NavList:

   

Reply

Jim Thompson wrote-

>Yet another fascinating thread, everyone -- thank you.  This is a very
>distracting discussion list!  The light you are shining on these historical
>personalities is very bright indeed.
>
>I am spending the morning projecting tides and currents on the outbound
>route of our coming summer cruise to the Bras d'Or Lake.  I don't want to
>make the kids and family dog too sick during the potentially rough crossing
>from Charlottetown to Canso Strait, especially around Cape George.  C&L's
>navigation might not have been up to snuff, but their accomplishments in an
>age before electronics, engines and medicine certainly put my menial travel
>worries to shame.

==================================

Jim's message made me think a bit.

I have a great affection for our Nav-L list. (thinking of it as ours,
recognising Dan as the kind host and owner). It's evolving, over the years,
to becoming primarily devoted to the HISTORY of navigation, of one sort or
another. In a way, that's right up my street. I recognise myself as one of
those responsible for pushing it in that direction. To some extent, it's an
inevitable consequence of the takeover of modern navigation by electronics.
Traditional navigation is now history, to a great extent, I fear.

But it's a pity, all the same, if ordinary navigators are discouraged from
airing their own interests in how to get their boat from A to B, and feel
overawed by the present historical  bias of our list. I enjoy a change; for
example, the recent lively thread about boat-handling under power. Should
we, and could we, broaden our discussions to include more of that sort of
talk? That's how it was when I joined, several years ago now.

I'm not proposing that we should, or could, or would wish to scale down our
content about navigational history. It's clear we have attracted many
participants with special knowledge, who enjoy a lively discussion, and
that aspect of our list is going well. How can we encourage other ordinary
navigators to "muck in" once again, to the extent that they did? I think
the Silicon Sea series of exercises was attractive, and perhaps Dan has an
idea how many participants there were, and whether the numbers justified
the effort involved.

Do others agree that there's been a significant redirection of our list? Is
it a fact of life we should accept and welcome? Should we, can we, do
anything to rebalance it? Am I imagining a problem that doesn't really
exist? What does Dan Hogan think?

George.



================================================================
contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone at
01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
================================================================

   

Reply