Basic navigational skills badly missing

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:48:20 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Pete, not jumping on your post, or your point epecially but I have a
question that relates to your comment and a real situation.

Quoted message said:

Following up my own post, I am just as annoyed if people say you /must/
navigate with map and compass. I don't see why folk need to be told how
to have their fun, or be told that they're having their fun the wrong
way

Many moons ago (when The Lakes had real winters ;-) I was on Helvellyn
in winter condition: axes, crampons, to the fore (unroped) topping out
on the face where Helvellyn abuts Swirral Edge. Its a tricky place to
some (many?) walkers. This day the snow was hard packed because of the
conditions and the amount of traffic and there was a [huge] queue of
folk wanting off the top plateau. (This was why we made our own way up
with our crampons and axes onto the summit plateau --because we could
and it eased the congestion).

As we topped out there was one guy causing more of a hold up than
others: he had an ice axe but was holding it like it was a frying pan,
he was sat down on the snow slope trying to scrinch his way forward,
earnestly trying to gain purchase from the cheap garden wellies he was
wearing. He was bricking it.

It scared me, especially the consequences of a slight twist in fate at
that point.

I passed some comment (entirely out of character, I know ;-) about the
suitability of his footwear for the conditions. He didn't reply,
presumably because he was concentrating on maximising his coefficient
of friction but a friend of his replied "he goes everywhere in them".

Quoted message said:

(caveat if they'll be ruining someone else's fun, but that's not
really an issue here AFAICT).

On the day I mentioned above its not that, if he'd fallen, that he'd
have spoiled my/our fun (which he would have done) but that I really
didn't want to be involved in the gruesome task of looking over
something that would have resembled road-kill if he'd slipped. We
would /de facto/ have been the first people able to assess the scene,
equipped and capable as we were. We wouldn't have hesitated to help,
assess the scene, but

but the danger he was putting himself into was so, so, so plain to
see... but his friends... "oh, he goes everywhere in them" . There was
general disgruntlement in the fact I'd said anything at all, I didn't
care, I was scared for him.

Quoted message said:

Promote GPS all you like by positive statements about what it does well,
fine. But pushing it by saying you're daft or a luddite to use anything
else or that nothing else measures up to the job then we're into
negative campaigning, and there just isn't any need for it.

The next day, overcast when we'd had sunshine, slightly more wind. A
young lad, late teens, did die at the same spot, he fell.

Was there any need for that?

What about the MRT who recovered the road kill? Do they do that
because that's what they enjoy???? No way (and I'm not suggesting that
you're saying they do, either).

Perhaps with a little more proscription there wouldn't have been any
need for it.

Yes, agreed, my scenario has nothing to do with a GPS but it does
relate to a life-threatening situation where more appropriate
equipment would have better suited.

MHO? Proscription is not the way, but if many, many, many folk are
prepared to spend £180+ on a jacket, £60-£80+ on over-trousers,
£40-£80 on trousers, £permutations on "base-layers", £60-£120 on
boots, £60 on a 'sac, etc. etc.... all because those items increase
(and they do) their enjoyment of being outdoors, how then can the
suggestion of an extra £70-£120 for a potential life-saver be that
easy to argue against? More so when said item can (and does) also add
to their enjoyment of the day out. Not to mention if that cost/burden
can be spread amongst a group?

Following up to Paul Saunders

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed, if you want that kind of excitement.

I do!

You can still have it then. Nothing stopping you.

Nothing stopping me for now, in the future everybody will
presumably have GPS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What may otherwise be an enjoyable
navigation challenge can sometimes be a pain in the [censored].

True, sometimes being lost is a pain in the [censored] but you feel all
the better for the experience back in the pub

But not if you end up having to call the MRT or end up dead, which is
probably my point. With a GPS you can choose to end the "exciting
experience" at a sensible point and finish off with an uneventful return to
the car. But at least you get to live! Or at least stay out of the papers
and end up being criticised by the dreaded MRT! ;-)

If you can choose to end the experience, its not the experience.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My point is that you no longer need to use them, they are
redundant.

But you can still choose to use them if you wish. No-one's stopping you.
But in the sense that car owners no longer need horse riding skills then
yes, they *are* redundant. Who nowadays really feels any need to ride
horses now that we have cars?

very few, that's what will happen to conventional navigation
skills?

Quoted message said:

I stress need, rather than want.

