The Vine Prog Today, Friday

[BMC problems]

Are you saying they don't live on a boat or their children don't actually go to school? Or is it something else which was the wrong assumption?

yes.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that to make assumptions about people is extremely rude.

 

To then use that to allege wrongdoing is malicious.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BMC problems

[Athy]

yes.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that to make assumptions about people is extremely rude.

 

To then use that to allege wrongdoing is malicious.

I'm afraid you are mistaken - the programme made it clear that they DO live on a boat and that the children DO go to school.

 

I am not sure if rudeness and malice are in contravention of the forum rules - perhaps a Mod could advise on this. I must add that I found no evidence of either sin in Ken's post.

[BMC problems]

I suggest you re-read Kenk's post.

[alan_fincher]

I'm afraid you are mistaken - the programme made it clear that they DO live on a boat and that the children DO go to school.

 

Yes but there is still an assumption in Ken's post isn't there?

 

That assumption is that the only reason they move the boat is to try to satisfy the "bona fide for navigation" requirement.

 

As I have said, I know families with kids in school and working parents where I know that for a fact that is not the only reason they move the boat.

 

Suggesting that it is this couple's sole motivation is an assumption, unless they have public stated that to be the case.

Edited May 5, 2016 by alan_fincher

[adam1uk]

 

Yes but there is still an assumption in Ken's post isn't there?

 

That assumption is that the only reason they move the boat is to try to satisfy the "bona fide for navigation" requirement.

 

As I have said, I know families with kids in school and working parents where I know that for a fact that is not the only reason they move the boat.

 

Suggesting that it is this couple's sole motivation is an assumption, unless they have public stated that to be the case.

 

She did keep making the point that they move every 14 days -- from which you might infer that they're not minded to move more often than that, from which you might infer that they're not exactly champing at the bit to be on the move. But it would be only an inference.

[Athy]

I suggest you re-read Kenk's post.

I've done that. What should I do next?

[Murflynn]

why are there always people who want to defend the indefensible?

 

if your prime purpose is bona fide navigation, then move the boat regularly (every few days minimum) even if it just a 4 hour cruise up and down the cut.

it may not satisfy CRT but at least you could demonstrate that you do regularly navigate, and you might have a case if it went to court.

 

if your prime purpose is residency in a convenient location, then buy a house or get a home mooring.

[BMC problems]

 

Yes but there is still an assumption in Ken's post isn't there?

 

That assumption is that the only reason they move the boat is to try to satisfy the "bona fide for navigation" requirement.

 

As I have said, I know families with kids in school and working parents where I know that for a fact that is not the only reason they move the boat.

 

Suggesting that it is this couple's sole motivation is an assumption, unless they have public stated that to be the case.

...and one other, I know them so I have an unfair advantage.

 

But that's not the point.

[Athy]

 

Yes but there is still an assumption in Ken's post isn't there?

 

 

Certainly, and why should there not be? He is giving his opinion of events as he sees them, i.e. stating his point of view. If no one did that, we wouldn't have a discussion forum.

[BMC problems]

 

She did keep making the point that they move every 14 days -- from which you might infer that they're not minded to move more often than that, from which you might infer that they're not exactly champing at the bit to be on the move. But it would be only an inference.

you might also infer that 14 days is significant because it's part of the law and also that to say 'I move every 14 days' does not exclude moving more often.

 

Another assumption.

Certainly, and why should there not be? He is giving his opinion of events as he sees them, i.e. stating his point of view. If no one did that, we wouldn't have a discussion forum.

Again you miss the point.

1. I assume you do A

2. therefore you must do B

 

is only valid if A is true. That's not discussion.

 

I know you're an English teacher but it's not difficult logic.

[Athy]

 

Again you miss the point.

1. I assume you do A

2. therefore you must do B

 

is only valid if A is true. That's not discussion.

 

I know you're an English teacher but it's not difficult logic.

