GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Janet · 13-07-2012, 05:56 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening

In article ,
says...

Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
lid says...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without
the possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that
there is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise.

You've gone off course. The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded neighbourhood try to sue
for negligence.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of
a potential legal defence by the water authority .

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining
or financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and
moving, to get a bigger garden, which will mean other obstacles to
be overcome). However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first
hand knowledge of what people are saying to him and he is thus better
placed to judge the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's
most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which
makes it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every
reason to suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what
insurers or solicitors say.

When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head
and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.

Janet.

For your information, Janet, dyslexia is not a disease, and it does not
affect my judgement. Mine is a reading and writing disorder. It does not
make me "thick" or uneducated, I just have to try harder to understand
the written word.

I haven't called Dyslexia a disease, or related to intelligence; I have
said it makes it much harder to understand the written word. Reading for
sense, requires far more skill than just recognising individual words;
it's about understanding the words in their context ; and you very often
demonstrate that you miss that by a mile. *

My IQ is not an issue here as much as your delusions of
grandeur. Patting me on the head would only result in a verbal, but
polite volley from me, and possibly an allegation of assault.. Then it
would be up to the courts to decide who is an imbecile.

* See above. You misinterpreted. Nobody is about to assault or even
touch you IRL. In the context of a usenet discussion, "patting you on the
head" is a figure of speech, meaning, palming you off with platitudes.

I can read music, play the piano and a few other stringed instruments,
play Bridge, oh yes! write music. I am dextrous which is essential being
a carpenter and joiner, and my hobby which is restoring post war
motorcycles.

I don't doubt it. You asked earlier if there's anything I'm not expert
in, and there you have a good start on the very long list.

Janet.