media who will print news that has directly come from an individual claiming an ascent without verification, and once it has been published the majority of people will assume that it is correct and that the ascent has been verified in some way.
Really we’re talking about climbers building reputations and even writing climbing history using ascents without credible witnesses, it just doesn’t really seem to make sense that anyone can.

In reply to ATrainspotter:


You speak an awful lot of sense.

In reply to ATrainspotter: Couldn't agree more.
The end results of our reliance on trust and one man's word alone, are situations like this. Time and again it leads to doubt, division and bitter acrimony.
Climbers are not automatically more honest or trustworthy than any other sports people. There's just too many of us and we're normal everyday people, for there not to be individuals who will abuse this trust. Whilst ever it is possible to claim whatever you like without verification people will continue to distrust one another.
It's a question of which of two evils we consider to be the lesser. Lies, doubt and division, or no longer taking a climber on his word alone.

In reply to ATrainspotter:

Wise words. The very core of the issue.

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

On the contrary, utter drivel.

Apart from anything else, no video can ever prove whether an ascent was on sight or not. And moreover they can be cut to show what you like.

Besides, as Ben said, you can't be doing dangerous things with a filmmaker there. Some people can not be affected by it, others can't. I certainly wouldn't dream of it if it were me. It's also possible that if the worst does happen some people might not want the result on the internet for their loved ones to stumble across.

We managed to believe Ron did Careless Torque without all this nonsense. The old ways were the best. You go out and do what you do, and if your mates are interested you tell them, and if they're interested they tell other people, and so on. Let's face it, soloing Knockin' isn't exactly the moon landings, is it?

jcm

In reply to ATrainspotter: well said - hard to add anything to that !

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: i agree with you when it comes the exploits of everyone except those at the very top of the sport who seek comercial sponsorship for their efforts. In my view this type of debate does considerable damage to all of those who fall into that bracket by casting doubt on their acheivements in the eyes of the masses as it is those folk who will buy the mags and ultimately who fund their sponsorship.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I agree John, but these aren't the old days.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Eek! It wasn't meant to be a dig against JB! Just a historically incompetent attempt to come up with an example of the age where there was no climbing culture such as today, and where the idea of first/solo ascents being recorded and accorded historical significance was unthought of (to coin Mr Rumsfeld - it was an unknown unknown).

In reply to Jamie B.:


These bizarre wee threads just make me so glad to have been a member of the 'crap but keen' club, happily minding my own business, about 8 grades below the bile radar.

In reply to ATrainspotter: Your summary of the situation is too simplistic, too black and white. In reality, the issue is about establishing credibility. Once a certain climber has this, they can, and are trusted to tell the truth. That's how it works.

Credibility is established, often by accident (i.e. by just going climbing and being seen climbing well by a variety of climbers, but critically those who are experienced enough to understand what is actually occurring), but more typically by design (i.e. by producing filmed ascents, or photos of ascents where the photographer - who also has to have a base of credibility - vouches for the fact that the photo was not staged. That being said, most photos are completely staged.)

So, not every ascent needs to be filmed or witnessed, just a certain amount.

For example, I've seen John Gaskins on Walk Away sds. He didn't climb the full problem in front of me, but I saw enough of a display of disgusting power and finger strength to realise that he had done it. I've also seen him boulder on a number of other occasions, and he has been filmed doing a very hard traverse at Woodwell. Moreover I know other climbers (e.g Greg Chapman, Neil Kershaw) who's judgement I respect, who can vouch for his awesome ability from first hand experience.
So if John told me he'd just done a new V15 tommorrow, I would believe him, even if there was no film , or no witnesses.

Ultimately I believe it is the responsibility of the high profile climber (sponsored or not) to establish their own credibility. If they don't want to play that game, then they shouldn't bother reporting their ascents, and they certainly shouldn't try to support themselves financially through related sponsorship, however meagre the sums of money might be.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Oh come on.


Fair enough, but the counter-argument is within your objection. At the time Big Ron did CT he was nearing the end of a career of top level climbing. A career in which he did many (witnessed) top level ascents. No-one is really saying that every ascent must be witnessed, just that a persons ability be clearly established (i.e. witnessed) to be at the level of an unwitnessed ascent.
This seems a fair enough requirement, once its removed from the emotions of BH vs RS, surely?

And obviously we are only talking about ascents which are subsequently reported to the media; or which are re-staged for photos which are sent to the media; etc.

