Seeing as we (well, *you*) are cutting in such a way that the original meanings are being lost, maybe I should do the same because, hey - we really don't want to see a logical discussion here do we ..
Adrian Stott wrote: > I agree that BW isn't yet dealing with enough of them. However surely we should encourage it when it deals with *any* of them? Of course - but then I should have thought that BW would be well past the stage of needing to being congratulated, highly praised, and having a *Gold Star* placed on the classroom wall chart, just for starting what it has been (highly) paid, for far too many years, for doing already. In your world of 'make a profit from everything', I might well have thought that you would be demanding 'heads on platters' rather than offering applause and thus I am, for the moment, quite overcome by your generosity :) ------------------------- > BW claims its powers are somewhat limited. > So, users have now asked it to review its bylaws, and by doing so to get the powers it needs. > BW has agreed, and has started the review, but all the work has been in-house so far. > Consultation will occur later in the process, we're told. Er, right ... a case of 'the sleeping lion finally awaketh' then. Ooops, oh no it doesn't - it was just *yawning* a little in an attempt to try and look interesting, before letting the 'review' and 'consultation' words dribble out. Reviews and consultations can always be guaranteed to maintain the status quo for at least a year or two and, with luck, others will be saddled with the hard choices and decisions. Maybe I got it wrong here as well - do 'BW' and 'Water' and 'Manage' *never* go into the same sentence? ------------------------- >>>> BW will *not* be ahead; revenue from those able and willing to pay may >>>> possibly go up temporarily - but the end result will inevitably be self >>>> defeating. >>> Why? On your own argument, those that remain have decided to keep >>> paying. >> No, you twist my words > Er, does that mean the same as "you noticed an implication of my words > I hadn't thought of"? Nope - it still means 'you twisted my words' to fit you own argument :) > I doubt that.... Its true, honest guv! > ...........I think that in most cases if Person A decides that the > higher nav charges have discouraged him from continuing to own his > junky boat, I suspect Persons B, who is likely to be similar to Person > A, will find it unattractive to buy the boat and pay the same charges. > More likely that the boat will be scrapped. LOL - you really do live on cloud nine, Adrian, you really do .. The argument is that Person *A* is not <discouraged> but is unfairly <disadvantaged> (by not having any money left to pay your proposed *exclusivity tax* after paying his other bills.) Person *B*, if similar to Person *A* as you say he is, already has a boat and is in the same position as Person *A* - so I will re-designate him as Person *A PLUS* Person *C* (whom you have not mentioned) is similar to Person *A* and Person *A PLUS*, although he does not currently own a boat - I was originally intending to call him either Person *A MINUS* or Person *A PLUS MINUS* - but that was confusing so the obvious choice would then have been *Person B*, although, as we already know that Person *B* is actually a clone of Person *A* and therefore nominated Person *A PLUS*, this choice was automatically disallowed. Person *C* is therefore designated Person *C* for the purpose of this discussion. Person *D*, because of the aforementioned, is now designated as Person *D* and he is the person responsible for selling the deckchair tickets. <deep breath> Person *A* is called John, and he owns a narrow boat (none of your widebeam stuff here!) Person *A PLUS* is called Peter and he lives next door Person *B* is called Peter because he also Person *A PLUS* and thus can be ignored completely as an irrelevance. Person *C* is called Matthew and he empties the dustbins of Person *A*, and Person *A PLUS*, on alternate Thursdays. Person *D* is called Jeremiah, an unusual name but one that is fast coming back into fashion; he is also usually called late for lunch and has been on long-term sick leave since 1986 and is suffering from the PTSD effects of slipping on a damp leaf, one carelessly left laying on the towpath of an unnamed canal in the south-west corner of Huntingdonshire, where he claimed that he was engaged in official BW business necessitating the examination of all boat licenses, by torchlight, in the early hours of the morning. He does not own a boat and I am not at all sure how he slipped into this discussion.. <second deep breath> To make it easier, I have slightly modified your last paragraph, viz. > ...........I think that in most cases if John decides that the > higher nav charges have discouraged him from continuing to own his > junky boat, I suspect Peter, who is likely to be similar to John, will > find it unattractive to buy the boat and pay the same charges. > More likely that the boat will be scrapped. OK, I can't quite see why Peter would want to buy John's boat if he already had one of his own; I would have thought Matthew would be a more likely candidate (unless, of course, John intended selling his present boat to Matthew after he had bought John's boat ... ) Oh, lets save all the confusion and just have Matthew wanting to get his grubby hands on John's boat - so, is everyone following so far? John is forced to get rid of his boat because he cannot afford Adrian's proposed *Exclusivity Tax* He can't sell it to Peter because Peter already has a boat and Peter can't afford the *Exclusivity Tax* either In a depressed market, one exacerbated by banks not wanting to lend money, low returns on invested capital, and increased licensing fees - topped up by the new *Exclusivity Tax* John is effectively forced to sell his boat for what he can get for it, being under further financial pressure from BW if he does not comply. Up pops Matthew, with a pocketful of fivers, and the deal is done! With the swift removal of all distinguishing marks and numbers, a different funnel and the addition of mizzen mast and bridge wings completes the disguise and John's former boat disappears into the early morning mist ....... Matthew, of course, fails to notify anybody of his new acquisition, has no fixed address and absolutely no intention of buying or paying for anything other than his next pint - and only then if he cannot con a passing peasant:) Frustrated, the scrappers, deprived of yet another steel narrowboat, took out their anger by crushing their Boss's new Aston To be continued ...... [sorry] :-) Trevor IMPORTANT NOTES: 1.6.1 The use of the term 'Adrian's *Exclusivity Tax*' is not meant to imply in any manner whatsoever that he would could or will be a personal beneficiary of this proposed *Exclusivity Tax* in purely financial terms 2.1.4 No electrons were hurt, injured or otherwise disposed of by any form of deletion or cutting and failing to past and thereby putting them into mortal danger - although a number were severely inconvenienced from time to time [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
