Roger Millin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
Tee, hee! > > 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. > (snip good argument) > > 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? Is that likely? > Or perhaps those porkers might be airborne again after some more > wriggling contrived argument? > Roger > That is the most likely outcome. Repetition may not be a 'good ground' but it is the weapon of choice! BTW, Sue said that Adrian is not a bigot, just opinionated. My dictionary defines a bigot as ' a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others'. Ring any bells? Dorothy
