Photos prove that Boscombe surf reef works, says snapper Paul Humber

IT WORKS! Photographic proof that Boscombe surf reef is not a failure according to Paul Humber. Picture: paulhumberdesign.com.

GIVE US A WAVE: Surfing the reef. Picture: paulhumberdesign.com

First published in News by

THE camera never lies, according to one satisfied surfer who claims he has photographic proof that Europe’s first artificial reef does work.

Paul Humber from Southbourne took to the waves with an underwater camera to dispel criticism of the much-maligned £3 million Boscombe tourist attraction.

He said: “These pictures prove the reef is not a failure and can produce amazing waves. I believe all the negativity stems from a lack of understanding about waves, how they are created and what affects them.”

Bournemouth Echo: Boscombe surf reef by Paul Humber. paulhumberdesign.com.

Click the image to see it full size....

Paul, 28, told the Daily Echo how he and his friends had surfed the reef many times. “From the beach it doesn’t look so great; people don’t believe us when we tell them how good the surfing is out there.”

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?

Click on the link at the bottom of this story for more

Bournemouth Echo: Boscombe surf reef taken by Paul Humber. paulhumberdesign.com

Click the image to see it full size....

The freelance graphic designer added: “I’ve surfed at Boscombe for about 15 years. Surfing conditions have definitely improved since the reef was built; it’s easily doubled the number of days I’ve been in the water.”

His stunning photographs of his friends James Blackwell and Paul Middlewick were taken earlier this month. He said: “There were 30mph onshore winds which helped but conditions weren’t unusual for this time of the year.

“It is not a perfect wave but they were never going to get it spot-on first time. It can be assessed and then tweaked.”

But his sentiments aren’t shared by experienced surfer and water sports photographer Chris Skone-Roberts who lives near Boscombe pier.

He said: “The camera does lie. You can capture the image but you can’t show the ride length. We are hitting the best swell of the year but the reef still isn’t creating a surfable wave you can ride onto the beach.

“What was promised was a five-star wave. The reef was built too steep and at the wrong angle; it’s still not working or produced a surfable wave better than the pier.

“The best thing they can do is pump thousands of tonnes of gravel onto the reef, split the bags open and let nature take its course. Then people could dive on it and it could become a marine haven.”

Comments (158)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:15am Fri 8 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

Cracking photos but am still not convinced it 'works' - on the west side of Boscombe pier has always been better for surfing
Cracking photos but am still not convinced it 'works' - on the west side of Boscombe pier has always been better for surfing MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

10:31am Fri 8 Oct 10

Azphreal says...

I suppose that when you take into account that the photos were shot on an angle to make the waves look bigger and the fact that you can see no buildings on the beach (even though there is the pier and other buildings there) you can understand why people think something is up with them.
I suppose that when you take into account that the photos were shot on an angle to make the waves look bigger and the fact that you can see no buildings on the beach (even though there is the pier and other buildings there) you can understand why people think something is up with them. Azphreal
  • Score: 0

10:33am Fri 8 Oct 10

cpolak says...

Full marks. Very creative!!
Full marks. Very creative!! cpolak
  • Score: 0

10:37am Fri 8 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

Creative being the operative word
Creative being the operative word MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

10:48am Fri 8 Oct 10

Syd Poumen says...

Is that the ghost of Elvis I see looking down from the sky in this Blue Hawaii scene?
Is that the ghost of Elvis I see looking down from the sky in this Blue Hawaii scene? Syd Poumen
  • Score: 0

11:25am Fri 8 Oct 10

HanM says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Full Marks to Mr Humber, we need someone to show the positive
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Full Marks to Mr Humber, we need someone to show the positive HanM
  • Score: 0

11:27am Fri 8 Oct 10

HanM says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Did not see all the cynics surfing that day, Too Big for your paddle boards!!!
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Did not see all the cynics surfing that day, Too Big for your paddle boards!!! HanM
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 8 Oct 10

Marge n Homer says...

At last a day that has some surf...
At last a day that has some surf... Marge n Homer
  • Score: 0

11:55am Fri 8 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Paul Humber’
Me compliment to yer sir tis a pretty picture. How interesting that ye be a creative designer!! Also that on the 30th September ye still be stating that “IF” ye got a piccie of ‘surfing’ yer prove me wrong, also it be right fortunate that this ‘wave’ did arrive “earlier this month”. This be a lot of coincidences especially as in me former occupation I TOO worked fer 18yrs in ‘Print & Design’ even then they be clever little boxes of conjurors tools to plug in. No depth, no scale, no identifiable landmarks, in short sir thar only piece of unquestionable evidence that thy pic be offering is yer logo WWW.paulhumber.com, this not a question of sour grapes, trust me I be too old fer small games like that.
Ahoy ‘Paul Humber’ Me compliment to yer sir tis a pretty picture. How interesting that ye be a creative designer!! Also that on the 30th September ye still be stating that “IF” ye got a piccie of ‘surfing’ yer prove me wrong, also it be right fortunate that this ‘wave’ did arrive “earlier this month”. This be a lot of coincidences especially as in me former occupation I TOO worked fer 18yrs in ‘Print & Design’ even then they be clever little boxes of conjurors tools to plug in. No depth, no scale, no identifiable landmarks, in short sir thar only piece of unquestionable evidence that thy pic be offering is yer logo WWW.paulhumber.com, this not a question of sour grapes, trust me I be too old fer small games like that. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Schooners says...

Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps

1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.

2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")

3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.

So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.

If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.

Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.

Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.

Video please next time, show us video!!!
Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps 1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future. 2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6") 3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work. So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK. If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong. Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working. Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide. Video please next time, show us video!!! Schooners
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 8 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

It's not shopped or fake, they ARE footage grabs from a go pro.

@Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important!

I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face.
It's not shopped or fake, they ARE footage grabs from a go pro. @Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important! I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Schooners says...

Now that really made me laugh, a surfer asking the question, 'why so obsessed with length'?

Simple question, simple answer.....because I like to ride waves not jump on them and be thrown off immediately.

Surfable waves have many features, of which the reef sadly has none. In addition I have been slapped in the face by thousand of wave all over the world and all of them better than the reef. You cant beat the Piers for local waves unless you wanna go to K Bay.

Rearrange these words....'Straws You Clutching At Are!' :-)
Now that really made me laugh, a surfer asking the question, 'why so obsessed with length'? Simple question, simple answer.....because I like to ride waves not jump on them and be thrown off immediately. Surfable waves have many features, of which the reef sadly has none. In addition I have been slapped in the face by thousand of wave all over the world and all of them better than the reef. You cant beat the Piers for local waves unless you wanna go to K Bay. Rearrange these words....'Straws You Clutching At Are!' :-) Schooners
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

SneakyB wrote:
It's not shopped or fake, they ARE footage grabs from a go pro.

@Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important!

I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face.
Ahoy ‘SneakyB’,
Tis with pleasure I read yer comment, I rather feel though yer have inadvertently proved us ‘critics’ correct, there be NO decent waves to slap us in thy face with!! Let me pose yerself and other supporters of ‘Weights Elephant’ a excruciatingly simple question IF it be thar £3.6m success ye claim, why oh stamp me ivory, why do thee keep defending it??? Its own performance would silence all.

P.S. another apt secrity word, grow-more
[quote][p][bold]SneakyB[/bold] wrote: It's not shopped or fake, they ARE footage grabs from a go pro. @Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important! I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face.[/p][/quote]Ahoy ‘SneakyB’, Tis with pleasure I read yer comment, I rather feel though yer have inadvertently proved us ‘critics’ correct, there be NO decent waves to slap us in thy face with!! Let me pose yerself and other supporters of ‘Weights Elephant’ a excruciatingly simple question IF it be thar £3.6m success ye claim, why oh stamp me ivory, why do thee keep defending it??? Its own performance would silence all. P.S. another apt secrity word, grow-more Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Fri 8 Oct 10

time nor Tide says...

Dear paul, I am glad you are finding enjoyment there. Seems that its not everyones cup of tea though? Have fun and take it easy. TnTnT
Dear paul, I am glad you are finding enjoyment there. Seems that its not everyones cup of tea though? Have fun and take it easy. TnTnT time nor Tide
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Fri 8 Oct 10

peterpweb says...

Is this more of Sharons spin?
Is this more of Sharons spin? peterpweb
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Fri 8 Oct 10

HanM says...

This is all so very laughable, Can't please all the people all of the time. Fair play to all those going out on the reef and enjoying it, more waves for you guys
This is all so very laughable, Can't please all the people all of the time. Fair play to all those going out on the reef and enjoying it, more waves for you guys HanM
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 8 Oct 10

BeLLeR1989 says...

To answer everyones questions and doubts about the height of the wave and location of where these shots were taken, click on the link below to see the sequences of the shots.

http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&fbid=151102271594
167&ref=mf

You will find it was a very late take off and from being an experienced bodyboarder the drop was well recoverd and did not get lipped. The only danger in bournemouth's waters are kook's surfboards. Which is 99% of surfers??

We are really please with the reef's turn out, and hope to keep the inexperienced surfers to the shores where there are slow, weak waves that crumble. Just how you all like it!
So we can enjoy the heaviness, tubes and ramps in safety.

Ace shots Humber!
To answer everyones questions and doubts about the height of the wave and location of where these shots were taken, click on the link below to see the sequences of the shots. http://www.facebook. com/album.php?aid=24 276&id=1359276231116 32&fbid=151102271594 167&ref=mf You will find it was a very late take off and from being an experienced bodyboarder the drop was well recoverd and did not get lipped. The only danger in bournemouth's waters are kook's surfboards. Which is 99% of surfers?? We are really please with the reef's turn out, and hope to keep the inexperienced surfers to the shores where there are slow, weak waves that crumble. Just how you all like it! So we can enjoy the heaviness, tubes and ramps in safety. Ace shots Humber! BeLLeR1989
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

Perhaps Mr Humber could use his undoubted photographic skills to take a few photos of the surf pods - photos that show dozens of smiling folk enjoying their spacious seafront properties.

.

Perhaps they could also be shown lovingly gazing towards the upmarket cafes and smart shops at the pierhead.

.

And, whilst credibility is being stretched, maybe Nessie could be seen poking her head round the end of the pier as well.
Perhaps Mr Humber could use his undoubted photographic skills to take a few photos of the surf pods - photos that show dozens of smiling folk enjoying their spacious seafront properties. . Perhaps they could also be shown lovingly gazing towards the upmarket cafes and smart shops at the pierhead. . And, whilst credibility is being stretched, maybe Nessie could be seen poking her head round the end of the pier as well. Bob49
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 8 Oct 10

poolebabe says...

HanM wrote:
This is all so very laughable, Can't please all the people all of the time. Fair play to all those going out on the reef and enjoying it, more waves for you guys
Well said!! At least the council have tried to invest money in that area to create better use of that beach, that will in time generate more income for the town. Boscombe Beach has certainly improved a lot in recent years and I say hats off to the council for it. So the surf reef isn't perfect, but it seems to be doing the job for some who are taking time to comment on what they know, rather than what they don't. It's nice to hear some positive for once.
[quote][p][bold]HanM[/bold] wrote: This is all so very laughable, Can't please all the people all of the time. Fair play to all those going out on the reef and enjoying it, more waves for you guys[/p][/quote]Well said!! At least the council have tried to invest money in that area to create better use of that beach, that will in time generate more income for the town. Boscombe Beach has certainly improved a lot in recent years and I say hats off to the council for it. So the surf reef isn't perfect, but it seems to be doing the job for some who are taking time to comment on what they know, rather than what they don't. It's nice to hear some positive for once. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Fri 8 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Hahaha! So your saying, Newport Wedge, Teahupoo, Rilies, The Box, even mid sized Pipe ..etc are crap because their not walled up 250m longboard waves!? Short waves can be world class but any wave without power is worthless. I know the reef isn't comparable to the above examples but it certainly holds its own in this area.

Ask yourself this, when was the last time you had a true stand up barrel at the pier!? I've seen this many times on the reef now.

Also don't be afraid of a smackdown every now and again, your not made of glass.
Hahaha! So your saying, Newport Wedge, Teahupoo, Rilies, The Box, even mid sized Pipe ..etc are crap because their not walled up 250m longboard waves!? Short waves can be world class but any wave without power is worthless. I know the reef isn't comparable to the above examples but it certainly holds its own in this area. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you had a true stand up barrel at the pier!? I've seen this many times on the reef now. Also don't be afraid of a smackdown every now and again, your not made of glass. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Paul Humber says...

Azphreal, MikeFrench, Syd Poumen, Capt. Ahab and anybody else questioning my integrity I suggest you take a look at the link BeLLeR1989 has posted above.

Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps.
1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this:
http://magicseaweed.
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=79190

You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about.
2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is?
3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter.
regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach!
Azphreal, MikeFrench, Syd Poumen, Capt. Ahab and anybody else questioning my integrity I suggest you take a look at the link BeLLeR1989 has posted above. Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps. 1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this: http://magicseaweed. com/photoLab/viewPho to.php?photoId=79190 You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about. 2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is? 3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter. regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach! Paul Humber
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Fri 8 Oct 10

flying envelope says...

I just clicked on the top image and got a picture of Doodle Dor
I just clicked on the top image and got a picture of Doodle Dor flying envelope
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Fri 8 Oct 10

TheDistrict says...

No matter what, it is still a vast waste of money to spend out for a few over zealous water babies. The Reef does not work in its entirety, and never will do. I have some good pictures of waves taken out at sea, which have been made to look bigger, and rougher than they are. The fact is, money over useage does not equate. Get real.
No matter what, it is still a vast waste of money to spend out for a few over zealous water babies. The Reef does not work in its entirety, and never will do. I have some good pictures of waves taken out at sea, which have been made to look bigger, and rougher than they are. The fact is, money over useage does not equate. Get real. TheDistrict
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Schooners says...

There is NO photoshoping on that image. Just turn the screen to the side and you can see how poor that wave is.

Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective.

All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE.

I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not.

I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar.

Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is

NUFF said.

http://www.google.co
.uk/imgres?imgurl=ht
tp://www.odditycentr
al.com/wp-content/up
loads/2008/11/surfin
g_mouse.jpg&imgrefur
l=http://www.oddityc
entral.com/funny/the
-incredible-surfing-
mice.html&usg=__7j8A
jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0
JUI=&h=443&w=550&sz=
61&hl=en&start=0&sig
2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54
k16Q&zoom=1&tbnid=ef
6gyd7L-xX96M:&tbnh=1
16&tbnw=144&ei=5TCvT
LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&pr
ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur
fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D
1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3
Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw%
3D1024%26bih%3D505%2
6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&i
tbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=73
3&vpy=65&dur=1109&ho
vh=201&hovw=250&tx=1
68&ty=132&oei=5TCvTL
rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&esq
=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ve
d=1t:429,r:4,s:0
There is NO photoshoping on that image. Just turn the screen to the side and you can see how poor that wave is. Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective. All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE. I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not. I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar. Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is NUFF said. http://www.google.co .uk/imgres?imgurl=ht tp://www.odditycentr al.com/wp-content/up loads/2008/11/surfin g_mouse.jpg&imgrefur l=http://www.oddityc entral.com/funny/the -incredible-surfing- mice.html&usg=__7j8A jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0 JUI=&h=443&w=550&sz= 61&hl=en&start=0&sig 2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54 k16Q&zoom=1&tbnid=ef 6gyd7L-xX96M:&tbnh=1 16&tbnw=144&ei=5TCvT LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&pr ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3 Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw% 3D1024%26bih%3D505%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&i tbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=73 3&vpy=65&dur=1109&ho vh=201&hovw=250&tx=1 68&ty=132&oei=5TCvTL rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&esq =1&page=1&ndsp=15&ve d=1t:429,r:4,s:0 Schooners
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Fri 8 Oct 10

flying envelope says...

I would like to thank the councillor who made all this possible you certainly pulled it off
I would like to thank the councillor who made all this possible you certainly pulled it off flying envelope
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Fri 8 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

A waist of money?

"A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m."

Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
A waist of money? "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..? SneakyB
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Fri 8 Oct 10

bh6booger says...

Schooners wrote:
There is NO photoshoping on that image. Just turn the screen to the side and you can see how poor that wave is. Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective. All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE. I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not. I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar. Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is NUFF said. http://www.google.co .uk/imgres?imgurl=ht tp://www.odditycentr al.com/wp-content/up loads/2008/11/surfin g_mouse.jpg&imgr
efur l=http://www.oddityc entral.com/funny/the -incredible-surfing- mice.html&usg=__
7j8A jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0 JUI=&h=443&w
=550&sz= 61&hl=en&sta
rt=0&sig 2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54 k16Q&zoom=1&
tbnid=ef 6gyd7L-xX96M:&tb
nh=1 16&tbnw=144&
ei=5TCvT LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&am
p;pr ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3 Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw% 3D1024%26bih%3D505%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um
=1&i tbs=1&iact=hc&am
p;vpx=73 3&vpy=65&dur
=1109&ho vh=201&hovw=250&
amp;tx=1 68&ty=132&oe
i=5TCvTL rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&amp
;esq =1&page=1&nd
sp=15&ve d=1t:429,r:4,s:0
schooners and all the haters you must be bored ! You sound like the rest of bournemouth standup's,, KOOKS.
Why so negative! It's clearly a good wave pictured, no it's not a cover shot but a video still from a go pro cam. Touch of green eyed monster I say. I love to see pics of you ripping, send them in?! Plenty of good pics on m'seaweed of the reef last winter. Why don't you have a look.
You and others say it's rubbish, truth is you can't handle anything more than a slow crumbly 2ft beach break.
See you on the reef 'surf dude'
[quote][p][bold]Schooners[/bold] wrote: There is NO photoshoping on that image. Just turn the screen to the side and you can see how poor that wave is. Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective. All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE. I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not. I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar. Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is NUFF said. http://www.google.co .uk/imgres?imgurl=ht tp://www.odditycentr al.com/wp-content/up loads/2008/11/surfin g_mouse.jpg&imgr efur l=http://www.oddityc entral.com/funny/the -incredible-surfing- mice.html&usg=__ 7j8A jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0 JUI=&h=443&w =550&sz= 61&hl=en&sta rt=0&sig 2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54 k16Q&zoom=1& tbnid=ef 6gyd7L-xX96M:&tb nh=1 16&tbnw=144& ei=5TCvT LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&am p;pr ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3 Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw% 3D1024%26bih%3D505%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um =1&i tbs=1&iact=hc&am p;vpx=73 3&vpy=65&dur =1109&ho vh=201&hovw=250& amp;tx=1 68&ty=132&oe i=5TCvTL rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ& ;esq =1&page=1&nd sp=15&ve d=1t:429,r:4,s:0[/p][/quote]schooners and all the haters you must be bored ! You sound like the rest of bournemouth standup's,, KOOKS. Why so negative! It's clearly a good wave pictured, no it's not a cover shot but a video still from a go pro cam. Touch of green eyed monster I say. I love to see pics of you ripping, send them in?! Plenty of good pics on m'seaweed of the reef last winter. Why don't you have a look. You and others say it's rubbish, truth is you can't handle anything more than a slow crumbly 2ft beach break. See you on the reef 'surf dude' bh6booger
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Fri 8 Oct 10

captsanders says...

