"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Mick" wrote in message
...

Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we should all
understand???? I'm curious.

Yes, me too. Any word from out there, Brimstone?


Hmmm someone else who can't read. Is it catching?

Brimstone wrote:
"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Mick" wrote in message
...

Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we
should all understand???? I'm curious.

Yes, me too. Any word from out there, Brimstone?


Hmmm someone else who can't read. Is it catching?

Do you have anything informative to say about why it took an hour and a
half to detrain passengers yesterday? If not, please take your trolling
comments elsewhere.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Mick" wrote in message
...

Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we
should all understand???? I'm curious.

Yes, me too. Any word from out there, Brimstone?


Hmmm someone else who can't read. Is it catching?

Do you have anything informative to say about why it took an hour and
a half to detrain passengers yesterday? If not, please take your
trolling comments elsewhere.

My comment was aimed at a specific individual, which wasn't you. Why do you
insist on demonstrating yourself incapable of comprehending simple English?

Brimstone wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Mick" wrote in message
...

Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we
should all understand???? I'm curious.

Yes, me too. Any word from out there, Brimstone?

Hmmm someone else who can't read. Is it catching?

Do you have anything informative to say about why it took an hour
and a half to detrain passengers yesterday? If not, please take
your trolling comments elsewhere.

My comment was aimed at a specific individual, which wasn't you.
Why do you insist on demonstrating yourself incapable of
comprehending simple English?

I'm not sure what "simple English" I have misconstrued. The "specific
individual" (Boltar) raised an important issue of concern to several
people on this NG including me. If you want to engage in one-to-one
conversations, please use e-mail. Otherwise, please be aware that
others are interested in your posts. You implied that Boltar had a
"totally blinkered view", meaning presumably that he was obsessively
anti-LU. I often don't agree with him, but on this occasion I think he
was absolutely right to raise the issue, even if you might not
appreciate the way he phrased it.

So, I ask again, do you have anything informative to say about why it
took an hour and a half to detrain passengers yesterday?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Mick" wrote in message
...

Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we
should all understand???? I'm curious.

Yes, me too. Any word from out there, Brimstone?

Hmmm someone else who can't read. Is it catching?

Do you have anything informative to say about why it took an hour
and a half to detrain passengers yesterday? If not, please take
your trolling comments elsewhere.

My comment was aimed at a specific individual, which wasn't you.
Why do you insist on demonstrating yourself incapable of
comprehending simple English?

I'm not sure what "simple English" I have misconstrued. The "specific
individual" (Boltar) raised an important issue of concern to several
people on this NG including me. If you want to engage in one-to-one
conversations, please use e-mail. Otherwise, please be aware that
others are interested in your posts. You implied that Boltar had a
"totally blinkered view", meaning presumably that he was obsessively
anti-LU. I often don't agree with him, but on this occasion I think
he was absolutely right to raise the issue, even if you might not
appreciate the way he phrased it.

So, I ask again, do you have anything informative to say about why it
took an hour and a half to detrain passengers yesterday?

What has what I post got to do with you?

General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:
In this situation, there was no immediate chance of anyone dying,
although dehydration is nasty passengers should be evacuated long before
that becomes a problem.

Oh well thats nice to know. Pity its not carried out. Unless you have
a different idea of what "a problem" is. I'd say people feeling ill
would be a problem but then I don't work for LU.

In the event of a fire, flood etc I can assure you that as a driver I
will get Traction Current off, I will get the emergency ladder out, I
will do all I can to get everyone to safety, that is what I am paid to
do, that is what I will do.

When you're told to do it by central control you mean, like a good
little
automaton.


Boltar please don't reply to this post, I have a small child who doesn't
listen to a word I say and I can't be arsed with it on this NG.

I don't blame your kid, I wouldn't either.

B2003

What has what I post got to do with you?

Poor chap, has no one pointed out to you this is a public
newsgroup? Go have a lie down, you're obviously confused
and upset by people expecting you to explain your comments.
Better luck tommorow eh?

B2003

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

"Mick" wrote in message
...

As I suspected, you don't.


Well come on then Brimstone - what's the explanation that we should all
understand???? I'm curious.


Who said anything about all? Obviously another arrogant prat who thinks
everything is addressed to him.


Its not my line, it does seem like a long time to me also. I will however
say all those things my mate Boltar doesn't like - until i find out
otherwise. I can't make a judgement until i get the facts - Boltar take
note!
I will try and find out what happened in the morning. No promises....

Brimstone wrote:


What has what I post got to do with you?


The thing is, anything you post is potentially read by the whole world.
No post is personal to any of those who have already posted in a thread
and every post you (or I or anyone) posts really does "have to do" with
anyone who reads the thread.

Its one thing to dismiss the OP's attitude as being needlessly negative
and ignorant of relevant information; quite another to be equally
dismissive of those seeking futher information.

I for one have no idea of the practicalities of evacuating tube trains
in various emergency circumstances and no preconceptions as to its ease
or difficulty, but that does not mean I wouldn't be interested to know more.

Francis

Francis Davey wrote:
Brimstone wrote:


What has what I post got to do with you?


The thing is, anything you post is potentially read by the whole
world.
No post is personal to any of those who have already posted in a
thread
and every post you (or I or anyone) posts really does "have to do"
with anyone who reads the thread.

Its one thing to dismiss the OP's attitude as being needlessly
negative
and ignorant of relevant information; quite another to be equally
dismissive of those seeking futher information.

It was dismissive because my original post was extremely explicit.


I for one have no idea of the practicalities of evacuating tube trains
in various emergency circumstances and no preconceptions as to its
ease
or difficulty, but that does not mean I wouldn't be interested to
know more.

I'm sure anyone with a genuine interest in the Underground and how it does,
and doesn't, function is interested. However whinging and slagging off
people who do their best in difficult circumstances isn't going to encourage
those who do know to pass on their knowledge.