Quoted message said:

Not having them is now not a block on somebody
navigating cloud covered complex hills. Part of the game has been
taken away by technology.

But is that really such a bad thing?

Yes, i've lost part of the fun.

Quoted message said:

It's called progress.

Is everything new better, wheres youre mobile phone?

Quoted message said:

Nowadays I can
drive to London in a car in a matter of hours (with zero navigation skills
as it happens), whereas years ago it was an adventure that took many days,
riding horses or being a stage coach passenger, being subject to all the
vagaries of the weather and having to overnight in numerous establishments
enroute.

Exactly, what's lost is another part of the adventure, one more
thing removed. You must have noticed the bizarre lengths people
have to go to nowadays to find a bit of adventure? Part of the
reason we protect the hills from "progress" is to leave an area
where we can practice our self reliance. GPS isnt self reliance.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that in some respects that was probably a far more interesting and
enjoyable an experience, but for most people nowadays, who simply want to
get to London as quickly as possible, how many really feel a need to
experience all that?

The logical parallel is "why not build cablecars to the top of
all the hills?"

Quoted message said:

You can still walk to London if you choose, but the
experience wouldn't be the same. Things have changed, time has moved on, as
it always does.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. Doesn't mean it makes things
better.

Quoted message said:

Even if you did ride a horse to London, you wouldn't get the same
experience. The infrastructure has changed, the culture has changed,
people's attitudes have changed, as they always do, and always will. This
is the nature of the evolution of civilisation.

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?"

Indeed, which runs counter to your argument I can go on using a
compass if I want to.

Quoted message said:

Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

I use "an" where a vowel follows to make it easier to say, "an
historical" is harder to say, so will go, has gone?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is that
with a GPS you have options, you can make it as hard or as easy as
you like. It only takes the challenge away if you allow it to.

As I said before, and I see you agree, if you have insurance
against it going wrong, its not an "adventure"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eventually, lost walkers without one will be
criticised by mountain rescue.

This is what I don't want to happen. I did say that I don't like them
criticising bad navigational ability, but not criticising lack of GPS. But
when I said that, I didn't mean that I wanted them to criticise lack of GPS.
I just thought it unfair that they criticised lack of one set of skills
(traditional) but not the other (modern). I'd prefer it if they criticised
neither.

I think it may happen though.

Quoted message said:

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

To be fair, MRT usually criticize people doing really daft
things. I think a reasonably equipped hillwalker who did his best
to get down somewhere and ends up cragbound or totally exhausted
will be rescued without comment, especially if he buys the team a
round and isnt on the three peaks!

PS My new scanner just arrived.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

SteveO said:

As we topped out there was one guy causing more of a hold up than
others: he had an ice axe but was holding it like it was a frying pan,
he was sat down on the snow slope trying to scrinch his way forward,
earnestly trying to gain purchase from the cheap garden wellies he was
wearing. He was bricking it.

Or put another way, he wasn't having any fun! ;-/ Getting oneself
killed and injured generally isn't, so in the case that one is clearly
sailing too close to the wind then I think it's reasonable that that's
another caveat and it's fair if comment is passed.

However, there's a difference between a slightly increased relative risk
and a dangerous absolute one. Some people really /are/ daft and one can
do them a favour in terms of life expectancy by pointing it out with
direct reference to the situation at hand.

Where is the hard line between one case and another? In reality it's
impossible to draw an objective line, which does weaken my case to some
degree I'll grant you, but at least I realise it's not black and white
which is something.

Quoted message said:

but the danger he was putting himself into was so, so, so plain to
see... but his friends... "oh, he goes everywhere in them" . There was
general disgruntlement in the fact I'd said anything at all, I didn't
care, I was scared for him.

I think you did the right thing in the situation as described. OTOH I
have been "told off" more than once for wearing sandals up Munros when I
wasn't in any danger at all, I was just contravening the Received Wisdom
that one /must/ have Stout Footwear with ankle support to go
hillwalking, so the line of plainly daft does vary for different people.
20 years ago *I* would have probably told me off for doing the Aonach
Eagach in Tevas, and it's partly as a reaction to that degree of "I know
what's best for everyone, even if they don't!" that I have become
considerably more libertarian in how people decide to enjoy themselves.

Quoted message said:

The next day, overcast when we'd had sunshine, slightly more wind. A
young lad, late teens, did die at the same spot, he fell.

Was there any need for that?

