Anti social behaviour

[magnetman]

Sorry, but south of Berko is most definitely a canal. It's called the Grand Union CANAL, not the Grand Union Improved River Navigation.

 

 

 

Yes, I am talking about exceptions to the general rule - and they are valid exceptions which prove the case.

 

I don't see how you can call a large section of one of the major canals of this country an "isolated example"? There are rivers running into and out of other canals too.

 

I'm not confused about anything. A canalised river section is still a canal which happens to have a river running through it. The GU is most definitely a canal - all of it.

 

 

hmm

 

There are parts of the southern GU which flow and parts which don't.

[Mac of Cygnet]

I disagree. Words are just words. Obviously they can be put together to do all sorts of things, but the power isn't in the words themselves, but in the intention of the speaker (or writer) and, even more importantly, in the mind of the hearer (or reader). It takes two to create meaning out of verbal communication.

 

Salmon Rushdie's word's had no power over the vast majority of people (other than to cause extreme boredom); only a very small, very vocal minority with friends in high places decided to be inflamed by them.

 

Or in other words (Lenny Bruce, I think) there are no dirty words, only dirty minds.

 

I couldn't disagree more - this is just confused wriggling. Many, many people a lot wiser than either of us have realised the power of words themselves to do untold good or evil, intentionally or unintentionally. It pays to choose your words very carefully if you don't want to create an unexpected backlash. To say that it is not the words themselves which cause this is just playing with them. A couple or three examples:

 

“Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care, for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or evil.”

Siddhartha Gotoma or Buddha (563-483 B.C.)

 

 

“Kind words can be short and easy to speak but their echoes are endless.”

Mother Theresa(1910-1997)

 

“Sticks and stones may break my bones,

but words will make me go in a corner and cry by myself for hours.”

Eric Idle

 

OK so Eric Idle isn't Buddha or Mother Theresa but he's right!

 

Mac

[magpie patrick]

The River Chess was already mentioned by David - I was just adding the other rivers.

 

Anyway, my point was that in some parts of the country the canals and rivers are inextricably linked - whether you choose to call these stretches of waterway canal or canalised river. There are long sections of canal connecting these rivers which were never paths of rivers before the canal was built and they do have a flow of water. Thus I don't see how anyone could call the entire navigation south of Berko a canalised river?

 

Quite so, although I suspect not that many. The oxford intercepts the Cherwell twice, the Trent and Mersey shares it's course for about a mile with the trent and the Caldon does the same with the Churnet, but in these cases it's the canal following the river not the river being diverted into the canal, the Grand Union (nee Junction) seems to grab every watercourse going south of Berkhampstead

 

hopefully I'll get to see a bit more of it in June!

[Guest]

Of course words are powerful: sentencing somebody to hang in years gone by seem quite powerful words to me.

 

I said just two short words to SWMBO a few years ago; I had a black eye for two weeks.

[Chris Pink]

That is certainly the most erroneous statement I've read in this thread (or anywhere). Words are tremendously powerful, and even a slight change of emphasis can be a matter of life and death.

 

Ask Salman Rushdie.

 

Mac

 

Not so.

 

He had to use two to give offence and even then had to back them up with quite a few sentences.

 

You misunderstand by quoting me out of context. It is the context of the words that make them powerful or offensive.

[carlt]

I said just two short words to SWMBO a few years ago; I had a black eye for two weeks.

"I do!".....???

[Chris Pink]

I couldn't disagree more - this is just confused wriggling. Many, many people a lot wiser than either of us have realised the power of words themselves to do untold good or evil, intentionally or unintentionally. It pays to choose your words very carefully if you don't want to create an unexpected backlash. To say that it is not the words themselves which cause this is just playing with them. A couple or three examples:

 

But none of the examples you quote are words on their own. Even when a single word gives offence it needs someone to hear it.

 

I challenge you to cause offence by stringing words together with no semantics.

 

It is not the words that give offence it is the sentences and the intent.

 

You are confusing 'words' and 'writing' or 'speaking'.

[steelaway]

"I do!".....???

 

 

'I wont'.....???

[journeyperson]

I said just two short words to SWMBO a few years ago; I had a black eye for two weeks.

 

"It does"

 

(in reply to an enquiry about the visual effect of a particular garment.)

[alan_fincher]

"It does"

 

(in reply to an enquiry about the visual effect of a particular garment.)

Or

 

"Yes! Huge!"

[journeyperson]

Or

 

"Yes! Huge!"

 

I think that would be fatal!!

[Chertsey]

But none of the examples you quote are words on their own. Even when a single word gives offence it needs someone to hear it.

 

I challenge you to cause offence by stringing words together with no semantics.

 

It is not the words that give offence it is the sentences and the intent.

 

You are confusing 'words' and 'writing' or 'speaking'.

Hear hear. Words are just tools - they have no power of their own, it is how they are used by people that counts.

 

Now, is it OK to tip dog shit into the cut?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Chertsey

[antarmike]

That would be the case on river fed canals like the Southern Grand Union. However, once above Berko, the GU is fed from reservoirs, the sumit level at Tring being one of them...