Where were those pictures taken, Newquay or perranporth.
Where were those pictures taken, Newquay or perranporth. captsanders
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Paul Humber’
Tis not unexpected fer yer ‘Phantom surfers’ to be collectively all ‘surfing’ on here, even more new names as well!! Yer still aint answered me and I suspect a barrel load of more Brethrens questions………
.”If it do work as promised, fer £3.6m. Why (this truly cannot be a difficult word to interpret) do yer keep on defending it?????
As fer stating because of ‘Weights Elephant’ “Boscombe will benefit from more income…. in time” Will benefit from what? A pile of flotsam that have bin tossed overboard from an over active imagination? It already be a unmitigated disaster, how pray do thee draw that conclusion that in time it will ‘self heal’, do thee consider it reasonable that yer BBC spent so much of yer gold coins on the ‘utterances’ of, now I must get this part correct fer fear of castigation and slander, oh yes ‘experts’ thar very man that ‘launched a 3.6 million investment of gold coins that promptly sunk’.. some epitaph to carry through history eh?
Sir, upon me oath yer humour be truly beyond even me crews ‘Tangental musings’. As ye have refused to answer me question “Why do ye keep having to defend Weights Elephant” Believe me, as a viable investment fer thy collective Brethren, it don’t make sense when tis yer own perpetrator that confesses it do need a ‘Tweaking’, yer own BBC be consulting behind closed doors (still, in spite of promised openness) because it don’t ‘perform’, yer local surfers disagree with yerself and even yer much published Plymouth University agreed it AINT what were promised or paid fer. I cannot accept yer good selfs defence fer ‘Weights Elephant’ as admirable, do yer really believe that ‘£3.6m froth’ be a wave fer Boscombe to proud of? It be best to consider yer continued resistance to reality be inconsequential in any event.
Regards, Ahab.
Ahoy ‘Paul Humber’ Tis not unexpected fer yer ‘Phantom surfers’ to be collectively all ‘surfing’ on here, even more new names as well!! Yer still aint answered me and I suspect a barrel load of more Brethrens questions……… .”If it do work as promised, fer £3.6m. Why (this truly cannot be a difficult word to interpret) do yer keep on defending it????? As fer stating because of ‘Weights Elephant’ “Boscombe will benefit from more income…. in time” Will benefit from what? A pile of flotsam that have bin tossed overboard from an over active imagination? It already be a unmitigated disaster, how pray do thee draw that conclusion that in time it will ‘self heal’, do thee consider it reasonable that yer BBC spent so much of yer gold coins on the ‘utterances’ of, now I must get this part correct fer fear of castigation and slander, oh yes ‘experts’ thar very man that ‘launched a 3.6 million investment of gold coins that promptly sunk’.. some epitaph to carry through history eh? Sir, upon me oath yer humour be truly beyond even me crews ‘Tangental musings’. As ye have refused to answer me question “Why do ye keep having to defend Weights Elephant” Believe me, as a viable investment fer thy collective Brethren, it don’t make sense when tis yer own perpetrator that confesses it do need a ‘Tweaking’, yer own BBC be consulting behind closed doors (still, in spite of promised openness) because it don’t ‘perform’, yer local surfers disagree with yerself and even yer much published Plymouth University agreed it AINT what were promised or paid fer. I cannot accept yer good selfs defence fer ‘Weights Elephant’ as admirable, do yer really believe that ‘£3.6m froth’ be a wave fer Boscombe to proud of? It be best to consider yer continued resistance to reality be inconsequential in any event. Regards, Ahab. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Fri 8 Oct 10

rainbowkisses says...

Whether the photo is real or not isn't really the point, although personally I think it is false. To me the point is, just what did the residents of Bournemouth get for their £3 million +? So a few people get to ride on a wave now and then. Just how much money is this bringing into Bournemouth? We all agree that cleaning up the front is a good thing, but there is no doubt that the pier, awards included, is a total waste of space and money. The pods are not selling, and don't look like they will anytime soon. The reef itself is a failure. I see more peole surfing on the west side of the pier then I ever do on the reef itself. No amount of talk is going to change peoples minds. The only good thing I can see from Mr Humbers story, is the fact that our so called leader will be sending him a Christmas card, and no doubt he will manage to spin this story into his blog somehow.
Whether the photo is real or not isn't really the point, although personally I think it is false. To me the point is, just what did the residents of Bournemouth get for their £3 million +? So a few people get to ride on a wave now and then. Just how much money is this bringing into Bournemouth? We all agree that cleaning up the front is a good thing, but there is no doubt that the pier, awards included, is a total waste of space and money. The pods are not selling, and don't look like they will anytime soon. The reef itself is a failure. I see more peole surfing on the west side of the pier then I ever do on the reef itself. No amount of talk is going to change peoples minds. The only good thing I can see from Mr Humbers story, is the fact that our so called leader will be sending him a Christmas card, and no doubt he will manage to spin this story into his blog somehow. rainbowkisses
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

SneakyB wrote:
A waist of money? "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
WHAT A PILE OF DRIVEL !

.

As well your admittance that these are only claims demonstrates.

.

The front was not a junkies paradise. They never ventured that far down Sea Road. It's not full of surfers, I walk along that part most days and there has been NO change in numbers, likewise with visitors. As to the wealthy professionals they drive into their gated complex and remain behind closed gates.

.

If there is to be a reasoned debate about the reef and the sea front then it needs to start from a basis of honesty - that is something that has been constantly missing from those trying to defend the Emperors New Clothes.


.

Read the original claims, read the earlier promises and on every point this sham has failed ...... even on the budget, where we now have a massive shortfall of £3m to find.

.


I wonder if these apologists on here will be so quick to conjure up new names so they can appear numerous times in the queue of volunteers willing to pay the cost of that overspend.
[quote][p][bold]SneakyB[/bold] wrote: A waist of money? "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?[/p][/quote]WHAT A PILE OF DRIVEL ! . As well your admittance that these are only claims demonstrates. . The front was not a junkies paradise. They never ventured that far down Sea Road. It's not full of surfers, I walk along that part most days and there has been NO change in numbers, likewise with visitors. As to the wealthy professionals they drive into their gated complex and remain behind closed gates. . If there is to be a reasoned debate about the reef and the sea front then it needs to start from a basis of honesty - that is something that has been constantly missing from those trying to defend the Emperors New Clothes. . Read the original claims, read the earlier promises and on every point this sham has failed ...... even on the budget, where we now have a massive shortfall of £3m to find. . I wonder if these apologists on here will be so quick to conjure up new names so they can appear numerous times in the queue of volunteers willing to pay the cost of that overspend. Bob49
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Was Charlie says...

Looks dramatioc purely because it's been taken at an angle. Rotate it about 20 degrees left and you'll get a more true idea of what the wave was like.
.....
I can take a photo of my other half crawling along our flat drive and make it look like she's climbing up slope just by taking it at an angle.
.....
The camera definitely CAN lie.
Looks dramatioc purely because it's been taken at an angle. Rotate it about 20 degrees left and you'll get a more true idea of what the wave was like. ..... I can take a photo of my other half crawling along our flat drive and make it look like she's climbing up slope just by taking it at an angle. ..... The camera definitely CAN lie. Was Charlie
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Pro bono publico says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Isn't it wonderful what you can do with Photoshop? (other graphic manipulation tools are also available)
***
Ha! Security word = very-many!
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?Isn't it wonderful what you can do with Photoshop? (other graphic manipulation tools are also available) *** Ha! Security word = very-many! Pro bono publico
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Max Green says...

To everyone questioning the validity of these photos; that really emphasizes the ridiculousness of your opinions. Are you so tied to failure and negativity, you can't admit you're surprised by the reef upclose?

Fine if you don't feel that the surf reef was the investment of your choice. But find something better to do than spend countless hours over- analyzing and discouraging the whole experience.

Anyone who calls themselves a surfer, especially one that lives in boscombe, and then goes on to say that the reef doesn't work - or is worse that the beach - is clearly a joke.

Even after photos of the reef clearly in action you still can't come to grips with reality - what a shame. Here's a news flash. The reef, the seafront, paul...this is the future of boscombe. And if you don't like it...crawl back into some dark dirty hole deep in bournemouth and stay there.
To everyone questioning the validity of these photos; that really emphasizes the ridiculousness of your opinions. Are you so tied to failure and negativity, you can't admit you're surprised by the reef upclose? Fine if you don't feel that the surf reef was the investment of your choice. But find something better to do than spend countless hours over- analyzing and discouraging the whole experience. Anyone who calls themselves a surfer, especially one that lives in boscombe, and then goes on to say that the reef doesn't work - or is worse that the beach - is clearly a joke. Even after photos of the reef clearly in action you still can't come to grips with reality - what a shame. Here's a news flash. The reef, the seafront, paul...this is the future of boscombe. And if you don't like it...crawl back into some dark dirty hole deep in bournemouth and stay there. Max Green
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Fri 8 Oct 10

adman77 says...

I feel it is incredibly rude and disrespectful to claim paul's photos are fake, I was surfing that day and know these lads and what the conditions were like, the pictures are not fake.
What "really" would they have to gain from faking pictures of the reef?
OK it cost 3 million, big deal, Id rather my tax money goes on something like this that people will enjoy than for it to go some work shy dirty chav that just pops out a few kids to blag money from the state.
All the Negativity(mainly from non surfers) is disappointing, come on its bringing in visitors improved the area a great deal, given us another spot to surf, and nice bars and restaurants to enjoy.
OK its not the wave they designed it to be, its faster, hollower and more challenging. The sport is about pushing yourself, getting better not wimping out.
And whats with the pirate style chat?

SneakyB your spot on with your comments.
I feel it is incredibly rude and disrespectful to claim paul's photos are fake, I was surfing that day and know these lads and what the conditions were like, the pictures are not fake. What "really" would they have to gain from faking pictures of the reef? OK it cost 3 million, big deal, Id rather my tax money goes on something like this that people will enjoy than for it to go some work shy dirty chav that just pops out a few kids to blag money from the state. All the Negativity(mainly from non surfers) is disappointing, come on its bringing in visitors improved the area a great deal, given us another spot to surf, and nice bars and restaurants to enjoy. OK its not the wave they designed it to be, its faster, hollower and more challenging. The sport is about pushing yourself, getting better not wimping out. And whats with the pirate style chat? SneakyB your spot on with your comments. adman77
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Fri 8 Oct 10

BeLLeR1989 says...

I'll send you the link to the shots of this day AGAIN then. Why are you saying these are photoshopped? It breaks like this everytime theres a 2ft wave but obviously not as big and hectic. Just paddle out and take a look. But i'd rather you didn't surf it, as it has eaten quite a few kook's surfboards already. Don't really want them flying around.
Or Humber just put up the video footage as this is where these pics are from!! It will shut all the surfer cool dudes up! haha
Here's the link AGAIN!
http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&fbid=151102271594
167&ref=mf
I'll send you the link to the shots of this day AGAIN then. Why are you saying these are photoshopped? It breaks like this everytime theres a 2ft wave but obviously not as big and hectic. Just paddle out and take a look. But i'd rather you didn't surf it, as it has eaten quite a few kook's surfboards already. Don't really want them flying around. Or Humber just put up the video footage as this is where these pics are from!! It will shut all the surfer cool dudes up! haha Here's the link AGAIN! http://www.facebook. com/album.php?aid=24 276&id=1359276231116 32&fbid=151102271594 167&ref=mf BeLLeR1989
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Fri 8 Oct 10

captsanders says...

“It is not a perfect wave but they were never going to get it spot-on first time. It can be assessed and then tweaked.”

"Tweaked", it needs more than tweaking to justify the cost of this white elephant.
The waves do look impressive but then most photo's look impresive when taken at a certain angle, a six inch ripple can be made to look like a tsunami, the movie industry have been doing it for years.
“It is not a perfect wave but they were never going to get it spot-on first time. It can be assessed and then tweaked.” "Tweaked", it needs more than tweaking to justify the cost of this white elephant. The waves do look impressive but then most photo's look impresive when taken at a certain angle, a six inch ripple can be made to look like a tsunami, the movie industry have been doing it for years. captsanders
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

"SneakyB your spot on with your comments"

.

err no. There is NO verification of his figures, they are no more than claims. Why would that be ? Surely the council would have used a reputable market research company. Why did they not ?.

.

The claims of changed seafront use are also false, as did the proposed benefits turn out to be false. Nor are there bars and restuarants. the pub was there before. What happened to the cafes on the pier ?

.

And if a measure of the value of the argument being put up by these apologists for failure then the claim that the £12million has not been wasted as it has not been spent on a "work shy dirty chav".

.


So by that measure then the Imax, the Boscombe fountain and the money spent on hiring a barrister to investigate MacLoughlin was not a waste of money either - because the money was not spent on a work shy dirty chav".

.


The sad thing is I'm sure that some of these apologists actually believe that there are folk out there who swallow their fantasies.
"SneakyB your spot on with your comments" . err no. There is NO verification of his figures, they are no more than claims. Why would that be ? Surely the council would have used a reputable market research company. Why did they not ?. . The claims of changed seafront use are also false, as did the proposed benefits turn out to be false. Nor are there bars and restuarants. the pub was there before. What happened to the cafes on the pier ? . And if a measure of the value of the argument being put up by these apologists for failure then the claim that the £12million has not been wasted as it has not been spent on a "work shy dirty chav". . So by that measure then the Imax, the Boscombe fountain and the money spent on hiring a barrister to investigate MacLoughlin was not a waste of money either - because the money was not spent on a work shy dirty chav". . The sad thing is I'm sure that some of these apologists actually believe that there are folk out there who swallow their fantasies. Bob49
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Fri 8 Oct 10

flying envelope says...

So you think the long pull pics where taken in the kitchen sink ...............whate
ver
So you think the long pull pics where taken in the kitchen sink ...............whate ver flying envelope
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Fri 8 Oct 10

LoudCore says...

Schooners wrote:
Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps

1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.

2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")

3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.

So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.

If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.

Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.

Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.

Video please next time, show us video!!!
Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped!
You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding....
Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time
[quote][p][bold]Schooners[/bold] wrote: Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps 1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future. 2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6") 3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work. So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK. If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong. Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working. Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide. Video please next time, show us video!!![/p][/quote]Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped! You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding.... Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time LoudCore
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Gazz43 says...

I have made several contributions on various stories about the reef as and when they have come up, and basically have always seen the bigger picture of this whole project as being very positive for the area. So to all those fellow positive replies good on ya and also to photographer for standing up for himself against all the usual moaners and wingers that always come out to play. As for the pirate talk, what a complete tool you are, your not funny pal in any shape or form so just stop being a complete prat and winge on in normal language if you really must, yawn!!! See some of you guys on the reef on my turbo lilo (surf mat) soon, Gaz
I have made several contributions on various stories about the reef as and when they have come up, and basically have always seen the bigger picture of this whole project as being very positive for the area. So to all those fellow positive replies good on ya and also to photographer for standing up for himself against all the usual moaners and wingers that always come out to play. As for the pirate talk, what a complete tool you are, your not funny pal in any shape or form so just stop being a complete prat and winge on in normal language if you really must, yawn!!! See some of you guys on the reef on my turbo lilo (surf mat) soon, Gaz Gazz43
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Fri 8 Oct 10

Rally says...

Hmm, that wave is certainly higher than any I have seen in Poole Bay in 62 years of living in Bournemouth.
So, exactly how high is this wave?
If the surfer is around 6 feet tall, then it looks like 20 to 30 feet, and that can't be right - or can it?
Hmm, that wave is certainly higher than any I have seen in Poole Bay in 62 years of living in Bournemouth. So, exactly how high is this wave? If the surfer is around 6 feet tall, then it looks like 20 to 30 feet, and that can't be right - or can it? Rally
  • Score: 0

8:26am Sat 9 Oct 10

Azphreal says...

When will Bournemouth council learn that 'regeneration' does not mean try to put in expensive properties. If the antisocial behaviour has dropped why have most of the residents of Boscombe noted it or do they just mean in that area by the beach? What about spending money nearer the centre of Boscombe? It seems that they only do things to bring in tourists and stuff the people who live here,Could we have our road cleaned when there is not an air show or a MP in the area please! Perfect code for the reef wait-jump lol
When will Bournemouth council learn that 'regeneration' does not mean try to put in expensive properties. If the antisocial behaviour has dropped why have most of the residents of Boscombe noted it or do they just mean in that area by the beach? What about spending money nearer the centre of Boscombe? It seems that they only do things to bring in tourists and stuff the people who live here,Could we have our road cleaned when there is not an air show or a MP in the area please! Perfect code for the reef wait-jump lol Azphreal
  • Score: 0

9:14am Sat 9 Oct 10

Lord Spring says...

If there was a wave, good job someone was there to photograph it.
If there was a wave, good job someone was there to photograph it. Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

9:59am Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

The improper use of statistics is summmarised by the term "cherry picking" The wiki defines it well.

"Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available."

.
following is this

"In statistics
Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuall'
.
It is my opinion that by the above definitions MR Humber is "cherrypicking" his data and thus his conclusions are erroneus, misleading and perhaps even falacious. The project seems far from being "a success" when all the timeline is examined.

I suggest he look at every day every month and every year before putting forward any assertion of sucess.
.
Fortunately that is being done and its conclusions are already sensed by everybody.
.
One plump ripe cherry does not make a sucessfull harvest - no matter how you dress it up and display it.
The improper use of statistics is summmarised by the term "cherry picking" The wiki defines it well. "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition. Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available." . following is this "In statistics Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuall' . It is my opinion that by the above definitions MR Humber is "cherrypicking" his data and thus his conclusions are erroneus, misleading and perhaps even falacious. The project seems far from being "a success" when all the timeline is examined. I suggest he look at every day every month and every year before putting forward any assertion of sucess. . Fortunately that is being done and its conclusions are already sensed by everybody. . One plump ripe cherry does not make a sucessfull harvest - no matter how you dress it up and display it. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:05am Sat 9 Oct 10

bh6booger says...

This just gets' funnier, it's obvious the the negative posts are coming from all the KOOK surfers we see stretching and doing push ups on the beach before they paddle out to 1ft wind chop, probably never caught a real wave, and other people that don't even surf, stop being so negative and find something else to think about! Jeez none of you KOOKS have any idea what your'e are talking about.
This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions.
This just gets' funnier, it's obvious the the negative posts are coming from all the KOOK surfers we see stretching and doing push ups on the beach before they paddle out to 1ft wind chop, probably never caught a real wave, and other people that don't even surf, stop being so negative and find something else to think about! Jeez none of you KOOKS have any idea what your'e are talking about. This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions. bh6booger
  • Score: 0

10:14am Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Then theres "Contextomy in advertising
One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews.

The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment"

Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do.
Then theres "Contextomy in advertising One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews.[7] The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the [original] endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment" Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:17am Sat 9 Oct 10

beachcomber1 says...

I walk past the "reef" many times, and I've seldom seen anyone using it. Proof of the pudding?
I walk past the "reef" many times, and I've seldom seen anyone using it. Proof of the pudding? beachcomber1
  • Score: 0

10:28am Sat 9 Oct 10

southbourne-core says...

mikal mhor wrote:
Then theres "Contextomy in advertising One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews. The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment" Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do.
zzzzzzzzz boring !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]mikal mhor[/bold] wrote: Then theres "Contextomy in advertising One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews.[7] The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the [original] endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment" Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do.[/p][/quote]zzzzzzzzz boring !!!!! southbourne-core
  • Score: 0

10:37am Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Then theres "Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)" for bh6booger&Co.
.

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .

*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
@SBC, you have to have the patience to read, comprehend and then understand to not be a vulnerable target over and over? (the sting)
Then theres "Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)" for bh6booger&Co. . The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion . *ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. . *ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. . @SBC, you have to have the patience to read, comprehend and then understand to not be a vulnerable target over and over? (the sting) mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:40am Sat 9 Oct 10

southbourne-core says...

http://magicseaweed.
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=13493
0&browseSession=cce8
716cf343b86deb42f952
b204fe7b
http://magicseaweed. com/photoLab/viewPho to.php?photoId=13493 0&browseSession=cce8 716cf343b86deb42f952 b204fe7b southbourne-core
  • Score: 0

10:45am Sat 9 Oct 10

southbourne-core says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?boring zzzz
ANYONE CAN COPY AND PASTE
If you have anything interesting to say please write it yourself, THE REEF WORKS
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?boring zzzz ANYONE CAN COPY AND PASTE If you have anything interesting to say please write it yourself, THE REEF WORKS southbourne-core
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

yes SBC , of course it does!
yes SBC , of course it does! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

11:32am Sat 9 Oct 10

kangman2012 says...

Hmm - graphic designer - camera - photoshop creative suite no doubt - why don't I trust this story ?
Hmm - graphic designer - camera - photoshop creative suite no doubt - why don't I trust this story ? kangman2012
  • Score: 0

11:43am Sat 9 Oct 10

Glashen says...

Great Photos, well done Paul, and well done for getting the usual suspects in such a tiz, been great fun reading the comments.
-
Good job they don't burn heretics anymore, some of the contributors on here would be first to light the bonfire.
Great Photos, well done Paul, and well done for getting the usual suspects in such a tiz, been great fun reading the comments. - Good job they don't burn heretics anymore, some of the contributors on here would be first to light the bonfire. Glashen
  • Score: 0

11:46am Sat 9 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

Paul Humber wrote:
Azphreal, MikeFrench, Syd Poumen, Capt. Ahab and anybody else questioning my integrity I suggest you take a look at the link BeLLeR1989 has posted above.

Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps.
1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this:
http://magicseaweed.

com/photoLab/viewPho

to.php?photoId=79190


You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about.
2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is?
3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter.
regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach!
So one day - 355 to go......
[quote][p][bold]Paul Humber[/bold] wrote: Azphreal, MikeFrench, Syd Poumen, Capt. Ahab and anybody else questioning my integrity I suggest you take a look at the link BeLLeR1989 has posted above. Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps. 1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this: http://magicseaweed. com/photoLab/viewPho to.php?photoId=79190 You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about. 2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is? 3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter. regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach![/p][/quote]So one day - 355 to go...... MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sat 9 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

SneakyB wrote:
A waist of money?

"A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m."

Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?

Really? - 5 years ago it used to be a nice place.
[quote][p][bold]SneakyB[/bold] wrote: A waist of money? "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?[/p][/quote]Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..? Really? - 5 years ago it used to be a nice place. MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

11:56am Sat 9 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

bh6booger wrote:
This just gets' funnier, it's obvious the the negative posts are coming from all the KOOK surfers we see stretching and doing push ups on the beach before they paddle out to 1ft wind chop, probably never caught a real wave, and other people that don't even surf, stop being so negative and find something else to think about! Jeez none of you KOOKS have any idea what your'e are talking about.
This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions.
In the RIGHT CONDITIONS?

self-explanatory....
......
[quote][p][bold]bh6booger[/bold] wrote: This just gets' funnier, it's obvious the the negative posts are coming from all the KOOK surfers we see stretching and doing push ups on the beach before they paddle out to 1ft wind chop, probably never caught a real wave, and other people that don't even surf, stop being so negative and find something else to think about! Jeez none of you KOOKS have any idea what your'e are talking about. This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions.[/p][/quote]In the RIGHT CONDITIONS? self-explanatory.... ...... MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

The apologists are speaking in one voice, it would seem.

.
SneakyB, Gazz43 and adman 77 share the same mispelling of you're - writing it as your.

.

How odd
The apologists are speaking in one voice, it would seem. . SneakyB, Gazz43 and adman 77 share the same mispelling of you're - writing it as your. . How odd Bob49
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

b u s t e d.
b u s t e d. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Yes the "right conditions", like every other surf spot in the world. Days similar to this are actually fairly common considering the general consistency of Bournemouth's surfable days.

When its blowing a gale and most of Bournemouth's population are tucked up under a blanket, we are down there riding the reef. The general public wonder why they don't see it work?? It's because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work. That is the reality of UK surfing, it's not all six packs, beach babes and 30 degree heat! It never will be.

On another note, I think what you trolls are saying about paul is disgraceful. He like I and a LOT of others love the wave, this is the only reason why we stick up for it. We have no hidden political or financial agenda.. just a bunch of surfers that love to ride a good wave and feel that it is getting a completely undeserved reputation.

So to all you guys/gals with your pitchforks out: Chill the hell out and stop laying into a local surfer who took a bunch of photos while he was having fun with his mates. What's wrong with you people FFS!
Yes the "right conditions", like every other surf spot in the world. Days similar to this are actually fairly common considering the general consistency of Bournemouth's surfable days. When its blowing a gale and most of Bournemouth's population are tucked up under a blanket, we are down there riding the reef. The general public wonder why they don't see it work?? It's because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work. That is the reality of UK surfing, it's not all six packs, beach babes and 30 degree heat! It never will be. On another note, I think what you trolls are saying about paul is disgraceful. He like I and a LOT of others love the wave, this is the only reason why we stick up for it. We have no hidden political or financial agenda.. just a bunch of surfers that love to ride a good wave and feel that it is getting a completely undeserved reputation. So to all you guys/gals with your pitchforks out: Chill the hell out and stop laying into a local surfer who took a bunch of photos while he was having fun with his mates. What's wrong with you people FFS! SneakyB
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

@Bob49.. "YOU'RE" right!! We are Borg, we are one! Grow up FFS!
@Bob49.. "YOU'RE" right!! We are Borg, we are one! Grow up FFS! SneakyB
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sat 9 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?I think that captn Ahab has it right - if its so good why the need to comment?
What possible reason does one have to defend a floundering commercial enterprise such as a artificial surfing reef? Other than to be a stooge in the audience for the clowns up front loosing their trousers? Dont give me any rubbish about unfair press to a contraversial surfing spot? They are a dime a dozen and nobody cares about them? this just smacks too much of "perception displacement effort' by a marketing arm of a enterprise.
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?I think that captn Ahab has it right - if its so good why the need to comment? What possible reason does one have to defend a floundering commercial enterprise such as a artificial surfing reef? Other than to be a stooge in the audience for the clowns up front loosing their trousers? Dont give me any rubbish about unfair press to a contraversial surfing spot? They are a dime a dozen and nobody cares about them? this just smacks too much of "perception displacement effort' by a marketing arm of a enterprise. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

Shouldn't you be 'surfing the reef' Sneaky, rather than surfing the net.

.

Or is it "because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work".
.

Amongst all the twaddle spouted by you apologists this has to be the most ridiculous. You claim you don't use it when it could work, which supposedly is the explanation as to why when I and many, many others walk past the reef there is no one ever on it.

.

The Brigadoon of surf reefs it would seem. The same as the invisible folk who inhabit the surf pods and like the upmarket shops and cafes on the pier only appear at night when all right minded, god fearing folk are safely tucked up in their beds.

.

Finally I accept you may not be posting under the names of adman and gazza, however cynics might suggest that Hans Christian Anderson might better suit.
Shouldn't you be 'surfing the reef' Sneaky, rather than surfing the net. . Or is it "because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work". . Amongst all the twaddle spouted by you apologists this has to be the most ridiculous. You claim you don't use it when it could work, which supposedly is the explanation as to why when I and many, many others walk past the reef there is no one ever on it. . The Brigadoon of surf reefs it would seem. The same as the invisible folk who inhabit the surf pods and like the upmarket shops and cafes on the pier only appear at night when all right minded, god fearing folk are safely tucked up in their beds. . Finally I accept you may not be posting under the names of adman and gazza, however cynics might suggest that Hans Christian Anderson might better suit. Bob49
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

We need to comment because if the council only heard voices like yourselves and a few others on this thread/comment section, then they would change it or get rid of it. We don't want that (and when i see we, i know of at least 50 people that feel the same way and that is just within our group of friends).

The main problem is, because of the nature of the venture, not all of the public will understand whether or not the wave works at all. This has lead to the bad press you see everywhere. Every travelled surfer i have spoken to that isn't afraid of a bit of a beating every now and again loves it!

We are not a marketing team, we are not trolls or stooges. We are just surfers that love the wave.
We need to comment because if the council only heard voices like yourselves and a few others on this thread/comment section, then they would change it or get rid of it. We don't want that (and when i see we, i know of at least 50 people that feel the same way and that is just within our group of friends). The main problem is, because of the nature of the venture, not all of the public will understand whether or not the wave works at all. This has lead to the bad press you see everywhere. Every travelled surfer i have spoken to that isn't afraid of a bit of a beating every now and again loves it! We are not a marketing team, we are not trolls or stooges. We are just surfers that love the wave. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

I'm going to ignore your little snipes and get to the point. Why do you honestly think we are sticking up for it then? I'm honestly curious.

Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does.
I'm going to ignore your little snipes and get to the point. Why do you honestly think we are sticking up for it then? I'm honestly curious. Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

And if you had bothered to read what was proposed over this development you might understand why it has failed so badly. The 300 days of continuous surfing and various other ludicrous claims have subsequently been scaled back. The developments of the pier have been forgotten, the agreement not to build the flats above the skyline has been ignored and we have been lumbered with a debt of over £3m - when we were told this farce would actually deliver a profit !

.
It was never about surf reefs or other such absurdities. It was about a bunch of greedy developers getting their hands ona prime piece of real estate. They got their way and have little interest outside of their gated community, that's why little is being done or anyone being held to account - other than on here.
.

That was something so many could clearly see way before the council bulldozed the plans through. Don't tell us that this council will take heed of protesters. Nor tell us that it is those same protesters that are the cause of so much disquiet elsewhere. The failure is clear for all to see. Your ridiculous claims merely highlight what a sham this idiocy is.

.

If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up. Nor expect others with a bit more of a social conscience to meekly touch our forelock and accept whatever our 'masters' hand over or (more importantly) take from us.
And if you had bothered to read what was proposed over this development you might understand why it has failed so badly. The 300 days of continuous surfing and various other ludicrous claims have subsequently been scaled back. The developments of the pier have been forgotten, the agreement not to build the flats above the skyline has been ignored and we have been lumbered with a debt of over £3m - when we were told this farce would actually deliver a profit ! . It was never about surf reefs or other such absurdities. It was about a bunch of greedy developers getting their hands ona prime piece of real estate. They got their way and have little interest outside of their gated community, that's why little is being done or anyone being held to account - other than on here. . That was something so many could clearly see way before the council bulldozed the plans through. Don't tell us that this council will take heed of protesters. Nor tell us that it is those same protesters that are the cause of so much disquiet elsewhere. The failure is clear for all to see. Your ridiculous claims merely highlight what a sham this idiocy is. . If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up. Nor expect others with a bit more of a social conscience to meekly touch our forelock and accept whatever our 'masters' hand over or (more importantly) take from us. Bob49
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

"If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up."

The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities.

Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions .

Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers.
"If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up." The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities. Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions . Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

If anything you should be on our side because if the council decides it needs "improving" (and i use that word very loosely) they are going to pump even more of "your" money into it...?
If anything you should be on our side because if the council decides it needs "improving" (and i use that word very loosely) they are going to pump even more of "your" money into it...? SneakyB
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

Sneaky - "This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers"
.
Oh really ?

.

Sneaky - "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money"
Sneaky - "This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers" . Oh really ? . Sneaky - "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money" Bob49
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

"But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities."

.

More nonsense. As I said, if the kids want to clamber about etc ....... ok, however when someone tries to sway the argument by posting up lies and distortions then expect those claims to be challenged.

.

As to the 'improving', the word currently is that the council are trying to delay removing it until after next years Mays local election.
"But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities." . More nonsense. As I said, if the kids want to clamber about etc ....... ok, however when someone tries to sway the argument by posting up lies and distortions then expect those claims to be challenged. . As to the 'improving', the word currently is that the council are trying to delay removing it until after next years Mays local election. Bob49
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Yes thats right, i didn't bring it up, just something i read.

You "caught" me out but so what, the point still remains.

You do know we are not in court right now don't you? More underhand tactics, attack my integrity to prove an outside point. Seriously.........
Yes thats right, i didn't bring it up, just something i read. You "caught" me out but so what, the point still remains. You do know we are not in court right now don't you? More underhand tactics, attack my integrity to prove an outside point. Seriously......... SneakyB
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Oh by the way, the "caught out" comment was referring to the financial point not the lies.

No lies told here from myself or Paul, the financial "facts" where taken from this website in a press release and the rest is our opinion.
Oh by the way, the "caught out" comment was referring to the financial point not the lies. No lies told here from myself or Paul, the financial "facts" where taken from this website in a press release and the rest is our opinion. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Sat 9 Oct 10

peterpweb says...

SneakyB wrote:
"If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up."

The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities.

Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions .

Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers.
This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers."

No we don't want that do we, the developers and Council don't want to be fingered for corruption, please just keep quiet about the deals done on property.
[quote][p][bold]SneakyB[/bold] wrote: "If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up." The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities. Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions . Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers.[/p][/quote]This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers." No we don't want that do we, the developers and Council don't want to be fingered for corruption, please just keep quiet about the deals done on property. peterpweb
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Schooners says...

Let me say this again for the lesser intellectuals who are unable to read.

The image is NOT photo shopped but it is misleading.

Tilt the image by 15-20* so the horizon is true and you will see that a 10-20 mm lens has been used off a GO Pro camera (which distorts and misrepresents what the wave actually looked like) I know this because we all use GO PRO HD and OST HD VCT (to be technical)

The wave shows as being vertical and the bodyboarder can clearly be seen dropping off the face of the wave, which is unsurfable. I am not interested in bodyboarders as is was a £3.6m wave for surfers.

Anyone who wants to challenge my experience and professionalism is more than welcome to come and meet with me and I will show you the 10,000's of images I have shot all over the world as a working surfing and kitesurfing professional.

I am employed as a watersports professional by various companies in the UK.

Furthermore, I have been to the two reefs in NZ (none of you have) and I know the people who has also been taken by ASR. I have kited and surfed on them both and NONE OF THE WORK. I will happily give you all the email addresses of locals in NZ who have never been able to surf their reefs either.

Please do not just slag each other off on here and if someone has the tenacity to get in touch and call me a KOOK to my face then I will be deal with them personally.

So, please dont miss the point, it is not about regeneration. It is about being sold a £3.6m Artificial Surf Reef that was supposed to produce a 5 STAR wave, and it just simply does not do it.

At not point has the reef EVER been better than the wave at the pier.

Please keep the comments nice on here because if you go all insulty, frankly you are a child and a coward. Stand toe to toe with any of our kitesurfing or surfing or SUP'ing folks and call us KOOKS. But call us it on the internet is just silly.

The best thing about down there is Shaun from Sorted and Surf Steps guys who all do a BRILLIANT JOB.

Go buy a Tshirt
Let me say this again for the lesser intellectuals who are unable to read. The image is NOT photo shopped but it is misleading. Tilt the image by 15-20* so the horizon is true and you will see that a 10-20 mm lens has been used off a GO Pro camera (which distorts and misrepresents what the wave actually looked like) I know this because we all use GO PRO HD and OST HD VCT (to be technical) The wave shows as being vertical and the bodyboarder can clearly be seen dropping off the face of the wave, which is unsurfable. I am not interested in bodyboarders as is was a £3.6m wave for surfers. Anyone who wants to challenge my experience and professionalism is more than welcome to come and meet with me and I will show you the 10,000's of images I have shot all over the world as a working surfing and kitesurfing professional. I am employed as a watersports professional by various companies in the UK. Furthermore, I have been to the two reefs in NZ (none of you have) and I know the people who has also been taken by ASR. I have kited and surfed on them both and NONE OF THE WORK. I will happily give you all the email addresses of locals in NZ who have never been able to surf their reefs either. Please do not just slag each other off on here and if someone has the tenacity to get in touch and call me a KOOK to my face then I will be deal with them personally. So, please dont miss the point, it is not about regeneration. It is about being sold a £3.6m Artificial Surf Reef that was supposed to produce a 5 STAR wave, and it just simply does not do it. At not point has the reef EVER been better than the wave at the pier. Please keep the comments nice on here because if you go all insulty, frankly you are a child and a coward. Stand toe to toe with any of our kitesurfing or surfing or SUP'ing folks and call us KOOKS. But call us it on the internet is just silly. The best thing about down there is Shaun from Sorted and Surf Steps guys who all do a BRILLIANT JOB. Go buy a Tshirt Schooners
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Sat 9 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

I actually know who you are schooners and what you do and fair play to the lot of you. However that is just your opinion. I don't care how the NZ waves have failed or the new indian one (which apparently is quite good!?).. All i know is competent bodyboarders and surfers love this wave we have here.

To be honest i'm a little disappointed that someone that has so much respect in the wind sport community has such a poor opinion on bodyboarders. After all wind sports are in the same minority group as bodyboarders. The surfers generally class spongers as lesser wave riders. Like it or not thats the truth.

Your right though it's not a wind sport wave (most of the time) but if your argument is solid, that means you don't belong there anyway..?no? (re: a surf reef = stand up surfer reef)

I sponge and its something i don't and shouldn't have to feel ashamed about. In the same respect as your sports.

There's also no point in getting fighty, what the hell does that solve!?

I'm friends with a bunch of kite surfers and have no problem with any of them or what they do but there are massive differences in the waves we like. It just happens the the Bossy reef is more suited to us!

PS, don't forget Hengistkites. Get a T-shirt from there too! ;)
I actually know who you are schooners and what you do and fair play to the lot of you. However that is just your opinion. I don't care how the NZ waves have failed or the new indian one (which apparently is quite good!?).. All i know is competent bodyboarders and surfers love this wave we have here. To be honest i'm a little disappointed that someone that has so much respect in the wind sport community has such a poor opinion on bodyboarders. After all wind sports are in the same minority group as bodyboarders. The surfers generally class spongers as lesser wave riders. Like it or not thats the truth. Your right though it's not a wind sport wave (most of the time) but if your argument is solid, that means you don't belong there anyway..?no? (re: a surf reef = stand up surfer reef) I sponge and its something i don't and shouldn't have to feel ashamed about. In the same respect as your sports. There's also no point in getting fighty, what the hell does that solve!? I'm friends with a bunch of kite surfers and have no problem with any of them or what they do but there are massive differences in the waves we like. It just happens the the Bossy reef is more suited to us! PS, don't forget Hengistkites. Get a T-shirt from there too! ;) SneakyB
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sat 9 Oct 10

rogerwebby says...

schooners = a plonker
schooners = a plonker rogerwebby
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Sat 9 Oct 10

southbourne-core says...

CAN'T BELIEVE THERE'S SO MANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS WHEN SOMEONE SENDS PHOTOS OF THE REEF WORKING ?? I CRACKED UP READING PEOPLE THINK THEY'VE BEEN PHOTOSHOPPED !!
JUST SHOWS HOW MANY CLUELESS KOOKS THERE IS. JUST TO LET YOU KOOKS KNOW THE BODYBOARDER AMONGST OTHER LOCALS- (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE GUYS) ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN THE UK.

THE GUY IN THE PIC IS ONE OF THE UK'S TOP YOUNG BODYBOARDERS WHO HAS REPRESENTED THE UK IN PROFESSIONAL COMPETITIONS. THE GUY WHO TOOK THE PICS IS A WORLD TRAVELLED EXPERIENCED BODYBOARDER/SURFER AND PHOTOGRAPHER.

