Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Forth Road Bridge 'may last for 80 more years'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 December 2008
THE Forth Road Bridge could last for another 80 years after moves to halt the corrosion in its main cables proved "encouraging", according to the former head of the bridge authority.
Lawrence Marshall, the former chairman of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA), said plans for a new £4 billion crossing should now be dropped to save taxpayers' money.

Mr Marshall, who now represents campaign group The ForthRight Alliance, called on ministers to repair the existing structure, rather than pursue an "unaffordable" and "unsustainable" new crossing.

But the Scottish Government insisted it had no option but to plough ahead with the new bridge as the full extent of the damage to the 44-year-old structure will not be known until 2011 – far too late to begin work on a replacement.

Mr Marshall, who chaired FETA from 2005 to 2007, said: "A lot of water has flowed under the Forth Road Bridge since the Scottish Government announced its intention to build a new Forth crossing last December.

"Since then, a further internal inspection of the main cables has shown that the wires are corroding at a slower rate than first feared, with the result that weight restrictions might not now have to be introduced until 2021.

"Even more importantly, work to dry out the main cables of the existing bridge has yielded 'encouraging results' – there is now proof that the initial lengths treated are drying out. If these results are replicated elsewhere on the main cables then it should be possible to arrest the corrosion and for the bridge to last for its design life of 120 years."

Campaigners say that even if attempts to dry the cables fail, the supports could be replaced or "augmented" for between £91m and £122m.

But a spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "The decision to build a Forth replacement crossing was made following the conclusion of an exhaustive option appraisal and feasibility study – The Forth Replacement Crossing Study. We won't know the full extent of damage to the cables until 2011 – impossibly late to start planning for a Forth replacement crossing.

"So nothing has changed and the imperative for a replacement crossing remains as strong as ever in light of the vital importance of a Forth crossing to the Scottish transport network and economy.

"Ministers expect to make a further announcement before the end of the year."

Plans for the £4.2bn crossing have been described as the "most expensive bridge in human history".

Finance secretary John Swinney has said the estimated cost is at 2016 prices and also includes the extensive road network leading to the bridge.

No-one from FETA was available for comment.


The full article contains 452 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

allknowing,

02/12/2008 11:54:57
So he wants us to hold off until nearer the time, so we will be back in the same prediciment as before!!!!

At some point we will need a new bridge, so lets gets and get it built. Then we can benefit from two bridges for a while!!
2

alex paterson,

edinburgh 02/12/2008 11:57:59
Rubbish,build another one now for safety sake,and let Mr Marshall and his cronies use the old one.
3

Trams shams,

02/12/2008 11:58:14
Does he want to sub the tram a few pennies?
4

Mystic Swordsman,

on the job 02/12/2008 12:08:02
"might"
"encouraging results"
"if"
"should be possible"
"could be"

How can a decision be reversed with no hard facts?
5

Some guy,

02/12/2008 12:10:28
I have to say i'd be happy if they still built the new one and tried to re-arrange the access roads to them giving us 4 lanes north and south for 80 years.

I have to laugh at some of the comments on the forums these days though. Spending £0.5bn on Trams that some people think aren't needed is a waste of money. Spending £4bn on a bridge that some people think isn't needed is OK though.
6

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 12:17:40
It is good that the misinformation about the "replacement" Forth Road Bridge from the Scottish Government has finally been nailed. If, as it looks that it can - and it has been done before elsewhere in the world - the bridge can be repaired at a far lower cost, then it makes no sense to build an additional bridge which would make a nonsense of the government's climate change targets and transport policy objectives
7

Alba-Hibs,

02/12/2008 12:19:59
I'm not a structural engineer, but I'd imagine their is a way of temporarily suspending the bridge while replacing the metal rods.

It seems FETA have the sustainable policy of
Re-use, Recyle & Replace....
8

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:20:32
#5

Well, you have to compare apples with apples.

I don't use the Forth bridge much personally, but I recognise that an appropriate crossing over the Forth is vital to the Scottish economy. Therefore, ensuring that a crossing remains in place is money well spent.