 

The Shroppie has a 'permanent' flow. A major feeder is the outfall from Wolverhampton's sewage treatment works....

Tring summit is gravity fed from the railway curtting that is higher than it, but which runs parallel (amongst other sources). The water enters, through a meter, situated in a small building just to the south of the turnover bridge. (this runs all year round, even in the summer months). The other end of the railway cutting also drains into the canal, but south of Marsworth locks, if you look across the fields you can see a pseudo "ventinaltion shaft" in the fields, that dates from when the tunnel was dug, in canal tunnel style, from various vertical shafts dug down to depth then opened up in each direction to complete the tunnel. The Summit is also fed from the Cowroast pump, and this draws it water from the river Bulbourne, that is running underground at that point. , The Bulbourne does not normally rise until Dudswell. When Cowroast pump is run for any length nof time, the Bulbbourne ceases to flow near its source.

 

Not all the water arriving in the summit is pumped there, some is gravity fed.

 

The "Bulbourne Head" also feeds into the summit at the Bulbourne winding hole. The entry is by underground culvert, but the Bulbourne head feds the summit also. Bulbourne head is reputed by some to be the site of the experimental inclined plane built at Bulbourne. Ie the incline worked into the Bulbourne head, not into the canal.

Edited March 27, 2010 by antarmike

[David Schweizer]

I regard both versions as impolite and, whilst probably not obscene, the term is often used as a swear word and, therefore, offensive (in this case mildly) and unnecessary. We have a wonderful language that enables us to converse politely and succinctly without having to use words which, by their general application, are regarded by most well-mannered people as rude, swearing, or obscene.

So how does the alternative word Poo sit with you?

 

Still but a bit closer than rivers vs canals.

[journeyperson]

So how does the alternative word Poo sit with you?

 

Still but a bit closer than rivers vs canals.

 

I think the words "Poo" and "sit" being used together is a bit unsettling.

 

I keep having to resist the temptation to reply to one of these disapproving posts with " Too F*%@ing right!!"

 

I finally succumbed .

[antarmike]

On the lower GU the entire flow of the River Bulbourne enters the GU below Winkwell locks, The entire flow of the River Gade enters at Two Waters. The TWO Waters are the Rivers Gade and Bulbourne, both of which are flowing down the course of the GU at this point. Let us also remember that the original course of the canal was altered and new lock built to satisfy the needs of Mill owners or used Water wheels to power factories at Apsley. They challenged the way the Grand Junction had pinched their water, and the Grand Junction was rebuilt and the number of lock at Apsley atually changed so that they could continue to use the flow of the Rivers to power their factories. More locks, or less fall relaced the earlier locks, so each boat locking through used less water, and left more flow to drive the waterwheels. If I remeber correctly, one of the Mill races leaves the canal just above Nash Mills top lock??

 

Regarding Shit in the canal, I was at Aylesbury when the basin was dredged, in the seventies, and the mud which came out absolutely stunk of shit, despite the fact there is flow in the lower pound, and even in the winter when no boats travel the Aylesbury arm, the wier runs continuously. (I strongly believe this was due to the number of houseboats in Aylesbury basin that still had "Ships Toilets" at the time.

Edited March 27, 2010 by antarmike

[Mac of Cygnet]

But none of the examples you quote are words on their own. Even when a single word gives offence it needs someone to hear it.

 

I challenge you to cause offence by stringing words together with no semantics.

 

It is not the words that give offence it is the sentences and the intent.

 

You are confusing 'words' and 'writing' or 'speaking'.

 

I'm not confusing anything.

 

Your challenge has no meaning since your sentence has no meaning. "With no semantics????"

 

Of course words sitting in a dictionary not being used have no power. All the statements regarding the power of words are predicated upon their being used in sentences. 'Intent' is not necessary - very frequently offence is unintentional - this forum is a good example!

 

Of course a word needs someone to hear it! Just as a bullet needs someone to receive it. Has a bullet no power?

 

Mac

[Chertsey]

I'm not confusing anything.

 

Your challenge has no meaning since your sentence has no meaning. "With no semantics????"

 

Of course words sitting in a dictionary not being used have no power. All the statements regarding the power of words are predicated upon their being used in sentences. 'Intent' is not necessary - very frequently offence is unintentional - this forum is a good example!

 

Of course a word needs someone to hear it! Just as a bullet needs someone to receive it. Has a bullet no power?

 

Mac

Not if it doesn't hit anything.

 

As to the rest, it seems we don't disagree so much after all.

[Smelly]

PS, Smelly/Dan, I think your comment was a compliment but I'm not sure

 

It was intended as much.

[NB Alnwick]

So how does the alternative word Poo sit with you?

 

Still but a bit closer than rivers vs canals.

 

It may be off topic but I think issues like bad manners, rude or impolite language can come under the general heading of "Anti Social Behaviour" - I don't think the Site Crew have ever received a report complaining about the use of the word 'Poo' but there is always a first time . . .