Tricky to say exactly what the "need" was. A friend of mine fell and
hurt himself quite badly while walking in winter in the 'Gorms. He was
a qualified mountain leader and expedition adviser for the RGS at the
time, so it's not like he didn't know what he was doing, but he still
ended up in hospital...
Much like the most cast iron avalanche avoidance advice is "don't go
into snowy mountains", the best way to avoid falls is don't go near
steep drops. It sounds facetious but it's quite true, and to some
extent we're all putting ourselves into some degree of the danger we face.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps with a little more proscription there wouldn't have been any
need for it.

But again we come back to the need to draw lines in very fuzzy places
where you can't choose an absolutely right spot. So does one err on the
side of caution, and risk putting people off something they may love, or
does one err on the side of libertarianism and risk people not coming
back? There's no right answer, but my view is based on the feeling that
consenting adults should have responsibility for themselves in a free
society and if they take that responsibility then be rewarded with
freedom of choice for themselves.
Part of my feelings here are informed from a time when I was president
of Dundee Uni Rucksack Club. An incident where someone got back late
had us thinking we didn't really know enough had we needed to call 999
so it was time for a review of club safety procedures. I got to work
and drew up a load of things that would make the club /much/ safer. But
I also realised I wouldn't personally want to be in a club that told me
to that extent what I could and couldn't do, and we'd rule out people
doing things that were felt not only acceptable but worthy of great
praise in mountaineering circles, so I scrapped it all and started
again, ending up with recommendations rather than rules and aiming only
to curb what I saw as really dangerous practice.
While it's fashionable to say "Safety is our #1 priority", it clearly
isn't in most cases. If I wish to walk in maximum safety I'll do it on
a treadmill, but merely putting one foot in front of the other isn't
what I think of as "walking" in this sense.

Quoted message said:

Yes, agreed, my scenario has nothing to do with a GPS but it does
relate to a life-threatening situation where more appropriate
equipment would have better suited.

I think the situation you described is much closer to life being lost
than A.N.Other walker out without a GPS on any random day of the week.
Again there's that fuzzy line somewhere between the two which I'm not
foolish enough to think I can place perfectly objectively.

Quoted message said:

MHO? Proscription is not the way, but if many, many, many folk are
prepared to spend £180+ on a jacket, £60-£80+ on over-trousers,
£40-£80 on trousers, £permutations on "base-layers", £60-£120on
boots, £60 on a 'sac, etc. etc.... all because those items increase
(and they do) their enjoyment of being outdoors, how then can the
suggestion of an extra £70-£120 for a potential life-saver be that
easy to argue against?

Because there are still lots of people who can't afford it, especially
if they have other demands on their resources than a single primary
hobby, and just because a typical UK citizen now /can/ does not make the
people at the poorer end of the spectrum disappear. And if you start
saying "you're daft going out without a GPS" then people who can't
afford them can end up thinking they're daft going out for a day in the
hills where they should IMHO be regarded as smart, sane people right on
the ball for having a wonderful day out they can get despite not being
able to afford much material.

When a GPS becomes a commodity item to the same extent as a cheap
wristwatch currently is then it might be a point. I'd still have some
issues with the way it can alter the experience even if you don't use
it, but that's something that doesn't really need arguing until such
time as a GPS really /is/ a commodity to the same extent as a cheap
wristwatch.

Quoted message said:

More so when said item can (and does) also add
to their enjoyment of the day out. Not to mention if that cost/burden
can be spread amongst a group?

If it adds to your enjoyment then go ahead and get one. The name of the
game is enjoyment. But assuming the cost burden can be spread around a
group doesn't really help the unemployed chap with no friends who like
the hills who can nonetheless feel alive and themself on a day up the
tops.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

SteveO said:

That's fair enough but, ISTM, that you're the only one with the view
that this is even a slight possibility in this instance.

I may well be the one shouting loudest but that's not the same thing.
One could read something similar into some of Dominic's comments, for
example.

Dominic made a point (I don't recall excatly what he said), fair do's.
But how many times did he dance the same jig; to a tune that was taken
from a different score?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Right from the very beginning you've taken issue with the use of the
single word "daft", yet:

* you're the one who's extrapolated it to infer that, in using the
word "daft", its being suggested a person is a stupid idiot and that
they're being insulted in this thread

And which Roger picked up a dictionary to find that it might just be I
have something of a point.