Of course I don't miss the point. Of course the two statements which you make do not constitute a discussion. They constitute a point of view which, when someone else answers it, leads to a discussion. That's not difficult logic either.

[KenK]

Interesting comments above.

 

I used the example of the family in the radio programme simply because that was the start of the discussion.

I do not believe I made any assumptions, it was clear from the lady's comments on the programme that her main concern was ensuring the children could get to school and that her husband could get to work, logically if the boat could remain in one place that could more easily be achieved.

 

The point of my example was not to as BMC suggests to be either rude or malicious, in fact I can't see where I accused them of wrong doing, but simply to give what in my opinion is a clear example of the term "bona fide"

 

I'm sure there are areas of the country, Birmingham for one, where it would be possible to hold down a job in one location, for the children to attend school and for the boat to move "bona fide". I'm equally sure it is not possible on the 20 kilometre stretch of the K&A between Bath and Semington.

That of course is my opinion, it was also the judges opinion in the Davies case.

 

Ken

[MtB]

yes.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that to make assumptions about people is extremely rude.

 

To then use that to allege wrongdoing is malicious.

 

 

This is a the type of hyperbolic escalation to which Chris Pink used to resort when losing a point.

 

Is this you again Chris? Some of the stuff you write definitely reminds me of him.

[BMC problems]

 

 

This is a the type of hyperbolic escalation to which Chris Pink used to resort when losing a point.

 

Is this you again Chris? Some of the stuff you write definitely reminds me of him.

 

I'm not sure what you mean?

 

If you're accusing me of being someone else i think you've probably reached the end of your argument.

 

I can't quite call this an assumption because you avoided the 2nd mistake Kenk made. Unless you're going to leap from your question to the statement that I'm not bona fide posting?

[MtB]

 

I'm not sure what you mean?

 

If you're accusing me of being someone else i think you've probably reached the end of your argument.

 

I can't quite call this an assumption because you avoided the 2nd mistake Kenk made. Unless you're going to leap from your question to the statement that I'm not bona fide posting?

 

 

More of the same bluster and hyperbole. I wasn't accusing you if you read my post. I was asking if you are the same poster as Chris Pink.

 

Given you skilfully avoided answering my question I'll ask it again, hopefully more clearly. Are you Chris Pink?

A straight answer of yes or no will be fine!

[BMC problems]

no

 

are you Dave Smith?

Edited May 5, 2016 by BMC problems

[Athy]

no

 

are you Dave Smith?

Who is Dave Smith? Used he to post on here, as Chris Pink did?

[MtB]

no

 

are you Dave Smith?

 

 

No I'm not.

 

Thanks for your answer. I was intrigued because your posting style matches that of Chris and in addition, you said you know the lady in the Vine interview. You are also a boater in the same area as Chris and as Chris is prone to registering new user IDs here every year or so instead of posting as himself, I just wondered if you were Chris in a new ID. And further, I'm surprised Chris is not taking part in this discussion given he is deeply involved and appeared in the film. You know him presumably though?

 

It all added up to me asking the question instead of making an assumption that you are he!

 

I'm sure you'll be pleased that I persisted and cleared this up instead of making the assumptions I know you hate so much...

[Delta9]

Are there any forum members left that haven't been accused of being Chris Pink?

[RLWP]

Are there any forum members left that haven't been accused of being Chris Pink?

 

Chris Pink posting as himself?

 

Richard

Edited May 5, 2016 by RLWP

[alan_fincher]

Are there any forum members left that haven't been accused of being Chris Pink?

 

I don't think I have ever been, (unless someone made a joke suggestion of it).

[MtB]

Are there any forum members left that haven't been accused of being Chris Pink?

 

 

Are you feeling left out?

[Dave_P]

I'm Keyser Soze.

[RLWP]

I'm Keyser Soze.

 

You can't be - no limp

 

Richard

[Dharl]

I'm Keyser Soze.

 

 

really? there was me thinking you where Spartacus.....