The Edinburgh tramline? Impact on the economy of Scotland microscopic. Might attract a couple of trainspotters who want to be photographed in front of a tartan tram, if you believe the Cooncil. Cost-benefit ratio therefore questionable.

Oh, and if you truly believe that Edinburgh's tramline will come in at a cost of £0.5 Billion, then I've got a bridge (well-used, but allegedly good for another 80 years) that I'd like to sell you. :-)
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 12:24:14
Many people have been saying this for a long time. The whole process has been political, from the hyped up "the bridge is falling" nonsense to the stonewalling on tunnel options. £4 billion for a *spare* bridge? There are hundreds of more worthwhile things we could do with that money. Like investing in the railways for example.
10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 12:26:14
#8 The point is we already have an effective crossing! And I assume you are talking about the Forth Road Bridge, since the Forth Bridge is a railway bridge - quite famous, maybe you've heard of it?

The Edinburgh tram system, if developed properly over time, will be a massive boost to the capital's economy as well as a huge improvement in sustainable transport.

Your rhetoric is based on ignorance.
11

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:30:30
#10

Oh do be quiet.

Here's another word for you too look up in the big ECC/TIE/LB Thesaurus:

Pedant.
12

James Mackenzie,

02/12/2008 12:31:16
#1: "At some point we will need a new bridge, so lets gets and get it built."

Er, no, not if the existing one can be repaired. This would be £4bn squandered just when we can least afford it. This is shaping up to be the biggest scandal of the current Holyrood term, and both SNP and Labour should hang their heads in shame for supporting it.
13

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:32:07
#10

Oh, and exactly how will a single tramline in Edinburgh boost the economy of Scotland?

How much freight will be carried on the tramline?

How many commuters from outwith Edinburgh will travel to/from work on it?
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 12:35:55
#13 Like many others of your ilk, you pose such questions online here not to solicit information but to suggest that the information favours your point of view.

In fact, the economic benefit argument has been held publicly by our elected representatives in both the council and the Parliament, the evidence remains available freely online, and your questions are no more than sidelines jeering.
15

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:36:39
#14

So, in other words, you don't know.
16

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:39:53
#14

"Others of my ilk"...nice one, Duncester!

You mean free-thinking people? People that form their own opinions, without just regurgitating the latest spin from the Council/TIE? Taxpayers, concerned about the squandering of public money? People of that "ilk"?
17

Some guy,

02/12/2008 12:40:41
Would the new bridge really give that much of a boost to the economy if the old one was still there?

#10 was right, my point was why spend £4bn to replace something that works. Unless that is having 2 bridges doing the same job would boost the economy by a big enough amount to make up for the spend?

I don't want to get into Trams at the moment but my view on them is changing fast. I think a Tramline is a waste of £0.5bn(You say it wont cost £0.5bn because of Scotland's track record on big projects, what makes you think a bridge would come in on budget then?) Unless this single tram line leads to a full network being developed then it would be worth the outlay.
18

The Jenny whine Mario n’ Tony net,

02/12/2008 12:41:56
#15
We recommend ignoring the intellectual wannabee.
19

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 12:46:23
#17

Thanks for your response. Nice to have a courteous response, rather than the usual smug pedantry from the likes of the Duncester and his "ilk"...

I'm actually not convinced of the need for a new bridge either. All I was saying is that maintaining a proper crossing over the Forth is essential, and will be money well spent. Could be a new bridge, could be the refurbished existing bridge - I have no strong opinion on that. But what I do know is that maintaining a proper crossing in the long-term is vital for the whole of Scotland, unlike the tramline where the benefits are tiny in comparison when looking at the cost-benefit ratio.
20

Some guy,

02/12/2008 12:53:14
#19 Cheers Skip.

As i said in my first post i'd be happy if my tax money was spend on a new crossing even if the old one was still there. For the trams, as i stay in North Edinburgh, if they were a success they would benefit me which is why i've always supported them.

