【24h】

The Debate

机译:辩论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the online readers poll regarding the 'Debate' column on whether continuous cruisers should they pay more (December WW), I was faced with a simple 'yes' or 'no' on the issue. Given no other options, I voted 'yes', but rt seems to me, and most of those boaters that I've talkedrnto, that there are two key areas of contention.rnAs David Pearce clearly points out, the problem is more one of 'continuous moorers'. We all have our favourite mooring spots, and usually that involves a pleasant view, be it architecturally in an urban area, or scenically in the country. It is galling, to say the least, when that view is continually taken. Whilst not in all cases will that involve those fallingrninto the category of 'continuous cruisers', it is true in perhaps 90% of cases. Moving on towards the end of a 14-day period does not substantially alter this perception.
机译:在有关“辩论”栏的网上读者民意测验中,连续巡洋舰是否应该支付更多(WW十二月),我在这个问题上面临简单的“是”或“否”。在没有其他选择的情况下,我投了赞成票,但在我看来,还有我所说的大多数划船者,有两个关键领域存在争议。正如大卫·皮尔斯(David Pearce)明确指出的那样,问题是其中一个“持续停泊”。我们都有我们最喜欢的系泊点,通常可以欣赏到宜人的景色,无论是在城市范围内的建筑上还是在乡村风景区。至少可以这样说,当持续采取这种观点时,这是令人发指的。虽然并非在所有情况下都涉及那些属于“连续巡洋舰”类别的人,但在90%的情况下确实如此。在14天期限即将结束之前,并不会在很大程度上改变这种看法。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Waterways world》 |2009年第2期|103-103|共1页
  • 作者

    Mark Dowson;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号