Do Owners of ex-working boats have special priveleges?

[alan_fincher]

Wrong assumptions are being made.  "Another place" to which I referred is not an Internet forum of any kind, canal based or otherwise.

My observation was only that discussions elsewhere had probably prompted some of the most recent (and slightly tongue-in-cheek) posts, (by people who are able to actively look at and post in both).

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Wrong assumptions are being made.  "Another place" to which I referred is not an Internet forum of any kind, canal based or otherwise.

My observation was only that discussions elsewhere had probably prompted some of the most recent (and slightly tongue-in-cheek) posts, (by people who are able to actively look at and post in both).

Confused.

 

If this 'other place' is not an internet forum, how can people 'actively look and post in both' ?

Do they write a letter, put it in an envelope, add a stamp and stick in a pillar box ?

 

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Confused.

 

If this 'other place' is not an internet forum, how can people 'actively look and post in both' ?

Do they write a letter, put it in an envelope, add a stamp and stick in a pillar box ?

You could start a discussion with me by commenting on my blog posts, for example.

You could also start a discussion on a Facebook page or group, or simply as an individual with a Facebook account.

Then there are things like Twitter, and no doubt countless other similar applications now, (I'm a relative Luddite, so have no idea of all the ways people may be sharing discussions on-line).

Anyway, there are plenty of places on the internet you can discuss things on-line, without ever going near a forum, (or resorting to paper!), of course.

(I suppose it depends on how you chose to define forum - I meant something actually running a recognised commercial forum software, rather than any internet page where you can start a discussion).

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

You could start a discussion with me by commenting on my blog posts, for example.

You could also start a discussion on a Facebook page or group, or simply as an individual with a Facebook account.

Then there are things like Twitter, and no doubt countless other similar applications now, (I'm a relative Luddite, so have no idea of all the ways people may be sharing discussions on-line).

Anyway, there are plenty of places on the internet you can discuss things on-line, without ever going near a forum, (or resorting to paper!), of course.

(I suppose it depends on how you chose to define forum - I meant something actually running a recognised commercial forum software, rather than any internet page where you can start a discussion).

I don't do twatter or farcebook so apart what I read / hear about things that go on there I know nothing about it. Wasn't it farcebook that 'lost' a billion (worldwide) names and personal details of farcebookers ? (or whatever a farcebook person is called)

Why would I want to go to someones blog to discuss something that happened / was happening here ? Surely it is better to discuss with those involved rather than hide behind 'closed doors' or whispering in quiet corners (sounds a bit like the 'secret meetings' between members and mods that happened here some time ago)

[alan_fincher]

Whether we like it or not CWDF postings are completely public to the entire world.  It is inevitable that some of the posts will be brought to the attention of people who are not members here, particularly when there is some controversy about those posts - I think it is fair to say that handing out unsubstantiated accusations of implied damage to the canal infrastructure by a working boat owner that has owned and operated his boat since the 1960s comes into that category.

I am aware of some exceedingly unpleasant stuff said about members here on another so called canal forum, but I wouldn't in my wildest dreams choose to ask to be a member on that forum to try to fight the bile I have seen.  I would however consider it completely acceptable to discuss it on here, and to say why I would never choose to be a member somewhere active members on here are regularly defamed for no apparent purpose than to prove they can do it.

I imagine, (in fact I know), that some of these complaining about what has been said in this CWDF thread about a person completely unable to defend his own corner, would not want to join CWDF, because they are very unhappy with much of what gets posted on here, or what they conclude about the types of people who are members here.  I also know that some have in the past, but choose to no longer be part of it.

It's a personal choice isn't it?  I choose to stick with CWDF, because there is much about it I still like, but equally came close to walking forever when certain people seemed intent on destroying it.  I post far less than I did, but still hope I have something to offer, particularly when it comes to the controversial topic of (mostly but not exclusively) ex working boats.  I'm of the view we all share the same waterways, and need to co-exist in a friendly manner.  Some, (whether working boat devotees or working boat haters), seem only to want to dwell on how much those on the other "side" are ruining their enjoyment of the waterways.  Personally I don't see that productive in any way at all.

[RLWP]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Wrong assumptions are being made.  "Another place" to which I referred is not an Internet forum of any kind, canal based or otherwise.

Ahhh. the House of Lords!

Richard

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Whether we like it or not CWDF postings are completely public to the entire world.  It is inevitable that some of the posts will be brought to the attention of people who are not members here, particularly when there is some controversy about those posts - I think it is fair to say that handing out unsubstantiated accusations of implied damage to the canal infrastructure by a working boat owner that has owned and operated his boat since the 1960s comes into that category.