Nice to get some polite discussion on it for a change rather than some of the others on here who are so opposed to some things they dont see any other viewpoint.
21

Old Cartha Boy,

02/12/2008 12:54:38
Re Duncan at #10 and 14

A link to "evidence" you spout that is freely available would be nice....oh, I see, it doesn't exist....quelle shame!
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 12:58:18
#21 If you are too lazy or incompetent to visit the parliament website and do a simple search then I'm certainly not going to do it for you.
23

SV650s,

02/12/2008 13:00:25
Surely there's another bank out there that we could buy instead of squandering rather a lot of tax-payers money......
24

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 13:02:33
#22

With charming people like the Duncester living in it, how on earth did Edinburgh gets its reputation for being a lonely and unfriendly place...
25

Bill MacD,

02/12/2008 13:04:03
5. Some guy - I agree totally with your comments on the lack of joined up thinking in a lot of the comments here. Many of the biggest blowhard loudmouths who sound off here are basically just extremely immature types with little or no real education, and so without the crucial social capacity of any fully formed individual to be self-critical, self-limiting, or self-denying. They're the sort who buy into the Jeremy Clarkson anti-environment anti-pedestrian anti-public transport anti-everything except juvenile self-interest lad-mag boys-toys persona (without being bright enough to see that it's a concocted media image) and for whom anything that they their personal freedom to drive wherever and whenever they like is a 'good thing', whilst anything that the rest of the public do, such as to walk and use public transport or cycle, is a bad thing because it gets in their way.

Myself, I do all of these things: drive, cycle, take the bus or train, and walk. I have my own needs and wishes, but also recognise the legitimate concerns of other people too. So I believe that the authorities have a duty to balance everyone's interests, and don't expect to get my own way every time, nor believe that shouting louder makes for my views more valid.

Car drivers here sound off loudly about their 'rights' (as if these didn't often conflict with other people's rights) and the taxes they pay as if these covered a fraction of the social costs, which as any competent economist will tell you they don't. But most writers here are far too stupid to comprehend anything beyond their immediate wants, in the same demanding way, oblivious to anyone else's interests, that little children think.

So there we have it. Trams bad, bridges good. Welcome to the non-existent logic of a proletariat whose biggest educational influence from birth has been commercial advertising telling them they want 'stuff' and have the right to have them now, in the context of a poorly funded education system wh
26

Bill MacD,

02/12/2008 13:06:05
...which has never taught them to think independently. Don't bother trying to reason with them. They simply don't have the intellectual capacity to follow basic reasoning or care about such things as evidence or the need for society to balance a wide range of interests. They're the want-it-now, me-me, don't-care generation. Sad, but true. Get used to it.
27

Thomas J,

Dunfermline 02/12/2008 13:07:32
Lawrence, I think that we can all support these aims.

That is unless you are one of the beneficiaries of building the most expensive bridge in the world which at £4.2 billion will be ten times the cost of a comparable one in the USA.
28

Alba-Hibs,

02/12/2008 13:14:50
Bill MacD blows goats
29

tumshie heid,

02/12/2008 13:15:55
Bill Macd. Yawn... Perhaps some brevity would help in making your point? Actually I'm not sure if there was a point other than that you are a smug pseudo intellect.
Look at me I am so clever...
If you don't like me judging you then look at your statements above. "They, "them" etc.
30

I love to eat Sellotape,

02/12/2008 13:18:49
FETA is the cheesiest name for a transport group I've ever heard.
31

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 13:19:39
#30

It does kinda grate.
32

Edinburgh 100,

Musselburgh 02/12/2008 13:21:52
# 25

How ignorant are you. In one paragraph you say people have the legitimate right to voice there opinions. In another paragraph you say some people are to stupid to understand the arguement because of there level of education.

