Climbers///amhskunert had a point.

[OrcadianOil]

Unfortunitely the thred's closed but I think sum peopl.e were a bitt hard on amhskunert. It looks 2 me like s/he was pointing out the dangerous risks thees poor poeple took. Thats it. I feel sorry for the famyles that the dead men were from. But s/he didnt say much difrent.

[albaqwerty]

living in Scotland, i wouldn't go anywhere near the local hills, never mind Ben Nevis etc

[society]

That's exactly how I understood your post on 'that' thread, Ahmskunnirt.

The person who called you an idiot was really rude to you and out of place. Wish people would be more understanding and tolerant on here. Oh and respectable too.

[climber123]

Amhskunert - here is a reminder of one of your posts on the thread you started on this subject:

"You have to assume that anyone attempting such weather either doesn't care about the consequences or simply has no braincells! I feel sorry for the MR who have to go out and look for them - I realise fully that they are volunteers, but it's asking a bit much of people to root around in such adverse conditions for some d!ckheads who should have known better. "

To call someone who has recently died (in circumstances you clearly know nothing about) a "d!ckhead" is an insult far worse than the ones you were on the recieving end of.

[Sqad]

climber.....having died, does not absolve your from being a "***" in you life.

I agree that it may not have been in the best of taste, but this is IT so the personal touch is diminished somewhat.

[jno]

you call the recently deceased d!ckheads and you're surprised when others reply in kind? Then you pretend your own posts were mild and reasonable, when they're there for all to see? If you want to abuse the dead, go ahead, it's a free country. Just don't pretend it never happened.

[Sqad]

climber...sorry...to avoid confusion...the starred out bit it "d1ckhead" and the IT is Information Technology.

[webbo3]

the thing that concerns me is that someone on the other thread said they were experienced climbers, well if they are experienced they would have checked the weather conditions, mountain conditions and rang the relevant people with far more knowledge about current conditions than they had, you can bet that if they spoke to mountain rescue prior to starting the climb they would have been told its too dangerous.

when i use to go deep sea fishing we always had to ring the skipper the night before to see if the trip was still on or off due to weather/sea conditions, if it was to bad he would'nt risk the lives of himself and the rest of the people on the trip.

another point is on the news they always give advice for winter driving, take blankets, a flask of tea/coffee, warm clothing ect ect, and dont travel unless absolutlely Necessary and this is for driving along a road at ground level.

i know the two examples i gave dont compare to climbing a mountain, but its all about evaluating the risks and avoiding them, these two climbers did'nt do that.

Dave.

[Gromit]

Life is not without risk. If you were to stop doing something you like because of any potential danger you would do nothing

Every year, 3000 people are killed on our roads (1 million worldwide), that is a lot more than a couple of climbers.

Should all the roads be closed and cars be scrapped to save 3000 people from death this year?

[webbo3]

Life is not without risk. If you were to stop doing something you like because of any potential danger you would do nothing.

I agree gromit, but if the risks are too great then its foolhardy and stupid to do it, if these two were upon the mountain in good conditions then no one would have thought them stupid, just unluck, and it would be very tragic.

and as for car accidents, they are millions of cars on the roads all over the world so they are bound to be more accidents than climbing or other risky activities.

Dave.

[R1Geezer]

"...Thanks, society, I don't deliberately set out to annoy or upset, and it cheeses me off when I try to give a reasonable explanation but still get lambasted. You can't please em all I guess? "

But you do, your first instinct is usually a negative, na na nana na, type comment. You usually do not answer the question but attack some part of it.

[Androcles]

Interestingly the Mountain Rescue Leader in a TV interview said it could easily have been any of his team and the the guys who died were unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - no suggestion that they had een irresponsible.

[jno]

ahmskunnirt, yes, you do get an apology, though it isn't abject; it's not clear from your post that you were still talking about the SAS, but that's because the post was somehow split in two.

In your question you ask if the dead climbers were 'victims or idiots' - and you don't seem to think they were victims. So - do you think they were idiots? You didn't offer any other alternatives.

[Oneeyedvic]

webbo ////the thing that concerns me is that someone on the other thread said they were experienced climbers, well if they are experienced they would have checked the weather conditions, mountain conditions and rang the relevant people with far more knowledge about current conditions than they had, you can bet that if they spoke to mountain rescue prior to starting the climb they would have been told its too dangerous. ////

Why people got annoyed on the previous thread is because like your statement above, you don't actually know what happened and are just making suppositions.

It should be noted that the other people on the thread said they were friends of the people who died - which always makes people emotive.

The team who climbed were (by news reports) eminently qualified. Do you know what the conditions were at the time they set out? Do you know how quickly those conditions came in? Do you know what the forecast was?

I don't know either, but without knowing the full facts, I wouldn't make a judgement as others have. We can make as many suppositions as we want, but we don't actually know the facts.

[climber123]

Dear amhskunert,

Here is another quote from the other thread:

"I care about my fellow man as much as any of you on here but for me to offer sympathy in the face of utter stupidity would make me a hypocrite - something I am not."

So as well as being utterly stupid, according to you, they have also demonstrated "recklessness" and "crass decision making" . Even the title of the other thread is provocative at best and verging on insulting. These people can't defend themselves to your accusations.

You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge on the subject, yet have been judgemental of their actions. When people highlight your "utter stupidity" and "crass decision making" (in choosing to say some of the nonsense you have) you don't like it and start winging.

Finally, here's another cracker:

"To those accusing me, wrongly, of referring to these deceased men as "idiots", I have not stated that to be my opinion of their actions, the only reason it is used in the heading of this thread is because there are people on AB who would adopt that point of view in my experience. Neither have I made any "defamatory" statement - please indicate to me where I have "defamed" these unfortunate men? "

I don't think you can accept that you have overstepped the mark. No doubt your reply will attemp to justify all the things you said on the other thread. I know people can come across in ways they don't intend on forums and end up digging themselves a deeper hole, i hope this is the case.

This is my last post on the matter as i feel I am being crass and disrispectful myself.

Regards

climber123