/ UKC 'like being savaged by a dead sheep'

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Andy Moles - on 25 Nov 2013
Offwidth - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

He's probably right on his key points if a little churlish in the way he expresses them. I don't think it has anything to do with anonymity though, as for example people are generally more anonymouse on UKB (where the posting was generally more reasonable on this subject).
Ramblin dave - on 25 Nov 2013
Darren Jackson - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

Baaaaaaaaaa....
planetmarshall on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

I was going to comment on the blog piece but I don't think he merits the attention. Plus he writes like a cross between David Icke and Richard Littlejohn.
itsThere on 25 Nov 2013
UKC, originally, was the device whereby climbers learned, imperfectly, to transmit the thoughts and emotions of their mind. By setting up arbitrary words and combinations of words to represent certain mental nuances, climbers developed a method of communication - but one which in its clumsiness and thick-thumbed inadequacy degenerated all the delicacy of the mind into gross and gutteral signaling.
Mike Stretford - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

I might be a little less sceptical of Redheads 'genius' if it wasn't always jonno banging on about it.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to the thread:

On UKC:

"Little wonder that most serious climbers and writers avoid it like the plague these days."

Most serious writers avoid cliches like the plague.
999thAndy on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> On UKC:

> "Little wonder that most serious climbers and writers avoid it like the plague these days."

+1 If I want serious I can look out of the window, or do some real work. This blog (like many others) seemed to me just a bit parochial and well and truly up it's own arse.
planetmarshall on 25 Nov 2013
> "Perhaps if contributors to forums had to use their real names instead of hiding behind anonymity we might get a more objective debate instead of the usual toxic, febrile sound and fury that is generated when individuals,concepts and ideas don’t conform to the accepted orthodoxy of the flock."

One possibility when you "don't conform to the accepted orthodoxy of the flock" is that you are a misunderstood genius, a modern day Galileo bravely facing persecution and public incredulity in your relentless pursuit of the truth.

The other, is that you're a crank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

Judge for yourself which is the more likely scenario here.

Andrew.
biped - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

Re John Appleby's snipe at anonymous posters: am I right in thinking that he used to post on here as Jonno?

Aside from this, who cares what he says, who cares what anyone on ukc or indeed ukb says? The internet is a noisy place. Nothing to see here, nothing new anyway.
Kipper - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to planetmarshall:

> ... he writes like a cross between David Icke and Richard Littlejohn.

But with worse grammar.



Skyfall - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to biped:

> Re John Appleby's snipe at anonymous posters: am I right in thinking that he used to post on here as Jonno?

I thought exactly the same when I read his blog and i had no idea who he was then (or now really).

Skyfall - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

> +1 If I want serious I can look out of the window, or do some real work. This blog (like many others) seemed to me just a bit parochial and well and truly up it's own arse.

A lot of the point if public forums is that anyone can post; it's not supposed to be a literary corner of the interweb. Blogs are different and that's obvious, so criticising UKC for that is pretty ridiculous.
Misha - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:
Wov, I have never before been referred to as a pious, po-faced prig! Do I get a medal?

I said it on the original thread and I'll happily say it again: that Redhead article was pure gibberish, unworthy of publication in a paid-for magazine.

There was a range of opinions expressed on the subject on the original thread. Some, like mine, were pretty critical. A matter of taste perhaps. I can see why some people thought that it was an interesting piece with a certain depth of meaning.

Now John is moaning about the online criticism. It's kind of funny.

As for anonymity, I'd be happy to say the same thing in person: it was not a good article. But that's just my own point of view and others will disagree. I don't suppose there is, or needs to be, a right or wrong answer here.

Anyway, I'm off to munch on that tuft of grass over there.
Jim C - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Kipper:

> But with worse grammar.

I would have said - poorer grammar ,
but I post on UKC , what would I know about writing.
ice.solo - on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

So hes upset that a large online climbing community is discussing this stuff?
Dont post opinionated in-crowd rants in the public sphere if you dont want attention. Keep it amongst your elite chums if the need for agreement is so big a deal.

Anonymous posters? Not that herring again.
Ste Brom - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

I was never really that mad about Douglas Hurd, do climbers like him or somethin, dont gerrit....
davidbeynon - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

This might be off topic, but I would find being savaged by a dead sheep really quite freaky. Dead things are supposed to stay where they are put, and having them going around savaging anyone is an indicator that things have gone very badly wrong.

