Synchronised Dimming Photos

The Old Pacific Highway

June 11th, 2007 at 10:57pm

Good evening Stuart,

I was very disappointed on the weekend when the blame game started over who was responsible for maintaining the Old Pacific Highway.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing could have prevented the tragedy that occurred there. All the photos and television footage clearly show that a lot of the ground underneath the road was washed away, and as we know whenever a flood washes away the ground underneath something, it washes away whatever was sitting on that ground as well.

It's absolutely terrible and tragic that a family got washed away in a car on that bit of road, but I don't think we can really blame any official for the road getting washed away, and I think we should instead focus on helping the family and friends who have been left behind with their grief.

Regards,
Samuel Gordon-Stewart
Canberra

Entry Filed under: Talkback Emails

Print This Post Print This Post

8 Comments

  • 1. The Beige Baron  |  June 12th, 2007 at 1:11 am

    Just a quickie man. About how many of the emails you send to Stuart or John or Clive actually get read out on air? Seems to me with the frequency you send them, these presenters wouldn’t have much time for anything else but airing your views. I mean, you are frigging prolific.

  • 2. Samuel  |  June 12th, 2007 at 1:42 am

    My emails generally take less than a minute to read out, and when I only send one per show they tend to all get read out.

    All of the presenters have a different way of handling the emails, Stuart tends to slot all his emails in between calls (and there are a lot more emailers than just me), Clive tends to get his producer to read a bunch of them out a couple times each morning, John Kerr usually reads the emails he has received in the last hour just after the top-of-hour news.

    Prolific is one word you could use to describe my talkback radio contribution habits, but I think “regular” would be appropriate (as in “regular caller” and “regular emailer”).

    Talkback radio tends to have two types of contributors:

    1. People who contribute regularly
    2. People who will only contribute once in a blue moon or less

    There is also a third category for people who will never contribute, but will listen.

    The vast majority of contributors fall in to the second category and generally keep the wheels ticking over, they tend to be the main catalyst for debate and fill up most of the competitions.

    I fall in to the first category. I think the second category is more important because it provides a better overview of the general opinion of the listeners, however my category has an important role as well. If you only had the second category then you might as well just have a robot putting calls to air…my category adds an element of familiarity, we build up a rapport with the presenters, and in many ways with the listeners.

    The presenters, whilst they will converse with the first second category quite happily and easily, are able to have slightly more meaningful conversations with the first category because they are more familiar with them, and that category won’t mind having a personal chat which does tend to break up the heavier conversations a bit.

    Getting back to your comment though Beige Baron, my emails do occasionally get summarised, and a number of the emails I send are not meant to be read out on the air as they are supposed to be background information for the presenter or their producer(s)…usually in that case I won’t post them here.

  • 3. The Beige Baron  |  June 12th, 2007 at 5:04 am

    ‘my category adds an element of familiarity, we build up a rapport with the presenters, and in many ways with the listeners.
    The presenters, whilst they will converse with the first second category quite happily and easily, are able to have slightly more meaningful conversations with the first category because they are more familiar with them, and that category won’t mind having a personal chat which does tend to break up the heavier conversations a bit.’

    Obviously you are better than everone else, man, and your opinion means more than the hoi polloi that merely ring in.

    Jesus God.

    ‘Slightly more meaningful’ ??

    Check me into category four ‘get me the f&ck’ out of here’.

    Delusional, Sam. You need to get back on the meds.

  • 4. Samuel  |  June 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am

    Meaningful, whilst not the wrong word, probably doesn’t convey my point properly. Perhaps I should have elaborated.

    I wasn’t implying that I am more important than anyone else.

    Baron, suppose you were to stop five people on the street and ask them what they think about a major news story of the day (I’m going to assume they are willing to talk to you here). If you didn’t know the first four people, you probably wouldn’t relate to them, you would probably have a decent chat with them and you would exchange opinions, but as you don’t know anything about these people, your chat probably won’t stray far from the topic.

    If you know the fifth person, you will probably discuss the topic, but also deviate on to another subject…possibly a followup to something you were talking about last week, or an enquiry about the person’s family.

    The point is, the conversation you will have with the person you know is going to be a bit more “natural” than the conversations with people you don’t know.

    Incidentally, I would have thought this sentence from my earlier comment conveyed that point quite well.

    I fall in to the first category. I think the second category is more important because it provides a better overview of the general opinion of the listeners, however my category has an important role as well.

    I’m sorry that you have so much trouble understanding my comments…you clearly look at them from an entirely different perspective to me because I wouldn’t have a clue how you come up with some of your statements in reply to things I’ve written…it’s as if you’re ignoring large chunks of my comments or reading them backwards or something.

  • 5. John_T  |  June 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    In your E-Mail to Stuart (Bocking?), you mentioned that the road collapse was no ones fault.

    According to information provided to me, In fact, it was. The exact same issue previously occured a number of years ago, and the gap was merely filled in with gravel, and covered with a roadbase (tarmac). More recently, the road was re-sealed, as that section of road had experienced slumping, as a result of the gravel.

    Now, I’m unsure as to the extent of your knowledge of Geology, and the like, but to fill an area that experienced, and still experiences water erosion with gravel is ludocrous, as gravel (not the gravel itself) is porous in a situation like that, therefore this will result in it being washed away, as did occur.

    The most likely reason gravel was chosen is because it is cheap, and quick, therefore exposing corner cutting by whoever carried these works out. This cost cutting simply endangered lives, and something like this should not happen.

    Therefore, after analysing that material, it is clearly someones fault, and they should fry for this. 5 innocent lives lost to save a few dollars, now that makes me sick.

    The only soultion would be an arch bridge, completely clearing the gap, posing a lesser risk.

  • 6. Samuel  |  June 14th, 2007 at 3:24 am

    Yes John, the email was to Stuart Bocking.

    I wasn’t aware that it had happened previously. In that case someone certainly is to blame, I hope they are brought to account and the road replaced with something less prone to water erosion.

    I am still disappointed that various government bodies were trying to absolve themselves of blame on the weekend, and were blaming other government bodies. It’s a pointless, petty and disgusting game, and I eagerly await the result of the coronial inquest.

    (And why does the spell checker in Firefox insist that “coronial” is not a word, and needs to be replaced by “coronal” or “colonial”?)

  • 7. John_T  |  June 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Thats true, the blame game happened too early, and was innapropriate.

    Thats why I use Internet Explorer! *ducks for cover*

  • 8. Samuel  |  June 15th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Apart from now suspecting that you go by the alias James Scolland, I’m not quite sure I follow the last line of your comment John.

    For what it’s worth, I actually quite like IE7, not as much as I like Firefox, but it’s a big improvement on IE6.


Calendar

June 2007
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Recent Posts

Search Blog or Web

Login/Logout

Ads By Google


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in