Perhaps in the context of that reference, but less so in the context
of others... and in the context of your own use of the same word!!
Factor in common usage which covets against your interpretation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None of them are the least bit offensive and neither is "pretty daft",
the original offending phrase in all its glory.

Context can make a lot of things very different. And the context of a
reply to a serious post of Dominic's reading:

Quoted message said:

"Having said that, and since you've raised the point, I do consider it
pretty daft to go out without one, and if I was a member of an MRT
that had to spend ages searching in dangerous conditions for someone
who could have been located easily if they'd had the means of passing
on a GR I'd be pretty annoyed"

is the context of a serious post on a serious issue from an experienced
and respected outdoorsy type and not an idle put down made in a spirit
of fun.

I don't read that as a put-down. I read it as personal opinion.
Personal opinion in the context of someone who's own activities are on
the "extreme" end of things. I read the above quote from PW as
relating to her opinion of someone doing what she does. I read PW's
post in that context.

PW says "I do consider it pretty daft to go out without one", she does
not say "I do consider it pretty daft for people to go out without
one". May be wrong, but I interpret that as someone talking more about
themselves than anything else, and then extending the feeling her
experience has given her to a general overview in a single, short
sentence, a feeling, an opinion rather than a [putdown] statement.

Quoted message said:

I read PW's post quoted above as rather a serious piece of
comment. Do you see it as an idle off-the-cuff remark?

see above, plus:

PW also says "and if I was a member of an MRT that had to spend ages
searching in dangerous conditions for someone who could have been
located easily if they'd had the means of passing on a GR I'd be
pretty annoyed".

I read as a statement of fact as to what her state of mind would be in
that situation and her opinion of others as secondary, perhaps
something, derisory or otherwise, could be inferred into that if it
suits the mind-set used to interpret her statement. The above prolly
explains more why she's not in an MRT than confirming anything else
;-)

I have to say, I agree with PW's sentiment in terms of self-reliance.
I'd also extend it further: if you get into trouble on the hill and
are unable to tell your would-be rescuers where you need rescuing from
then you deserve a good slap.

It doesn't matter what means of telling your would-be rescuers your
whereabouts you possess, as long as you have them. Map and compass,
map and compass, grid reference, map and compass, grid reference I
picked up more or less by rote when I was "getting into" the big bad
outdoors. It wasn't by rote, it was because I was so interested I just
did it so many times it became an amlost mechanical routine.

Today it seems that its Goretex jacket, day 'sac, expensive pair of
boots et al paraphernalia and sod the map and compass... after all
I've got my mobile phone! (mobile phone in the hills is, imho a good
thing, btw) ...and as for a GPS... a device that can tell you were you
are?!!!? Pah, Ferget it. Self-reliance? Responsibility for my own
safety?? Get Lost!!

I would say, sod what anyone else might be construed as saying earlier
in the thread, that if you need rescuing in that scenario you're your
own worst enemy and there's little wrong in having that pointed out to
you.

Notwithstanding that, I do agree with something you said earlier about
the fact that many, many folk do go out "responsibly" (a horrible word
in this context, but it serves a purpose).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(a) I think you've taken a massive right turn with your interpretation
of the single word and gone on a huge rant because of that - just look
at the common usage of "daft" fer goodness sake (yes, I know you
suggest different connotations but you've used the same word in this
thread in the common congenial context more than once)

But the context in which it is written informs the context in which it
is read.

_You_ used the same word in the same thread in reply to PW in what I
would describe as the similar manner but you don't find me or anyone
else at all leaping on your case, lambasting your view based on my
interpretation of a _single_ word you used?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(b.) I think you were wrong to berate a single person (PW) as much as
you have.

I'm not into berating people, I'm into dialogue with or against
opinions. So if PW posts something I disagree with 20 times and I think
it's important, I'll post disagreement 20 times.

PW posted something that you disagreed with, you replied, fair enough.
PW posted, you replied. PW posted asking you not to put words into her
mouth you replied by berating her original comment, which you _were_
berating... sorry >disagreeing strongly< with by sole virtue of your
own twist on the context. PW says that the twist you chose to take was
not what she said (or meant by inference) but you continue to bludgeon
your point home on the basis of your skewed interpretation. PW stops
posting and you're still ber... sorry >disagreeing< with her!!

A teensy bit OTT, no?

Quoted message said:

Of course, she'll have
been disagreeing with me just as much as the other way around, so I've
had just as much "berating" myself.