So in your world people who did not achieve a specific level/type of education shouldnt have an opinion. Your post appears to be well thought out and with good grammar. But you really are a snob.
33

Padraig,

02/12/2008 13:35:46
Hi Duncan in Edinburgh. Good to see you back, your usual "direct" self! We missed you over the weekend but I see that you are pushing your usual "Fiends of the Earth" line today, as I would expect from a paid propagandist. Strange, though, that a professional PR man Chief Executive of FoE Scotland)would be so abrasive- is it frustration because people don't fall for the FoE line any more?
34

Old Cartha Boy,

02/12/2008 13:40:11
Re Duncan at #22 - thansk for the tip otherwise I'd never have found this explanatory note on the tram Bill:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/17-edinburghTram1/b17s2-introd-pm.pdf

It sets ut Edinburgh Council's transport strategy, with not a mention of trams in it! When it does get onto tram options in other sections, the paper maintains each one will carry 300 passengers (now it's 350) Also says that people of Edinburgh supported improvements to transport if they were funded by congestion charging scheme...need I go on? I must...on public consultation, over 100,000 leaflets were distributed to households with 3000 responses - 86% said yes to a tram - so becuase 2070 idiots put a tick in a box that says "I want trams", the rest of us have to endure the pain...if that is the will of the people.....

35

Hmm ...,

02/12/2008 13:40:47
,,, strange Does Duncan in Edinburgh work for Friends of the Earth? Lawrence Marshall is a failed Labour councillor, so he would say "stop this unnecessary bridge now", wouldn't he? And he represents the Froth Alliance, that curious amalgam of the loony left and formerly respectable charities like The National Trust for Scotland (what the replacement bridge has to do with caring for old houses I can't imagine)and the Cockburn Association, which I would have imagined had enough to do to protect Edinburgh's heritage.
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 13:41:19
#33 Hello Padraig. I am not whatever Duncan you think I am that works for Friends of the Earth. I've been here a long time and hardly ever comment on environmental stories. It would indeed be strange if anyone was paid to post opinions on here. I certainly am not.

However, I'm sure you'll continue to believe whatever you want to believe, so you just enjoy yourself.
37

Old Cartha Boy,

02/12/2008 13:41:55
Re 34 above - I was so keen to pass this info on that I showed the figure of 350 not 250 passengers that will be carried per tram.....
38

scorchio,

West of the Pecos 02/12/2008 13:42:03
How long does he "think" the Railway bridge will last?
I'll take a stab at that...maybe 80 years, perhaps more, maybe less.
I also think #25 is a plank, but then I'm one of the proletariat,zonked by advertising campaigns too numerous to mention.
39

Hmm ...,

02/12/2008 13:44:48
,,, Duncan (22) - if you insist on challenging and correcting people's posts, it would be helpful if you provided the evidence in support. that way they will be better informed but you would have less opportunity to be rude to them, wouldn't you?
40

Padraig,

02/12/2008 13:50:21
Duncan (36) - that's interesting. When ALternative Fuel posted that suggestion last Friday, it struck a chord with me. I had decided that you worked for the City Council (or Labour Party) you were so supportinve of their daft ideas. Even more curious, your exchange with Alternative disappeared from the site - wasn't deleted, just disappeared, which tended to reinforce my view. Now you deny it - but then, anyone would deny being a paid propagandist for Fiends of the Earth, wouldn't they? And you say you aren't a staffer there?
41

Dragonlord,

02/12/2008 13:59:31
The way the debate on a new crossing is going it will be 80 years and still no work started.

Forward thinking is required.

The new crossing should be able to stay open in high winds.
It should incorperate high speed rail lines.
It should be more than two lanes each way.
Possibly even seperate crossing for heavy goods or a means of diverting HGV's onto the rails.
Now if I can come up with suggestions like these, why can't someone who is educated do better?
42

tumshie heid,

02/12/2008 14:00:13
Duncan is a propaganda vehicle for either the council or some lentil munchers for sure.
Only one who fell into those categories would believe the tosh about trams that he spouts.
43

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 14:01:58
#40 Right. You previously thought I worked for either the city council (run by the Lib Dems and the SNP) or the Labour party. That makes perfect sense to you I suppose.

For a long time all I ever posted about was gay rights issues. Who did you think I was working for then?

