I am, in fact, nowhere near! I'm in sunny NZ where the temperature is 23C and there is a gentle breeze from the northwest. Sipping a nice cool beer. Heaven.
But I am keeping an eye on you lot, never fear.
As far as this debate is concerned, who really cares? The 146 is great to fly, but it is old, slow, complicated, and increasingly unwanted.
The Q400 might be light and airy, but it is also "buzzy", and in my experience positioning on the jump seat (when you could), it is a lot noisier than the 146. I too have experienced the vibes MOR speaks of, but it only seems to happen in a few rows near the prop.
The 146 is faster, no debate there. Also, in the 146, I have never been able to cruise without reducing the power quite a long way. But for me the telling point is that, given that the technology in the 146 is at least 25 years older than the Q400, you would expect the Q400 to be miles better than the 146 - and it isn't. As noted above, it is a disposable revenue earner.
But the real point is - and I think this is more important - the Q400 was at least partly responsible for saving the company. Who really cares about the 146 v Q400 argument, the important thing is that the company is moving on from the hard times of a few years ago, you all still have jobs, and your futures are assured.
I like the 146, but I recognise the value of the Q400.