The essence of what was said against you by PW, afair (don't recall it
all), was that you were being asked not to "put words into someone's
mouth", hardly close to disagreement let alone berating.

<SteveO> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

1.) PW said something
2.) PC took issue with it, which he's perfectly at liberty to do but
seems he took an extreme interpretation of a single word (see [1]
below]
3.) PW said "hang on, that 's not what I said"
4.) PC said "yes, but", "if you construe it this way" and then he
bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation
5.) PW said "but that's not what I said"
6.) PC said "yes but it can be interpretted this way", "and if you do
it means this", and then bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation

That sounds suspiciously similar to a thread where the question "Where do
women get paid less than men" cropped up a while ago. Except in that one PW
took the opposite stance as attributed to PC above and I believe you again
felt the need to very loudly support her. Hmmm....

SteveO said:

I don't read that as a put-down. I read it as personal opinion.
Personal opinion in the context of someone who's own activities are on
the "extreme" end of things. I read the above quote from PW as
relating to her opinion of someone doing what she does. I read PW's
post in that context.

i.e., an opinion from a respected and experienced walker, not wishing to
put people down but suggesting it is to some degree a bad idea not to go
out with a GPS.
The individual who casts the opinion does make a difference. If Chris
Townsend says he thinks a bit of gear is good makes more of an impact
than if Joe Bloggs does, but it's still just a personal opinion at the
end of the day.

Quoted message said:

PW says "I do consider it pretty daft to go out without one", she does
not say "I do consider it pretty daft for people to go out without
one". May be wrong, but I interpret that as someone talking more about
themselves than anything else

I would say a fair possibility. I will also freely admit I had to read
the above three times before I noticed the difference in wording, but
there again that underlines the extent to which meanings can be
ambiguous. While "I do consider it pretty daft to go out without one"
does not explicitly include anyone beyond the author, but does not
specifically exclude anyone either.

Quoted message said:

PW also says "and if I was a member of an MRT that had to spend ages
searching in dangerous conditions for someone who could have been
located easily if they'd had the means of passing on a GR I'd be
pretty annoyed".

I read as a statement of fact as to what her state of mind would be in
that situation

Though I find there is a possible interpretation that suggests she
/might/ think that's what an MRT member would think. Again, I think not
a direct intention but there is a possibility that these things will
mutate in transmission and reception and it's quite possible to get to
MRTs saying it's bloody suicide through an unintended chain of Chinese
Whispers with all recourse to the original author lost, and quite
probably who the original author /is/ lost as well. Nobody's intention,
but as I've said before, intention and what is actually drawn can be two
different things.

Quoted message said:

I have to say, I agree with PW's sentiment in terms of self-reliance.
I'd also extend it further: if you get into trouble on the hill and
are unable to tell your would-be rescuers where you need rescuing from
then you deserve a good slap.

I will leave the sentiment and opinion up to the rescuers, because it's
their time and not yours.

Quoted message said:

_You_ used the same word in the same thread in reply to PW in what I
would describe as the similar manner but you don't find me or anyone
else at all leaping on your case, lambasting your view based on my
interpretation of a _single_ word you used?

Here you are lambasting me for what I say anyway...

Quoted message said:

A teensy bit OTT, no?

Quite possibly, but it is addressing an aspect of what I see the *most*
fundamental aspect of Being Outside: freedom to make one's own choices
without any undue pressure, even if it's mild and unintended undue pressure.

A while ago John Shackford complained he was giving up TGO because of
all the politics in it now. Well, the politics can be deeply dull if
you're not interested but they are there and they do underpin how things
are done, so I think they are important. Certainly OTT if you don't
give a damn about them, but I think a fair point to bang on about them
if you do. I do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

What on earth have you got against MRT ??

I don't like the way they call themselves MRT. Given that there aren't any
Mountains in this country and Rescue is a bit strong a word for helping
someone who's scared of a bit of mist or has twisted their ankle and can't
hack a little bit of pain I think a better title would be Small Hill
Assistance Team.... SHAT.

AndyP said:

<SteveO> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

1.) PW said something
2.) PC took issue with it, which he's perfectly at liberty to do but
seems he took an extreme interpretation of a single word (see [1]
below]
3.) PW said "hang on, that 's not what I said"
4.) PC said "yes, but", "if you construe it this way" and then he
bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation
5.) PW said "but that's not what I said"
6.) PC said "yes but it can be interpretted this way", "and if you do
it means this", and then bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation

That sounds suspiciously similar to a thread where the question "Where do
women get paid less than men" cropped up a while ago. Except in that one PW
took the opposite stance as attributed to PC above and I believe you again
felt the need to very loudly support her. Hmmm....