Anyone with half a brain would recognise that neither FoE nor anyone else would pay someone to comment on here - the impact is negligible, it would be a waste of money, and they would be more likely to whip people up against them than persuade them of anything - this is hardly a polite debating environment after all. Most folk here are entrenched in their opinions. It's a silly idea that I or anyone else would be paid to spout on in this manner.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 14:06:36
#42 And they call me arrogant! You think anyone who does hold your opinions on these subjects must be being paid to disagree! Laughable.
45

,

02/12/2008 14:19:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

,

02/12/2008 14:19:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Padraig,

02/12/2008 14:41:00
Duncan (43) said "Right. You previously thought I worked for either the city council (run by the Lib Dems and the SNP) or the Labour party. That makes perfect sense to you I suppose."

Unfortunately, it does - I was looking forward to seeing a dramatic change in City Council policy when we sacked Labour. Instead, I found that the adage "vote LibDen, get labour" seemed to be true.

However, a friend said that the problem is the Trot officials in the City Council, who continue unchanged. And the LibDem councillors are too gullible/comatose to be able to change them. I had you down as an official but FoE does make perfect sense.
48

Padraig,

02/12/2008 14:41:36
Same daft ideas, same chip.
49

noswod,

Honestas 02/12/2008 14:55:50
I think we shud wait untill the bridge fas doon before we build a new one. Anyway the £4bn cost is a travesity the Miliua Bridge oor the Tarn cost £1bn built by a constortium and paid for by tolls (Perhaps SBR is building and financing). Ya cannie ge onything away free like the Nats think a spare £4bn nicked frae the Southern British. In they olde days they widney ha noticed but noo they have bailed oot these Scottish banks tae the tune o £200bn they do notice.
50

Old Cartha Boy,

02/12/2008 15:00:06
Interesting that Duncan has chosen not to rebut the "evidence" he himself directed me towards
(# 34/37) instead he is hiding behind the mask of defending who he is and what he stands for - must be a LibdDem then right enough!
51

Jamrie,

Malta 02/12/2008 15:37:30
This might sound a really stupid idea, but instead of another bridge why no dig a tunnel? Surely a tunnel will last a lot longer.
52

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 16:10:35
#52 Agreed.
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 16:13:25
#51 There was nothing to rebut in your garbled misrepresentation of an irrelevant document.

The evidence I pointed you at was the debates in parliament and in the council which resulted in both sets of democratically elected representatives voting in favour of the trams scheme as being in the best interests of the city.

Your #34 is a prime example of why it would be pointless me going through the evidence myself for you, since you would wilfully misrepresent anything that didn't suit your position, and play up anything which did.
54

Sarcasm,

02/12/2008 16:27:20
54.
Duncan, you must get nervous reading Gorgie T's posts, thinking that's further down the line.
55

Hmm ...,

02/12/2008 16:30:02
You see, Duncan? As I said in #34, if you presented the evidence that you want to draw people's attention to, you wouldn't be vulnerable to that kind of misunderstanding. It is your responsibility to put your argument - simple allegations can confuse the issue.

Of course, there are times when you might want to confuse the issue - such as if your argument lacks credibility. then the approach you are taking is probably about the best you can do!
56

Old Cartha Boy,

02/12/2008 16:30:45
Duncan #54 - since when was a vote in a Parliamment or in a Council Chamber "evidence" that something was a good thing? I quoted from the papers you directed me towards yet you are now distancing yourself from them...very sinister! You clearly have political aspirations!
57

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 16:41:11
Guys, don't ask the Duncester to back up any of his rants with actual evidence. His only lines of argument are to pick up on typos, question your intelligence, and generally to be as insulting and smart-alecish as possible. He knows better than you, not because he has any actual evidence, but because he JUST DOES, RIGHT?!?
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 17:07:25
#58 I'm not sure quite why you have chosen me as your whipping boy today, but it is tiresome to be so badly misrepresented. I disagree with you. That does not make me a ranter, a liar or any of the other things you call me.

To me it appears that you are the one whose argument style is suspect - you fail to address the issues and address only me, who I am, how I argue, what sort of a person I must be. That makes you something of a hypocrite.

