Seil Chat

Pentlandpirate wrote:

I can assure you that I am not Herby Dice

Yes, I have an uncomfortable feeling about that too Maggie.
And Peter Connolly

You think I am Peter Connolly?

You are hilarious Pirate. That more than anything else you have said marks you out as a non-resident and outsider who is really not qualified to comment on Seil's affairs.

So what if PP does not live here? He must have some interest in the place to be bothered to get into debates..? I think he talks a lot of sense .

What sense?...practically everything I think he's getting too much stick actually, but, I'm sure he can stand up for himself..

Foxglove wrote:What sense?...practically everything I think he's getting too much stick actually, but, I'm sure he can stand up for himself..

Foxglove, how do you know that Pentland Pirate is not just another one of my alleged multiple identities ?

- Herby Connolly

.

OK, the big secret is out ( for all the difference it should make) I have never said I am a resident. But why can't I comment on local issues, especially that might affect the future of the area?

Why should residents who at some stage in the future may leave the island have any say in its future?
Why shouldn't individuals who aim to become residents have some say in the future shape of the island?

I joined Seil Chat over 6 years ago. I only joined it because after visiting the area a few times I decided I might like to move there one day when all the factors such as job, kids, property might all come together. I might have become what is derrogatively termed yet another 'white settler'. But I wasn't going to make the mistake of jumping in. Over the years, apart from NickB, I've contributed and joined in local topics more than anyone else. OK I admit alot of it has been silly rubbish, some of it deliberate, but I've used the experience to find out about the island and its people. I'm reluctant to say what I think of some, as it is not very community minded, but I now understand much more clearly the stresses and strains, the parochialism and racism, and the nastiness and bitchiness that exists within some individuals on this website. I understand why so many have found life on the island and involvement through Seil Chat intolerable to the point where some refuse to even communicate anonomously and others who consider things are so hostile that they even leave the island altogether.

But there are many good points and arguments given on Seil Chat and a number of individuals who clearly are great characters with great intelligence and humour. It's to the community's benefit that there is such a mix.

The persona I have revealed through Seil Chat over the years is true. I am as Scottish as so many of Seil's inhabitants, and I am proud to have been called a teuchter. I have lived in remotest Scotland and I do think I understand the make up of an area like Seil. I've discovered it is far from the idyll some might imagine and I am glad of the insight Seil Chat has given me.

Foxglove is absolutely right. I do (perhaps did) have a real interest in Seil and it's future. I've been called all sorts of things on this website over the years, sometimes deservedly, and at other times borne out of the sheer nastiness in some individuals. But I've clearly demonstrated I've got the robustness it must take for some to continue living on the island.

Today I have mixed feelings about Seil. I wonder if it is worth trying to be community minded. I also wonder if it is a corner of Scotland that is worth fighting to protect. Sometimes people deserve what they get.

Very well put, PP. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

.
There are perhaps twenty people who over the years have contributed regularly to this forum, and frankly I don't think they represent a real cross-section of our community as not a lot of the 'real' locals contribute (though many read it).

I would say that arriving at any conclusions about Seil based on the content of this forum would be most unwise.

Well, Herby Connelly..I know you and would be very shocked to think you were anything but 'straight down the line'..maybe I'm being naive but you can usually tell if people are a bit 'suss', and no, I do not think you would trick people. Maybe I'm wrong..BUT..if I'm right then that is surely one of the benefits of a small community..you know your neighbours..

Yes, Foxglove, (it's another topic) but even your neighbour can be anyone they want to be when they get online as so, so many people have found to their cost.

Ooooh No!!..don't make me paranoid

Just re-read PP's long post..Wow..he really does hit the nail on the head. He makes you think hard about the 'small town' mentality around here. No, it's nothing special..just got probably more good points ie less crime, lovely scenery etc but it looks to me like too many are 'up their own backsides' and worry that lots of 'outsiders' will want to come and live here and have a say. It's not a closed shop and whoever comes to live here or aspires to is entitled to an opinion.

Its the way we look at information you can argue that cats have more affect on the environment than turbines ever would if there is 8 million cats in UK and each one kills a bird then it makes much more sense to cull the number of cats if you are worried about the birdies.

Husker Doo wrote:Its the way we look at information you can argue that cats have more affect on the environment than turbines ever would if there is 8 million cats in UK and each one kills a bird then it makes much more sense to cull the number of cats if you are worried about the birdies.

It isn't logical to cull cats because they kill birds of course - unless perhaps the amount they are killing is unsustainable. We accept bird deaths as part of the price of cat ownership. It does however demonstrate that the wind turbine / birdstrike argument is no more than an irrational appeal to sentimentality with even less logic behind it.

Don't worry cat lovers, I don't think either Husker or myself is about to declare war on cats . . . all I am asking for is a little rationality in the wind turbine discussion.

I agree with Nick here - the only reason for any abuse of poor PP is because he is ignoring knowledge of earth science processes and is abusing science and scientists. Normally he talks a good bit of sense but here he has played the role of flat earther. I don't think his treatment here merits his huge girly and inaccurate extrapolation to what life on Seil is like (which is, in fact, bloody good). Bit of a drama queen performance, in my view.

So I am branded an idiot for not accepting that climate change is happening because you say the evidence is so incontrovertible. And you say that scientists are highly respected individuals who dedicate their lives, blah, blah, blah. Yet you agree, quoting Nick,

The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced that global warming continues apace

If the evidence in favour of climate change is so indisputable, why don't ALL scientists agree that climate change is happening? Are they idiots like me?

My view is based on the observations and conclusions of this planet's expert group of climate specialists taking input from thousands of independent climatologists from around 200 countries on all continents while your comments seem to be based on the spurious fantasies of a failed Tory economist, the sensationalism of the Daily Mail and your own daft opinions (e.g. that the circulation within the earth's ferromanganese core has anything whatsoever to do with it). This is not a topic on which the normal punter can have a sensible opinion without studying the science and it seems that you haven't taken the trouble to do so. Name a single serious respected scientist who denies man-made climate change. I think you are, abnormally I admit, way out of your depth here and so there's not much option but to seem abusive of you. But we're not really; we love you, PP, and wholeheartedly deny all your negativity about life on Seil. It's not a bad place to be and you are welcome any time. The problem for you is that there are enough experts here on all topics to run a university of life.

So if the situation is so obvious why have the scientists failed so miserably in persuading such a chunk of Britain's population that climate change is fact, and even less effective in the majority of countries worldwide? Could that be because all those billions of people also haven't seen anything to change their minds?

Pentlandpirate wrote:So if the situation is so obvious why have the scientists failed so miserably in persuading such a chunk of Britain's population that climate change is fact, and even less effective in the majority of countries worldwide? Could that be because all those billions of people also haven't seen anything to change their minds?

I blame the Daily Mail.

Plus it's so difficult to understand the slow timescales and global averaging involved, with different consequences at different latitudes.

I blame the Daily Mail

There may be something to this. After all I read (in the daily Mail) that it is now the most widely read online newspaper in the World. But what's their agenda if they are so anti-climate change? Don't their reporters talk to thousands of scientists and review information from thousands of sources? Wouldn't headlines of, "We're all doomed if we don't respond to climate change!" be more dramatic in the way that the Daily Mail loves to hype stories?

Plus it's so difficult to understand the slow timescales and global averaging involved, with different consequences at different latitudes

Exactly! And that's why so many question and doubt the whole theory of climate change. The existing data simply cannot be construed as proof. All the while we are being led down the garden path, at unimaginable cost, by people who can't substantiate their claims.