Adrian said: > (Please note the complete absence of the word "Armco" in the above > paragraph.)
Oh dear, here we go. I'll post the complete two paras then! David Cragg said: > Nowadays it's amazing how fast new mooring sites with rings have them damaged and how quickly the armco at these sites also gets bent and battered. I assume it is due to lots of big heavy boats passing too fast causing poorly tied and fendered boats to jerk and bang around. And you,immediately underneath, replied: 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, while *you* didn't use the word Armco you most certainly were replying to a point made about just that type of *bank protection* as well you know. What other type of *bank protection* could you possibly be referring to when you say (quote)I'm not surprised you found quite a lot of it to be "bent and battered" (unquote). Don't think it's coir rolls somehow ;-)) And: > The paragraph of mine that he quotes above applies to bank protection in general. Yep the predictable obfuscation that we were guaranteed. I rest my case. You will not accept that anyone else can possibly have a point of view if it doesn't agree with your own. Roger