Here's the thing: I've looked at the evidence in support of the trams scheme and, like many other people, consider it worthwhile. You, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, have done the same and come to a different conclusion. Neither of us is, as a result, a bad person, or intrinsically wrong. We just disagree. Let's agree to disagree, shall we, and drop the juvenile baiting.
59

tumshie heid,

02/12/2008 17:11:29
Duncan is that you away now? Another hard shift at the pr desk?
To go into the pedant mode that you so enjoy,your reply at post #44 makes no sense. "You think anyone who does hold your opinions on these subjects must be being paid to disagree."
I know you only left out a 'nt on your post but hey, it would be good enough for you whilst trying to avoid answering pertinent questions so why don't I have a laugh instead?
Answer the questions instead of trying to steer us away from the fact that you can't answer the posts.
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 17:18:47
#60 What questions?
61

tumshie heid,

02/12/2008 17:31:14
Instead of sending people on wild goose chases to find the evidence that you perceive to prove your case, how about linking to it?
Most people don't buy the spin that tie etc have put out. Lets have some conclusive evidence please and not just "coulds and mights"
62

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 17:34:08
#62 I've been entirely clear on where the evidence can be found. Nothing I could point to would be accepted by you as "conclusive", so it would be a waste of my time and effort to pander to your nonsense.
63

Uncle Piehead,

02/12/2008 17:56:49
I remember the auld days when FETA just used to stop people from drinking milk and eating a bacon sandwich or a steak pie.

Ach no, that was Peta.

Imagine if PETA, FETA and ETA commbined:

It would then be an anti-animal products organisation made from ewe's milk that wants independence for the Basque region.

Yehhh, that'sss whattt I'mmm talkinggg abouttt



64

Uncle Piehead,

02/12/2008 18:45:57
The dude in the picture looks like a cross between Freddie Krueger and Martin O'Neill.

They've airbrushed out the bladed fingers and the Aston Villa badge very well though.
65

D Napier,

02/12/2008 19:35:20
Now, let me see, what does Lawrence MArshall do for a living?

Is he a bridge engineer? NO - he's a conductor for First Scotrail and has been local politician. Maybe he should concentrate on running his trains on time and collecting fares and leave engineers to make engineering decisions.

Yes, the information which FETA has made available about the dehumidification system which they are installing on the bridge cables is encouraging, but until the system has been given time to work and a further investigation is undetaken in 4-5 years time we won't know if the system has worked. At least they are trying to do something about the problem.

In the meantime, the Scottish Governmenrt MUST proceed with the construction of the new crossing. If the existing bridge is doomed then we will still have a crossing. If it can be saved we will have a manageable two bridge crossing similar to that which exists across the Severn between England and Wales.
66

Skip McClendon,

02/12/2008 19:58:35
#58 "I'm not sure quite why you have chosen me as your whipping boy today, but it is tiresome to be so badly misrepresented. I disagree with you. That does not make me a ranter, a liar or any of the other things you call me."

- I didn't call you a "liar". Please point to the post where I did. Ooops, you can't. So that was, well, a lie then.

"To me it appears that you are the one whose argument style is suspect - you fail to address the issues and address only me, who I am, how I argue, what sort of a person I must be. That makes you something of a hypocrite."

- I think it might be time to dig out the Thesaurus again and look up what the word "hypocrite" means, Dunc. If there is one person on these forums who continually resorts to juvenile personal attacks, cheap jibes, and glib remarks questioning the intelligence of other posters, then it is you.

"Here's the thing: I've looked at the evidence in support of the trams scheme and, like many other people, consider it worthwhile. You, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, have done the same and come to a different conclusion. Neither of us is, as a result, a bad person, or intrinsically wrong. We just disagree. Let's agree to disagree, shall we, and drop the juvenile baiting."

- Fair enough. But if you don't want to be subject to juvenile baiting, then it's perhaps not a good idea to start it off. Like you did in post #10 where you launched into an unprovoked, personal attack against me purely because you didn't agree with something that I'd said to another poster. It's fine for you to disagree with what I believe, which is your right. But it's not acceptable for you to post the type of condescending, puerile drivel that you did in post #10. You reap what you sow, Dunc, and since your post centred on pedantic detail and insults to my intelligence, then you can't complain if that's what you get back.
67

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/12/2008 22:31:14
#67 There was absolutely no personal attack in #10. I said your rhetoric was based on ignorance. That is an opinion, not a personal attack. You, like too many others, hear the word ignorance and think it is an insult. It isn't. It is a lack of knowledge, nothing more, nothing less.