Now if you will excuse me I'm going to hole up in the local shopping mall with a rifle and a bag of hammers.
Ste Brom - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to davidbeynon:

Yeah, well, if its these sheep mate, watch it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEDUDmZkyc
Misha - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to davidbeynon:
I think he meant zombie sheep. Zombified from too much internet trolling perhaps...
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to planetmarshall:

> One possibility when you "don't conform to the accepted orthodoxy of the flock" is that you are a misunderstood genius, a modern day Galileo bravely facing persecution and public incredulity in your relentless pursuit of the truth.

> The other, is that you're a crank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)


and one who doesn't seem to have an understanding of metaphor or spelling, it would seem.

phase? (surely 'faze')

tolkein?

and herds or flocks might be found in quarries, but tend not to have quarries. on account of their desired food being pretty immobile. generally definitions of 'quarry' don't include grass.

normally i wouldn't pull someone up on their use of language; but when the person seems to be setting themselves up as some form of persecuted guardian of the left field and creative, deploying literary references, purple prose (and cliches) freely to mark their superiority from the drone-like masses who are too limited to recognise true talent when they read it, then they should at least get someone else to read their output before posting it to avoid making basic errors and looking a bit silly.

and, they missed a chance to use the word 'sheeple'.

there's also the irony of complaining about people exercising their right to free speech in a piece defending, er, the right to free speech.

overall it reminds me of the goldie lookin chain 'riposte' to the 'newport state of mind' parody (its on youtube for those that are interested). not nearly as clever or funny as the person writing it thinks it is, and unable to entirely hide the anger they want to pretend to us they aren't feeling.

no matter, mr appleby can always turn to the people with the 'right' opinion to find some support, ie the ones that agree with what he already believes. the world is so much more comfortable that way,

cheers
gregor
Misha - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Ste Brom:
That truly is brilliant! I always thought that Dolly the Sheep was a step too far...

Better take some machine guns to that supermarket.
IainRUK - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>
> there's also the irony of complaining about people exercising their right to free speech in a piece defending, er, the right to free speech.

>

That's the nub of it.. so insult and belittle if people don't agree.. if they agree with the mainstream its passive conformist.. sheep.. agree with their view.. free thinker..

JR wrote contraversial articles.. be their nature they divide people and make people think.. great in many ways but you can't then bitch on when people don't like it.
Offwidth - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

I'd say he is free to critique what he likes. I think the point that the posters on UKB dealt with it more maturely is fair, and that "climbers' climbers" on UKC wouldn't be the ones behaving immaturely. UKC is great for being a site with a range of climbers matching the real world but I think it comes with a few too many people with too little to say who like the sound of their own voice a little too much.
Andy Moles - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> ...who like the sound of their own voice a little too much.

Offwidth: currently at Number 19 in the Top 40 Posters.

;)

^ That's a winky face.

IainRUK - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'd say he is free to critique what he likes. I think the point that the posters on UKB dealt with it more maturely is fair, and that "climbers' climbers" on UKC wouldn't be the ones behaving immaturely.

That's just nonsense..

I'm not going to name people but there are many climbers on here who occasionally post immature comments..

It's a forum.. free to use.. you have to filter the dross..



Mike Stretford - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> I think the point that the posters on UKB dealt with it more maturely is fair, and that "climbers' climbers" on UKC wouldn't be the ones behaving immaturely.

I think you and Jonno have indulged in some pretty selective interpretation to reach that conclusion. The first poster on the UKB thread uses an emoticon simulating masturbation to make his point. I know it's a laff, and there's some very informed climbers on UKB, but let's not pretend it's a hotbed of scholarly debate.

The crap is easy to ignore, what's rattled Jonno is that on the ukc thread there was some mature, articulate and stinging criticisms of Redheads work.
Same goes for UKB, but UKC is the busier forum so tends to get the ire of those who don't like having their ideas challenged.
Bulls Crack - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

It's usually the magazines that snipe at us - even that nice Steve McClure - 'makes us (as in British climbers) look like w*nkers' I seem to recall. Well, I suppose they feel a bit threatened by free online resources.
Choss on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

well, i am a bit hurt actually.

I like John redHead and repeatedly defended his article.

This jonno character even Emailed me to thank me for my Support and ask a favour of me.

Next thing, were all sheep. Seems a bit disingenuous, and Stereotyping to me?
puppythedog on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

I've met a lot of people with public personas like JR. Ironically the fantastically brash and strong and confident voice often hides a tower of cards of insecurity. when that tower is rocked the only emotionally safe thing for them to do is assert it's strength even more strongly.
In less generous moods I'd have simply thought him an objectionable man with only a fraction of the cleverness and creativity he affords himself.
LeeWood - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

The problem open to JR, (as it is for any artist) is that he wants to be recognised, understood and appreciated. Does he present his own original ideas however unpopular, or reach for a wider audience through compromise? It would be a painful dilemma if he was not so entrenched in self-rightness. But the balance in that proposed Climber article is simply beyond the pale; a little spice adds interest, too much makes the eyes water.