In reply to ATrainspotter:

So you think that major ascents should only be claimed with documentary evidence and, presumably, a couple of BMC accredited witnesses. What about winter first ascents or major routes that are put up on remote crags, should they only enter the guidebooks and magazines if the climbers bring along a circus of photographers and other hangers on? Perhaps your vision extends no further than the overcrowded crags of the midlands.

Why does sponsorship make a difference anyway?

In reply to Simon Panton: If you're about enough (on the grit, in North Wales etc etc) you'll bump into the same faces and see people doing the odd route / problem.

Deliberately or otherwise your capacity / ability / history will be such that it can bes established or verified. This operates at various levels as well as the cutting edge.

With regard to your final point I entirely agree.

In reply to Simon Panton:

Even wiser words!

In reply to Simon Panton:

It's damn annoying when someone posts the same sentiments as me but in a far more erudite manner!

In reply to Simon Panton: I agree entirely, but it inevitably leads to the question, how should the climbing community deal with climbers who claim things who have unestablished or positively dubious credibility? You say it's the climbers responsibility to establish their credibility, but what is our responsibility if they don't? Clearly in the BH v RS case the climbing public is not happy with the way individuals tried to deal with a percieved credibility gap. What is the correct alternative response?

In reply to Simon Panton:


But then there are exceptions, as always.

"Cheat! Liar! Over the years, many climbers have become objects of derision because the claims they made did not pass muster. Once the negative publicity gets rolling, it seems there’s no stopping it. In the sport-climbing world, perhaps no man has received as much bad press as Fred Rouhling..."

http://climbing.com/current/fredrouhling/

In reply to wert14:



Peer pressure and peer opinion only affect those directly involved and leave the general climbing public none the wiser. This incident makes me to think the status quo is not a satisfatory way to resolve things.
It's all very well saying the onus lies on the top climbers to establish their credibility, but if do nothing when they fail to do this then it counts for nothing.

In reply to wert12:

>No-one is really saying that every ascent must be witnessed, just that a persons ability be clearly established (i.e. witnessed) to be at the level of an unwitnessed ascent.

Exactly. And that's what puzzles me: we're talking about someone with whom people whom everyone respects are prepared to go out and swing leads at E7 on unclimbed walls in Greenland, who has on-sighted E7 in Pembroke with named belayers and has a long record of gritstone headpointing, at least some of it vouched for.

CT was way ahead of Ron's other efforts in that vein. Marc le Menstrel famously said he wouldn't have believed it if anyone but Ron had claimed it.

Gaskins - exactly. We believe him because of who he is. It's the same with Ben H unless there's going to be damned sight better arguments against him than we've seen so far.

jcm

In reply to Not Fozzz:


I heard that you had been given all the beta on your ascent of Taxus, so can not claim an onsight. And you cried on the crux. And you wearing pink underwear.

You outrageous faking cheat you!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Well, Big Ron is Big Ron and he is a bit of a God so not a good example!
Re. Gaskins - if he popped up claiming his V15s when no-one had ever seen him succeed on a V13 (but had seen him romping up V10s), then would you give really him credence?

In reply to TobyA:

What beta - it was steeply banked? Left hammer, right axe, left poon, right poon!

>And you wearing pink underwear.
At least it wasn't boxer shorts. Nothing as bad as arctic northerlies whistling right through your Chalamian Gap

In reply to wert15:

Well, no. But that's what I don't get. Everyone knows Ben's onsighted E7s in Greenland if nowhere else, yet these people want to know his belayer is when he says he's done Ghost Train?

jcm

In reply to R Simpson:
I agree with Simon Panton that it is about establishing credibility and at the moment, and in theory, if an ascent is made without witnesses then their previous proven achievements are used to add credibility to the ascent. There are many climbers who have established their credibility with proven ascents in this way and are not questioned when making an ascent on their own but I would also imagine that these people are very careful to make sure they have some kind of witness when climbing something that is at the very highest level. Richard Simpson has been witnessed to be a very strong climber but if he had made his ascent of Action Direct by self belay how would that be viewed, and from his perspective, even though he has established credibility, would he be happy to claim that ascent?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The other thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that you don't necessarily need to be a particularly strong climber physically to climb hard grit routes witness Seb Grieve's ticklist - did he ever climb F8b, I'm sure he never did Font8a.

This may be difficult to take if you're a tremendously strong sport climber or boulderer but it seems that many of these routes are climbed by people who don't seem to be at the cutting edge in terms of physical ability. While it would seem that super strong / fit climbers such as RS or Steve Mclure should theoretically be able to run up such routes it doesn't actually seem to happen for whatever reason.

