Comment posted A83 reopening: Engineers play a blinder. Infrastructure Secretary – sets up a talking shop by Robert Wakeham.
What are you on about, Ferryman? – you’re not making a lot of sense.
Robert Wakeham also commented
- I can think of a (presumed) human being I’d like to fix with porridge; if there was plenty of brown sugar, and maybe raisins, sultanas, or stuff like that – together with milk if still available – it wouldn’t be cruel, would it?
- I really don’t like being misrepresented by you, Ferryman – you seem to be assuming I commented on the freeboard when I never have, I’ve been saying that pontoons are designed for easy access to boats, and would be a great improvement on the sort of gangways that were used for passengers to access the streakers. Their replacements are using the vehicle linkspans – one of which seems to have recently required repair, and neither of which was designed for passenger use. The linkspan at Gourock is too far from the trains for long-term use. Even a numbskull knows that it goes without saying that the boat and the pontoons would have to be compatible. Maybe you assume that I’ve being suggesting pontoons for the two boats you refer to as ‘bathtubs’; I haven’t, and these two boats are of different designs. If this is why you’ve been rubbishing the idea of using pontoons, you really aren’t very bright. You are, however, vindictive – perhaps to cover your own ignorance, your clear intolerance of the comments of an ‘outsider’, and the arrogance that seems to go with your chosen name. If you choose only to comment on ferries – or on the A83 if you can steer the discussion in that direction – that’s up to you, but please don’t criticise me or anyone else for commenting on anything they wish to. You might consider emigration to North Korea, where there are probably some suitably clapped-out ferries to occupy your mind, and where the intellectual climate might be to your liking.
- How about constructive comment?
- The very first published photo of this latest incident made the slide look like a flow of porridge or wet concrete; subsequent photos appear to show that excavation has exposed a great deal of heavier rock inside the flow, but the question has to be asked whether debris flow netting would have arrested the ‘porridge’ – or just the rocks?
Recent comments by Robert Wakeham
- Radically new council group changes all the dynamics: party politics dead in Argyll
Maybe that one was a multi-tasking oozlum bird. - Argyll and Bute Council: Where are we now?
Why do you assume that ‘anyone’ was voting for a political party, rather than for their best local representative? Isn’t that a major factor in the current mess? - Big welcome at Campbeltown for new Ardrossan ferry
I wonder if there’s scope for WCM to extend any bus routes that could be deemed to ‘connect’ to the ferry terminal – the current (traditional) Campbeltown bus terminal seems to be conveniently located for the buses but less so for many of the passengers, let alone anyone using the new Ardrossan / Arran ferry link.. - Radically new council group changes all the dynamics: party politics dead in Argyll
Surely party politics are national politics, dealing with national issues, and as such can often get in the way of resolving the local authority issues that councillors are elected to deal with. - Radically new council group changes all the dynamics: party politics dead in Argyll
Thinking of ornithological similes, the behaviour of the Argyll & Bute body politic brings to mind the story of the fabled Oozlum Bird – the one that flew in ever decreasing circles…..
powered by SEO Super Comments
The very first published photo of this latest incident made the slide look like a flow of porridge or wet concrete; subsequent photos appear to show that excavation has exposed a great deal of heavier rock inside the flow, but the question has to be asked whether debris flow netting would have arrested the ‘porridge’ – or just the rocks?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An interesting question.
A material point here is that the first photo showed rthe results of the first landslip – after which substantially more rocks, mud and slurry came off the hill – shown in the latest photographs.
We do know and have reported that the force of the slip just swept the previous concrete barrier off the road and away down the hill somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wakeham: is this another of your posts on a subject about which you have neither knowledge or experience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about constructive comment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is extremely constructive to point out to readers when somebody posts on every topic under the sun that the person posting may have no direct experience of the subjects, no qualifications in the topics and no direct knowledge of what is happening.
On the subject of ferries to Dunoon your posted repeatedly. Eventually it was revealed you did not know how a pontoon worked ( you did not realised the freeboard of the vessels was important to the design). It was then further revealed that you did not know passengers disembarked on the level to linkspans at both Dunoon and Gourock and had been doing so for the last year.
To be fair to you you did say you did not use the service, but then why on earth did you post so much on a topic about which you knew nothing?
So, take a tip, post on subjects which you do know something about, that way your posts may be viewed as constructive rather than guff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really don’t like being misrepresented by you, Ferryman – you seem to be assuming I commented on the freeboard when I never have, I’ve been saying that pontoons are designed for easy access to boats, and would be a great improvement on the sort of gangways that were used for passengers to access the streakers. Their replacements are using the vehicle linkspans – one of which seems to have recently required repair, and neither of which was designed for passenger use. The linkspan at Gourock is too far from the trains for long-term use. Even a numbskull knows that it goes without saying that the boat and the pontoons would have to be compatible. Maybe you assume that I’ve being suggesting pontoons for the two boats you refer to as ‘bathtubs’; I haven’t, and these two boats are of different designs. If this is why you’ve been rubbishing the idea of using pontoons, you really aren’t very bright. You are, however, vindictive – perhaps to cover your own ignorance, your clear intolerance of the comments of an ‘outsider’, and the arrogance that seems to go with your chosen name. If you choose only to comment on ferries – or on the A83 if you can steer the discussion in that direction – that’s up to you, but please don’t criticise me or anyone else for commenting on anything they wish to. You might consider emigration to North Korea, where there are probably some suitably clapped-out ferries to occupy your mind, and where the intellectual climate might be to your liking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wakeham: you wrote just wrote “Even a numbskull knows that it goes without saying that the boat and the pontoons would have to be compatible”.
So look back at your previous posts on how pontoons were independent of the boats using them, then don the dunces cap, retire quietly and shut up unless you have direct experience, qualifications or knowledge about what you are posting about.
You post on almost every topic that appears on this blog, so you know it all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are you on about, Ferryman? – you’re not making a lot of sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought porridge fixed everything. Maybe we should patch the mountainside with porridge.
Well done chaps btw
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can think of a (presumed) human being I’d like to fix with porridge; if there was plenty of brown sugar, and maybe raisins, sultanas, or stuff like that – together with milk if still available – it wouldn’t be cruel, would it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s either that or let the RAF have some practice with their rockets on the hill…. perhaps that might remove all the boulders – assuming that they can aim correctly….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0