I now see why you reacted with such vitriol to #10. You didn't understand it.
68

Ah Bristo,

02/12/2008 23:05:40
So when did this become Duncan's BLOG??

13 posts out of 68 (before this one)

Don't encourage him/her/it guys ............

You know it makes sense ;-)

69

Uncle Piehead,

03/12/2008 00:52:45
When they replace it they can call it the Fife road bridge:

onetwothreefourFIFE
70

Skip McClendon,

03/12/2008 07:00:52
#68

And there you go again...

Thanks for proving my point, Duncester.

You have no evidence for any of the opinion that you constantly try to present as "fact", so you again resort to questioning the intelligence of the other poster in a pathetic attempt to appear like an authority. It's really rather sad, and you have my pity.
71

jtdx,

03/12/2008 08:01:03
#37 You had better tell CAF to chop some of the tram off when they build them, because they are building trams that can carry 332 passengers!
http://www.caf.es/ingles/productos/proyecto.php?cod=4&id=621&sec=prest

Damn those tram builders making trams that can carry MORE people than expected.

btw. I imagine that when the Stockton-Darlington railway was opened there was a wee man from Edinburgh, who went up to Stevenson and said "this train LINE is a complete waste of money, you should have build a canal and tied in into the national network".
72

tumshie heid,

03/12/2008 08:07:36
#72 The train line at that time was modernising Britain. We have already tried trams and ruled them to be outdated 50 years ago. This is a retrograde step so that some councillors can go on junkets around the world saying "See thon shiny tartan trams in Edinburgh? That was me that did that"
73

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 08:18:08
#71 And there you go again! Nowhere have I questioned your intelligence. I questioned your knowledge. You really have to understand the difference between the two. There is no shame in ignorance - every person on the planet is ignorant of the vast majority of information on the planet. That is not a sign of lack of intelligence.

You see insult where there is none. It's a shame, because you have diverted the whole conversation with that single misunderstanding.

Please take the time to read my comment again and you will see that I have not questioned your intelligence, only your knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not an insult.
74

Skip McClendon,

03/12/2008 10:00:23
#74

Semantics, pedantry etc, etc...

I know you meant it is an insult. You know you meant it as an insult. The whole darned forum knows you meant it is an insult. Yet, when exposed, you once again run back and hide behind a dictionary definition to disguise your true intent.

And we haven't even touched on the sarcasm in your original post. You do know what level of wit sarcasm is, right? Don't worry, I'll give you time to look it up.

The point is, you have no evidence to back up the opinions that you attempt to portray as "facts". Your opinions are your own, and you have every right to hold them. But they are not, and never will be, "facts" despite your repeated attempts to portray them as such.

Quite apart from this particular thread, you have significant previous form for insulting posters with whose opinions you do not agree. I seem to recall being called a "worm" or similar on another thread, by you, for voicing my concern over the tram scheme. Was that one also not intended as an insult?

There are many other pro-tram posters - Foo and Mario for starters - who can manage to make their case, counter to my own, without feeling the need to resort to the kind of pseudo-intellectual character-assassination that you so consistently favour.

As I alluded to above, I find your attempts to "educate" us all with your alleged superior intellect (or greater "knowledge", if you prefer) really rather sad. And, again, for this you have my sincere pity.
75

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 10:23:40
#75 No. You *think* I meant it as an insult, I *know* I meant it to say exactly what it did say - that you were, and are, ignorant of the facts. Stop projecting your view onto other people. You are not the moral majority, much as you might wish to think so.

No, I have never called you a "worm". How typical of you to wave some unproven allegation of previous insult around while simultaneously criticising me for not proving things.

