In reply to babrewster:
>
> That of Barry Brewster is very different. It is written from the perspective of what the article's author knew of Barry, and here we are in territory that is contentious and some serious questions about the reliability of memory, after some 50 years, have to be asked.
> Barry's own climbing record which is comprehensive, and the recollections of his close climbing friends at Bangor in the years 1959-61 do not bear out many of the claims made in the article.
> It is, in truth, a poor piece of work designed to shed more light on the author than those being written about.
OK, but your post would have more authority and weight if you provided some kind of evidence, or other information, to specifically counter those claims you believe are erroneous.
You disagreeing with them does not make them wrong. You're even free to say you think it's crap - but if you want to be taken seriously you need to show *why* it's crap.
Declaring your relationship to the person in question, and thus the reason for your strong interest in this, might be useful too.