I said: >you will never convince Adrian that others even have a point worth considering
To which Adrian replied: A calumny! I try *always* to consider the points of others. But I agree with them only if they are supported by what seem to be good grounds. Repetition isn't a good ground. And he also said about the practice of mooring to the Armco edging (please observe the tenet of his whole argument but note particularly the second sentence): The practice of tying to the bank protection worries me. It isn't designed to take the strains involved. I'm not surprised you found quite a lot of it to be "bent and battered". After the time it takes to get BW to install the stuff, I hate to see it being pulled loose so soon. So, with regard to mooring to the Armco I have shown: 1. Rings are provided attached to the edge of the Armco 2. They are clearly placed there by BW and not some private enterprise 3. They are specifically designed for mooring boats and not just for decoration 4. They exist 5. I have witnesses that they exist 6. Two listers from this group have supplied photos to prove that the rings exist 7. They are spread over much of the system and not just in particular problem areas 8. Other boaters use them for mooring I have shown (quote)good grounds(unquote)that this method of mooring is not only allowable in BW's eyes, but actually encouraged by the provision of rings. So, will Adrian now admit that his second sentence, and the tenet of his argument on this topic, where he claims that the edging is not designed for mooring is wrong, as clearly BW (and they should know) are providing rings for just that purpose? Or perhaps those porkers might be airborne again after some more wriggling contrived argument? Roger