THE REEF HAS BEEN AWESOME WHEN THE SWELL'S BIG ENOUGH SINCE IT WAS COMPLETED. WHERE HAVE ALL YOU LOT BEEN? MORE THAN LIKELY TUCKED UP INDOORS WITH YOUR SLIPPERS ON. I RECKON 99% OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM MIDDLE AGED IDIOTS THAT CAN'T SURF ANYTHING OVER 1FT CHOP..OR IF THEY SURF AT ALL..GOTTA LAUGH

SO BORED OF THE NEGATIVE WAFFLE, WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH THESE GUYS COME OUT WITH -
COMPLETLEY CLUELESS.
I'M SURPRISED EXPERERIENCED KITE surfer

CHRIS SKOANE-ROBERTS


HASN'T GIVEN US HIS THOUGHTS AGAIN.
NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR'E TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU COULD SURF, HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE OF REAL WAVES AND HOW WAVES WORK YOU WOULDN'T BE TALKING SO MUCH POINTLESS RUBBISH.
SO BORED OF THIS NOW SO WON'T BE BACK

-SO AMPED TO GET MORE PICS -
CAN'T BELIEVE THERE'S SO MANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS WHEN SOMEONE SENDS PHOTOS OF THE REEF WORKING ?? I CRACKED UP READING PEOPLE THINK THEY'VE BEEN PHOTOSHOPPED !! JUST SHOWS HOW MANY CLUELESS KOOKS THERE IS. JUST TO LET YOU KOOKS KNOW THE BODYBOARDER AMONGST OTHER LOCALS- (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE GUYS) ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN THE UK. THE GUY IN THE PIC IS ONE OF THE UK'S TOP YOUNG BODYBOARDERS WHO HAS REPRESENTED THE UK IN PROFESSIONAL COMPETITIONS. THE GUY WHO TOOK THE PICS IS A WORLD TRAVELLED EXPERIENCED BODYBOARDER/SURFER AND PHOTOGRAPHER. THE REEF HAS BEEN AWESOME WHEN THE SWELL'S BIG ENOUGH SINCE IT WAS COMPLETED. WHERE HAVE ALL YOU LOT BEEN? MORE THAN LIKELY TUCKED UP INDOORS WITH YOUR SLIPPERS ON. I RECKON 99% OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM MIDDLE AGED IDIOTS THAT CAN'T SURF ANYTHING OVER 1FT CHOP..OR IF THEY SURF AT ALL..GOTTA LAUGH SO BORED OF THE NEGATIVE WAFFLE, WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH THESE GUYS COME OUT WITH - COMPLETLEY CLUELESS. I'M SURPRISED EXPERERIENCED KITE surfer CHRIS SKOANE-ROBERTS HASN'T GIVEN US HIS THOUGHTS AGAIN. NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR'E TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU COULD SURF, HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE OF REAL WAVES AND HOW WAVES WORK YOU WOULDN'T BE TALKING SO MUCH POINTLESS RUBBISH. SO BORED OF THIS NOW SO WON'T BE BACK -SO AMPED TO GET MORE PICS - southbourne-core
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Sat 9 Oct 10

rogerwebby says...

sneaky badger do you actually surf? u seem to be more interested in causing grief? go back to ur hole u gimp
sneaky badger do you actually surf? u seem to be more interested in causing grief? go back to ur hole u gimp rogerwebby
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

SneakyB wrote:
I'm going to ignore your little snipes and get to the point. Why do you honestly think we are sticking up for it then? I'm honestly curious.

Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does.
Ahoy ‘SneakyB’
I still be awaiting me simple and quite straightforward answer from yerself, AND yer other personalities, “why do ye constantly have to defend Weights Elephant as a success?? Yer differing pennants don’t disguise thar same words and construction of sentences they be a right give away to yer schizophrenia. Now lets concentrate on yer ‘delusions’ as soon as ye claim to ‘know’ more than what even thy Echo referred to as ‘experienced’ surfers condemnation of its performance then spout yer ‘credibilty?’Is a sure indication of lack of control, ye lose whatever ground ye think yer may have gained with yer limited intellect let alone yer illusion of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a £3.6 m success.
[quote][p][bold]SneakyB[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your little snipes and get to the point. Why do you honestly think we are sticking up for it then? I'm honestly curious. Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does.[/p][/quote]Ahoy ‘SneakyB’ I still be awaiting me simple and quite straightforward answer from yerself, AND yer other personalities, “why do ye constantly have to defend Weights Elephant as a success?? Yer differing pennants don’t disguise thar same words and construction of sentences they be a right give away to yer schizophrenia. Now lets concentrate on yer ‘delusions’ as soon as ye claim to ‘know’ more than what even thy Echo referred to as ‘experienced’ surfers condemnation of its performance then spout yer ‘credibilty?’Is a sure indication of lack of control, ye lose whatever ground ye think yer may have gained with yer limited intellect let alone yer illusion of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a £3.6 m success. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Sat 9 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Gazz43 wrote:
I have made several contributions on various stories about the reef as and when they have come up, and basically have always seen the bigger picture of this whole project as being very positive for the area. So to all those fellow positive replies good on ya and also to photographer for standing up for himself against all the usual moaners and wingers that always come out to play. As for the pirate talk, what a complete tool you are, your not funny pal in any shape or form so just stop being a complete prat and winge on in normal language if you really must, yawn!!! See some of you guys on the reef on my turbo lilo (surf mat) soon, Gaz
Ahoy ‘Gazz43’
How interesting yer comments could’ve have been if only they’d made sense!!
[quote][p][bold]Gazz43[/bold] wrote: I have made several contributions on various stories about the reef as and when they have come up, and basically have always seen the bigger picture of this whole project as being very positive for the area. So to all those fellow positive replies good on ya and also to photographer for standing up for himself against all the usual moaners and wingers that always come out to play. As for the pirate talk, what a complete tool you are, your not funny pal in any shape or form so just stop being a complete prat and winge on in normal language if you really must, yawn!!! See some of you guys on the reef on my turbo lilo (surf mat) soon, Gaz[/p][/quote]Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ How interesting yer comments could’ve have been if only they’d made sense!! Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

1:15am Sun 10 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

Oh wow that was a lot of reading and mainly negative I see. Firstly, looking at Paul Humber's photo there is no doubt whatsoever that the photo IS NOT photoshopped in any way at all, and to try and discredit either him or his shots in order to point prove is disgraceful. You could turn the computer screen any way you want (as suggested by several people), and you are still able to see that it is a decent wave. People, (who appear to be mainly standup surfers) say that the reef isn't working has overlooked a major issue, and hasn't given the reef a fair chance. This issue being that this summer has been terrible with long flat spells, and even further west in places such as Cornwall it just hasn't happened, even where there are natural reefs. Had there been good swells coming in, I believe that the haters would of seen the reef working to its full potential, but you can't blame the reef...try Mother Nature. But what I find pathetic is that the ''haters'' know that they have lost this ''debate'' in their latest attack on bodyboarders because all they can come back with is childish comments to Sneakyb, nit picking about an incorrect spelling of ''your'' or multi profiles, just because they have been proved wrong by him....... and they know it.
Oh wow that was a lot of reading and mainly negative I see. Firstly, looking at Paul Humber's photo there is no doubt whatsoever that the photo IS NOT photoshopped in any way at all, and to try and discredit either him or his shots in order to point prove is disgraceful. You could turn the computer screen any way you want (as suggested by several people), and you are still able to see that it is a decent wave. People, (who appear to be mainly standup surfers) say that the reef isn't working has overlooked a major issue, and hasn't given the reef a fair chance. This issue being that this summer has been terrible with long flat spells, and even further west in places such as Cornwall it just hasn't happened, even where there are natural reefs. Had there been good swells coming in, I believe that the haters would of seen the reef working to its full potential, but you can't blame the reef...try Mother Nature. But what I find pathetic is that the ''haters'' know that they have lost this ''debate'' in their latest attack on bodyboarders because all they can come back with is childish comments to Sneakyb, nit picking about an incorrect spelling of ''your'' or multi profiles, just because they have been proved wrong by him....... and they know it. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

8:06am Sun 10 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

attacking bodyborders? proved wrong?mother nature?? no-one can deny that the photos show the best they can (and with a tad better angle) the instant that the photo was taken on that day at that time. That is not a measure of value for a product, Its record of that instant and its value to those that were there. Good for them. There may even be other instances like that. Thats what they are instant recollections. Proves that at least once for that moment surfers on bodyboards were there. They obviously value that time dearly - nice for them. The town also values a missing 3,600,000 pounds dearly as well. Just look at how many boogyboards you can buy for that and see if its value for money for those few waves? Good for the spongers but bad for the town -not good enough . If they are playing bluff to pull the reef out to make sure the contactors finish it properly good fr them as well. Right now the people trying to upvalue the reef for more than it actually is are making it harder to get the contractors back to improve it at their cost. 5th columnists by ignorance and outside manipulation I fear? if so actually undermining efforts to improve the reef -so look at the big picture and see whos got, getting and whos paying to see what can be recovered to the maximum possible. Also learn about the behaviours and marketing methods exposed earlier if you are really interested in getting a better reef4all? Its called "the awefull truth" in case you havent got it yet so face it and improve the towns lot. Another tactic being used is "divide and conquer' and the boogers are falling right for it as the diversion from the real issue of repairing the reef properly.
attacking bodyborders? proved wrong?mother nature?? no-one can deny that the photos show the best they can (and with a tad better angle) the instant that the photo was taken on that day at that time. That is not a measure of value for a product, Its record of that instant and its value to those that were there. Good for them. There may even be other instances like that. Thats what they are instant recollections. Proves that at least once for that moment surfers on bodyboards were there. They obviously value that time dearly - nice for them. The town also values a missing 3,600,000 pounds dearly as well. Just look at how many boogyboards you can buy for that and see if its value for money for those few waves? Good for the spongers but bad for the town -not good enough . If they are playing bluff to pull the reef out to make sure the contactors finish it properly good fr them as well. Right now the people trying to upvalue the reef for more than it actually is are making it harder to get the contractors back to improve it at their cost. 5th columnists by ignorance and outside manipulation I fear? if so actually undermining efforts to improve the reef -so look at the big picture and see whos got, getting and whos paying to see what can be recovered to the maximum possible. Also learn about the behaviours and marketing methods exposed earlier if you are really interested in getting a better reef4all? Its called "the awefull truth" in case you havent got it yet so face it and improve the towns lot. Another tactic being used is "divide and conquer' and the boogers are falling right for it as the diversion from the real issue of repairing the reef properly. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Sun 10 Oct 10

reefworksfine says...

SCHOONERS OR GOONERS

oh dear copy and paste mikal, one eyed willy and schooners-skoane roberts are back - is skoane- roberts your parrot or does he fly your kite ? perhaps he's your'e wooden leg?
All three of your are clueless in terms of real waveriding. Give up up knocking the reef schooners skoane-roberts your digging yourself an even deeper hole.

It amuses me your so inept on waveriding you have no idea what comes out of your mouth, and who the think the main men are .
You need to realise there is a group of well travelled experienced surfers and bodyboarders who aren't gonna sit back at let you amatuers ruin the best thing we have all wanted for years.
The reef works fine, you just aren't at the standard needed to surf it. If it was changed to a crumbler why have a reef at all. Don't know if you've noticed schooners the complaints are coming from the guys who can't surf
SCHOONERS OR GOONERS oh dear copy and paste mikal, one eyed willy and schooners-skoane roberts are back - is skoane- roberts your parrot or does he fly your kite ? perhaps he's your'e wooden leg? All three of your are clueless in terms of real waveriding. Give up up knocking the reef schooners skoane-roberts your digging yourself an even deeper hole. It amuses me your so inept on waveriding you have no idea what comes out of your mouth, and who the think the main men are . You need to realise there is a group of well travelled experienced surfers and bodyboarders who aren't gonna sit back at let you amatuers ruin the best thing we have all wanted for years. The reef works fine, you just aren't at the standard needed to surf it. If it was changed to a crumbler why have a reef at all. Don't know if you've noticed schooners the complaints are coming from the guys who can't surf reefworksfine
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Sun 10 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

theres no complains just value for money is needed -thats the usual for any transaction. Its not about surfing just about value for money 3,600,000 pounds of value. Where is it? You are behaving predictably ? (see the above posts)
theres no complains just value for money is needed -thats the usual for any transaction. Its not about surfing just about value for money 3,600,000 pounds of value. Where is it? You are behaving predictably ? (see the above posts) mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Sun 10 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

reprint for RDW -Then theres "Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)" for
reefdoeswork

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .

*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
RDW you win the trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize?
reprint for RDW -Then theres "Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)" for reefdoeswork The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion . *ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. . *ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. . RDW you win the trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sun 10 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

I've try to look at both sides of the ''argument'' objectively but still I come to the same conclusion, and that is that the reef is good for everyone. It IS working, as not only has photographic evidence shown this, but the ''wave riders'' are actually now doing the thing they love....riding the waves. Is the reef a costly blunder made by the council and a waste of tax payers money? No I don't think it is, as you have to look at the ''wider picture''. Surfers/bodyboarders using the reef are also tax payers and why shouldn't they be able to have and use this facility instead of having to travel for miles, which is not only costly and time consuming for them, but they would also be lining the pockets of local traders in another area. For the non wave riders the bigger picture is that local amenities will/have improved and Bournemouth becoming a pleasant place for holidaymakers again who bring money to the area and thus improving the local economy. With the income from tourists to the area, businesses will continue to flourish and even new ones starting up, giving locals employment. And @ Mike mhor, yes I understand what you're saying about the £3.6m ''missing'', but that will very easily be recouped, as surfers/boogers/tour
ists are actually going to be spending their very precious money in Bournemouth instead of elsewhere, and it's just that the council has made the initial payout, but it will definitely pay off and even made money. From the comments that I've read, I think that some people were expecting to see that the reef would create ''big waves'' such as the Peak or Mullaghmore head in Ireland and that will never happen. But the waves that the reef has created is definitely workable/ride able for the local wave riders, and to be honest probably the best decision that the council made by building the reef. Unfortunately you'll can't please everyone all the time and some people will continue to ''hate'' the reef, until they can actually see the prosperity and happiness that it has/will bring to the area.
I've try to look at both sides of the ''argument'' objectively but still I come to the same conclusion, and that is that the reef is good for everyone. It IS working, as not only has photographic evidence shown this, but the ''wave riders'' are actually now doing the thing they love....riding the waves. Is the reef a costly blunder made by the council and a waste of tax payers money? No I don't think it is, as you have to look at the ''wider picture''. Surfers/bodyboarders using the reef are also tax payers and why shouldn't they be able to have and use this facility instead of having to travel for miles, which is not only costly and time consuming for them, but they would also be lining the pockets of local traders in another area. For the non wave riders the bigger picture is that local amenities will/have improved and Bournemouth becoming a pleasant place for holidaymakers again who bring money to the area and thus improving the local economy. With the income from tourists to the area, businesses will continue to flourish and even new ones starting up, giving locals employment. And @ Mike mhor, yes I understand what you're saying about the £3.6m ''missing'', but that will very easily be recouped, as surfers/boogers/tour ists are actually going to be spending their very precious money in Bournemouth instead of elsewhere, and it's just that the council has made the initial payout, but it will definitely pay off and even made money. From the comments that I've read, I think that some people were expecting to see that the reef would create ''big waves'' such as the Peak or Mullaghmore head in Ireland and that will never happen. But the waves that the reef has created is definitely workable/ride able for the local wave riders, and to be honest probably the best decision that the council made by building the reef. Unfortunately you'll can't please everyone all the time and some people will continue to ''hate'' the reef, until they can actually see the prosperity and happiness that it has/will bring to the area. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Sun 10 Oct 10

flying envelope says...

whatever flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ap flaaaaaaaaaaaapppppp
whatever flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ap flaaaaaaaaaaaapppppp flying envelope
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Sun 10 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

so it meets the contract and doesnt need improving eve? (fund team)
so it meets the contract and doesnt need improving eve? (fund team) mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Sun 10 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

Odder and odder that those in denial about this failure all have problems with grasping the difference between you're and your. Coincindence ? I think not.

.

Contradictions in their arguments. it's not about the money says Sneaky, forgetting that he had earlier posted up some basless tosh from the council to prove that it actually WAS about the money.

.

Spongehead claims it's working, then adds the reason it is NOT working is that there is not the right weather, eh ? Conveniently we have not had the right weather all summer.

.

He further waxes lyrically about the supposed financial benefits to the town in a manner that rather overlooks the truth. A hotel promoting itself as a surfers hotel recently stated that it had not taken ONE single booking due to the reef. A few weeks back I was chatting to one of the bar supervisors at the pub who openly said that trade was down this summer - and he added that he thought it was probably due to the lack of parking (it might well also be due to the lack of amenities). And there is not much there, unless watching the occassional handful of youths paddling about the shoreline clutching ironing board tops is of interest.

.

The reef doesn't work. That's why the council has set up a working party to investigate if it is possible to ever get it to work - the talk is currently on whether it can be just left to break up, as it is already doing, or will it need to be professionally dredged out.

.

The regeneration has been non existent and for all the £12m soent has left the town with a £3m hole in the finances which will have to be found by cutting back elsewhere. Just over half the flats have been sold, only 7 of the pods have been sold and they are now worth £15,000 less in only 12 months.

.

If the true figure of the money the council is spending to prop up this failure were to be added to the debt then we would be nearer £4m. That's going to mean massive cuts elsewhere. Cuts that are alteady showing as cleaning and maintenance in the rest of Boscombe is suffering.

.

Finally it should be remembered that we were told that this reef would provide for 153 days of surfing which would attract 10,000 surfers per year - roughly 70 a day, whose spending would generate 60 full time and 30 part time jobs. These were to be, in the main, well paid professionals from outside of the area.

.

This sham has left local taxpayers with the task of picking up the pieces, both literaly with the sandbags and finacially with the debts. Oddly enough for all the illiterate ramblings on here by them I have not hurt one of them say that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay for this failure. Talk is cheap it appears - unless it happens to be council plans.
Odder and odder that those in denial about this failure all have problems with grasping the difference between you're and your. Coincindence ? I think not. . Contradictions in their arguments. it's not about the money says Sneaky, forgetting that he had earlier posted up some basless tosh from the council to prove that it actually WAS about the money. . Spongehead claims it's working, then adds the reason it is NOT working is that there is not the right weather, eh ? Conveniently we have not had the right weather all summer. . He further waxes lyrically about the supposed financial benefits to the town in a manner that rather overlooks the truth. A hotel promoting itself as a surfers hotel recently stated that it had not taken ONE single booking due to the reef. A few weeks back I was chatting to one of the bar supervisors at the pub who openly said that trade was down this summer - and he added that he thought it was probably due to the lack of parking (it might well also be due to the lack of amenities). And there is not much there, unless watching the occassional handful of youths paddling about the shoreline clutching ironing board tops is of interest. . The reef doesn't work. That's why the council has set up a working party to investigate if it is possible to ever get it to work - the talk is currently on whether it can be just left to break up, as it is already doing, or will it need to be professionally dredged out. . The regeneration has been non existent and for all the £12m soent has left the town with a £3m hole in the finances which will have to be found by cutting back elsewhere. Just over half the flats have been sold, only 7 of the pods have been sold and they are now worth £15,000 less in only 12 months. . If the true figure of the money the council is spending to prop up this failure were to be added to the debt then we would be nearer £4m. That's going to mean massive cuts elsewhere. Cuts that are alteady showing as cleaning and maintenance in the rest of Boscombe is suffering. . Finally it should be remembered that we were told that this reef would provide for 153 days of surfing which would attract 10,000 surfers per year - roughly 70 a day, whose spending would generate 60 full time and 30 part time jobs. These were to be, in the main, well paid professionals from outside of the area. . This sham has left local taxpayers with the task of picking up the pieces, both literaly with the sandbags and finacially with the debts. Oddly enough for all the illiterate ramblings on here by them I have not hurt one of them say that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay for this failure. Talk is cheap it appears - unless it happens to be council plans. Bob49
  • Score: 0

12:35am Mon 11 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

Then let's leave the beach to those that love it
Then let's leave the beach to those that love it MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

12:57am Mon 11 Oct 10

MikeFrench says...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Icyougm-m
Rg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Icyougm-m Rg&NR=1 MikeFrench
  • Score: 0

12:57am Mon 11 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

@Bob49. ''Spongehead''...''W
axes lyrically''....''he'
'......that did make me chuckle. I actually thought that my comments were polite as I tried to put my view over in an unabusive manner. But to call me ''Spongehead'' and then go even further and actually say ''he''...naughty, naughty. But there was me thinking that the ''Dudette'' in my user name denoted that I'm actually female....I know shocking innit. And not only that Bob49 you have deliberately or not twisted my words. What I said was that the reef was working but not necessarily to its full potential yet, as conditions all around the UK have been poor this summer. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot....it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know.

