Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Matthew Reid,
From what I understood there seems to be the added factor of climate change/sea level rise to contend with – as you say David there are areas that are now below the level of the river and levees will only be useful up to a point.
This would also enhance the beach as a destination and place to live.
Don’t see how both these can be true at the same time. And most of greater Chch is below mean sea level. Sure, we have to plan for sea level rises, but abandoning land beside the Avon while building in Brighton doesn’t sound like the way to go about it.
-
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Sacha,
they vibro-compacted the land around the Bromley treatment plant
With one of these?
Heh, something else we have to thank our local musos for! :-)
-
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Jen Hay,
He'll be talking on nine to noon about this at 11.45am.
Wow, and he's a fast talker, too! He could be a racing commentator if he wanted. ;-)
-
This ECan leaflet on the liquefaction potentials across Chch (compiled before September last year!) makes interesting reading; you can see if you study the charts how liquefaction potential varies depending on the height of the groundwater at the time of the quake, which varies seasonally and also with weather conditions. They also discuss methods of construction used in particularly-vulnerable areas. I’m sure we’re all glad they vibro-compacted the land around the Bromley treatment plant!
[BTW does anyone else think “vibro-rolling” sounds like something other than ground repair??] -
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
just a little south you have stoney, stable areas
If only it were that simple – Banks Peninsula is rocky, and some of our hill suburbs have suffered very severe damage. If you take a drive up Cannon Hill or Mt Pleasant you see that building on a rock doesn’t mean you’re safe.
ETA it's a widely-held misconception that Chch is built on a former swamp. In fact most of the Chch area is alluvial floodplain, very little of our land is reclaimed.
-
David, it's great to have you blogging again; I wish you had happier reasons for doing so!
I've been watching the repairs along Fifield Tce in Opawa, near where I live, and they've made a big-ass iron retaining wall along the road-edge by the river. I assume it's to stabilise the major sewer line that must go along there to the pumping station on the corner of Beckford Rd. And in my own street (perpendicular to the river) they've also been bashing enormous bits of iron into the ground where the street approaches the river. I'm reassured to see such heavy-duty road repairs being made!
I LOVE the Heathcote river, and the old houses and gardens along it, and like you I can't believe the land along the riverbanks would be abandoned, except perhaps in Bexley, which was always marginal for building on.
Thanks for your sane and reasoned comments. And I hope you and your family are managing all right.
-
Up Front: First, Come to Your Conclusion, in reply to Sacha,
the entire New Testament is an unauthorised sequel
just imagine the copyright stoush
Especially given the vengeful and unforgiving reputation of the original author :-)
-
I think it's quite OK to be inspired by the work of others; and while some stories are more original than others, it's hard for a story to be original in every way .
Maybe it's a little like that adage, "Stealing from one author is plagiarism; from many authors, research"?
I like what Philip Pullman says in the back of The Amber Spyglass : 'I have stolen ideas from every book I've ever read. My principle in researching for a novel is "Read like a butterfly, write like a bee," and if this story contains any honey, it is entirely because of the quality of the nectar I found in the work of better writers.'
Shakespere borrowed plots from all over the place, but no-one could argue he didn't do his own thing with the material.
And +1 to loving Wide Sargasso Sea -- it's quite a different sort of story to Jane Eyre , and it complements it brilliantly.
-
Up Front: First, Come to Your Conclusion, in reply to Emma Hart,
I DON’T get the weird acceptance of the idea that women don’t like sex. It makes no sense at all. Do these people think women don’t masturbate? (or, only do it in a loving, relationshippy context after taking themselves out to dinner?)
If I can, uh, bang on about the Hite Report again, one of her key conclusions is that most women orgasm reliably from masturbation, and that women use a variety of types of stimulation, most involving the clitoris...but that to know what does it for any particular woman you need to ASK HER!
I think confusion has arisen in some poorly-designed research where it's not clear what's meant by "sex". The majority of women in Hite's study did not orgasm from vaginal intercourse where there was no other stimulation. If "sex" means only vaginal intercourse, and it doesn't lead to orgasm for most women, you can see how some would conclude that "women don't like sex", or, "women don't find sex satisfying".
-
Up Front: First, Come to Your Conclusion, in reply to Danielle,
The sad thing is, an honest personal account of someone's own experience is usually enlightening and fascinating. It's only the stupidly patronising generalisations that suck.
ETA: Reminds me of the wonderful thing the headmistress of the all-girls school I attended once said to me, when I used the wrong corridor: she said, "Girls don't come this way."