BCA 'referendum' on CRoW

[Peter Burgess]

I think it also needs to be said, that regardless of the eventual outcome, all the concerns raised on both sides must be addressed. This was perhaps the main outcome of the Scottish Independence referendum. So expressing concerns should continue, both now and well into the future so that we can all say we have the best solution we can collectively manage, even if for some it won't be the preferred solution.

 

[Ian Adams]

Good grace applies to both "winners" and "losers". Please remember that.

Hum ?

 

[ah147]

Ian I think you should be nominated for post of the year.  I agree whole heartedly.

None of Ian's points were a reflection of pro or anti views. Merely the direction of myriads on threads about the issue.

Peter, Ian's post pointed out that in fact many of the "anti-CRoW lobby" cannot seemingly follow a train of thought (point one). So the fact you replied with what you did I found rather funny. Though you yourself don't do this too often and neither does Bottlebank as I said on PM to him yesterday. For the most parts your posts are very helpful and appreciated.

Since I know both your names, I'm Ash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ah147]

Good grace applies to both "winners" and "losers". Please remember that.

Hum ?

I'd be very disappointed if the referendum returned a resounding yes, and suddenly threads started to appear berating the people who have openly expressed anti-CRoW views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter Burgess]

A misunderstanding somewhere on the meaning of good grace. I expect concerns expressed by the "losing" side not to be ignored in the longer term. Otherwise at some time in the future, the differences of opinion will manifest themselves in a new area of dissatisfaction.

 

[ah147]

A misunderstanding somewhere on the meaning of good grace. I expect concerns expressed by the "losing" side not to be ignored in the longer term. Otherwise at some time in the future, the differences of opinion will manifest themselves in a new area of dissatisfaction.

A bit like caving not being (thoroughly) lobbied to be included in CRoW in the first place and the situation we have now?

But fair play. Caving politics at that level are beyond me currently. I'm just getting rather involved in CRoW as I actually have a say and want to be as thoroughly informed as possible.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Ian I think you should be nominated for post of the year.  I agree whole heartedly.

None of Ian's points were a reflection of pro or anti views. Merely the direction of myriads on threads about the issue.

Peter, Ian's post pointed out that in fact many of the "anti-CRoW lobby" cannot seemingly follow a train of thought (point one). So the fact you replied with what you did I found rather funny. Though you yourself don't do this too often and neither does Bottlebank as I said on PM to him yesterday. For the most parts your posts are very helpful and appreciated.

Since I know both your names, I'm Ash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ash - thanks for that. I am quite capable of following a train of thought, and do so. However, if there are points to be clarified, these need highlighting, and if following a train of thought ends up on the wrong track (in the opinion of some), it should not be a problem for that to be mentioned, in my opinion!

 

[ah147]

I disagree with how a few anti-CRoW cavers debate their point. I think they ignore facts provided and focus on ifs, rather than acknowledging facts and mentioning ifs.

However, the general level of name calling and insulting comments is very high, and almost entirely from the pro-side. Myself at a few points included. Whilst almost everyone on the anti-side has nearly completely refrained from it.

A perfect example would be how many ask the anti-side how much caving they do and what type of caving and how recently. Whereas nobody has turned round to me and said "Well, what do you know about caving politics?"

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

 

[Bottlebank]

I disagree with how a few anti-CRoW cavers debate their point. I think they ignore facts provided and focus on ifs, rather than acknowledging facts and mentioning ifs.

However, the general level of name calling and insulting comments is very high, and almost entirely from the pro-side. Myself at a few points included. Whilst almost everyone on the anti-side has nearly completely refrained from it.

A perfect example would be how many ask the anti-side how much caving they do and what type of caving and how recently. Whereas nobody has turned round to me and said "Well, what do you know about caving politics?"

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

I don't mind answering. I probably dig around once a week on average and do a few sport trips each year.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Happy to answer as well. Digging (mines) once a week, and caving weekends away, mostly to Wales, up to 8 times a year?

 

[ah147]

I disagree with how a few anti-CRoW cavers debate their point. I think they ignore facts provided and focus on ifs, rather than acknowledging facts and mentioning ifs.

However, the general level of name calling and insulting comments is very high, and almost entirely from the pro-side. Myself at a few points included. Whilst almost everyone on the anti-side has nearly completely refrained from it.

A perfect example would be how many ask the anti-side how much caving they do and what type of caving and how recently. Whereas nobody has turned round to me and said "Well, what do you know about caving politics?"

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

I don't mind answering. I probably dig around once a week on average and do a few sport trips each year.

My point being, in this particular aspect, its largely irrelevant. Just because a person doesn't cave much any more doesn't mean they don't have the caves best interests at heart, it also doesn't mean that they do.

Just because I don't know much about caving politics doesn't mean I'm not an intelligent person who can come to logical conclusions based upon facts and opinions provided, it also doesn't mean I am  :tease:

 

[Bottlebank]

I disagree with how a few anti-CRoW cavers debate their point. I think they ignore facts provided and focus on ifs, rather than acknowledging facts and mentioning ifs.

However, the general level of name calling and insulting comments is very high, and almost entirely from the pro-side. Myself at a few points included. Whilst almost everyone on the anti-side has nearly completely refrained from it.

A perfect example would be how many ask the anti-side how much caving they do and what type of caving and how recently. Whereas nobody has turned round to me and said "Well, what do you know about caving politics?"

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

I don't mind answering. I probably dig around once a week on average and do a few sport trips each year.

My point being, in this particular aspect, its largely irrelevant. Just because a person doesn't cave much any more doesn't mean they don't have the caves best interests at heart, it also doesn't mean that they do.

Just because I don't know much about caving politics doesn't mean I'm not an intelligent person who can come to logical conclusions based upon facts and opinions provided, it also doesn't mean I am  :tease:

On your first point I happen to agree, anyone with an interest in caving deserves to have their view considered. But you did ask the question  :tease:

On your second point I'll take your word for it, it seems reasonable  :-\

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yes, it is irrelevant. In fact, I think that if someone becomes unable to do active caving through ill health, or for whatever reason, they should be encouraged to stay involved in a non-active capacity, if caves are their passion, as it maintains their links with the sport and gives them continued purpose. There are precious few cavers prepared to run and organise things as it is.

 

[graham]

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

Not needed, but accepted in the spirit in which it was given.

Thank you. 

 

[droid]

I disagree with how a few anti-CRoW cavers debate their point. I think they ignore facts provided and focus on ifs, rather than acknowledging facts and mentioning ifs.

However, the general level of name calling and insulting comments is very high, and almost entirely from the pro-side. Myself at a few points included. Whilst almost everyone on the anti-side has nearly completely refrained from it.

A perfect example would be how many ask the anti-side how much caving they do and what type of caving and how recently. Whereas nobody has turned round to me and said "Well, what do you know about caving politics?"

On the end of this post, I'd like to add a public apology to Graham. At no point have you been derogatory to me and at points I have to you.

Good post, and at least you've avoided the inflammatory drama queen rhetoric of sone of the 'pros'.... :bow: