Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Canal World is funded by our loyal members. Please feel free do donate to us by clicking here. Thank you 


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mayalld last won the day on July 18 2017

mayalld had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,570 Excellent


About mayalld

  • Birthday 29/06/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Hyde, Cheshire

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    IT Support Manager
  • Boat Name
    Mr Jinks
  • Boat Location
    Lyme View, Macclesfield Canal

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

19,806 profile views
  1. Owner fit outs

    From our manual of our DIY fit-out;
  2. Who do you bank with?

    Martins Bank didn't become Midland! Martins Bank was taken over by Barclays.
  3. Brexit 2017

    Well actually we didn't have a referendum on joining anything. We did have a referendum on whether to stay in the common market. It seems fair enough that if the club you joined has changed a great deal over more than 40 years you make a new decision. That is rather different to not liking the result and wanting an immediate rerun
  4. 3/8 or 10mm gas pipe??

    No, you think it obvious that it shouldn't be allowed. However, in the real world it is allowed.
  5. Montgomery Canal Access

    I really don't think that this is a cost issue. CRT have three reasons for managing the passage as they do, and their aim is to restrict the number of boats going onto the canal; 1) The tree huggers don't actually want ANY boats going through the nature reserve (you know, the nature reserve that wasn't there until they restored the canal), and there is a limit of 12 boats per day for environmental reasons (as the offline reserves become established, I believe that this limit is proposed for an increase to 24) 2) There are only a limited amount of visitor mooring available, so allowing more boats down is likely to lead to people trying to moor in unsuitable places, damaging the bank. CRT are only going to increase beyond 12 if 3) CRT have a maximum amount of water that they can take from the Dee above Llangollen, and a minimum amount of water that they are contracted to supply to Hurleston Reservoir, and their losses due to leaks and evaporation. The difference being the maximum amount of water that they can lose at Hurleston and Frankton combined. The "spare" water, after allowing for existing lockages at Hurleston, is enough for 12 lockages a day at Frankton, and if lockages are to increase, some work to reduce losses or possibly back pumping would be required. When there were two passages daily, there was an issue with people going down in the morning and up in the afternoon, just to do Frankton Locks. That was using up the available daily passages for boats that weren't actually making use of the canal.

    The main source are Josephus (late 1st century) and Tacitus (early 2nd century). It is not an area that I have studied extensively, but I understand that the vast majority of scholars are agreed as to the existence of a historical Jesus. Yes, the sources (like the testaments) are around 70-100 years after the events, but is that unduly remarkable in the context of histories of that time?

    You are correct that we cannot be sure. He could actually believe this stuff, or he could be on an elaborate wind-up. As to what is incumbent on us; I am, I hope, a reasonable and considerate individual, so I consider how I should act. If the guy really does believe this, then I shouldn't treat it as a joke, I should argue the point with him to dissuade him from this theory. no to do so might contribute to an even worse mental state. I prefer to err on the side of caution. After all the worse that happens if this is a wind up is that I look silly, and I can cope with that

    Well, it would, if only one could accept that the OP was in fun. It appears to me that the OP actually believes this errant nonsense, and that leaves a dilemma. Is it right to treat as a big joke something that was said in all seriousness, or is it incumbent upon us to seriously debate the point?

    Not often that I agree with you, but can't fault that. The really odd thing about flat earth conspiracy theories is that I have yet to see a cogent explanation of WHY anybody would hide the fact that the earth is flat from the populace. I can understand how conspiracy theories come about, as those in society who feel that the cards are stacked against them seek an explanation beyond mere chance. Perhaps it is easier to accept what is happening if there is a bogeyman to blame. Flat Earthers take it to a new level. They still have a bogeyman telling lies, but they cannot point in any concrete way to how these lies are the root of their problems.

    So, shouting "RESEARCH IT!!!!!!!!!!" five times in the initial post isn't demanding anything. My experience is that people who shout an instruction at you five times are demanding that you follow that instruction. Not that I will follow it of course.

    You have demanded that we research it, yet the sum total of what you present to us as places that we might research is a collection of YouTube videos made by flat earthers. Unless you can present sources that amount to something more than advocates of a theory talking it up with pseudo-science, then there is nothing to research. Oh, and let me just consider your statement above as a classic example of a lack of rigour in the arguments that you advance. If you say that Christ existed, you are merely putting forward what is an accepted historical FACT (there are sources, beyond the bible, that tell of this bloke going round with bunches of followers doing weird stuff). People can sensibly argue as to his divinity or otherwise, but not his existence. If you don't understand what you are actually arguing about, how can you conduct a sensible argument. The trouble with flat earth theories is that to make them work, you have to add ever more complexity to the system to explain the observed facts. You also have to add in a large cohort of people who KNOW about the flat earth, and choose to cover it up. 1) Ever heard of Occam's razor 2) Why would anybody wish to cover up the fact that the earth is flat? Who stands to gain from it?
  12. PC world

    Hmm, new member joined 4 hours ago, and is lecturing us on how the forum should be run.... POPCORN!
  13. The one, the only, Dalmuir drop lock!

    True? Wikipedia is just as true as the people writing its content make it. And I know exactly who added that sentence back in 2007.
  14. Railings for Marple aqueduct - whats next?

    Ah yes, being paid mega-buck for gazing vacantly at the sky.
  15. Let them eat cake!

    OK, at the risk of failing to take sides in an argument... I note that the OP mentioned that the Waitresses were in a variety of fancy dress, from "buxom serving wench" (and before anybody gets all offended, I say that because despite its dreadful lack of PC credentials it is descriptive of the type of costume we seem to be discussing) to something out of Rocky Horror. What that tells me is that the staff were responsible for their own fancy dress, and have themselves chosen to wear a particular costume. That puts a slightly different spin on it. Forcing staff to dress in a provocative way may well be unacceptable. Allowing them freedom to do so if they wish to in a particular context is a different kettle of fish. I also see that the other part of the OP was a sense of discomfort at throwing a party with a decadent theme that might contrast with the low pay of the staff. It is in the nature of dining out that the staff who serve you may not be in a position to afford to patronise their place of employment.