Tweek Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I am also a walker ('bout 1200-1500 miles/year) Two more years, and you'll be in Antarctica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 If it's still there what with this global warming stuff (yeah I know there's land under that ice....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'd already made my views on Clarkson pretty clear too, but dickheaded, uninformed reactionary comments seem to be Alex's forte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 There was a similar fight years ago over the path to the beach at Garwick (Baldrine). is there a similar situation at Cornaa where people have been chased off 'private land' by an angry chap when trying to down the road to the beach ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Look at PROWL's website for the map showing the diversion, it makes a big difference. Is that map to scale because having walked it I found the diversion totally inconsequential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Of one thing I am absolutely certain - the taxpayers in PROWL are VERY happy for their taxes to be spent on this issue rather than being pissed away on some grandiose but unnecessary capital scheme.[/font] Naturally. Many of them are already paying far less than if they hadn't settled here. Alex Posted Today, 11:58 AM Well that just shows who the reactionary idiots are – and it ain’t PROWL or their supporters. Only reason you give 2 shites about the whole issue is because you’re one of those immature boys who snigger at the idiotic things that Clarkson says & does That’s the problem with this whole thing – most of the people wailing and thrashing about how it’s so unfair like tugger are only those people who are big fans of Clarkson, they actually have no interest in any Rights of Way apart from the ones over Clarkson’s land! A post that tends to show that its the PROWL supporters who are more obsessed with Clarkson's 'celebrity' than their detractors who, like myself, are mostly non-admirers of his TV appearances. As others have said (probably, I'm not going through all the threads on the subject to find out), Clarkson has probably brought more 'positive' publicity to the island than any of the small-minded PROWL twats ever could. Their particular brand of sour grapes would make any real Manx person sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Yeah PK, just like the opposing view. Unreasonable? says who? and argument falling on its ass? Says who? Personally I wouldn't find a detour of a hundred or so yards unreasonable but there again, I'm a reasonable person. Others appear not to be as reasonable and/or are maybe looking for an axe (any axe with certain situations) to grind. The majority of views on this entertaining forum are pure subjective but what isn't is the historical general attitude of rambling organisations to accept anything other that what they want. Live and let live appears to be a totally alien concept to them. I agree with you and as I have said I do not find the diversion unreaonable. When I first read all the complaints I was all for militant action to put Clarkson "in his place" however then I walked down there and I have to admit I was shocked to find how the "closure and diversion" had been portayed as it did not feel to reflect at all what I experienced as a walker All this argument seems to be a total waste of time and money as my guess is that the path will be recorded as a public right of way but then Clarkson will aplly for it to be diverted which will be granted so we are back to where we are now. I do not particularly like Clarkson's TV persona and I think Top Gear has been ruined. I also this Costain comes across as a bit of a Twot, but it is a shame this dispute appears for some to be more about parties involved than the issues. I do not care who ownes that bit of land and the property on it but if the price for keeping it in good order and looking nice is a couple of minutes diversion then they have my agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Yeah PK, just like the opposing view. Unreasonable? says who? and argument falling on its ass? Says who? Personally I wouldn't find a detour of a hundred or so yards unreasonable but there again, I'm a reasonable person. Others appear not to be as reasonable and/or are maybe looking for an axe (any axe with certain situations) to grind. The majority of views on this entertaining forum are pure subjective but what isn't is the historical general attitude of rambling organisations refusal to accept anything other than what they want. Live and let live appears to be a totally alien concept to them. One problem is that folks seem to be looking for a "reasonable" solution. Why? Reasonable/unreasonable diversion, it's no big deal, some folks appear to have an axe to grind etc etc etc is all irrelevant. There is a legislative process that defines what should happen. Clarkson et al are going through the process. So to me everything is exactly as it should be. Why do folks seem to have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 PK the discussion ain't that simple now. Let me put my thoughts another way as you appear determined to misunderstand or perhaps I haven't explained my thoughts adequately. 1) I would agree that now the legal process has started it should reach its ultimate conclusion should JC want to push that far. I don't think he should but it's up to him. Up to post #11 that was obvious and there was nothing more I wanted to say. If post #11 and associated replies had not happened, then I should completely agree with your last post. 2) The poster in #11 presented a somewhat polarised spin (understatement) on all of this which really warranted a reply. That reply warranted another etc etc and that's where we are. Whilst the actions, intentions and motivations of PROWL and JC are to an extent immaterial in the legal process that will now evolve, it doesn't mean we can't refer to them just to keep a discussion simple. Threads in forums evolve, that's what they're about. I don't have any problem with that but you seem to. Sure, it's far too late for a reasonable solution. PROWL saw to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I don't think #11 says anything very contentious actually. I can be quite thick sometimes though. Spell it out to me in a PM if you like! However there is no doubt that a forum such as this merely reflects what a wide spectrum of folks there are out there. And let's face it, some are just downright nasty - as you would expect. My daughter likes to read this forum but I have forbidden her from posting anything. Simply because I don't want her falling foul of the unpleasant, tiny-minded, shallow little people who come on here. A shame but there it is. To my surprise for once she's doing as I asked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 So to me everything is exactly as it should be. Why do folks seem to have a problem with that?[/font] Except for the fact that Tynwald decided to get involved and, not only that, handed the problem to David (God speaks to me) Anderson. If ever there was potential for a complete fuck up, that was it - and D A duly delivered. IMO, politicians got involved because they thought that backing the brave wankers walkers against the mighty tele person would ultimately be a vote winner. And, yes, they are small-minded enough for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJR Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 We had this a couple of days ago about Mrs C from another charmer His wife is allegedly from Castletown and has the face to prove it !! You meet the nicest people on here....... The wife let you back on has she after you disclosed her identity !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Well PK apart from your take on post #11, I completely agree with you. Some of the things I read on here show a very 'interesting' side to certain people. I suppose that's the price of free speech though. All in all it's best out in the open. I'd prefer that, no matter how nasty a poster appears to be rather than a moderator deciding what we should read. Whilst some offensive things do occasionally appear, the moderation level on MF is quite refreshing. Perhaps the whys and wherefores that prompted this unfortunate episode have been adequately discussed on the previous JC thread and this thread should have been restricted to the legal process which is where it started. Hey, ho, there are more important things to get agitated about like what's for tea. Edited to say - we were missing you SJR but knew you'd be along in a bit for another bout. How did I disclose her identity then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJR Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Well PK apart from your take on post #11, I completely agree with you. Some of the things I read on here show a very 'interesting' side to certain people. I suppose that's the price of free speech though. All in all it's best out in the open. I'd prefer that, no matter how nasty a poster appears to be rather than a moderator deciding what we should read. Whilst some offensive things do occasionally appear, the moderation level on MF is quite refreshing. Perhaps the whys and wherefores that started this case have been adequately discussed on the previous JC thread and this thread should have been restricted to the legal process which is where it started. Hey, ho, there are more important things to get agitated about like what's for tea. Edited to say - we were missing you SJR but knew you'd be along in a bit for another bout. How did I disclose her identity then? Why are there no need for streetlights in Kirk Michael until after midnight ? Because that is the time that the lights are switched off in the school !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Wrong. And what's that got to do with JC's legal defeat anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.