You mentioned that the flats and surf pods aren't selling and that business at a bar is slow, but that's the same all over the country currently....it's called a recession but it doesn't mean that it will be like that forever does it. You should have a look around somewhere like Newquay for example, unsold flats/pods all over the place. But they're surviving and flourishing on the income that both tourists and surfers are bringing into the area. And just because a surfers lodge hasn't taken any extra bookings doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef just that they're travelling for the day to Bournemouth with their ''ironing board tops'' as you put it, and then there is even people who bodyboard as well!!!!!!

What fascinates me most though is that some people are moaning about the cost of building the reef in the first place, but then wants the council to basically destroy it!!!! How much money would that take to do that, what with the cost of the current working group, planning and then the contractors etc?? And the answer to that is one heck of a lot more than the £3m you talk about, and would mean more cuts made by the council then what there is now. But as for financial cuts being made........you can't blame the reef alone for that, as cuts are being made in every department of every council all over the country. Haven't you heard that all councils are wanting the streets lights off everywhere and Britain to be ''blacked out'' like the war years just to save money.

Leave the reef for the enjoyment of the surfers/bodyboarders and even tourists now that it's there, and it WILL pay for itself and help the local economy, just give it a chance.
@Bob49. ''Spongehead''...''W axes lyrically''....''he' '......that did make me chuckle. I actually thought that my comments were polite as I tried to put my view over in an unabusive manner. But to call me ''Spongehead'' and then go even further and actually say ''he''...naughty, naughty. But there was me thinking that the ''Dudette'' in my user name denoted that I'm actually female....I know shocking innit. And not only that Bob49 you have deliberately or not twisted my words. What I said was that the reef was working but not necessarily to its full potential yet, as conditions all around the UK have been poor this summer. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot....it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know. You mentioned that the flats and surf pods aren't selling and that business at a bar is slow, but that's the same all over the country currently....it's called a recession but it doesn't mean that it will be like that forever does it. You should have a look around somewhere like Newquay for example, unsold flats/pods all over the place. But they're surviving and flourishing on the income that both tourists and surfers are bringing into the area. And just because a surfers lodge hasn't taken any extra bookings doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef just that they're travelling for the day to Bournemouth with their ''ironing board tops'' as you put it, and then there is even people who bodyboard as well!!!!!! What fascinates me most though is that some people are moaning about the cost of building the reef in the first place, but then wants the council to basically destroy it!!!! How much money would that take to do that, what with the cost of the current working group, planning and then the contractors etc?? And the answer to that is one heck of a lot more than the £3m you talk about, and would mean more cuts made by the council then what there is now. But as for financial cuts being made........you can't blame the reef alone for that, as cuts are being made in every department of every council all over the country. Haven't you heard that all councils are wanting the streets lights off everywhere and Britain to be ''blacked out'' like the war years just to save money. Leave the reef for the enjoyment of the surfers/bodyboarders and even tourists now that it's there, and it WILL pay for itself and help the local economy, just give it a chance. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

7:58am Mon 11 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

£3,900,000 sounds more like the final cost this year it seems. Thats close to 160,000 lower priced bodyboards.
.

Just leave it to the surfers again? Thats what happened last time dracula was given the keys to the blood bank and now its dry?
.
Dont remove it? Thats a matter of alternative cost/benefit scenarios being compared -maybe user pays fro the few that enjoy it might work?
.

It will pay for itself? yep just as it has!

The only ones valid to know what to do are surfers ? Go back to "leave it to the surfers " above.

.

Everyone who is negative hates the reef - the "haters"? Wrong , everyone hates that it does not do what it was sold to do. Thats not the reef thats the lack of delivery that is hated.
.

Either you are with us or against us? thats what our old enemy Adolph said with a bullet on the night of the long knives when anyone responded with less than 'salute - ya mein fuhrer" - to the simple question "r u with me".

.
then we quote from cherry picking again -"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available."

trying to seperate into for and against camps is false and misleading when many more options are available. Thats what the tast force is doing with expert guidence from the local university.

.
Also its nice to see Tony Butt giving ocean theory to those that really want to learn. I wonder if the comments will be the same if everyne learnt from him?
£3,900,000 sounds more like the final cost this year it seems. Thats close to 160,000 lower priced bodyboards. . Just leave it to the surfers again? Thats what happened last time dracula was given the keys to the blood bank and now its dry? . Dont remove it? Thats a matter of alternative cost/benefit scenarios being compared -maybe user pays fro the few that enjoy it might work? . It will pay for itself? yep just as it has! The only ones valid to know what to do are surfers ? Go back to "leave it to the surfers " above. . Everyone who is negative hates the reef - the "haters"? Wrong , everyone hates that it does not do what it was sold to do. Thats not the reef thats the lack of delivery that is hated. . Either you are with us or against us? thats what our old enemy Adolph said with a bullet on the night of the long knives when anyone responded with less than 'salute - ya mein fuhrer" - to the simple question "r u with me". . then we quote from cherry picking again -"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available." trying to seperate into for and against camps is false and misleading when many more options are available. Thats what the tast force is doing with expert guidence from the local university. . Also its nice to see Tony Butt giving ocean theory to those that really want to learn. I wonder if the comments will be the same if everyne learnt from him? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

11:38am Mon 11 Oct 10

martaaay says...

If I was a sponger using the reef i'd keep quiet, if it gets 'improved' for the surfers you will end up with a circus like you currently see at the piers on anything above 1ft
If I was a sponger using the reef i'd keep quiet, if it gets 'improved' for the surfers you will end up with a circus like you currently see at the piers on anything above 1ft martaaay
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 11 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

@martaaay -thats a very good point - just who and what are they promoting?
And following your reasoning -and why?
.

sounds to me theres an angle and its not only on the photos?
@martaaay -thats a very good point - just who and what are they promoting? And following your reasoning -and why? . sounds to me theres an angle and its not only on the photos? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘reefworksfine et al’
‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’
As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’
May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution.

P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it.
Ahoy ‘reefworksfine et al’ ‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’ As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’ May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution. P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

You haven't quite grasped what's going on here have you err, spongeperson ?

.

The reef has failed, not due to some tosh about mother nature, weather or any other limp wristed excuse but simply because it was only ever an afterthought to the real intention of money to being made on the moneycombe development. It was actually suggested to me by someone 'in the know' that I buy 'off plan some years ago, with the reassurance that I would make make easy money. So hear various 'ironing board bobbers' arguing over the merits of this failure is to listen to bald men fighting over a comb.

.

You don't seem to grasp the point about the £3m shortfall either. That has nothing to do with the removal of the sandbags but is the amount that has not been realised by projected sales and rentals of the surfpods. Any dredging cost will merely up that figure.

.

Takings are down as are visitor numbers. I have lived here almost all of my life and have, for the past few years walked along the seafront - often twice in a day. There have been far less people on the beach for the past couple of summers and the is certainly never anyone on the sandbags. It is NOT the recession. Almost universally the rest of the countrys seaside resorts are boasting of increased income - due to people staying at home rather than going abroad. So if anything the recession should have seen increased takings.

.

One of the reasons for lower visitor numbers is lack of carparking space. The development is like AFC Bournemouth claiming that the signing of a new star striker would boost their fortunes. Only problem is that it would require three of the stands to be pulled down to built flats to fund that player's acquisition.

.

This was not oversight on the part of the council, it was a recognition that to turn this small corner of the town into an upmarket developmemt it would require that it stayed that way upmarket. That's why there's virtually nothing in the way of facilities and amenities for families. Check back on the original outline as proposed in 2006. It pretty much states that. Therfore it is not the weather or the recession, it is the business model that was deeply flawed from the start.

.

"doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef". No. What it means is people aren't using the reef because NOBODY is ever on it. Stop trying to fool people who actually live here and can see what's happening with their own eyes.

.

If the sandbags do have to be dredged out at some point, which is now looking more and more likely, it is not because anyone has asked for it. It will be on of health and safety grounds. So don't twist words about people wanting it removed so as to be able to knock that 'argument' down.
.

This whole ventutre has been a massive flop which has failed to deliver on the targets set by those behind it. To claim that because cuts are being made elsewhere then it is perfectly ok to waste £12m on this is ridiculous. With cuts set to be harsh I shudder to think what else will be lost by this waste - and how the £3m debt will funded.
You haven't quite grasped what's going on here have you err, spongeperson ? . The reef has failed, not due to some tosh about mother nature, weather or any other limp wristed excuse but simply because it was only ever an afterthought to the real intention of money to being made on the moneycombe development. It was actually suggested to me by someone 'in the know' that I buy 'off plan some years ago, with the reassurance that I would make make easy money. So hear various 'ironing board bobbers' arguing over the merits of this failure is to listen to bald men fighting over a comb. . You don't seem to grasp the point about the £3m shortfall either. That has nothing to do with the removal of the sandbags but is the amount that has not been realised by projected sales and rentals of the surfpods. Any dredging cost will merely up that figure. . Takings are down as are visitor numbers. I have lived here almost all of my life and have, for the past few years walked along the seafront - often twice in a day. There have been far less people on the beach for the past couple of summers and the is certainly never anyone on the sandbags. It is NOT the recession. Almost universally the rest of the countrys seaside resorts are boasting of increased income - due to people staying at home rather than going abroad. So if anything the recession should have seen increased takings. . One of the reasons for lower visitor numbers is lack of carparking space. The development is like AFC Bournemouth claiming that the signing of a new star striker would boost their fortunes. Only problem is that it would require three of the stands to be pulled down to built flats to fund that player's acquisition. . This was not oversight on the part of the council, it was a recognition that to turn this small corner of the town into an upmarket developmemt it would require that it stayed that way upmarket. That's why there's virtually nothing in the way of facilities and amenities for families. Check back on the original outline as proposed in 2006. It pretty much states that. Therfore it is not the weather or the recession, it is the business model that was deeply flawed from the start. . "doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef". No. What it means is people aren't using the reef because NOBODY is ever on it. Stop trying to fool people who actually live here and can see what's happening with their own eyes. . If the sandbags do have to be dredged out at some point, which is now looking more and more likely, it is not because anyone has asked for it. It will be on of health and safety grounds. So don't twist words about people wanting it removed so as to be able to knock that 'argument' down. . This whole ventutre has been a massive flop which has failed to deliver on the targets set by those behind it. To claim that because cuts are being made elsewhere then it is perfectly ok to waste £12m on this is ridiculous. With cuts set to be harsh I shudder to think what else will be lost by this waste - and how the £3m debt will funded. Bob49
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Mon 11 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Its difficult to concieve that another place is contemplating a reef - or maybe it isnt any more as this one is so low achieving?

. Longevity is a key requirement.

. Negative press doesnt help with new contracts.

Maybe thats the angle the spongers are pushing for the builders? There must be more than just sentimental feelings for a once in a season wave that has to be turned sideways to look larger?
Its difficult to concieve that another place is contemplating a reef - or maybe it isnt any more as this one is so low achieving? . Longevity is a key requirement. . Negative press doesnt help with new contracts. Maybe thats the angle the spongers are pushing for the builders? There must be more than just sentimental feelings for a once in a season wave that has to be turned sideways to look larger? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette et al’
I do agree, in this day and age it be right confusing to confirm some ones ‘gender’ by name alone, actually it still be confusing to me Boson even when he be ‘face to face’ but then them meetings usually in darkened alleyways (less said thar better I think) I be right sure ‘Bob49’ not being sexist in any manner perhaps it be that ye just do not agree with his, mine and perhaps thy other Brethrens point of view and that be pure realism on our part not sexism on yers. At thar risk of sounding condescending, yet I do feel ye may offer a reasonable nay even a accurate reply to me everlasting question “WHY” keep defending thy ‘Weights Elephant?’ ye have stated……… “. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot.... it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know.”…. Dear Lady aint ye bin a listening to what me crew bin a saying?? Yer ‘Weights Elephant’ AINT a natural creation, it don’t even have thar correct ‘configuration’ of a ‘natural reef’ it be, as Bob49 bin stating (with yer permission sir?) a smoke screen to absorb land fer Developers to make monies. Thar ‘Weights Elephant’ aint gonna heal itself, it be on thar wrong coastline, it be designed fer seagulls nesting, it aint as natural reefs form which do run, in thar main, ‘parallel’ to thy beach line. As fer IT being a ‘Surf magnet?’ Mmmmm it have ‘attracted’ curiosity, bad press, little usage (due to its HIGH and experienced performance rating Har) condemnation from yer ‘realistic’ surfers, have not generated any more ‘competitions?’ has even caused thy very Mr Weights to agree it do require MORE gold coins be spent (cos thy Brethren aint got what already cost £3.6m) to tweak, yer BBC have set up a committee because Plymouth University proved ‘Weights Elephant be substandard to it promised requirements and be asking thy very constructors(ASR) to return and FIX it, fat chance in any event. Pray do tell me have I not stated the case correctly?? Stamp me ivory I forgot thy 365 day safety coverage from thy RNLI, what if an injury be caused to a lucky or luckless user of ‘Weights Elephant’ do thy BBC have thy necessary insurance to cover usage of a local synthetic attraction on a public beach etc?
Regards Ahab.

P.S. security, plan-soon, Har
Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette et al’ I do agree, in this day and age it be right confusing to confirm some ones ‘gender’ by name alone, actually it still be confusing to me Boson even when he be ‘face to face’ but then them meetings usually in darkened alleyways (less said thar better I think) I be right sure ‘Bob49’ not being sexist in any manner perhaps it be that ye just do not agree with his, mine and perhaps thy other Brethrens point of view and that be pure realism on our part not sexism on yers. At thar risk of sounding condescending, yet I do feel ye may offer a reasonable nay even a accurate reply to me everlasting question “WHY” keep defending thy ‘Weights Elephant?’ ye have stated……… “. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot.... it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know.”…. Dear Lady aint ye bin a listening to what me crew bin a saying?? Yer ‘Weights Elephant’ AINT a natural creation, it don’t even have thar correct ‘configuration’ of a ‘natural reef’ it be, as Bob49 bin stating (with yer permission sir?) a smoke screen to absorb land fer Developers to make monies. Thar ‘Weights Elephant’ aint gonna heal itself, it be on thar wrong coastline, it be designed fer seagulls nesting, it aint as natural reefs form which do run, in thar main, ‘parallel’ to thy beach line. As fer IT being a ‘Surf magnet?’ Mmmmm it have ‘attracted’ curiosity, bad press, little usage (due to its HIGH and experienced performance rating Har) condemnation from yer ‘realistic’ surfers, have not generated any more ‘competitions?’ has even caused thy very Mr Weights to agree it do require MORE gold coins be spent (cos thy Brethren aint got what already cost £3.6m) to tweak, yer BBC have set up a committee because Plymouth University proved ‘Weights Elephant be substandard to it promised requirements and be asking thy very constructors(ASR) to return and FIX it, fat chance in any event. Pray do tell me have I not stated the case correctly?? Stamp me ivory I forgot thy 365 day safety coverage from thy RNLI, what if an injury be caused to a lucky or luckless user of ‘Weights Elephant’ do thy BBC have thy necessary insurance to cover usage of a local synthetic attraction on a public beach etc? Regards Ahab. P.S. security, plan-soon, Har Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Gazz43 says...

Capt. Ahab (ret.) wrote:
Ahoy ‘reefworksfine et al’ ‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’ As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’ May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution. P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it.
Still acting a tool I see Captain retard,yr still not funny, yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! As for Sunday 10th the waves were easterlies, completely the wrong direction for the reef, I am so surprised you did`nt know that being such a tool speaking smart arse. As for me being one of the same as other positive posters on here, perleeeese. There just happens to be some other people out there that happen to prefer to see the glass as half full, unlike yourself and Bob49 and all the other boring negative, wineing wingers. You lot must be great company at a dinner party eh. I`m a 44 year old surfer Bob49, and know that to insult all surfers as being kids shows how little you actually know about waters sports/surfing and justifies to me why your opinions are so irrevelant but thanks for the back-handed compliment about being a kid, my moisturiser and positive outlook on life must be working then ;)
[quote][p][bold]Capt. Ahab (ret.)[/bold] wrote: Ahoy ‘reefworksfine et al’ ‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’ As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’ May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution. P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it.[/p][/quote]Still acting a tool I see Captain retard,yr still not funny, yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! As for Sunday 10th the waves were easterlies, completely the wrong direction for the reef, I am so surprised you did`nt know that being such a tool speaking smart arse. As for me being one of the same as other positive posters on here, perleeeese. There just happens to be some other people out there that happen to prefer to see the glass as half full, unlike yourself and Bob49 and all the other boring negative, wineing wingers. You lot must be great company at a dinner party eh. I`m a 44 year old surfer Bob49, and know that to insult all surfers as being kids shows how little you actually know about waters sports/surfing and justifies to me why your opinions are so irrevelant but thanks for the back-handed compliment about being a kid, my moisturiser and positive outlook on life must be working then ;) Gazz43
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Gazz43’
Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion.
Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity.
Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion. Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Gazz43 says...

Capt. Ahab (ret.) wrote:
Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion. Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity.
I suggest ye Captain retard check ye facts as too what I said above before accusing me, own goal you baffoon!! I too was in the water and know exactly what I am talking about unlike you clearly do
[quote][p][bold]Capt. Ahab (ret.)[/bold] wrote: Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion. Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity.[/p][/quote]I suggest ye Captain retard check ye facts as too what I said above before accusing me, own goal you baffoon!! I too was in the water and know exactly what I am talking about unlike you clearly do Gazz43
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Mon 11 Oct 10

Max Green says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?So Mikal Mhor,

As an obvious expert on the value of social investment, what $$ amount would you assign the publicity related to the surf reef in just two years since it's completion.

And what would be a reasonable expenditure for a social investment that might produce publicity for the coming decades?

How would you have spent $$ to regenerate Boscombe's seafront for future generations and to appeal to outside tourists?

Boscombe has one of the only working artificial surf reefs in the world. What $$ amount would you attach to that kind of attraction? 3.6 mil is a small amount for a social investment that will provide value for many years to come.

If the surf reef continues to break as it has been for 20 years to come (probably more) that's a pretty reasonable investment for an attraction that creates this amount of attention, publicity, and community value which is undeniable.

Calling yourself mikal mohr is a bad joke - your comments reek of defensiveness. Its obvious that you're disappointed to find that the reef works as well as it does. Why would you want to fight that.

Fact is, the reef adds value to the community. Paul and his friends add value to the community. The publicity surrounding the reef adds value to the community. What value do you add? From what I see, the answer is none.
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?So Mikal Mhor, As an obvious expert on the value of social investment, what $$ amount would you assign the publicity related to the surf reef in just two years since it's completion. And what would be a reasonable expenditure for a social investment that might produce publicity for the coming decades? How would you have spent $$ to regenerate Boscombe's seafront for future generations and to appeal to outside tourists? Boscombe has one of the only working artificial surf reefs in the world. What $$ amount would you attach to that kind of attraction? 3.6 mil is a small amount for a social investment that will provide value for many years to come. If the surf reef continues to break as it has been for 20 years to come (probably more) that's a pretty reasonable investment for an attraction that creates this amount of attention, publicity, and community value which is undeniable. Calling yourself mikal mohr is a bad joke - your comments reek of defensiveness. Its obvious that you're disappointed to find that the reef works as well as it does. Why would you want to fight that. Fact is, the reef adds value to the community. Paul and his friends add value to the community. The publicity surrounding the reef adds value to the community. What value do you add? From what I see, the answer is none. Max Green
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Mon 11 Oct 10

stinky says...

LoudCore wrote:
Schooners wrote:
Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps

1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.

2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")

3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.

So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.

If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.

Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.

Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.

Video please next time, show us video!!!
Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped!
You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding....
Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time
It was bournemouth council that said the reef would cater for the more experianced
surfer, and it was the council that commisioned a study of the reefs performance, the results of which made not very good reading, and it was the council who because of the results were in talks with the builders to decide what could be done how much £££££s it would cost and who was to pay. The front of the peir is mank walking along the pier a pointless exercise, and a sure fire way of ruining an area is to build blocks of flats. I did quite fancy one of they beach huts sorry pods/flats whatever but the price tag was just that teeny bit over 100,000 more than I could afford. still enjoy = enjoy/ not enjoy = not enjoy L.A.L.L
[quote][p][bold]LoudCore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Schooners[/bold] wrote: Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps 1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future. 2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6") 3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work. So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK. If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong. Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working. Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide. Video please next time, show us video!!![/p][/quote]Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped! You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding.... Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time[/p][/quote]It was bournemouth council that said the reef would cater for the more experianced surfer, and it was the council that commisioned a study of the reefs performance, the results of which made not very good reading, and it was the council who because of the results were in talks with the builders to decide what could be done how much £££££s it would cost and who was to pay. The front of the peir is mank walking along the pier a pointless exercise, and a sure fire way of ruining an area is to build blocks of flats. I did quite fancy one of they beach huts sorry pods/flats whatever but the price tag was just that teeny bit over 100,000 more than I could afford. still enjoy = enjoy/ not enjoy = not enjoy L.A.L.L stinky
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Mon 11 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

@maxgreen. no need to put yourself in a lather -its all being sorted by very capable, experienced and qualified people at last. Its nice of you to want to defend something that a few enjoy and I dont begrudge them that. I just wonder what part of the $3,900,000 you represent because such passion must come from a sore spot? So I refer you to

.
mikal mhor, boscombe says...
9:59am Sat 9 Oct 10
.
mikal mhor, boscombe says...
10:14am Sat 9 Oct 10


and then again especialy for your lathered self
'
reprint for Maxgreen to study

-Then theres "Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)" for
reefdoeswork

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .

*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
maxgreen wins the second trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize?

Max green wins a special mention as his tecnique is sophisticated and worthy of a class 1 award. His techique suggests a link to the techniques displayed in the first two posts and that gives him a "amazing -super -research .." trifecta. The photos are nice, the enjoyment they get is also nice its also nice that you feel so vehement about protecting those nice things. Its the V word that gives you the class in winning the award.
@maxgreen. no need to put yourself in a lather -its all being sorted by very capable, experienced and qualified people at last. Its nice of you to want to defend something that a few enjoy and I dont begrudge them that. I just wonder what part of the $3,900,000 you represent because such passion must come from a sore spot? So I refer you to . mikal mhor, boscombe says... 9:59am Sat 9 Oct 10 . mikal mhor, boscombe says... 10:14am Sat 9 Oct 10 and then again especialy for your lathered self ' reprint for Maxgreen to study -Then theres "Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)" for reefdoeswork The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion . *ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. . *ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. . maxgreen wins the second trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize? Max green wins a special mention as his tecnique is sophisticated and worthy of a class 1 award. His techique suggests a link to the techniques displayed in the first two posts and that gives him a "amazing -super -research .." trifecta. The photos are nice, the enjoyment they get is also nice its also nice that you feel so vehement about protecting those nice things. Its the V word that gives you the class in winning the award. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:07am Tue 12 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

It becomes more and more like Monty Pythons' parrot sketch as the ' flat earthers' continue in their denial of the bleedin'obvious.

.

There is no one ever on the sandbag heap.
" It's the easterlies, that's what it is"
.
You said it was mother nature.
"Yes that, as well".
.
It doesn't work.
"errr, it just needs the right conditions ... or a bit of tweaking, perhaps"
.
It never has word
"that's because it's stunned"
.
Stunned !
"yes it's pining for bjords, the surf bjords.
.
The bjords !
"Remarkable reef the boscombe artificial squire, lovely wastage"

Listen mate, it's not pinin'! 'It's passed on! This reef is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and the money has gone to its maker!
.

'It a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in pieces! If you hadn't tied it to the beach it'd be washed up on the promenade. It's economic benefits are now 'istory! 'It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible ! ! *

.

* Dedicated to Max Green who has written a far better send up of those who still believe in the Emperors new clothes than ever I or anyone else could have. I take my hat off to you sir. A comic genius.
It becomes more and more like Monty Pythons' parrot sketch as the ' flat earthers' continue in their denial of the bleedin'obvious. . There is no one ever on the sandbag heap. " It's the easterlies, that's what it is" . You said it was mother nature. "Yes that, as well". . It doesn't work. "errr, it just needs the right conditions ... or a bit of tweaking, perhaps" . It never has word "that's because it's stunned" . Stunned ! "yes it's pining for bjords, the surf bjords. . The bjords ! "Remarkable reef the boscombe artificial squire, lovely wastage" Listen mate, it's not pinin'! 'It's passed on! This reef is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and the money has gone to its maker! . 'It a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in pieces! If you hadn't tied it to the beach it'd be washed up on the promenade. It's economic benefits are now 'istory! 'It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible ! ! * . * Dedicated to Max Green who has written a far better send up of those who still believe in the Emperors new clothes than ever I or anyone else could have. I take my hat off to you sir. A comic genius. Bob49
  • Score: 0

12:21am Tue 12 Oct 10

Max Green says...

@mikal; you didn't answer a single question.
@mikal; you didn't answer a single question. Max Green
  • Score: 0

12:24am Tue 12 Oct 10

Bob49 says...

A few of points about this 'photo'

.

Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ?

.

Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards.

.

Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ?

.

Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ?

.

Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality.
A few of points about this 'photo' . Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ? . Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards. . Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ? . Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ? . Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality. Bob49
  • Score: 0

1:39am Tue 12 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Oh come on Bobby boy... You talk about denying reality!!?

The whole set of frame grabs (posted for the 3rd time i might add).

http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&ref=mf
Oh come on Bobby boy... You talk about denying reality!!? The whole set of frame grabs (posted for the 3rd time i might add). http://www.facebook. com/album.php?aid=24 276&id=1359276231116 32&ref=mf SneakyB
  • Score: 0

8:01am Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

I looked at all the pictures and its clear that some have been tilted by over 35 degrees. It gives a misleading enhancement that could have not been done to preserve truthfulness. Soory but they are now tainted. Whoever chose to do that is no longer credible in my view. In a wki article on "miniture faking " the following is noted.
.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Miniature_f
aking#Digital_postpr
ocessing

.
Selective focus via tilt is often used to simulate a miniature scene, though as noted above, the effect is somewhat different from the shallow DoF in close-up photography of miniature subjects. Many such images are described as employing "tilt-shift", but the term is something of a misnomer because shift is seldom involved and is usually unrelated to the effect produced. The term may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically.

Basic digital postprocessing techniques can give results similar to those achieved with tilt, and afford greater flexibility, such as choosing the region that is sharp and the amount of blur for the unsharp regions. Moreover, these choices can be made after the photograph is taken. One advanced technique, Smallgantics, is used for motion-pictures; it was first seen in the 2006 Thom Yorke music video Harrowdown Hill, directed by Chel White. As is often the case in commercials and music video, the idea was taken from an artist. In this case, the idea is from artist Olivo Barbieri who had become well known for his miniature-faking stills in the 1990s.

.
do you as yet realise that you are undermining and not helping those that are trying to get the reef repaired properly?

.
there was no need at all to do this and leave yourdelves open to this expose?
I looked at all the pictures and its clear that some have been tilted by over 35 degrees. It gives a misleading enhancement that could have not been done to preserve truthfulness. Soory but they are now tainted. Whoever chose to do that is no longer credible in my view. In a wki article on "miniture faking " the following is noted. . http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Miniature_f aking#Digital_postpr ocessing . Selective focus via tilt is often used to simulate a miniature scene,[10][11] though as noted above, the effect is somewhat different from the shallow DoF in close-up photography of miniature subjects. Many such images are described as employing "tilt-shift", but the term is something of a misnomer because shift is seldom involved and is usually unrelated to the effect produced. The term may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically. Basic digital postprocessing techniques can give results similar to those achieved with tilt, and afford greater flexibility, such as choosing the region that is sharp and the amount of blur for the unsharp regions. Moreover, these choices can be made after the photograph is taken. One advanced technique, Smallgantics, is used for motion-pictures; it was first seen in the 2006 Thom Yorke music video Harrowdown Hill, directed by Chel White. As is often the case in commercials and music video, the idea was taken from an artist. In this case, the idea is from artist Olivo Barbieri who had become well known for his miniature-faking stills in the 1990s. . do you as yet realise that you are undermining and not helping those that are trying to get the reef repaired properly? . there was no need at all to do this and leave yourdelves open to this expose? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

8:14am Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

@maxgreen. no need to put yourself in a lather -its all being sorted by very capable, experienced and qualified people at last. Its nice of you to want to defend something that a few enjoy and I dont begrudge them that.
there you go - answers all4U.
.
U can be sure that no stone will remain unturned.
@maxgreen. no need to put yourself in a lather -its all being sorted by very capable, experienced and qualified people at last. Its nice of you to want to defend something that a few enjoy and I dont begrudge them that. there you go - answers all4U. . U can be sure that no stone will remain unturned. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

11:13am Tue 12 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

Bob49 I realise that you have your opinions which you feel passionate about and is your right. But just because mine as well as others differ from yours doesn't mean that they are ''tosh'' as you so kindly put it, and there is no need for your continued aggression or rudeness. Even the Capt. was able to see (but not necessarily accept) my points of view. So you walk the seafront twice a day only to find less visitor numbers....doesn't that tell you something? It should do, and that is that the recession is partially to blame for the lack of visitors to Bournemouth. Everyone is feeling the pinch at the moment, and if they are going to be spending their precious money they want to ensure that it's in a place where their time would be enjoyable at least, with good amenities, shops and a good atmosphere, and the reef can actually help to bring in some of the income needed to help the regeneration of Bournemouth. AGAIN I say that by local/travelling surfers using the reef, their money would be spent in local cafes, bars and shops etc helping the local economy instead of the tourists going to other places and lining the pockets of business there. Bournemouth became ''unpleasant'' for visitors due to certain groups of people leaving their debris on the beach e.g. used needles and condoms, the closure of businesses and the general dilapidation of the area, and what visitors in their right mind is going to spend their money in a place like this. Once AGAIN I use Newquay as an example, there are plenty of empty surfpods/apartments there as people in this current poor financial times are unable to afford the purchasing of them. HOWEVER, because the local council there has had the good sense to put up the large initial payments to improve the area, knowing full well that it would soon be recovered and a profit made, visitor numbers have increased and large amount of money are being spent by them as they are returning time and time again. Basically what I'm saying is that you have you make the first and maybe big payment to reap the rewards, and this is why I totally disagree with you when you say that the recession has caused people to stay at home, and that visitor numbers to Bournemouth should of increased. So next time you're out on one of your walks, take off your blinkers and actually LOOK at the regeneration needed. I for one travel to Cornwall a lot for holidays as well as surfing purposes, and last night I sat down and calculated roughly how much money that both my travelling companions and myself have spent there in the past year and a half ....and it totalled around £16,000+ mark. Now just think, if that income has been brought in by a very small group of people, how much money could be made by local traders and recouped by the council because of visitors using their amenities in Bournemouth...millio
ns. But AGAIN I say that to get something that visitors want to see/use the council has to pay out first and THEN reap the rewards, and the £3m shortfall as YOU call due to the reef should be classed as an investment and not a lost.

@Capt, firstly I would like to thank for your politeness to me in your comment. So to answer your question as to why I and others continue to support the ''weigh elephant'' as you call it, and the answer is purely and simply that we believe in it and can see that it is actually working. The reef IS producing waves which surfers (by this I mean users of all modes of wave crafts) are more then able to ride, and Paul Humber's photo definitely shows this. Some doubters on here are saying that the photo has been ''angled'' in such away to made it look steeper and to use one of Bob49's words that is a lot of tosh. The photographic evidence shows that the reef IS working and producing waves as the photographer is actually on the waves taking the shot.. how much more evidence do you need??!! And ONCE AGAIN I say, to try to discredit Mr Humber's photos as photoshopped or ''tampered'' with is a total disgrace, and if that were me I would be taking legal action against you for slanderous/libellous accusations.

And lastly @Mikal mhor. You say that this is being sorted out by ''very capable, experienced and qualified people'', but my questions to you are ...are they and how do you know that? And has the the surfing community and users of the reef been fairly represented with a cross section of surfers ranging from bodyboarders to standup's through to SUP's. Or is just one person's views beening used, which I might add is totally unfair!!
Bob49 I realise that you have your opinions which you feel passionate about and is your right. But just because mine as well as others differ from yours doesn't mean that they are ''tosh'' as you so kindly put it, and there is no need for your continued aggression or rudeness. Even the Capt. was able to see (but not necessarily accept) my points of view. So you walk the seafront twice a day only to find less visitor numbers....doesn't that tell you something? It should do, and that is that the recession is partially to blame for the lack of visitors to Bournemouth. Everyone is feeling the pinch at the moment, and if they are going to be spending their precious money they want to ensure that it's in a place where their time would be enjoyable at least, with good amenities, shops and a good atmosphere, and the reef can actually help to bring in some of the income needed to help the regeneration of Bournemouth. AGAIN I say that by local/travelling surfers using the reef, their money would be spent in local cafes, bars and shops etc helping the local economy instead of the tourists going to other places and lining the pockets of business there. Bournemouth became ''unpleasant'' for visitors due to certain groups of people leaving their debris on the beach e.g. used needles and condoms, the closure of businesses and the general dilapidation of the area, and what visitors in their right mind is going to spend their money in a place like this. Once AGAIN I use Newquay as an example, there are plenty of empty surfpods/apartments there as people in this current poor financial times are unable to afford the purchasing of them. HOWEVER, because the local council there has had the good sense to put up the large initial payments to improve the area, knowing full well that it would soon be recovered and a profit made, visitor numbers have increased and large amount of money are being spent by them as they are returning time and time again. Basically what I'm saying is that you have you make the first and maybe big payment to reap the rewards, and this is why I totally disagree with you when you say that the recession has caused people to stay at home, and that visitor numbers to Bournemouth should of increased. So next time you're out on one of your walks, take off your blinkers and actually LOOK at the regeneration needed. I for one travel to Cornwall a lot for holidays as well as surfing purposes, and last night I sat down and calculated roughly how much money that both my travelling companions and myself have spent there in the past year and a half ....and it totalled around £16,000+ mark. Now just think, if that income has been brought in by a very small group of people, how much money could be made by local traders and recouped by the council because of visitors using their amenities in Bournemouth...millio ns. But AGAIN I say that to get something that visitors want to see/use the council has to pay out first and THEN reap the rewards, and the £3m shortfall as YOU call due to the reef should be classed as an investment and not a lost. @Capt, firstly I would like to thank for your politeness to me in your comment. So to answer your question as to why I and others continue to support the ''weigh elephant'' as you call it, and the answer is purely and simply that we believe in it and can see that it is actually working. The reef IS producing waves which surfers (by this I mean users of all modes of wave crafts) are more then able to ride, and Paul Humber's photo definitely shows this. Some doubters on here are saying that the photo has been ''angled'' in such away to made it look steeper and to use one of Bob49's words that is a lot of tosh. The photographic evidence shows that the reef IS working and producing waves as the photographer is actually on the waves taking the shot.. how much more evidence do you need??!! And ONCE AGAIN I say, to try to discredit Mr Humber's photos as photoshopped or ''tampered'' with is a total disgrace, and if that were me I would be taking legal action against you for slanderous/libellous accusations. And lastly @Mikal mhor. You say that this is being sorted out by ''very capable, experienced and qualified people'', but my questions to you are ...are they and how do you know that? And has the the surfing community and users of the reef been fairly represented with a cross section of surfers ranging from bodyboarders to standup's through to SUP's. Or is just one person's views beening used, which I might add is totally unfair!! Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

11:38am Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

I believe that the surfing community via Mr Weight and others is acting in the best interest of recovering the best of what can be recovered form a badly executed and delivered project. Any interference with that may only be undermining their efforts. I know that Mr Weight is not popular with a few people and he has the most to gain in reputation in recovering the best that can be recovered. That is -he has his name to it and his reputation -along with others is at stake. Negotiations mean nothing unless all options are on the table and will be implemented if necessary. Again I believe that stating or misrepresenting the obvious will only undermine the efforts to improve the reef. If you are able to copy the image and then align it properly you will see that they are not "on the level" . saying they are is only contrary to the obvious and so easy to verify. No slander no libel -just the bleeding obvious to anybody, If you are able import them into a photo program and then rotate them to make the horizon level and the buildings vertical - sorry dudette but you need to do this before you can comment with anything sensible and correct. have a nice day. (up is vertical , across is level and buildings are built vertical . Any more you need to know to understand this?
The vertical and the horizontal is not correct in most if not all of these photos -so sue me! ( get a spirit level and a plumb bob and you might understand the principals of vertical and horizontal -these photos do not comply with vertical and level the way they are displayed). This does not discredit anybody but states a fact of reality. If anything I believe the fact that they were chosen to be displayed that way discredits anyone who made that choice as it misrepresents the real world. SSM!
I believe that the surfing community via Mr Weight and others is acting in the best interest of recovering the best of what can be recovered form a badly executed and delivered project. Any interference with that may only be undermining their efforts. I know that Mr Weight is not popular with a few people and he has the most to gain in reputation in recovering the best that can be recovered. That is -he has his name to it and his reputation -along with others is at stake. Negotiations mean nothing unless all options are on the table and will be implemented if necessary. Again I believe that stating or misrepresenting the obvious will only undermine the efforts to improve the reef. If you are able to copy the image and then align it properly you will see that they are not "on the level" . saying they are is only contrary to the obvious and so easy to verify. No slander no libel -just the bleeding obvious to anybody, If you are able import them into a photo program and then rotate them to make the horizon level and the buildings vertical - sorry dudette but you need to do this before you can comment with anything sensible and correct. have a nice day. (up is vertical , across is level and buildings are built vertical . Any more you need to know to understand this? The vertical and the horizontal is not correct in most if not all of these photos -so sue me! ( get a spirit level and a plumb bob and you might understand the principals of vertical and horizontal -these photos do not comply with vertical and level the way they are displayed). This does not discredit anybody but states a fact of reality. If anything I believe the fact that they were chosen to be displayed that way discredits anyone who made that choice as it misrepresents the real world. SSM! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Tue 12 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

I am more then aware of what vertical and horizontal is Mikal mhor, and your sarcasms just belittles your argument even more. But if you care to re-read my comment I'm saying that the photo isn't ''tampered'' with in any shape or form due to the positioning of the ''taker''. If you have a photographer on the wave taking this type of particular shot of course the horizon isn't going to be straight because the photographer is in the pit of the wave and starting to be ''lifted'' and going up the face of it, so this proves that the reef is working and creating waves.
There is one and only one thing that I agree with you here Mikal mhor and that is to quote your words '' Negotiations mean nothing unless all options are on the table''. And even though Mr Weigh's ''reputation'' is at stake, is he 100% knowledgeable of all modes of craft riding? I mean a SUP can go out onto the water and have an enjoyable time on a millpond, however surfers/bodyboarders needs waves. So if Mr Weigh is the ''best'' representative for the surfing community, then why is he the unpopular choice? I still believe that there should be more then one person representing the users of the reef.
I am more then aware of what vertical and horizontal is Mikal mhor, and your sarcasms just belittles your argument even more. But if you care to re-read my comment I'm saying that the photo isn't ''tampered'' with in any shape or form due to the positioning of the ''taker''. If you have a photographer on the wave taking this type of particular shot of course the horizon isn't going to be straight because the photographer is in the pit of the wave and starting to be ''lifted'' and going up the face of it, so this proves that the reef is working and creating waves. There is one and only one thing that I agree with you here Mikal mhor and that is to quote your words '' Negotiations mean nothing unless all options are on the table''. And even though Mr Weigh's ''reputation'' is at stake, is he 100% knowledgeable of all modes of craft riding? I mean a SUP can go out onto the water and have an enjoyable time on a millpond, however surfers/bodyboarders needs waves. So if Mr Weigh is the ''best'' representative for the surfing community, then why is he the unpopular choice? I still believe that there should be more then one person representing the users of the reef. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 12 Oct 10

Kamanchi Sly says...

Oh look, an article about the reef......

Oh look - all the keyboard warriors are out to play...

"Ooooo look - the cameras tilted at an angle"
"I can make waves in my bath look like that"
"copy n' pasted crap from some random site"
"That's no Boscombe - look you can't see all the drug addicts shooting up on the beach"
"another repeated paragraph that I warrior typed 5 times now"
"blah blah blah bored in my old age"

Haters keep hating...
Oh look, an article about the reef...... Oh look - all the keyboard warriors are out to play... "Ooooo look - the cameras tilted at an angle" "I can make waves in my bath look like that" "copy n' pasted crap from some random site" "That's no Boscombe - look you can't see all the drug addicts shooting up on the beach" "another repeated paragraph that I warrior typed 5 times now" "blah blah blah bored in my old age" Haters keep hating... Kamanchi Sly
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Unfortunately not our choice -nor have we been involved for the past 15 plus years he has - unfortunately the builders pretended to represent surfers and the public has lost confidence in surfers because of their lack of meeting their contract. They from the start said they knew it all for the benefit of the sport so perhaps you should take issue with them? They are the ones with the 3,600,000 pounds -not the surfers? The photos need to be corrected for real world orientation so that everyone knows they are real. Any deviation from that does more harm than good. The correction is not hard to do and represents a step in the right direction for good faith and public perception of good faith. The issue already suffers badly from lack of true information and any more just associates it with the past ill practices used in selling this concept. I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean.
Unfortunately not our choice -nor have we been involved for the past 15 plus years he has - unfortunately the builders pretended to represent surfers and the public has lost confidence in surfers because of their lack of meeting their contract. They from the start said they knew it all for the benefit of the sport so perhaps you should take issue with them? They are the ones with the 3,600,000 pounds -not the surfers? The photos need to be corrected for real world orientation so that everyone knows they are real. Any deviation from that does more harm than good. The correction is not hard to do and represents a step in the right direction for good faith and public perception of good faith. The issue already suffers badly from lack of true information and any more just associates it with the past ill practices used in selling this concept. I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Tue 12 Oct 10

smithy34 says...

hang on a minute!!!! I think everybody has skipped over one vital piece of evidence here - why did we pay millions for a reef when Schooners can
"recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub"
grab your boards and get round schooners house!
What is all your obsessions about the photo not being straight? If it concerns you that much, tilt your head a little, as others have suggested... and what do you see??? still looks like a bodyboarder dropping into a sick wave better than anything the piers or beach have ever produced.
.
What's it like living in such a negative world where you see the worst in everything and as soon as somebody comes out with a positive view you shoot it down and do everything you can to discredit it?
.
You people are an embarrassment to the town.
.
the suns out today, why don't you go and find somewhere to moan about that, or find a child's ball to pop.
hang on a minute!!!! I think everybody has skipped over one vital piece of evidence here - why did we pay millions for a reef when Schooners can "recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub" grab your boards and get round schooners house! What is all your obsessions about the photo not being straight? If it concerns you that much, tilt your head a little, as others have suggested... and what do you see??? still looks like a bodyboarder dropping into a sick wave better than anything the piers or beach have ever produced. . What's it like living in such a negative world where you see the worst in everything and as soon as somebody comes out with a positive view you shoot it down and do everything you can to discredit it? . You people are an embarrassment to the town. . the suns out today, why don't you go and find somewhere to moan about that, or find a child's ball to pop. smithy34
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean on this planet.
I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean on this planet. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 12 Oct 10

smithy34 says...

haha yeah i laughed at your ignorance and negativity the first time you wrote it.
haha yeah i laughed at your ignorance and negativity the first time you wrote it. smithy34
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Tue 12 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

I agree with you there Mikal mhor about the contractors having the £3.6m in their pockets and giving surfers wrongly a poor name. I think that from the start that they should have taken a cross section of experienced wave riders who would of given their honest opinion as to the needs/requirements of the reef and then this ''situation'' wouldn't of occurred. I'm not making an personal attack of Mr Weigh or his preferred mode of craft, just that I really don't believe that good ''all round'' opinions can be given by one person alone to represent surfers who need different elements for their sport.

As for the ''straightening'' of the photo, I do hear what you're saying. However, if that was done I could guarantee that someone is still going to cry photoshop. But how this shot has been taken and shown is true to how it is actually working. I do agree with Smithy34 that basically all that's needed is a tilt of ones head. But even if the photo was turned to prove to a non surfer or doubter, it still shows a good wave with a bodyboarder actually riding it successfully and that the reef working.

As for the lack of true information, the council has to take responsibility for that as they are the ones who should of gathered and informed the public correctly and everything out in the open. I do think that other reefs will be built else where, but lessons learnt from this...err....mess.
I agree with you there Mikal mhor about the contractors having the £3.6m in their pockets and giving surfers wrongly a poor name. I think that from the start that they should have taken a cross section of experienced wave riders who would of given their honest opinion as to the needs/requirements of the reef and then this ''situation'' wouldn't of occurred. I'm not making an personal attack of Mr Weigh or his preferred mode of craft, just that I really don't believe that good ''all round'' opinions can be given by one person alone to represent surfers who need different elements for their sport. As for the ''straightening'' of the photo, I do hear what you're saying. However, if that was done I could guarantee that someone is still going to cry photoshop. But how this shot has been taken and shown is true to how it is actually working. I do agree with Smithy34 that basically all that's needed is a tilt of ones head. But even if the photo was turned to prove to a non surfer or doubter, it still shows a good wave with a bodyboarder actually riding it successfully and that the reef working. As for the lack of true information, the council has to take responsibility for that as they are the ones who should of gathered and informed the public correctly and everything out in the open. I do think that other reefs will be built else where, but lessons learnt from this...err....mess. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Tue 12 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

You guys keep asking why we are sticking up for it if it "slows efforts to improve the reef".

Our major point and the reason why most of the pro-reef comments are posting on here is that we don't want it tampered with much ... if at all.

We know exactly what the council would do if they had there way/could get the money. They would turn it into a slow crap wave that any ol person could go and surf to maximize the amount of people on it at any one time. Not only would that be more dangerous than having a heavy reef (as it is now), due to collisions and even violence. It would completely undermine the project and therefor interest would drop off completely.

The reef as it is, is a special kind of beast and it is unlike anywhere else i have ridden in the world. If they soften it, it would lose that uniqueness and blend in with the the rest of the surf around here.

mikal - "I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean "

There has already been a new one in india....


As for people still going on about the photo integrity. I'd like to see any of you guys out there taking shots/video with perfectly straight horizons ...lol!

Tilted or not, it still has a 6 foot man falling down it for comparison. It also has another man behind him on the peak (the larger part of the wave). The focal point of the shot is probably only 2/3's of the original wave height (where the other guy is).
You guys keep asking why we are sticking up for it if it "slows efforts to improve the reef". Our major point and the reason why most of the pro-reef comments are posting on here is that we don't want it tampered with much ... if at all. We know exactly what the council would do if they had there way/could get the money. They would turn it into a slow crap wave that any ol person could go and surf to maximize the amount of people on it at any one time. Not only would that be more dangerous than having a heavy reef (as it is now), due to collisions and even violence. It would completely undermine the project and therefor interest would drop off completely. The reef as it is, is a special kind of beast and it is unlike anywhere else i have ridden in the world. If they soften it, it would lose that uniqueness and blend in with the the rest of the surf around here. mikal - "I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean " There has already been a new one in india.... As for people still going on about the photo integrity. I'd like to see any of you guys out there taking shots/video with perfectly straight horizons ...lol! Tilted or not, it still has a 6 foot man falling down it for comparison. It also has another man behind him on the peak (the larger part of the wave). The focal point of the shot is probably only 2/3's of the original wave height (where the other guy is). SneakyB
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Tue 12 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

so SB its too valuable to 50 or so of you at various times when you are not elsewhere in the world for it to be tampered with? Good luck with that one. So when its on you'all fly home straight away? Ive straightened them and they are a different set of circumstances (in reality) -sorry but to the average person they are decieving to the real circumstances and leaving that way provides the basis for that deception. Not good! Head tilt? :( otherwise have a nice day!
so SB its too valuable to 50 or so of you at various times when you are not elsewhere in the world for it to be tampered with? Good luck with that one. So when its on you'all fly home straight away? Ive straightened them and they are a different set of circumstances (in reality) -sorry but to the average person they are decieving to the real circumstances and leaving that way provides the basis for that deception. Not good! Head tilt? :( otherwise have a nice day! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Tue 12 Oct 10

Max Green says...

mikal mhor wrote:
I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean on this planet.
It already has happened and it throws up an impressive wave. http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=mGYuj-Ow1
rk
[quote][p][bold]mikal mhor[/bold] wrote: I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean on this planet.[/p][/quote]It already has happened and it throws up an impressive wave. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=mGYuj-Ow1 rk Max Green
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Tue 12 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

Hahahaha, you make us out to be international jet setters!? .... Just like the majority of the people in this country, we work, we save, we have a holiday, we come home and repeat.

In the words of the late MR Coleman
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_
9k

Now i'm off to fuel up my private jet! Hahaha!!!
Hahahaha, you make us out to be international jet setters!? .... Just like the majority of the people in this country, we work, we save, we have a holiday, we come home and repeat. In the words of the late MR Coleman http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_ 9k Now i'm off to fuel up my private jet! Hahaha!!! SneakyB
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Tue 12 Oct 10

rogerwebby says...

sneaky b you sound like a right nob
sneaky b you sound like a right nob rogerwebby
  • Score: 0

8:36am Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

@MG -I looked and pewked over my keyboard just at the opening music then couldnt handle anymore - same story we heard here just more sophisticated. Didnt that happen before this one was finished at the expense of our local people -thats enough to make anyone pewk - no! this mess will never ever ever happen again anywhere on this planet.

.
@all Anyone looking at that should think well for the Indian people as we paid for it and if some get their way will keep paying for it.
.
@SB - didnt someone say that world travelled pros use and prefer it?
.
@RW -relax he probably cant help it.
@RW
@MG -I looked and pewked over my keyboard just at the opening music then couldnt handle anymore - same story we heard here just more sophisticated. Didnt that happen before this one was finished at the expense of our local people -thats enough to make anyone pewk - no! this mess will never ever ever happen again anywhere on this planet. . @all Anyone looking at that should think well for the Indian people as we paid for it and if some get their way will keep paying for it. . @SB - didnt someone say that world travelled pros use and prefer it? . @RW -relax he probably cant help it. @RW mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

9:50am Wed 13 Oct 10

Paul Humber says...

Bob49 wrote:
A few of points about this 'photo'

.

Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ?

.

Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards.

.

Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ?

.

Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ?

.

Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality.
hahaha are you joking Bob49? You make rediculous accusations about the legitimacy of my photos and then go on to say that it "should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality". You want to take a long hard look at yourself mate!! I do apologise for not getting the horizon perfectly straight, after swimming through 250 metres of whitewash to get out there, sitting in the impact zone for hours, scrambling into position when a wave comes through I forgot to get my protractor out and check the horizon line. You rotate that picture so the horizon is straight, then you find a picture of a better wave that's broken in Bourneomuth Bay in the last 100 years and I'll start listening to what you've got to say. Your cynicism is laughable. I'm not responding any more to these rediculous claims and arguments. I take everybodys claims of photoshop and tampering as a compliment as you obviously think the photos are too good to be real! they are real. The reef produces great waves. deal with it.
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: A few of points about this 'photo' . Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ? . Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards. . Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ? . Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ? . Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality.[/p][/quote]hahaha are you joking Bob49? You make rediculous accusations about the legitimacy of my photos and then go on to say that it "should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality". You want to take a long hard look at yourself mate!! I do apologise for not getting the horizon perfectly straight, after swimming through 250 metres of whitewash to get out there, sitting in the impact zone for hours, scrambling into position when a wave comes through I forgot to get my protractor out and check the horizon line. You rotate that picture so the horizon is straight, then you find a picture of a better wave that's broken in Bourneomuth Bay in the last 100 years and I'll start listening to what you've got to say. Your cynicism is laughable. I'm not responding any more to these rediculous claims and arguments. I take everybodys claims of photoshop and tampering as a compliment as you obviously think the photos are too good to be real! they are real. The reef produces great waves. deal with it. Paul Humber
  • Score: 0

10:09am Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

@PHD -notasgood as the indian reef it seems?
.
it throws up better there! You helped pay for it and are still paying.
.
taking the picture that way may of been a bit wish -fulfilment - but they are nice little shots when corrected for the difficult circumstances you were in.
.
Its a nice little drop and turn place.
'
sort -of cute!
@PHD -notasgood as the indian reef it seems? . it throws up better there! You helped pay for it and are still paying. . taking the picture that way may of been a bit wish -fulfilment - but they are nice little shots when corrected for the difficult circumstances you were in. . Its a nice little drop and turn place. ' sort -of cute! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:10am Wed 13 Oct 10

The Liberal says...

Who cares about these photos? 'One swallow does not a summer make.' The real issue is whether the reef produces more days of surfable waves in an average year, and whether the ride is improved.
Who cares about these photos? 'One swallow does not a summer make.' The real issue is whether the reef produces more days of surfable waves in an average year, and whether the ride is improved. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

10:33am Wed 13 Oct 10

reefwatching says...

The photos are a red herring – whether or not it is good for a group of local bodyboarders is not relevant to the original business case. 50 in number, I make that £72,000 each. Just think how many local playgrounds, youth clubs, sports clubs, etc, £3.6m could of helped.

The point of spending that much money, well actually the point of spending the original £1m odd budget before ASR screwed the council, was to attract surfers from far afield to surf the reef, spend their money, and generally generate a watersport centre to assist Boscombe’s economy and image, creating a catalyst for further investment.

Unless anybody can demonstrate any differently (like evidence of surfers from London going to Boscombe rather than Cornwall, businesses set up due to the reef’s effects, etc), the reef can only be seen as a failure since the investment is not providing the return anticipated. In fact it could be seen to have had a negative effect. The council are therefore quite rightly being criticised for both proceeding with the project despite the evidence of failures elsewhere, and the mismanagement of the contract which led to the cost trebling.

The fact that the local bodyboarders like it on the infrequent occasions it ‘performs’, which I don’t doubt and hope they enjoy it, is only an unintended benefit and has to be seen as such.
The photos are a red herring – whether or not it is good for a group of local bodyboarders is not relevant to the original business case. 50 in number, I make that £72,000 each. Just think how many local playgrounds, youth clubs, sports clubs, etc, £3.6m could of helped. The point of spending that much money, well actually the point of spending the original £1m odd budget before ASR screwed the council, was to attract surfers from far afield to surf the reef, spend their money, and generally generate a watersport centre to assist Boscombe’s economy and image, creating a catalyst for further investment. Unless anybody can demonstrate any differently (like evidence of surfers from London going to Boscombe rather than Cornwall, businesses set up due to the reef’s effects, etc), the reef can only be seen as a failure since the investment is not providing the return anticipated. In fact it could be seen to have had a negative effect. The council are therefore quite rightly being criticised for both proceeding with the project despite the evidence of failures elsewhere, and the mismanagement of the contract which led to the cost trebling. The fact that the local bodyboarders like it on the infrequent occasions it ‘performs’, which I don’t doubt and hope they enjoy it, is only an unintended benefit and has to be seen as such. reefwatching
  • Score: 0

10:54am Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

When you type £3.6m you actually understate the amount in a way that does not do the true cost justice. 3,600,00.00 Great Britain Pounds is a more apt way of expressing it. Every penny is valuable and hard to come by.
Value for every penny is also required.
That may be the real issue, no I think that is the real issue. ? Where is the real value for that expenditure?
When you type £3.6m you actually understate the amount in a way that does not do the true cost justice. 3,600,00.00 Great Britain Pounds is a more apt way of expressing it. Every penny is valuable and hard to come by. Value for every penny is also required. That may be the real issue, no I think that is the real issue. ? Where is the real value for that expenditure? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Wed 13 Oct 10

all seeing cat says...

boring... cant be bothered to read this now its all too long winded - you bunch of reef geeks!!!!! back to skone roberts, man he is one expert on all things wave and dolphin themed!
boring... cant be bothered to read this now its all too long winded - you bunch of reef geeks!!!!! back to skone roberts, man he is one expert on all things wave and dolphin themed! all seeing cat
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Gazz43’
Ye really do have a comprehensive problem!! Or perhaps it be a problem with comprehension? I thought me words were honed right down to thar bone and composed as simplistically as possible just fer thee to read but yet again alas……. On Sunday at 4pm there be between 50 and 80 people surfing NONE including you were availing yerself of thy £3.6m pounds worth of ‘Weights Elephant’
As fer ye stating “I too was in the water (as if that alone justifies £3.6m) and know exactly what I’m talking about unlike you clearly do” Well!!!!! What be thar point? Yet again you choose to limit yer vocabulary to churlish comments rather than positive replies. If ye still have enough energy about yerself I suggest ye re-read me comments again and s l o w l y, I stated all thy surfers were on thy WEST side of thy empty ‘Weights Elephant’ and Peapod sailed DOWN wind so I do be well aware from where thar wind be coming from (even allowing fer thy blusterings) so yer have wasted even more of yer imagination. Oh yes one very positive point ye did make was that ‘Weights Elephant’, along with its other limitations wont work if thy wind from thy East, I don’t remember thy BBC, Mr Weights, ASR, you et al as transcontinental surfers making that point at thy planning stage. Well I congratulate thee sir fer yer statement “Thy ‘Weights Elephant’ DON’T work if it be an Easterly wind” Now be that ‘positive or negative?’
Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ Ye really do have a comprehensive problem!! Or perhaps it be a problem with comprehension? I thought me words were honed right down to thar bone and composed as simplistically as possible just fer thee to read but yet again alas……. On Sunday at 4pm there be between 50 and 80 people surfing NONE including you were availing yerself of thy £3.6m pounds worth of ‘Weights Elephant’ As fer ye stating “I too was in the water (as if that alone justifies £3.6m) and know exactly what I’m talking about unlike you clearly do” Well!!!!! What be thar point? Yet again you choose to limit yer vocabulary to churlish comments rather than positive replies. If ye still have enough energy about yerself I suggest ye re-read me comments again and s l o w l y, I stated all thy surfers were on thy WEST side of thy empty ‘Weights Elephant’ and Peapod sailed DOWN wind so I do be well aware from where thar wind be coming from (even allowing fer thy blusterings) so yer have wasted even more of yer imagination. Oh yes one very positive point ye did make was that ‘Weights Elephant’, along with its other limitations wont work if thy wind from thy East, I don’t remember thy BBC, Mr Weights, ASR, you et al as transcontinental surfers making that point at thy planning stage. Well I congratulate thee sir fer yer statement “Thy ‘Weights Elephant’ DON’T work if it be an Easterly wind” Now be that ‘positive or negative?’ Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Wed 13 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

I'm not going to start talking finance again because (although important) isn't my point in regards to this article or what i (and others) are trying to help people see.