Even now you cannot discern between knowledge and intellect, when they are utterly different things. I have not impugned your intellect, but I have pointed out your lack of knowledge, and if you want to take that as an insult then that is your own business. I know how it was intended.
76

Skip McClendon,

03/12/2008 10:47:06
#76

I do apologise, Duncan. My memory is not what it once was. It wasn't "worm". It was "tadpole". But I'm sure that wasn't intended as an insult either, was it?

Duncan in Edinburgh,25/11/2008 10:15:11

"The fact that anti-trammies are now clutching at such hypothetical nonsense as "proof" of something serves to further illustrate what a bunch of tadpoles they are."

And, while we're at it, here are a couple of your other non-insults, previously hurled in my direction for the heinous crime of not agreeing with you:

Duncan in Edinburgh,25/11/2008 11:54:03
"#1 and #4 you are either being deliberately idiotic or you are an idiot."

150 Duncan in Edinburgh,25/11/2008 16:52:38
"Tube."

- I would post more examples but, frankly, I cannot be bothered with this any more plus a great number of your previous posts seem to have been deleted for some reason. Surely not because they were insulting and offensive? No, of course not...

I will now await similar evidence to back up your earlier claim that I called you a "liar". Good luck with finding that one, since it doesn't exist. I shall now leave you to look up the word "hypocrite" and desperately search for typos in my post, so that you can harp on about pedantic detail rather than address any of the real issues. Have a nice day!



77

Heretic_,

03/12/2008 10:48:12
Has anyone else noticed how FETA seem to be getting on with their job much more quietly and effectively since Lawrence Marshall lost his seat and his position as Chairman at the election last year?
78

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 10:57:47
#77 I have no doubt you earned those responses. You talk a lot of nonsense a lot of the time, and it irritates me. Bless you for going off and finding these instances again though, it says so much more about you than it does about me.

None of this really gets around the fact that you and I are both ignorant of the majority of information in the world, and me pointing that out to you is in no way insulting.

I'm not going to change the way I use language to try to avoid you believing you are being insulted, so the only way out of this is for you educate yourself as to the meanings of words before you respond to them.

For future reference, ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intellect or intelligence, and ignorance is something that every person on the planet shares. When I use the word in future I trust you will understand it better.
79

Skip McClendon,

03/12/2008 11:05:37
#79

Yes, just keep harping on about pedantic detail as that seems to make you feel big.

I note you did not provide any evidence to your claims than I had called you a "liar", instead electing to continue your pseudo-intellectual assault on my (alleged) lack of education.

Oh, and you have no doubt I "earned those responses" do you? What, by posting my opinions which differ to yours? I was just "asking for it", eh Dunc, for saying/doing/believing something that you don't like. The fact that you think that I was somehow asking for it says a great deal about you.

You are unmasked and I, for one, shall waste no more time on you.
80

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 11:14:08
#80 Robust debate is something I will not shy away from, nor be cajoled away from by you. You have been at least as robust in your comments towards me, as any even-handed reading of this thread will show.

And yet again you imply that "semantics" and "detail" are somehow orthogonal to the issue here - but without shared semantics how can we have dialogue? If you cannot understand what I mean, and vice-versa, how can we discuss?

And you betray once more that you do not understand what I say, because now you have me impugning your education, which again I *did not do*. I questioned your *knowledge*.

I'm sorry you're going off in a huff because you've patently failed to understand what I have laboured to explain to you. Oh well, it's only an online forum after all.
81

Skip McClendon,

03/12/2008 11:16:58
#81

I refer you to my previous response.
82

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 03/12/2008 12:11:46
Bill MacD says

"I agree totally with your comments on the lack of joined up thinking in a lot of the comments here. Many of the biggest blowhard loudmouths who sound off here are basically just extremely immature types with little or no real education.."

Is this the same Bill MacD who only a few days ago was posting.

"The porty parents campaigning for an unfair slice of OUR tax money to be spent on their wee brats"

and

"...regardless of publicity-hungry lobbyists like these self-regarding graspers"

Pot, kettle, black etc etc

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would you support the return of tolls to fund a new Forth Road Bridge?
No, it should be paid for in the same way as other roads.
Yes, it’s fairer for users to bear the brunt of the cost.
Yes, as long as it was only for a fixed amount of time.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.