'it was nice' Observation

[Wickerman]

(and I wonder why a JTR Forums topic is being brought up on Casebook anyway?).

For those who aren't aware yet.....look what you've reduced me to!!!

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=144688#post144688

Cheers,
Adam.

Arn't they opposite sides of the same coin?

Jon S.

[Chris]

Adam

I raised it here because (1) there's just been a lengthy discussion of the same point here (admittedly it was off-topic, but you were the one who initiated the discussion) and (2) I'm not a member of jtrforums.

What particularly surprised me was that having accused Tom Wescott of "twisting your words" by saying you'd argued that Mortimer was at the door for half an hour, you went on to say precisely that on jtrforums.

You say I'm "probably" right that you only meant she claimed to have been there for half an hour. If you're not sure whether I'm right or not, I think other people can be forgiven for finding your theory a bit hard to understand.

[mariab]

Maria: I'm glad you were able to see the funny side as I was beginning to regret that post as being a little mean spirited as well as sarcastic. Thanks for the camel warning - do you think I should try to skate through their legs or jump over?

Incidentally, the camels are used to traverse a permanently overflowing river on the Chinese side. K2 is EXTREMELY hard to reach, on both sides, Chinese and Pakistani.
What I regretted about your post was the abyssmal lack of knowledge about and respect for K2, as well as the lack of respect for the hundreds of climbers who've lost their life there, many of them British.

[Stephen Thomas]

What I regretted about your post was the abyssmal lack of knowledge about and respect for K2, as well as the lack of respect for the hundreds of climbers who've lost their life there, many of them British.

Serves 'em right. I've got no sympathy for those that dice with death and lose.

[mariab]

last highkacking of this thread into mountaineering talk

I see where you're coming from, Mr. Thomas, but one can't underestimate the attraction of the great outdoors, and besides this, if we all chose to play it completely safely, there would be no astronauts, no people going on expeditions, no great athletes, not even cops. And most certainly no political dissidents. So no Livingston, no Mallory, no Columbus, no Mandela. Hell, not even inspector Abberline! ;-)

[Stephen Thomas]

I see where you're coming from, Mr. Thomas, but one can't underestimate the attraction of the great outdoors, and besides this, if we all chose to play it completely safely, there would be no astronauts, no people going on expeditions, no great athletes, not even cops. And most certainly no political dissidents. So no Livingston, no Mallory, no Columbus, no Mandela. Hell, not even inspector Abberline! ;-)

Good try, Maria, but the people you mention didn't climb mountains.

That's an occupation for idiots.

'Yes, I've had all my toes amputated but I did get close to the summit'.

[mariab]

Mallory did climb mountains.
I know precisely what you mean about getting to the top at all costs, Mr. Thomas. Incidentally, I don't see it like this. The idea of “conquering“ nature is as stupid as one can get. I personally see it as simply getting in contact with nature, allowing it to let you get acquainted with it, on its own terms.
By the way, after riding solid ice in the last couple days (due to the snow not being too deep on the glacier this year), the palms of my hands have obtained not only deep lacerations but also deeply internal bruises, which I bet won't come up to the surface for weeks, and which I'll be studying, trying to see if there are any parallels with the bruises on the C5. ;-)
And here endeth the mountaineering talk.

[Adam Went]

Wicker:

Are you talking about the Mortimer argument or posting a response to a JTR Forums post on Casebook?

Chris:

I raised it here because (1) there's just been a lengthy discussion of the same point here (admittedly it was off-topic, but you were the one who initiated the discussion) and (2) I'm not a member of jtrforums.

1.) I think you'll find it was Tom who got the ball rolling on this particular Mortimer discussion, not me. I only made a reference to her in a post.

2.) You poor soul.

What particularly surprised me was that having accused Tom Wescott of "twisting your words" by saying you'd argued that Mortimer was at the door for half an hour, you went on to say precisely that on jtrforums.

For the 435,657th time, yes I do believe Mortimer was at her door for half an hour, but had confused the part about the time of it being 12.30 - 1 AM, hence why she missed so many - in fact, all - of the other crucial witnesses, and they missed her. It was probably earlier in the night when the "second couple" were around, and her sighting of Goldstein was just by chance as she went to shut the bolts before going to bed.

You say I'm "probably" right that you only meant she claimed to have been there for half an hour. If you're not sure whether I'm right or not, I think other people can be forgiven for finding your theory a bit hard to understand.

I'm finding your comments a bit hard to understand. It is both my claim that she was at her door for half an hour (though not during the period of time she says) and her claim that she was at her door for half an hour (as she says that much as a direct quote in multiple newspaper reports, as opposed to a third person reference to some 10 minute gap.)

In any case, Chris, i've made the offer to join the debate in the pages of Ripperologist several times. You've signalled your lack of interest in being the opponent, and if that still remains the case, then we've got nothing further to discuss here.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

For the 435,657th time, yes I do believe Mortimer was at her door for half an hour, but had confused the part about the time of it being 12.30 - 1 AM...

For all I know you may have said that repeatedly on jtrforums, but as I've told you I'm not a member of jtrforums, and I don't see all the posts there.

Certainly you didn't say it in your article, and you've haven't said it on this thread - I've just gone back and checked.

[Steven Russell]

What I regretted about your post was the abyssmal lack of knowledge about and respect for K2, as well as the lack of respect for the hundreds of climbers who've lost their life there, many of them British.

I don't think my post displayed any lack of respect for anyone, Maria. Except perhaps yourself - as I implied earlier, it was deliberately sarcastic. They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and who am I to disagree?

"Abyssmal" is a lovely word, by the way. Shades of Jack London.

You are perfectly correct to conclude that I know absolutely nothing about K2. But why do you believe a lump of rock worthy of respect?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[mariab]

"Abyssmal" is a lovely word, by the way. Shades of Jack London.

Jack London was a surfer, by the way. (Or at least, he tried, and ate sh*t in Hawaii. And wrote about it.)

But why do you believe a lump of rock worthy of respect?

Ugh!! Sacrilege! Too long to explain. Or I might try the short version: beautiful, magnificent, deadly, magical, irresistible pull on climbers...

[Steven Russell]

Well, good luck to you, Maria. In some ways I envy you in that you seem to take great delight in the natural world. Music does it for me.

But vive la difference,
Steve.

[mariab]

Thank you. I'm a musicologist myself, but were I born 7 years earlier, I would have been a Pro snowboarder. (Which would have probably taken all the fun out.)
Vive la différence indeed.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

I won't begin to try and fathom why you wouldn't be a member of JTR Forums, but I can assure you that i've stated that many, many times in many, many discussions both here on Casebook and in JTR Forums.....and possibly even in AMOT, not that I can remember now. It's a little disappointing that after all the effort, the message still isn't going through for some.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

I won't begin to try and fathom why you wouldn't be a member of JTR Forums, but I can assure you that i've stated that many, many times in many, many discussions both here on Casebook and in JTR Forums.....and possibly even in AMOT, not that I can remember now. It's a little disappointing that after all the effort, the message still isn't going through for some.

Adam

You may not remember what's in your article but, as I said, I went to the trouble of checking it, and what you say there is that there could be any number of explanations, including poor lighting, misreporting and so on. The closest you come to saying that you believe Mortimer stood at her door for a different half-hour is where you simply state that she may have "confused her times", which could mean almost anything (including that she stood there for only ten minutes!).

You've made a lot of posts on this thread about Mortimer, mostly consisting of personal stuff, challenges to debate, exhortations to read your article and so on. If you had stated this new theory about Mortimer standing outside her door for a different half-hour just once we should all have been aware of it. But you didn't. That's why the message didn't get through.