Dear Dave,
It always make me laugh when you hear some presenter on the box (or
newspaper article), referring to a shaft when looking at or going into a level (or
adit, tunnel - mind you 99% of the public wouldn't know what an adit is
anyway!). At least they could call it a tunnel, but how they can equate a shaft to a
horizontal tunnel I don't know! Little to no effort is made for certain
technical accuracy's these days, 'just get it into print asap.' is all that
matters.
There was an article in the Cambrian News a month or two ago about Cwmsymlog
(Spirit of the Miners connected). The info. supplied by the 'Manager' of the
ongoing work was nail screechingly poor, and this spreading of inaccuracies
just excentuates the problem ... inaccuracies become 'fact'. Very good work
is being done via the Spirit of the Miners project here in Cardiganshire, but
it would be helpful if the info. produced was a touch more accurate and
possibly not quite so dumbed down maybe? Anyway, whatever be the case, long may
their efforts continue.
Regards, Bernard
p.s. The 'old' problem/innacuracy of authors using equivalent 'new' pence in
trying to describe 'old' pennies and shillings is still about. No names or
titles, but I was reading a book recently where the two monetary systems were
actually mixed in two separate refs. in one sentence! It is completely wrong
and very inaccurate for example to use 10p as 2/- as the monetary value is
about 100 times out! - and worse when you see this in connection with wages of
say 6/- per day! - 30p!!! If authors have a problem with these calcs. they
only have to look at present day wages for similar workers, or indeed the Bank
of England will oblige with up-to-date ref. data in this respect.
|