[blackrose]

Regarding Shit in the canal, I was at Aylesbury when the basin was dredged, in the seventies, and the mud which came out absolutely stunk of shit, despite the fact there is flow in the lower pound, and even in the winter when no boats travel the Aylesbury arm, the wier runs continuously. (I strongly believe this was due to the number of houseboats in Aylesbury basin that still had "Ships Toilets" at the time.

 

I'm not sure that's the reason it stank of shit. The remains of rotten leaves and vegetation which sink to the bottom of the canal often become methanogenic in the absence of oxygen - the microbes that decay such matter are anaerobic and the smell they give off is a feature of this metabolic function. At Brentford all the detritus comes down from Southall and Hayes and ends up settling on the bottom of the basin. We have thick black methanogenic mud on the bottom that stinks of shit - but it's not shit (not much of it anyway!). In any case, if shit had been dumped from houseboats into the Owlsbury basin I think it would it would have decomposed and not retained it's original smell.

 

I think it is at this point that will say "Wotever!"

 

A river that flows into a canal and then out again is flowing. The absence of that river would mean the canal isn't flowing.

 

As the argument has reduced to semantics and pedantics I shall withdraw, knowing (of course) that I am correct .

 

 

No, you just think you are correct...

 

Yes, the absence of the river would mean that the canal wasn't flowing, but then the absence of the canal would mean it wasn't linking the various rivers along parts of its route. I disagreed with your blanket statement that canals have no flow because some obviously do (whether you wish to call these canals or canalised rivers). As I already said, the the waterways in some parts of the country link canals and rivers such that they are inextricably linked - so that one could not exist without the other. To think otherwise is an gross oversimplification.

Edited March 28, 2010 by blackrose

[blackrose]

It may be off topic but I think issues like bad manners, rude or impolite language can come under the general heading of "Anti Social Behaviour" - I don't think the Site Crew have ever received a report complaining about the use of the word 'Poo' but there is always a first time . . .

 

I can't see any reason to be offended by the word shit, unless someone calls you a shit!

[alan_fincher]

Yes, the absence of the river would mean that the canal wasn't flowing, but then the absence of the canal would mean it wasn't linking the various rivers along parts of its route. I disagreed with your blanket statement that canals have no flow because some obviously do (whether you wish to call these canals or canalised rivers). As I already said, the the waterways in some parts of the country link canals and rivers such that they are inextricably linked - so that one could not exist without the other. To think otherwise is an gross oversimplification.

 

I refer you to the very first post I made on this, in response to the silly assertion that canals are designed to have a 1mph flow.....

 

Sorry,

 

I've no idea what books you have read, (perhaps you'd like to tell us), but that statement is frankly piffle.

 

Other than where explicitly doubling as water supplies, or where they are actually canalised rivers, most UK canals flow not a single jot, beyond the mild movement caused by normal use of locks, and leakage.

 

Even if they flow, (which they don't), wouldn't it just mean s**t passing along at 1 mph, rather than just staying were it got tipped ?

 

I can't believe that we are still arguing about this, or that I have been told I did not stick to my original story!

[carlt]

Of course you are Carl, as always...

Thank you,

 

I disagreed with your blanket statement that canals have no flow because some obviously do (whether you wish to call these canals or canalised rivers). As I already said, the the waterways in some parts of the country link canals and rivers such that they are inextricably linked - so that one could not exist without the other. To think otherwise is an gross oversimplification.

It wasn't actually my blanket statement. I was merely agreeing with someone else who is, like me, a Civil Engineer (who has more practical experience of waterways engineering, than me though I've designed some awesome culverts, in my time).

 

To say that canals flow is a gross simplification, just as much as to say that they don't.

 

I would appear, to me at least, to be over-complicating matters, for some people, by distinguishing between different types of waterways.

 

If you want to keep it simple, by putting them all in the same category, then yes, canals flow (except the ones that don't).

 

As I said it is merely semantics and pedantics and terribly boring, not to mention off-topic.

 

If you fancy starting a new thread, though, I'll happily drag out my old text books and get even more boring

Edited March 28, 2010 by carlt

[mayalld]

I regard both versions as impolite and, whilst probably not obscene, the term is often used as a swear word and, therefore, offensive (in this case mildly) and unnecessary. We have a wonderful language that enables us to converse politely and succinctly without having to use words which, by their general application, are regarded by most well-mannered people as rude, swearing, or obscene.

 

This has been said many times before.

 

Yes, we have a wonderful and diverse language that has such a diversity of words that we never NEED to use words regarded as obscene or vulgar.

 

I must, however, dissent from the opinion that using such words is evidence of a limited vocabulary.

 

Where somebody cannot speak a sentence without using a word regarded as taboo, then yes that is evidence of a limited vocabulary, but equally, where somebody denies themselves the full gamut of the language as the occasion demands, that too is evidence of a limited vocabulary.

 

In most cases there are other words (sewage, effluent for example) that one could use. However, in a case like this, where the writer wishes to bring home his point with some force, then it is entirely appropriate to use the word "shit". Its (mild) shock value helps to convey the justified depth of the writers feeling.

 

I may not agree with Chris about much, but I have no argument with the way he phrased his letter.