As to ironic concern over UKC response? He's just written a book and the market-base isn't very broad on the planet of the footless crow. Our planet is a lot more populace but the sales-brief hasn't gone well. He doesn't want to hear our comments - with enough cotton wool in his ears the most earnest critique will come across as bleating. I can appreciate that JR has demonstrated the greatest originality in his climbing history, but if he wishes to communicate his views to the masses he must distinguish between original writ and original wit. The one sheepish trait UKCers may be proud of is being well-grounded; we *are* a representative subset of hoped for readership and JR must reckon with the force which keeps our feet on the ground.
Offwidth - on 26 Nov 2013
In reply to Papillon:

Sites have their different cultures, so for instance the mastubation symbol isn't so rude over there as it would be here and within those cultures and on average I think the thread was much better there than here. The numbers of posters is of the same order, so size isn't so relevant.

I don't think Redhead is a genius in his writing (like, say, he was in his climbing) and I certainly don't always agree with him; I do think he provides a useful and very distinctive alternative viewpoint. I'm also far from being a clone of jonno. Climbing when I started was pretty colourful with its characters and the bleaching that has seemingly come with increased participation and wider commercialisation seems a shame at times to me.
I'd rather be climbing - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:

" The consensus to the article from what I would describe as ‘Climbing’s Creative Element’ was overwhelmingly positive. By contrast, the majority of UKC sheep hated it. "

I'm instantly turned off a piece of writing when the author uses this as a means of getting people onside with their argument. "If you agree with me you are cool, if you don't then you are a sheep."

It's lazy and removes the possibility for discussion, as anyone who disagrees with them is a sheep, not worthy of conversing with, and proof of their original statement, rather than a dissenting voice showing the weaknesses of it.

Surely a "creative" writer would have the ability to make his/her point powerfully enough that they were able to leave the ultimate decision up to the reader, safe in the knowledge that they had written their piece well enough, and their point was true enough, that the only logical conclusion is to agree with it. The most staunchly held views and ideals are often those to which you arrive yourself.

My job would be so much easier if all I needed to do to convince a Judge was to put my opening arguments to them and finish with "and if you don't agree with me, you are obviously sheep without any unique thought......and you're a massive dick" (okay so maybe I added that bit at the end about being a dick, but the point still stands)

I had no massive feelings one way or the other towards John Redhead's piece, other than to say that the style wasn't my cup of tea, but why should it be, he didn't write it to please me, he wrote it (seemingly) to prompt debate, and to raise an issue which he thought was important, which makes it all the more ludicrous that a supporter of his uses the phrase above which actively precludes all debate about the subject.

I'll say one thing for Redhead's article, it's certainly prompted a massive debate, as do most things that he does (for better or worse), and surely a healthy and informed debate makes us all the more equipped to form our own opinions....even if the opinions we reach do make us 'the majority of UKC sheep'

Steve

p.s, if you don't agree with what I wrote above it's obviously because you lack the necessary intelligence to fully understand the point I was making, and you are just following the crowd and have no unique thought.

oh, and you're a massive dick.
Offwidth - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to I'd rather be climbing:

Gushing and and churlish as the piece is, it doesnt preclude debate. Being savaged by a dead sheep implies ridiculous empty threat rather than herd behaviour. UKC may be representative of the climbing population but call me elitist but I'm not interested in tribal defensiveness nor ill thought through musings. UKC can have great debate but that thread wasnt a high point for me.
Enty - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to I'd rather be climbing:

>

> p.s, if you don't agree with what I wrote above it's obviously because you lack the necessary intelligence to fully understand the point I was making, and you are just following the crowd and have no unique thought.

>

Now where do I see that attitude displayed 100 times a day......let me think.....

E
I'd rather be climbing - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to Enty:

Just so I'm sure......you do get that my tongue was firmly in the side of my mouth when I wrote that don't you.....

Just checking

;o)
Enty - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to I'd rather be climbing:

Of course so was mine...

E
Dave Garnett - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to Ste Brom:

> I was never really that mad about Douglas Hurd, do climbers like him or somethin, dont gerrit....

Geoffrey Howe, wasn't it? Whose bite, it eventually turned out, was fatal!
Nevis-the-cat - on 27 Nov 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:


It just reminds me of someone who claims to "Say exactly what's on their mind and say exactly what they think"

Which is fine, except they're the ones who are generally are least prepared for the come back.

as a great man once said, they don't like it up 'em.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.