In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
> (In reply to JayPee630) Quite possibly because you chose to use language at best described as emotive, often more accurately described as offensive or angry. Have a look at your earlier post if you are in any doubt. The language you use affects how people view you - calling someone a two faced prick is not likely to get people to react favourably to your views and is likely to get people to read into the anger that comes across in your posts and find a similar emotion, namely jealousy. You can hold strong views without voicing them offensively; you might be understood better if you did that.
That sounds reasonable Nick, but is the kind of post that gets us nowhere. If some gap year toff was blogging breathlessly from Everest for a major company s/he'd be pilloried on here forever. But because it's KC, the fans fall into line.
As if 'making a living' is justification for anything? His little to-camera piece was cringeworthy, tacky and crass. Yet another example of the commercial exploitation of Everest for monetary and personal ambition, and all that results from that - media, crowds, rubbish, unnecessary death and more regulation. KC has made a living commercialising Everest for years, now he says others should be dissuaded from doing so. The self-serving hypocrisy is ridiculous, as has been hinted at elsewhere.
Jealous? I've made my living from climbing and there are as many pitfalls and downsides as upsides. I honestly feel a bit sorry for KC that he has to keep going back and doing the same thing all the time. I've done something similar and grew to dread it, or at least parts of it. If he still loves it, good for him, but it's not something everyone should be automatically jealous of. There are a whole bunch of people making a living from 'climbing' because they're not good enough at anything else.
Offensive? I find the sycophancy and unquestioning justification for these kinds of things to be offensive. It makes me angry because such opinion, or lack thereof, filters out and affects how things change, or don't change. Likewise the Andy K article was lauded, when he said pretty much what people in the forums had said, only he's never been anywhere near Everest, or above 5000m(?) and yet there were Everest summiters commenting in the forums, who were just pushed aside. But he's 'famous' and 'funny' - and British - so anything he says is OK. Equally in experienced climbers saying in the forums what he said would have been abused. Swallowing that kind of crap is what makes UKC look bad, not people arguing in the forums.
Down the track you'll all be complaining once again about commerce on Everest and silly climbers hogging the media, conveniently forgetting that not long ago you defended this rubbish yourselves, just in a form that was more acceptable to you at the time. You could at least be consistent. No one is beyond reproach.
I agree calling KC a prick is out of line. I don't care for personal insults, I'd rather stick to the actions and the content. I don't care if it's KC or anyone else there, it's their actions I'm concerned about and how the climbing community accepts them, or not. Stifling debate because it gets 'emotive' or a bit vigorous is ultimately damaging for us all.