And was it just him?

[boatmike]

Post regarding QHM's statement certainly got everyone going. Pity it got so confrontational but for some it raised serious issues.

Totted up the score after the match
Comes out:

For QHM 9
Against 7
Ignoring those posts that addressed side issues and didn't take sides.

(That's my reading anyway)

Much better result than I had expected really in these politically correct times where "civil liberties" are in danger of overtaking common sense .
At least QHM will see not all Yachties are wingeing if he reads it....



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SteveB_Sigma33]

What did I miss, which post was this!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

Is it just me.... below

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by boatmike on 04/10/2004 10:52 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[jimi]

Actually considering the amount of abstentions I suppose the real result was one of supreme indifference;-)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

I was always told that the sign of a true sportsman was one who could lose gracefully......
There were over 40 posts after all.... Hardly indifference surely?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Bit black and white are'nt you? Surely the issue of whether hackles were raised or not is not a win lose game .. in any marketing scenario if you annoyed 40% of your potential market you'd certainly be a loser!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

I didn't post because I was indifferent.

I'll make up my own mind about reporting incidents, and no amount of regulation will make me behave differently. Sorry!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

would appear, ma shun, that unless that Statutory Instrument is repealed yer committing a whole shed load of offences .....

of course, to some round 'ere, yer cannae mak an omlette wi' oot breaking an egg for which an SI micht be useful tae undertake ra egg-breaking bit, youse ken? ... jings, its orra early tae be waffling ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

OK! If you all prefer, OF THOSE WHO WERE INTERESTED TO SUBMIT A POST the score remains unchanged proving that there is certainly not a majority who agreed with the original post. Right!
For those who were not interested one way or another (probably the majority as usual) we will include another catagory called "don't give a s**t.
Sounds like a general election to me.... Majority can't be bothered....
Does not mean they all agree with you though!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Got to discount those with some form of self - interest .. new count?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

OK, You count then, I just lost all interest.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Aha, but his idea of 'take emergency action to avoid a collision ' may be very different to mine ma shun!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Nah .. supremely indifferent masell!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Tome said: I'll make up my own mind about reporting incidents, and no amount of regulation will make me behave differently.

<hr></blockquote>

That was exactly my reaction and, in the context of small leisure craft, I think that is the de facto result of this specific regulation.

I can choose to be indifferent to it on the grounds that, for practical purposes, it will only affect me to the extent I choose to allow it to do so. However, if we do not protest creeping regulation, even if it is (at the margin) pointless and unworkable, are we not tacitly accepting the ever increasing encroachment on our lives of the sum of regulation?

Or should we be resigned to the inevitable?



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Yep, felt exactly the same, didn't bother cos never been anywhere near Portsmouth, but my hackles did rise, never have liked being told to do unnecessary paperwork!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

How many witnesses to road accidents actually volunteer their names?

John

<hr width=100% size=1>