LOL!!

Hehehe Andy, no grassy knoll there mate!! :-) I did, at the time have
the benefit of knowing PWs job, and could see more of where she was
coming from. AIR, I didn't add more than a post or two to thread
anyway.

Peter Clinch said:

SteveO said:

I don't read that as a put-down. I read it as personal opinion.
Personal opinion in the context of someone who's own activities are on
the "extreme" end of things. I read the above quote from PW as
relating to her opinion of someone doing what she does. I read PW's
post in that context.

i.e., an opinion from a respected and experienced walker, not wishing to
put people down but suggesting it is to some degree a bad idea not to go
out with a GPS.
The individual who casts the opinion does make a difference. If Chris
Townsend says he thinks a bit of gear is good makes more of an impact
than if Joe Bloggs does, but it's still just a personal opinion at the
end of the day.

Yeah, but a single post in lowly youroo, versus a printed publication
wherein an author is presented as "expert". Mind you I understand
where you're coming from, and would agree with the base principals.

Quoted message said:

A while ago John Shackford complained he was giving up TGO because of
all the politics in it now. Well, the politics can be deeply dull if
you're not interested but they are there and they do underpin how things
are done, so I think they are important. Certainly OTT if you don't
give a damn about them, but I think a fair point to bang on about them
if you do. I do.

me2

</AOL>

Caring is a good thing.

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

PS My new scanner just arrived.

Careful that doesn't take the adventure out of computing.

--
Martin Richardson
271/284 Munros - 4.5% to go 34/34 'Furths'- 0% to go
53/89 Donalds - 40% to go 493/1554 Marilyns - 67% to go
376/525 Hewitts - 28% to go (E=178/178; W=137/137; I=61/211)

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

PS My new scanner just arrived.

Careful that doesn't take the adventure out of computing.

--
Martin Richardson
271/284 Munros - 4.5% to go 34/34 'Furths'- 0% to go
53/89 Donalds - 40% to go 493/1554 Marilyns - 67% to go
376/525 Hewitts - 28% to go (E=178/178; W=137/137; I=61/211)

The message <[email hidden]>
from SteveO contains these words:

Quoted message said:

(Oh, and Marilyn, Wendy and Outlying Playing Fields Man, please don't
leap again to the literal definition in a single reference work just
yet... tip for you tho', the beauty of the English language is in the
nuance of its correct usage, away from the literal.)

I take it you mean me.

I can't resist the temptation to point out that the crass language you
use is anything but beautiful and your need to pepper your dictats to
the rest of us with numerous insults and crudities is essentially
infantile. Much of that considerable waste of bandwidth that you have
written about Pete could much more usefully be applied to yourself. You
are obviously no longer a child so isn't it about time you grew up?

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

Peter Clinch said:

Promote GPS all you like by positive statements about what it does
well, fine. But pushing it by saying you're daft or a luddite to use
anything else or that nothing else measures up to the job then we're
into negative campaigning, and there just isn't any need for it.

I think there's a bit more to GPS than "just spend the £80 or whatever".
There is the minor matter of knowing how to set it up and how to use it.

I met a couple of retired chaps on Cadair Idris. They went walking fairly
regularly. They had a GPS (basic Yellow Etrex) because one of their
relatives was worried about them becoming lost and had bought it for them to
ensure they got down safely. These chaps knew how to use a map and compass,
and the weather wasn't going to cause any problems.
They appeared to be using the GPS for amusement rather than navigation, but
were a bit puzzled. The GPS was telling them they were 1km or so from their
current location; they thought this might be the normal "accuracy" of GPS,
though wondered how such a device could really be useful as anyone would
know their location to 1km or so in most situations.

The answer, as any GPS-buff would guess, was "wrong grid system". I found
OSGB fairly quickly, and the reported position now matched the map.

