To clear up any remaining confusion, I at no time belittled or was insensitive to the situation of Andrew and other boaters on the Avon.
I certainly did not intend to give offense, and fully regret any that was given accidentally. I accept that, despite my intentions, it appears that it was too easily possible to read part of what I had written as an indication of insensitivity. However, that was my fault for unfortunately careless writing, not my failure to accept the seriousness of the Avon flooding. OTOH, I think this has raised another issue. I wonder how much of the reaction has been due to the fact that my views on how to manage the waterways are rather different from those held extremely dearly by a number of frequent participants here. I have noticed that they tend to react strongly to any idea of movement from the state-allocation model to a market-price one, and often to express that reaction emotionally (including personal attacks) rather than rationally. The current situation seems to have provided an opportunity for such attacks. I believe much of the reaction has been excessive. I had posted a response to Andrew's "final" report on the flooding. I had primarily commented on the number of caravans that had been swept away. However, at the very end of my posting was the following: " PS Andrew, thanks for the interesting report, but could I recommend the idea of "paragraphs" to you? Please?" It is that PS *only* that has generated the reaction (and I've quoted it in total). As "PS" shows, it was meant as a closing remark of minor importance. In this case, a quip. Andrew had written a very long paragraph just above it. As the "thanks" shows, I recognised the value of the substantive aspects of Andrews contributions, which I replied to a number of times previously and seriously in the thread The water was finally going down. Andrew had survived the flood without personal injury, and without losing his boat. Yes, his house had been full of water, an awful experience, but what he now faces is the very trying cleanup, insurance haggling, heartbreak over irreplaceable possessions, etc. However bad that is, though, the situation was at last no longer an emergency (assuming the rain holds off), let alone a life-threatening one, surely a reason for relief. So, my PS was as meant a throwaway remark to suggest that, thank goodness, it might be possible that the crisis is over, and, to indicate it, that trivial things could be considered again. i.e. to show it might be possible to start lightening the mood at last. I had thought that was a worthwhile positive feeling to insert as a lighthearted closer. So, I plead "Not Guilty", at least with respect to my intentions. Yet I wasn't even given the benefit of the doubt before some respondents dashed eagerly to judgment. Did they really mistake me for Hard-Hearted Hannah, who famously poured water on a drowning man? I have certainly taken issue frequently with non-payers, but I've never suggested anything like sinking their boats. Or did they think this was a good chance to weaken me? But what if I had been guilty, and actually showed and felt a callous disregard for Andrew's troubles? Even then, I feel the reaction would have been undue. A couple of quotes: "if you have said that to my face, instead of the safety of your computer, you would be eating hospital food by now." "He wont get much from me as he staggers round this forum behaving like the village halfwit. If this is a virtual pub then ada is the noisy and boorish drunk that causes folk to cringe and back away when he approaches. " "if a person continually put forward views that were constantly reviled by all the other regulars, the person in question would either shut up (for self-preservation) or shut up because their natural humility would tell them that the whole of the rest of the world cannot be wrong all the time." "Do not ever, ever, ever, go to any waterways function where I am likely to be. Never come to Evesham. If I ever see you, I will cheerfully break your legs." I think the waterways are in an increasing crisis. That upsets me, because I value them greatly, so I want to do something about it. I believe the situation has arrived largely because of the economics of the current model by which they are managed, which attempts to ignore the market. I have posted quite a few arguments to support that belief, which I think are effective. However, most of the response has been simply to gainsay what I've said without logic, and to insist on keeping on with the clearly unsuccessful current approach without explaining why that has any chance of success. But some of it involves threats of violence or silencing. If (perceived) insensitivity is grounds for moderation, then surely such postings should be too. Criticise or even attack my reasoning as much or as strongly as you like. But I suggest that if you feel you have to attack me as opposed to my opinions, you should consider that to be evidence that you may not have much of a case, and should rethink your point of view. Wouldn't that be a better approach than simply shouting down someone who promotes unpopular (but possibly correct) views? Adrian PS (not light-hearted) >Ask him why he is no longer a member of the IWA or the Dutch >Barge Association and you may find out more about his passed. I allowed my membership in IWA to lapse some years ago after the second occasion when it supported what I believe was seriously unethical behaviour in the conduct of elections. I am a member of DBA. Adrian Stott 07956-299966