Maybe if there was less bad press about the wave itself more people would come and give it a go. Argument aside, shouldn't you guys be supporting that to get your "value for money"?

Let the voices that actually ride the wave have their say and it may actually start to improve in visitor numbers, instead of criticizing our every word publicly and no doubt putting people off.

Also, people do come down from London, Brighton etc. I have no proof but then why would i!?

To the Oxford Pirate. I stopped reading your cobble about 4 posts ago. Regardless of what you have to say, if you can't type properly i'm not going to take you seriously.

Over and out..
I'm not going to start talking finance again because (although important) isn't my point in regards to this article or what i (and others) are trying to help people see. Maybe if there was less bad press about the wave itself more people would come and give it a go. Argument aside, shouldn't you guys be supporting that to get your "value for money"? Let the voices that actually ride the wave have their say and it may actually start to improve in visitor numbers, instead of criticizing our every word publicly and no doubt putting people off. Also, people do come down from London, Brighton etc. I have no proof but then why would i!? To the Oxford Pirate. I stopped reading your cobble about 4 posts ago. Regardless of what you have to say, if you can't type properly i'm not going to take you seriously. Over and out.. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Glashen says...

The arguments about whether the reef was a good idea have gone on here for many years, but these pictures do raise an issue for the anti brigade. Whatever your view the reef has had plenty of bad publicity, they say any publicity is good publicity, BUT.
-
These photos are good publicity for the reef, so what do the anti brigade do, Rubbish them, claim they are fake etc. etc., surely if you want the best for Boscombe you would be pleased by this demonstration of the reef can do, and the subsequent good publicity.
The arguments about whether the reef was a good idea have gone on here for many years, but these pictures do raise an issue for the anti brigade. Whatever your view the reef has had plenty of bad publicity, they say any publicity is good publicity, BUT. - These photos are good publicity for the reef, so what do the anti brigade do, Rubbish them, claim they are fake etc. etc., surely if you want the best for Boscombe you would be pleased by this demonstration of the reef can do, and the subsequent good publicity. Glashen
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ’SneakyB’
Tis as I suspected re ‘et al’ I reply to ‘Gazz43’ and ye answer on his behalf. Yer grasp of history be as abysmal as yer pontifications of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a success, Captain Ahab not a ‘pirate’ at all, no wonder thy Brethren do doubt what yer be saying. Now ye be suggesting it bad press that causing ‘Weights Elephant’ to malfunction, what next, it don’t work when there be an ‘e’ in thy month, please, oh please do try to be more imaginative. Upon me soul, YE have taken umbrage with me speakings and will not take me seriously any more, well I’ll instruct me scribe to announce that right piece of disturbing news to Peapods crew, I’m not sure they’ll be too many sleepless nights though.
Ahoy ’SneakyB’ Tis as I suspected re ‘et al’ I reply to ‘Gazz43’ and ye answer on his behalf. Yer grasp of history be as abysmal as yer pontifications of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a success, Captain Ahab not a ‘pirate’ at all, no wonder thy Brethren do doubt what yer be saying. Now ye be suggesting it bad press that causing ‘Weights Elephant’ to malfunction, what next, it don’t work when there be an ‘e’ in thy month, please, oh please do try to be more imaginative. Upon me soul, YE have taken umbrage with me speakings and will not take me seriously any more, well I’ll instruct me scribe to announce that right piece of disturbing news to Peapods crew, I’m not sure they’ll be too many sleepless nights though. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Anti-brigade? How about people who just want realistic and true. Nothing wrong at all with the ones who like whats there. The trouble is they are too few and they enjoy it too infrequently. They ask for too much for themselves. But thats alright as we expect everyone to be mired a little in self interest. Thats why the process is being looked at very carefully and this time truefully. Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many with this one -that can interfer with your navigation. Theres also a lot of metal around that will interfer with the deviation of your compass from true north. Nasty business this bit of "making good" -especially when a few say - no need as "all's already good". But I ask, good for for who and when? I keep getting back to more than a third of a billion pennies. Every penny counts and theres 360,000,000 of them scattered on that "feature". To the town they should have the value of pieces of eight if they were properly and securely placed for the waves. Sadly not so as promised. The dom has them devalued to the value of a slug?
Anti-brigade? How about people who just want realistic and true. Nothing wrong at all with the ones who like whats there. The trouble is they are too few and they enjoy it too infrequently. They ask for too much for themselves. But thats alright as we expect everyone to be mired a little in self interest. Thats why the process is being looked at very carefully and this time truefully. Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many with this one -that can interfer with your navigation. Theres also a lot of metal around that will interfer with the deviation of your compass from true north. Nasty business this bit of "making good" -especially when a few say - no need as "all's already good". But I ask, good for for who and when? I keep getting back to more than a third of a billion pennies. Every penny counts and theres 360,000,000 of them scattered on that "feature". To the town they should have the value of pieces of eight if they were properly and securely placed for the waves. Sadly not so as promised. The dom has them devalued to the value of a slug? mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette’

Thank ye fer yer ‘enclosure’ but I really must insist an answer to my perfectly straightforward, honest, simple question “Why, when 50+ surfers enjoying naturally created waves to thy West of ‘Weights Elephant’ and that ASRs Managing Director stated quite clearly that thar ‘reef’ don’t “create waves it enhances a natural swell” that NOT one of thee ‘regular or advanced’ surfers be seen either by eye, a camera, a tourist, a lifeguard or even (in desperation) a herring gull. It bin offered by yer colleagues that ‘Weights Elephant’ NOW unable to function ‘cos of an Easterly’ wind YET look about yerselfs 50+ people enjoying thar ‘Easterly’ wind, naturally generated surf, oh minus of course £3.6m. Now yer ‘et als’ be stating that yer newly set up committee not be ‘expert’ enough to make decisions regarding, I can’t believe this part,’tweakings?
these experts, in thar main were thar ones responsible fer its go ahead in thy 1st place.
Does ye really believe that one, dubious, photo do offer a credible sanction of ‘Weights Elephants’ successful history, surely they’d be so many pretty pictures in evidence, no doubt regaling its international popularity, thy BBC would indeed have paid a pretty price to have silenced Peapods crew months ago yet it is themselves that have gone ‘quiet’ Har well not exactly quiet they be on here under all these new names that be ‘awash’ with such vehement repudiations of any valid critique. Even a new slant being to leave, not ‘tweak’ ‘Weights Elephant’ as that be about spoiling such an exalted achievement, that sound like a ruse to me.
Be happy, dear lady, in yer surfing, content to know that Cornwall be far more reliable, challenging and usually warmer than thy loveable Boscombe fer this activity.
Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette’ Thank ye fer yer ‘enclosure’ but I really must insist an answer to my perfectly straightforward, honest, simple question “Why, when 50+ surfers enjoying naturally created waves to thy West of ‘Weights Elephant’ and that ASRs Managing Director stated quite clearly that thar ‘reef’ don’t “create waves it enhances a natural swell” that NOT one of thee ‘regular or advanced’ surfers be seen either by eye, a camera, a tourist, a lifeguard or even (in desperation) a herring gull. It bin offered by yer colleagues that ‘Weights Elephant’ NOW unable to function ‘cos of an Easterly’ wind YET look about yerselfs 50+ people enjoying thar ‘Easterly’ wind, naturally generated surf, oh minus of course £3.6m. Now yer ‘et als’ be stating that yer newly set up committee not be ‘expert’ enough to make decisions regarding, I can’t believe this part,’tweakings? these experts, in thar main were thar ones responsible fer its go ahead in thy 1st place. Does ye really believe that one, dubious, photo do offer a credible sanction of ‘Weights Elephants’ successful history, surely they’d be so many pretty pictures in evidence, no doubt regaling its international popularity, thy BBC would indeed have paid a pretty price to have silenced Peapods crew months ago yet it is themselves that have gone ‘quiet’ Har well not exactly quiet they be on here under all these new names that be ‘awash’ with such vehement repudiations of any valid critique. Even a new slant being to leave, not ‘tweak’ ‘Weights Elephant’ as that be about spoiling such an exalted achievement, that sound like a ruse to me. Be happy, dear lady, in yer surfing, content to know that Cornwall be far more reliable, challenging and usually warmer than thy loveable Boscombe fer this activity. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

errata for last post.
.
Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation.
errata for last post. . Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

mikal mhor wrote:
errata for last post.
.
Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation.
Ahoy ‘mikal mhor’
Tis with interest and rightly heed thy warnings, almost a sense of Déjà vu with me reply to thee and no doubt our ‘Mutual’ friends albeit undercover, on thar scent of another pressing case! Will take heed of these new ‘tactics’ that be employed to defend such a waste of gold coinage.
[quote][p][bold]mikal mhor[/bold] wrote: errata for last post. . Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation.[/p][/quote]Ahoy ‘mikal mhor’ Tis with interest and rightly heed thy warnings, almost a sense of Déjà vu with me reply to thee and no doubt our ‘Mutual’ friends albeit undercover, on thar scent of another pressing case! Will take heed of these new ‘tactics’ that be employed to defend such a waste of gold coinage. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Spongerdudette says...

I can't believe what I'm reading here. The ''doubters'' are putting their points of view and then asking the surfing community this question and that question. We reply and try to explain our side of things, and then the same questions are asked only in a different way trying to catch us out. In my previous posts, I've tried to explain why the reef is a good thing, that it IS working, Mr Humber's photo is NOT photoshopped or tampered with in anyway and even down to my view on the financial side of things. But to top the whole thing off, Mikal mhor starts arguing about how £3.8m is written......for crying out loud get real will you, so I shall say this ONE more time only. The reef IS working, it produces good waves, it is good for Bournemouth and will bring surfers/tourists in from other areas to boost the local economy. And oh Capt, the waves in Boscombe are far warmer because it's the English channel rather then the bitter cold of the Atlantic but the Bournemouth's reef is producing challenging waves as also and well worth a go. I can no longer comment on this when it's got so childish, boring and going around in circles. So to all the doubters, enjoy your time pacing the seafront and counting and I hope you don't suffer too much dizziness from your eternal ride on the merry-go-round......
.I'm outta here.
I can't believe what I'm reading here. The ''doubters'' are putting their points of view and then asking the surfing community this question and that question. We reply and try to explain our side of things, and then the same questions are asked only in a different way trying to catch us out. In my previous posts, I've tried to explain why the reef is a good thing, that it IS working, Mr Humber's photo is NOT photoshopped or tampered with in anyway and even down to my view on the financial side of things. But to top the whole thing off, Mikal mhor starts arguing about how £3.8m is written......for crying out loud get real will you, so I shall say this ONE more time only. The reef IS working, it produces good waves, it is good for Bournemouth and will bring surfers/tourists in from other areas to boost the local economy. And oh Capt, the waves in Boscombe are far warmer because it's the English channel rather then the bitter cold of the Atlantic but the Bournemouth's reef is producing challenging waves as also and well worth a go. I can no longer comment on this when it's got so childish, boring and going around in circles. So to all the doubters, enjoy your time pacing the seafront and counting and I hope you don't suffer too much dizziness from your eternal ride on the merry-go-round...... .I'm outta here. Spongerdudette
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Wed 13 Oct 10

Moby Dick says...

@mikal @cap't ahab

It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront.
@mikal @cap't ahab It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront. Moby Dick
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Wed 13 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

soory to bore you dudette but the money really counts. Just in case you havent realized its counting even more now theres little about. The publicity is not that good unless you havent realised and getting surfers there on the basis of promised certainty is really really really bad news.
soory to bore you dudette but the money really counts. Just in case you havent realized its counting even more now theres little about. The publicity is not that good unless you havent realised and getting surfers there on the basis of promised certainty is really really really bad news. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Wed 13 Oct 10

rogerwebby says...

Capt. Ahab (ret.),
you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate
Capt. Ahab (ret.), you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate rogerwebby
  • Score: 0

9:35am Thu 14 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

RW -thats not a very nice thing to say ! Besides Bell End is nowhere near the ocean.
RW -thats not a very nice thing to say ! Besides Bell End is nowhere near the ocean. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

9:44am Thu 14 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Moby Dick wrote:
@mikal @cap't ahab

It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront.
Ahoy 'Moby Dick'
Can I have me leg back please.
[quote][p][bold]Moby Dick[/bold] wrote: @mikal @cap't ahab It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront.[/p][/quote]Ahoy 'Moby Dick' Can I have me leg back please. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

9:52am Thu 14 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

rogerwebby wrote:
Capt. Ahab (ret.),
you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate
Ahoy ‘rogerwebby’
Be there a ‘lot’ of inbreeding from whence thee came??
[quote][p][bold]rogerwebby[/bold] wrote: Capt. Ahab (ret.), you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate[/p][/quote]Ahoy ‘rogerwebby’ Be there a ‘lot’ of inbreeding from whence thee came?? Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

9:55am Thu 14 Oct 10

Capt. Ahab (ret.) says...

Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette’

Yer haven’t answered me questions at all but I can see yer losing control as yet another ‘Weights Elephant’ proponent goes home to get ‘changed’
Being such a well-travelled lady, well at least to Cornwall, I’d thought ye be well aware of a small natural occurrence called thy Gulf Stream!! Which in thar main, along with similar warm air currents, helps keep Ireland and the western coast of Great Britain a couple of degrees warmer than the east.
Regards.
Ahoy ‘Spongerdudette’ Yer haven’t answered me questions at all but I can see yer losing control as yet another ‘Weights Elephant’ proponent goes home to get ‘changed’ Being such a well-travelled lady, well at least to Cornwall, I’d thought ye be well aware of a small natural occurrence called thy Gulf Stream!! Which in thar main, along with similar warm air currents, helps keep Ireland and the western coast of Great Britain a couple of degrees warmer than the east. Regards. Capt. Ahab (ret.)
  • Score: 0

10:28am Thu 14 Oct 10

a.g.o.g. says...

I thought surfers did it standing up!
I thought surfers did it standing up! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 14 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?That too!
(safe-rich) omg!
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?That too! (safe-rich) omg! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:31am Fri 15 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

So there we have it - proof of a once in a while cute wave. A tad misrepresented by the inability of the photographer to take a level picture in difficult circumstance - but if you copy these pictures from here and elsewhere you can rotate them by the amount needed for them to be on the level and the evidence is then clear -its a cute little wave being enjoyed by a few -thats certainly irrefutable. So as to not be accused of "cherry picking " data this instance has to be examined with every other year,month, day and hour of time to properly put it into true perspective. Then its incontrovertible and indesputable in proper and true context. So good luck and funding to the real Phd study taking place to do that. I am sure that all haters, lovers, deniers, charlatons, sceptics and just dont cares will welcome that. (reality does count nowadays when money is very scarce).
sorry if the right thing and the truth offends anybody -that just life!
So there we have it - proof of a once in a while cute wave. A tad misrepresented by the inability of the photographer to take a level picture in difficult circumstance - but if you copy these pictures from here and elsewhere you can rotate them by the amount needed for them to be on the level and the evidence is then clear -its a cute little wave being enjoyed by a few -thats certainly irrefutable. So as to not be accused of "cherry picking " data this instance has to be examined with every other year,month, day and hour of time to properly put it into true perspective. Then its incontrovertible and indesputable in proper and true context. So good luck and funding to the real Phd study taking place to do that. I am sure that all haters, lovers, deniers, charlatons, sceptics and just dont cares will welcome that. (reality does count nowadays when money is very scarce). sorry if the right thing and the truth offends anybody -that just life! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 15 Oct 10

smithy34 says...

well it's good that you feel important enough to sum up and conclude this debate for everybody. The main thing that i've learnt from reading all this crap is that you mikal, are an idiot.
goodnight.
well it's good that you feel important enough to sum up and conclude this debate for everybody. The main thing that i've learnt from reading all this crap is that you mikal, are an idiot. goodnight. smithy34
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Fri 15 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

important - no. ntat-all . Just awake and aware and obviously close to the bone when you feel compelleld to get personal. When the backs to the wall ?
you, sir are a namecaller!
important - no. ntat-all . Just awake and aware and obviously close to the bone when you feel compelleld to get personal. When the backs to the wall ? you, sir are a namecaller! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Fri 15 Oct 10

SneakyB says...

It's not name calling when it's the truth. Not to mention condescending, pompous and filled with self importance.

You should change your nickname to Jeremy Kyle.
It's not name calling when it's the truth. Not to mention condescending, pompous and filled with self importance. You should change your nickname to Jeremy Kyle. SneakyB
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Fri 15 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

Must be close to the bone -sorry if the truth hurts! Evil flourishs where good people do nothing? I cant understand where you both fit in amongst haters, lovers, deniers, charlatons, sceptics and just dont cares ? But then that doesnt matter to me -only to yourselves? I personaly dont matter one iota!
Must be close to the bone -sorry if the truth hurts! Evil flourishs where good people do nothing? I cant understand where you both fit in amongst haters, lovers, deniers, charlatons, sceptics and just dont cares ? But then that doesnt matter to me -only to yourselves? I personaly dont matter one iota! mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Fri 15 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The synonymous terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ an ignorant), neither of which refer to someone with low intelligence.

****

"Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individua
ls who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.

Idiot as a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own"). In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person." Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet and prophecy. The word has cognates in many other languages.

That is so funny , ironic and self defeating in your use of it? Have a nice day.
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The synonymous terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ an ignorant), neither of which refer to someone with low intelligence. **** "Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individua ls who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.[1] Idiot as a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[2] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[3] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[4] and prophecy.[5][6] The word has cognates in many other languages. That is so funny , ironic and self defeating in your use of it? Have a nice day. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

11:56am Mon 25 Oct 10

mikal mhor says...

http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/fe

atures/surfreef/

is where you can see real video evidence of how the reef works.
http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/fe atures/surfreef/ is where you can see real video evidence of how the reef works. mikal mhor
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree