thecanalshop wrote: > --- In [email protected], Martin Clark <ya...@...> wrote: >> thecanalshop wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps BW and PW will favour us with some sort of detail on the >> > web in their own good time - yawn. (:-( >> >> Did you actually check PW before posting that? No, I thought not. The >> news appeared there around 8.30 am today and has now been updated with >> the details and photos. >> >> Fortunately it is a "leak" and not a "breach", with no visible damage to >> the canal itself. > > Just a quickie for now. > I did check your site - so where you have answered No the answer should have > read Yes. > > If we click on your signature url blah co uk. > there is no apparent mention of the Hudd demise.
First item on the page: "Leak Shuts Huddersfield Canal". Have you tried clicking "refresh"? > If we click from there to the Rochdale header - then hey presto - your hidden > report of the hudd apppears ! > > If you were to publish pw as blahcouk/indexhtml - me and others would come > acrossthe Hudd demise hassel free. Try it and see - you will get "The system cannot find the file specified." or something similar. I do not use .html file names. There was nothing wrong with the link in my signature. Just that your browser was seeing an older version of the home page. Like I say, if you click "refresh" you will see the latest version. Please try all options before making unjustified criticisms. Now, have you a comment about the leak? -- Martin Clark Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