Later the same year, I met a family on Beinn Alligin. They had struggled up
the corrie to the SW summit and were looking at the onward ridge. As far as
I could tell, they had a basic written path guide and no map/compass. They
had a GPS with them (Etrex Venture or similar). The father was saying "this
thing is supposed to tell us where we are and how far it is to go, but I
can't get it to work". Listening to their conversation from afar, it
transpired that they had borrowed the GPS from a friend so they had it if
they needed it on the mountain. It was apparent they'd not bothered with
"how to use it". Hmmm....
Fortunately a nice day, no chance of weather deterioration, and the first of
the minor rock steps along the ridge caused them to turn back and descend
via their ascent route.

Setting up and using devices is a minefield for many people, the products
and manuals don't necessarily make it easy.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

"Nigel Cliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Later the same year, I met a family on Beinn Alligin. They had struggled

up

Quoted message said:

the corrie to the SW summit and were looking at the onward ridge. As far

as

Quoted message said:

I could tell, they had a basic written path guide and no map/compass.

They

Quoted message said:

had a GPS with them (Etrex Venture or similar). The father was saying

"this

Quoted message said:

thing is supposed to tell us where we are and how far it is to go, but I
can't get it to work". Listening to their conversation from afar, it
transpired that they had borrowed the GPS from a friend so they had it if
they needed it on the mountain. It was apparent they'd not bothered with
"how to use it". Hmmm....

The only time I've ever seen anyone using a GPS was someone walking along a
pavement in the village I used to live in. As he was walking along
concentrating on the screen he stepped off into the road and his female
companion grabbed his arm to drag him back to safety. Only just remembered
that, but it's rather like the "Walker Following GPS Walks Off Cliff"
scenario isn't it.

W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes at

07 December 2005 09:38:12

Haven't you guys got any work to do?

Don't tell me you've been reading all this stuff, Bill?

I don't blame Paul for it. :-)
--
Gordon Harris

W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and
after all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and
you'll get to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way
to go, right? Well, of course not!

Bollocks! It depends on your ability. If the train is the only way
you're going to get to the to it's the best way.

Nearly went up on the train on honeymoon with my wife (who else)?
There was such a long queue we didn't bother.
--
Gordon Harris

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:08:06 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from SteveO contains these words:

Quoted message said:

(Oh, and Marilyn, Wendy and Outlying Playing Fields Man, please don't
leap again to the literal definition in a single reference work just
yet... tip for you tho', the beauty of the English language is in the
nuance of its correct usage, away from the literal.)

I take it you mean me.

If the hook catches, as me granpa used to say, reel 'em in
🙂

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:57:26 +0000, SteveO wrote:
snip

Quoted message said:

1.) PW said something
2.) PC took issue with it, which he's perfectly at liberty to do but
seems he took an extreme interpretation of a single word (see [1]
below]
3.) PW said "hang on, that 's not what I said"
4.) PC said "yes, but", "if you construe it this way" and then he
bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation
5.) PW said "but that's not what I said"
6.) PC said "yes but it can be interpretted this way", "and if you do
it means this", and then bangs on in a skirmish of his own creation
7.) PC uses the same contentious word in the more correct common
usage, in its more congenial context just to blur his edges ;-)
8.) PW said "please don't put words into my mouth"
9.) PC said "I know but I can construe it this way"
10.) PC then bangs on with much angst in a skirmish of his own
creation bringing cycle helmets into the discussion
11.) PC uses the same contentious word in the more correct common
usage, in its more congenial context just to blur his edges
12.) PW said "but I didn't mention cycling helmets"
13.) PC said "yes I know but it makes my own point beautifully" and
continues to bang on with much angst in a skirmish of his own about
GPS's and cycle helmets (-- the latter which, tbh, I was convinced you
were presenting yourself as a staunch advocate of, to the point of
legislation and gaol, yay verily!!)

nn.) by now, if anyone's still following the thread, they've lost the
thread, what was it about again? ...oh, yes, PW was saying "please
don't suggest I said things I didn't say" (which PC was doing imho)
and PC was banging on in a skirmish of his own creation with much
angst.

I thought the PC line on helmets was that they should be compulsory, or am
I confusing PC with New Labour?

--

Chris Hill

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bollocks! It depends on your ability. If the train is the only way
you're going to get to the to it's the best way.

The "of course not!" refers in particular to the "/must/ be the best",
it is not saying the train is the wrong way for any particular person.
So basically we're in agreement that for this sort of thing there is no
predetermined Right best Way for everyone.

Cheers Pete :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Nearly went up on the train on honeymoon with my wife (who else)?
There was such a long queue we didn't bother.

It can be quite scary for those of a nervous disposition.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk