"Roger Millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I said:
>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. (Please note the complete absence of the word "Armco" in the above paragraph.) >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? So, Roger is saying that *some* (I believe a relatively small proportion of) bank protection can be demonstrated to be suitable for mooring. I have no problem with that, and would have believed him about the rings without putting him through the onerous task of assembling witnesses. However, I believe that much (a bigger proportion) of the rest of the bank protection is not, and that the ringed type is a relatively recent innovation. The paragraph of mine that he quotes above applies to bank protection in general. Since much of the mooring to bank protection that currently occurs is to protection *not* fitted with rings, it is entirely reasonable for me to say "The practice of mooring to bank protection worries me. ..." >Or perhaps those porkers might be airborne again after some more >wriggling contrived argument? More likely they are rolling on the ground after hearing an entertaining trumped up accusation. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