I am aware of some exceedingly unpleasant stuff said about members here on another so called canal forum, but I wouldn't in my wildest dreams choose to ask to be a member on that forum to try to fight the bile I have seen.  I would however consider it completely acceptable to discuss it on here, and to say why I would never choose to be a member somewhere active members on here are regularly defamed for no apparent purpose than to prove they can do it.

I imagine, (in fact I know), that some of these complaining about what has been said in this CWDF thread about a person completely unable to defend his own corner, would not want to join CWDF, because they are very unhappy with much of what gets posted on here, or what they conclude about the types of people who are members here.  I also know that some have in the past, but choose to no longer be part of it.

It's a personal choice isn't it?  I choose to stick with CWDF, because there is much about it I still like, but equally came close to walking forever when certain people seemed intent on destroying it.  I post far less than I did, but still hope I have something to offer, particularly when it comes to the controversial topic of (mostly but not exclusively) ex working boats.  I'm of the view we all share the same waterways, and need to co-exist in a friendly manner.  Some, (whether working boat devotees or working boat haters), seem only to want to dwell on how much those on the other "side" are ruining their enjoyment of the waterways.  Personally I don't see that productive in any way at all.

You are sounding a little pompous Alan. No doubt it is down to the brainwashing by the cult!

But anyway, please could you explain the significance of the second part of your sentence that I've highlighted? It seem irrational. I don't understand what the type of boat owned, or the age and experience of the boater has to do with it. It really DOES sound as though you are suggesting that because this chap has an ex-working boat and because he has been doing it for a long time, he really does have special privileges in that he is exempt from any criticism when he makes a mistake (as everyone does from time to time). Extraordinary! The cult is strong with you!

i come back to the fact that if it were the same post but about a hire boat, you would be much less vociferous in your objections.

[Victor Vectis]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You are sounding a little pompous < snip >

Rearrange these three words into a well known phrase or saying:

Black

Pot

Kettle

[roland elsdon]

i will resist 

[alan_fincher]

42 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Rearrange these three words into a well known phrase or saying:

Black

Pot

Kettle

Quite!

[rusty69]

56 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Extraordinary! The cult is strong with you!

 

"Luke, I am your father"

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

Rearrange these three words into a well known phrase or saying:

Black

Pot

Kettle

Black, kettle, pot
pot, black, kettle
pot kettle, black
kettle, pot, black
kettle, black, pot

 

Nope, none of those is a well know phrase or saying.
 

I imagine you are thinking of of the well known saying "Hark at the pot calling the kettle black". Eight words!

[nicknorman]

48 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

"Luke, I am your father"

Blimey, I didn't think you were old enough!

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

Rearrange these three words into a well known phrase or saying:

Black

Pot

Kettle

Rearrange these three words into a well know phrase

cabbage

asparagus

beetroot

Edit: Oh that's annoying, wretched auto-naughty-word-remover.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by nicknorman

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

Rearrange these three words into a well know phrase

cabbage

asparagus

beetroot

Edit: Oh that's annoying, wretched auto-naughty-word-remover.

 

Tee-hee - a cabbagey greeno for that.

[nicknorman]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Black, kettle, pot
pot, black, kettle
pot kettle, black
kettle, pot, black
kettle, black, pot

 

Nope, none of those is a well know phrase or saying.
 

I imagine you are thinking of of the well known saying "Hark at the pot calling the kettle black". Eight words!

Which is odd because as you know, if the kettle is only black if the gas/air mixture is very wrong giving a smoky flame and lots of CO. Perhaps the CO poisoning could explain some of the posts?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Tee-hee - a cabbagey greeno for that.

So you can give but you cannot receive.

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Which is odd because as you know, if the kettle is only black if the gas/air mixture is very wrong giving a smoky flame and lots of CO. Perhaps the CO poisoning could explain some of the posts?

Maybe its cast iron, not everyone has an electric kettle

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So you can give but you cannot receive.

Correct, or as Mrs. Athy (from Essex) would say, "crek".

[MtB]

Just now, nicknorman said:

Which is odd because as you know, if the kettle is only black if the gas/air mixture is very wrong giving a smoky flame and lots of CO. Perhaps the CO poisoning could explain some of the posts?

 

Which as you'll know yourself, the 'chilling' effect of playing even a correctly oxygenated flame on a cold surface will result in incomplete combustion, CO and soot.

