BOC - an acceptable National standard event!?

[Gnitworp]

Cave Man: In an attempt to respond to rather than rubbish your comment, I think that, if you accept the principle of 'rotating' BOC around the regions, it is applaudable if the region in question finds/reserves the best area it can for the purpose. I, personally, favour the rotation system that doesn't require me to make a 1000 mile plus round trip every year to compete in BOC on absolutely the best terrain in the country every time.

[Scott]

Cave Man: I am sorry if I've put you in a huff. In my (hopefully valid) opinion, concerns over a forthcoming event based on real issues - such as "Is the New Forest suitable terrain for BOC?", "Is it too early in the season?" or "Will the restriction on entry numbers be an issue?" - are fair enough; but your original post does appear to be questioning whether an event will be of an acceptable standard based on a line in a set of minutes which says that the event will be of an acceptable standard, which ("Am I missing something here?") feels rather more like stirring up trouble for the sake of it .

Why yes, I do appear to be stirring up trouble for the sake of it myself. I'm glad hypocrisy is still allowed on the internet.

[RJ]

I'm with Cave Man here....

IMO the committee were wrong to describe the preparations as 'acceptable'. Much better if it had been 'perfectly acceptable', but still a poor choice of expression.

What sort of message does it send to the hardworking team doing all the legwork for the event.... all those volunteers!! Sorry folks but your efforts are..... well..... just acceptable!

I quite agree with Cave Man.... there MIGHT be a hidden agenda behind the expression.... acceptable. And a different assessment is needed. Using the word 'acceptable' can imply that it is only just better than.... 'not acceptable'. If there are some misgivings about the event then they should have been outlined. It might be at the wrong time of year, but that doesn't make any difference to 'acceptable'.

If the arrangements and planning aren't perfectly satisfactory, or perfectly acceptable given the constraints..... which I'm prepared to bet they are..... then saying they are just... acceptable.... was an unfortunate turn of phrase. 'Acceptable' is a cliche that can have quite a few connotations!

[Oldman]

Or perhaps the minute-taker simply didn't realise that the text used would be the subject of such scrutiny?

[Gnitworp]

If 'acceptable' is not acceptable, would 'not unsatisfactory' be satisfactory?

[awk]

If 'acceptable' is not acceptable, would 'not unsatisfactory' be satisfactory?

No it would be unsatisfactory! Reminds me of the subtext to OFSTED reports, where 'satisfactory' nowadays seems to mean 'unsatisfactory'! Like Oldman, I believe the poor old minute taker was simply stating that the British would be OK, and not getting too wrapped up in the semantics.

[mharky]

shh

[drobin]

Anyone found where the map extract is? I'm using the last map from 2000 (1:15000) so far without success. (I may of course be searching in vain!)

[DavidJ]

Anyone found where the map extract is? I'm using the last map from 2000 (1:15000) so far without success. (I may of course be searching in vain!)

I thought it might be interesting to try and answer this from the actual map. This is what I found towards the northern edge of the map on routegadget:

[Edit: Oopps - sorry folks - just remembered the small print on the bottom of the map: 'No portion of this map is to be published on the internet without prior permission'. You will have to look at routegadget to see the extract - it has a lot of 'out of bounds' covering most of the extract.]

I hope nobody tried to memorise that bit of the map

[djc]

So, yes, the extract was from a part of the map not used for the competition and, if you look closely, was actually massaged slightly to try and make it more representative of the competition area as a whole.