Not that I actually know anything about the protaganists in this thread!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Quite amazing walls...

http://www.alpinist.com/climbing-notes/note/10093/

http://www.alpinist.com/climbing-notes/note/10091/

Does EasyJet go there?

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

It's getting warmer up there too.......hmmmmm I feel a guidebook coming on!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_sc/glacier_melt

Only kidding...about the guidebook.

Mick

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think its more that people are dredging around for a critical mass of circumstantial evidence, due to the lack of unequivocal evidence.
Of course, all this also hinges on the common (mis?)understanding that E7 onsite isn't that hard compared to E10 headpoint. That might be a crucial misunderstanding!

I think it is relevant, as others have said, that BH went out and publicised his ascents, arranged staged photos and reported them to the media. Given that, he must expect increased scrutiny. People are justified in asking "where's the explicit beef" for at least one of the ascents.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

Seb famously did K3 of course. I'm sure I don't need to tell you why that's called K3. And that's what - 8b, 8b+?

But I did mention this on the other thread - ironically, Knockin's other soloist had never climbed even 8a, apparently (and yes I know it's harder now, but still).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Or as per the Rockfax DB 'The 8a+ version of Powerplant has become a modern peak classic.' Though that could be a conspiracey to get it downgraded I guess!!!

But as you say the exact grades don't really matter it still prove something (maybe!!).

In reply to ATrainspotter:

Bit different though, the penalty for taking a lead fall on a sports climb is a bit of a swing and having to have another crack. Whereas the penalty for failure on an E9-E10 would most likely be serious injury. With this in mind, mental state is more critical and for BH this mental state may well be helped by being able to choose his moments. Not necessarily moments when there are witnesses...

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Thank you for the link, I really enjoyed the article.

As for the other issue I don't like a crowd when I'm doing somehing hard and I know Ben to be a decent bloke and I would believe him if he says he's done the routes he says he has. I know I can't offer any hard evidence (either way) so I have not posted so far, but as has been pointed out you don't need to be that strong to climb some of these routes, just a lot of bottle. I appreciate this has been covered extensively and hope it will shortly end, which was another reason for not posting up till now.

John

In reply to ATrainspotter:

I am quite saddened by this bickering / mudslinging taking place with regards to a sport that I have always regarded as pure and unaffected by factors which taint other "sports". One thing is certain; the days of climbing folklore and legend is totally over when people start talking about the need to video any new climbs.

I look around for a culprit and find only money to blame (maybe a bit of ego). I certainly don't remember people having to 'establish credibility' before sponsorship came along.

Perhaps it is time to start a "Reclaim our climbs" movement similar to "Reclaim the streets". I.e. avoiding buying kit that is heavily sponsored (this would also bring the price down of course!). I don’t want to stop climbers from full-time employment. I guess this is all Thatcher's fault for kicking climbers off the dole and forcing them to find other ways to fund themselves.

How about we avoid any companies sponsoring climbers who cast doubt over others' achievements! This would change things pretty quickly.


Dave

In reply to Dave Bak:

Lets blame Thatcher!! That is a classic.

In reply to Dave Bak: what a load of crap.

In reply to Dave Bak: I think you fill find that the doely climbing scene thrived under Thatcher, it was only in the 90's under Major that the doley scene disappeared.

(Sh*T I can't believe I have just defended Thatcher)

"One thing is certain; the days of climbing folklore and legend is totally over when people start talking about the need to video any new climbs."

I love the way people go on as if this was the first time there had ever been a did he/didn't he dispute. Granted its the frist one that has featured on the web and therefore probably the first instance that a lot of people have heard of. But please don't think that this is the first time that someone's actions have been questioned.

Try googling controversy tomo cesen for an example

In reply to graeme alderson:

So what was the eventual concensus on Cesen, bullshitter or Himalayan King? (can't be arsed googling!)

In reply to graeme alderson:

yes, quite right. they were worried about this in 1878. see clifford dent on the first ascent of the dru, AJ vol ix.

'Determined that our ascent should not be questioned by any subsequent visitors, we left the following articles: one half-pint bottle containing our names, preserved by a paper stopper from the inclemency of the weather; two wooden wedges (use unknown), two ends of string, three burnt fuses, divers chips, one stone-man, the tenpenny staff and the infant's petticoat' [these last objects had earlier been used to signal to someone they thought they saw 'gazing in our direction' from the Imperial hotel]

In reply to Simon22: No idea.