Hence the way CO detector instructions always say site well away from cookers. 

[WotEver]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So you can give but you cannot receive.

Perhaps he's Santa. 

[David Schweizer]

4 hours ago, nicknorman said:

You are sounding a little pompous Alan. No doubt it is down to the brainwashing by the cult!

But anyway, please could you explain the significance of the second part of your sentence that I've highlighted? It seem irrational. I don't understand what the type of boat owned, or the age and experience of the boater has to do with it. It really DOES sound as though you are suggesting that because this chap has an ex-working boat and because he has been doing it for a long time, he really does have special privileges in that he is exempt from any criticism when he makes a mistake (as everyone does from time to time). Extraordinary! The cult is strong with you!

i come back to the fact that if it were the same post but about a hire boat, you would be much less vociferous in your objections.

You really dont get it do you?  Trevor Maggs is not operating an ex-working boat, there is no ex about it. He as been running Corona as a full operational working boat, as Alan suggests, since the 1960's and is an very experienced and well respected boatman.  I have known him for most of that time, and he is one of the most competent, courteous and considerate boatmen I know. The fact that you appear to know nothing of him, merely demonstartes how little you really know about the canals, and those who work on it. Unfortuantely this lack of knowledge does not appear to act as any sort of impediment to you making uninformed observations.

Edited September 19, 2017 by David Schweizer

[Captain Pegg]

4 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

Rearrange these three words into a well known phrase or saying:

Black

Pot

Kettle

The 'Pot Black kettle' was where big Bill Werbeniuk used to keep his supply of lager.

JP

[nicknorman]

40 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

You really dont get it do you?  Trevor Maggs is not operating an ex-working boat, there is no ex about it. He as been running Corona as a full operational working boat, as Alan suggests, since the 1960's and is an very experienced and well respected boatman.  I have known him for most of that time, and he is one of the most competent, courteous and considerate boatmen I know. The fact that you appear to know nothing of him, merely demonstartes how little you really know about the canals, and those who work on it. Unfortuantely this lack of knowledge does not appear to act as any sort of impediment to you making uninformed observations.

Well a bit of a rant there David. Firstly, I would like to know if Trevor actually runs a business using his boat. Does he make a profit? Or is it just a hobby these days? I don't know, but I suspect possibly not. But it really doesn't matter too much to me or my point whether it is ex or not.

Could you point me to exactly which uninformed observations I have made about him, or retract that part of your rant please?

You should bear in mind that for the first significant part of this thread it was suspected that it wasn't Trevor driving, but anyway my point remains that just because he has been boating since the 1960s (which incidentally, so have I although not "commercially") etc etc, and just because he is considered competent, courteous and considerate (I wouldn't know, never met him) does NOT mean that he can never make a mistake, hit a gate a bit hard or whatever. Anyone who thinks that he must be perfect simply because he has an (ex or otherwise) working boat and has been around as long as I have, is deluded.

The thread title was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek in the mind of the author but it does seem as though in fact, it was factually spot on, with the possible exception of the ex.

[mrsmelly]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't do twatter or farcebook so apart what I read / hear about things that go on there I know nothing about it. Wasn't it farcebook that 'lost' a billion (worldwide) names and personal details of farcebookers ? (or whatever a farcebook person is called)

Why would I want to go to someones blog to discuss something that happened / was happening here ? Surely it is better to discuss with those involved rather than hide behind 'closed doors' or whispering in quiet corners (sounds a bit like the 'secret meetings' between members and mods that happened here some time ago)

Alan its a well known fact that you have to have a 12 year old nearby to use Farcebook!! I don't know if the same applies to Twatter but methinks it must be similar as There is apparently more drivel on there than on here  though to be fair I wouldn't know, entering Farcebook or twatter is about as interesting to me as polishing brass mushroom vents and I have just had them gloss painted bright red!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

You really dont get it do you?  Trevor Maggs is not operating an ex-working boat, there is no ex about it. He as been running Corona as a full operational working boat, as Alan suggests, since the 1960's and is an very experienced and well respected boatman.  I have known him for most of that time, and he is one of the most competent, courteous and considerate boatmen I know. The fact that you appear to know nothing of him, merely demonstartes how little you really know about the canals, and those who work on it. Unfortuantely this lack of knowledge does not appear to act as any sort of impediment to you making uninformed observations.

Who's Trevor Maggs ? never heard of him. 

But I know nothing.