Bushwalk Australia

A warning to everyone - this posting was lifted almost entirely by the Sydney Morning Herald and posted on their web site. It may even be in the newspaper.

So beware of anything you say here that may reflect on other people, may be libellous, or may show bushwalking in a poor light.

I would even be careful of showing pictures of yourself in case they are published......

davidmorr wrote:They had 60 litres of water because they didn't trust the river...

My goodness, tell them the river is quite okay to paddle in and that 60 litres will not be enough to float a canoe in that far!

Sorry. Yes, drinking water. 60 litres, that's 60 kilograms, aside from everything else they were carrying. Crikey!
Best of luck to them, sounds like they will need it.
Perhaps if you know the local rescue authorities in that area it might pay to send them a message to read your post here...

See above. This is not a private place where friends can chat.

And it has now made the news http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bushwalkers-m ... 15w47.html

davidmorr wrote: One of them even had an artificial leg.

what, just in case...

meh... anyhow.. who cares, media shouldn't call them bushwalkers though, just everyday random young fools. Stupidity should be treated as a crime.

so, weaving a reality out of all this... the guys are likely fine and in good spirits and have all they need, but their girlfriend has a sick dog ? Why do they need rescuing ?

Basically, she wants his money.

The lengths women will go to, to get your wallet!

And now is this post in the news, at the top of the SMH page http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/four-missing- ... 15wa8.html

sounds like a lota fuss... they'll get a free ride home at most (hopefully).. Let them suffer the full week I say, tiered and hungry, a lesson learnt, many of us have been there?

Its sad to see people in this circumstance. I hope they are found and returned safely to their loved ones.

It is also very annoying to see this sort of thing happen when it really boils down to people not seeking, and not listening to good advice.

A group of us did the trip from Canoe Creek to Bob Turners over a weekend some years ago. We walked in to Canoe Creek on Friday night, with lilos and paddles, and camped on the river. The paddles certainly came in handy as it was two long days of paddling just to get to Bob Turners Track.
http://ozultimate.com/tom/bushwalking/2 ... photos.htm

While canoes would be quicker on the deep pools, the difficulty of getting them into Canoe Creek (not withstanding the name!) and portaging all of the boulder jams would be a major ask. At least with lilos we were able to ride some of the rapids. There are too many boulders to be able to canoe them except in high water, when it would be very difficult and dangerous.
http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking/region.php?nid=210

By lilo it would probably take another day to Colo Meroo, and a further day to the Colo River Bridge. Those sections would be quicker by canoe, assuming the river is deep enough to paddle (not guaranteed!)

cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking

There is at least one journalist for the SMH in this forum. You have been warned.

Were you interviewed regarding this David??

Or have the media just quoted you straight from the posts on this forum??

They have now been found http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shopping-trol ... 15wa8.html
But they are going to walk out. Is this a wise thing unassisted based on what we know about them? The police would be powerless to stop them

Well done David on your new job!

If you look at who is online - the Google Bot is regularly indexing this site.
So I'm guessing unless anything has been put in place all the posts on here are being indexed by Google.
I've seen it before trying google for info about Tasmanian mountains this site comes up regularly.
Infact forum member avaters etc regularly appear if you do image searches against names of tasmanian mountains.
ILUVSWTas makes a regular appearance.

LOL!! Love the new signature David, I guess that answers my question if you were asked.....

Not the first time the media have taken snippets from this forum to put to their own use.....

ILUVSWTAS wrote:Were you interviewed regarding this David??

Or have the media just quoted you straight from the posts on this forum??

Quoted the post. I had a PM to be interviewed, but given the lies and distortions in coverage of this so far, and my observations of media (lack of) ethics elsewhere, I couldn't trust them to report what I said accurately.

Greenie wrote:They have now been found http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shopping-trol ... 15wa8.html
But they are going to walk out. Is this a wise thing unassisted based on what we know about them? The police would be powerless to stop them

Well done David on your new job!

Since they are actually on the river, they are probably ok and will have an adventure they will be able to talk about for years. They had food for four days, despite what the police were *reported* to have said ("short of food"). (They knew they had plenty of food.)

And I have no idea where the shopping trolleys came from. They had purpose-designed trolleys for carrying this sort of load. A beat-up to make it sound worse than it was.

Reptiles of the press indeed!!

Ha ha, sorry, just catching up on this topic. I read your original entry David earlier in the week. Quite a funny chain of events really (knowing that the lads are ok); pretty poor form by the journo though - they call that article reporting? I suppose we see it with Facebook though - how many articles do we see these days where the journo has quoted entries straight of someone's Facebook 'wall'?

I commend you for acting on your senses and speaking to the girlfriend too, your wisdom and common sense has probably helped both sides of this story - the anxious friends/family waiting; and definitely for the guys who are out there on the river - without that contact with you they would still have expected to be out of the river in 24 hours!!

ILUVSWTAS wrote:LOL!! Love the new signature David, I guess that answers my question if you were asked.....

Not the first time the media have taken snippets from this forum to put to their own use.....

snippet? 2/3 of the article was lifted straight from Davids posts! and made to look like he was giving a face to face interview!!!

When the article first appeared, I was described as "an experienced bushwalker". Now I am described as "a rafting assistant". Wonder if that has anything to do with me pulling my comments from the forum?

And little does he know that in fact I was really only a porter, helping to carry boats and gear down for the people floating down the river.

dont let the truth get in the way of a good story

Given the liberties taken by the media here, is it possible to make this forum visible to logged in members only?

Lindsay wrote:Given the liberties taken by the media here, is it possible to make this forum visible to logged in members only?

Then you'd have the problem of potential new members not being able to check the forum out before they signed up.

Lindsay wrote:Given the liberties taken by the media here, is it possible to make this forum visible to logged in members only?

The journalist is actually a member of the forums. And since anyone can sign up, they could just join. I'm wondering whether this journalist is clever enough (sorry, an oxymoron!) to look through here for possible stories, or for information whenever there is a bushwalking-related story elsewhere.

It happened once before when our friends from the ACT attempted the crazy trip up the New River.
Comments from members persuading them not to go were quoted in newspapers the day after they were rescued by helicopter

Lindsay wrote:Given the liberties taken by the media here, is it possible to make this forum visible to logged in members only?

It is possible, but it has a number of drawbacks, such as making the forum less accessible and less appealing to potential members, and most importantly, makes the forums impossible for internet search tools to index, and therefore more difficult for people to find.

Son of a Beach wrote:

Lindsay wrote:Given the liberties taken by the media here, is it possible to make this forum visible to logged in members only?

It is possible, but it has a number of drawbacks, such as making the forum less accessible and less appealing to potential members, and most importantly, makes the forums impossible for internet search tools to index, and therefore more difficult for people to find.

This might be best for another thread.. but I think this is a bit of a concern.

http://omgili.com/user%3Ailuvswtas

http://omgili.com/user%3A%22aljscott%22

External sites are collating our posts and linking them to user profiles.
Fair enough that external search engines can index the content, but perhaps user profiles should be visible to search engines and non-logged in users?

This is pretty standard and expected stuff (not that I like it). If you post anything to the internet, you should expect it to be indexed, catalogued and used by a number of other sites for various reasons. Ever tried doing an internet search for your own name? Chances are there are several sites out there with your phone number, email address, employment details, and all sorts of other information on you.

Reality is, if you post it on the internet, it can be found.

Don't post anything you don't want found.

I can see the logic of David removing his post and getting hostile towards the wholesale quoting and distortion of it in the press, but on the other hand, removing it means there is nowhere to go to compare the actual post against the only remaining version of it (ie. in the media).

Sounds like there's a good chance they'll make it out safely. Hope they put those shopping trolleys back at the supermarket, I hear coles get pretty aggro about people stealing their trolleys!