But he's a nice guy, I see him quite often at competitions as he route sets and is the Slovenian Junior Team manager.

In reply to e4 5c:

You never replied to my earlier question. Which E9 has Richard Simpson on-sighted?

personally I blame Ant and Dec

In reply to Jamie B.: Don't think Rich was claiming an e9 on-sight, just that he knew of one occurring.

In reply to ally smith:
No, see http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=158356&v=1#2253243 .

Perhaps E4 5c is confused with Simpson's ascents of Renegade Master. RS flashed it via the easy way at the top (a la Briggs, Bentley, etc), but worked the harder method and then lead or soloed that thinking E9 was about right.
This is all 2nd info so could be wrong!

In reply to Not Fozzz:


Ah you said exactly what I was thinking whilst reading through this mess. And so well put too. Do you think that if we never buy any more climbing mags to read about these incredible egos then threads like this will stop?

Ands

In reply to Ands:


What climbing mags

In reply to Not Fozzz:


We don't need no stinking climbing mags!

Ands

In reply to Ands: This has realy worked for them though. Pushed thier names right to the forfront of everyones lips. Can RS do this, BH do that. If they had sat down together 6 months ago and picked straws for who was going to be the baddy, and the who would accuse who in this media thrust they are doing, it couldn't have worked better for them (not that they would have staged this whole thing '). Bet they aren't short of attention for a good long while. though. And at the end they seem to have dissapeared into friendship valley quite nicely. Love a happy ending!!
;-/

In reply to Ands:


Hijack - I love that film

In reply to myoldfella:


In case you still haven't found, or read the other thread, you might like to read Ben's long reply here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884#2247513

In reply to Marts:


Kate Moss has done pretty well too.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Old cliche of course - "There's no such thing as bad publicity"

(but I expect in reality, there probably is).

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Mick, what's going on? I'm seven hours ahead of you guys, and I get to work today to find all manner of stuff gone from this thread. None of it was libellous or sinister, from what I recall. I can understand the other Rich Simpson stuff being deleted upon his request (although I don't necessarily agree with it), but isn't this going a bit far?

In reply to Dom Orsler: As a registered user, can't one delete one's own posts?

In reply to Hannah m:

Gary Glitter?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

We did have to delete someone masquerading as John Dunne yesterday and the replies associated with it, that's unless Alan has been busy zapping since then.

We are coming down hard on anonymous posts especially on threads like this one. If you do have something contencious to say it is better that you are a registered user.

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

None of the ones deleted were anonymous. It was Adam L, me and Hotbad. Whaddup, big bro?

In reply to Dom Orsler:


Are you perhaps confusing this "Bean Heason 2" thread with the original "Ben Heason" thread here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157884&v=1

Ands

In reply to Ands:

Nope; definitely Ben Heason 2.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I have just checked the moderator log files and no posts have been removed from either Heason thread since we removed the fake JD threads yesterday. That was 11 posts all trivial and relating to the JD imposter.

Alan

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Are you quite sure your not mistaken then Dom as if you weren't I would be very concerned about the editing of this thread in such a manner.

Ands

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Hotbad said he thought RS had done Action Directe in something like an hour and that Sharma had done Dreamtime in a day. AdamL said 'no he didn't', and a minor spat blew up in which Hotbad got all flustered and Adam stayed calm. These are all gone.

Or am I going mad and these were on another thread completely unrelated to the RS/BH thing? It's been a rough week, after all!

In reply to Ands:

My profuse apologies. I have, indeed, been working too hard and not spending enough time on RT. It was the Gaskins thread, not this one. Sorry for wasting your time. Next time I'll try harder.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

That was the John Gaskins thread, wasn't it? Yes, you're going mad. Welcome to the club.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I think we'd all agree - it's been a rough week!

In reply to Dom Orsler:


It's no biggie man. As much as I don't care about the content of this thread I am against Internet censorship in general and would have been concerned if you had been being censored in such a manner.

Ands

In reply to Ands:

I think we should thank Alan for keeping these two very controversial threads uncensored, because there have been moments when it's obviously been sailing very close to the wind.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Either this site is about the views of the great British climbing public (which I belive it is). Or it has an editorial and you only get to see the opinions that the mods think you should get to see. The democratic nature of the way in which this site is run is one of the main reasons I, and I expect others, spend so much time on it.

Ands

In reply to Ands:
It is essentially as you describe in your firs tsentence. But as was mentioned earleri on in the first Heason thread, and the reason ukbouldering pulled their thread completely, its possible legal action could take place in a situation like this one, and mods could be seen to have a responsibility to ensure their site doesnt do anyone any major harm, so if they see a post or entire thread which could cause a serious problem, theyre perfectly sensible to pull it.
For example, the guy pretending to be john dunne yesterday, although quickly found out by the real (I assume) mr dunne, needed to be pulled because some people might have believed he was real thing and formed an opinion of john dunne as a result. That wouldnt be fair to the person in question, and it would be the mids responsibility in part to ensure this doesnt happen.
Im rambling a bit so Ill stop.

In reply to R Simpson: I think the term "back peddeling furiously" springs to mind...

In reply to Jon Read:


Or maybe he's just a love-struck propagandist with poor research skills.

In a more commercial sport would BH be sueing Simpson for "Brand damage" which he couldn't substantiate? Aledgedly Ben Moon has lost business on the back of this "debacle" through his association with BH.

Some thoughts on video evidence:

many people don't like the idea of having themselves videoed on very dangerous routes. On "Consumed" Dan Honneyman doesn't record his final attempt on Gaia as he says he didn't want to video his own death!

Friends of mine have left the crag because of intrusive photography on bold routes.

Video really suits boulder problems and short & impressive (grit) routes; much of the video "evidence" for such ascents is captured for "entertainment" rather than evidence but obviously supports the former. Though this can be doctored using sophisticated editing software (such as Adobe "After Effects").

Do we really need to bother with proving traditional ascents? - we already have sport world championships for the sterile "who is best"...

Cheers,

In reply to simon cox:

Well said. But surely Moon sponsors Simpson, doesn't he? Or does he also sponsor Ben H?

jcm

In reply to simon cox:

If the climber publicises his ascents in the media, stages photos of his ascents which he then sells to the media, and does lecture tours on the back of those ascents then (a) it is the climber himself who is saying "I am (one of) the best" and (b) therefore, yes, he does need to prove the ascents.

In reply to wert20:

He's arguably saying 'I've done these interesting things', not 'I'm the best'. And if his audience don't believe him, he won't sell. This proof nonsense is just that. If someone says he did a route solo when alone at the crag, proof doesn't come into it.

jcm

if sponsorship is at the heart of this, next time i see an ad with a photo of either of the main protagonists here, it is hardly going to make me rush out and by the product. being a great climber is one thing but who would want to buy stuff promoted by someone who appears so humourless.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yes to all you said, obviously.
But the current ad nauseum discussion is more along the lines of "how dare people question BH" and my post dealt with that. Namely, if you don't want to have people raise doubts then provide evidence.

In reply to helix:

Not sure it is at the heart of it, but tell me, what you have considered the humorous response for someone in Ben H's position?

jcm

actually when i mentioned 'humourless' it wasn't ben heason who i had in mind

In reply to wert21:

It's the same as it's always been. People believe you if you've the position and achievements to make what you say plausible. There's no point demanding evidence: if people habitually solo routes then there won't be any evidence. Discussion can only proceed on the subject of the climber's general personality and known achievements. No-one says John Gaskins hasn't done his problems because he hasn't got evidence (well, except Markus Bock, of course).

jcm

(nauseam, btw: forgive me, but we classicists suffer physical pain at the sight of nauseum).

In reply to helix:

Well no. But you did say either of the main protagonists.

(You meant of course neither the protagonist nor the deuteragonist, while I'm in classical-pedant mode).

Or perhaps more classically you actually meant RS or JP, and my pedantry is out of place?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
apologies for causing you nauseu (sic(k)) with my spelling!
Re. "proof" - I thought it was now agreed (within the conceptual walls of this forum) that by "proof" we mean "general acceptance as in the case of Gaskins"? If so, then our agreement is total - a lovely state of affairs to be in.

And a humerous response from BH would, for example, be to onsight a v. hard route with John Dunne and Gary Gibson as the witnesses. Well, it would make me laugh...

In reply to wert22:

Ah, OK. Well in that case we do indeed have a beautiful agreement. But once you get on to the climber's general trustworthiness and record you're bound to get a bit of 'how dare you'? In the end that's what you'd get with Gaskins. It's precisely how much 'how dare you' you get that determines who's believed, I'd have thought.

If RS announced next summer he'd onsighted IF I wonder who'd believe him?!

jcm

In reply to R Simpson: Wouldn't it be more fair and less of a personality contest to take nobodies word alone on trust where groundbreaking stuff is concerned. In effect it would just mean media reporting things as 'unverified' where so.