On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:37:09 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:55:40 on
Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked:
By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further?

Very close in mileage.

Hardly: here are the actual figures:
Peterborough: 76m 29h (76.36m)
Leicester: 99m 07ch (99.09m)

I'm not going to fall out over 99-76 being not close enough to 20.

No, but you thought the difference was much less than that; 20 was my
guess before I checked.


So Leicester is almost 23 miles further from London, a bit more than my
quick initial guess. I note that you describe a 30% difference as 'very
close'. I'll remember that the next time you nit-pick over much smaller
differences.

Like I said, what's 3 miles?

You described 99.09 miles as "very close in mileage" to 76.36 miles.
It's actually about 30% more.

My guess of 20 miles difference was much closer (though still not
quite right).

I agreed that your estimate of 20 was "very close" to the actual answer.

Ah, I must have misunderstood you. You appeared to be saying that my
guess of "nearly 20 miles" was too high, and that the two routes were
"Very close in mileage".


Are you arguing just for the sake of it now?

No, I respect your world championship status.


The classic statistic is that Peterborough is further north than
Wolverhampton (few people believe that until you show them a map).

Quite possibly, but it's the rail distances that matter in this case,
not latitude.

Most people think it's the time onboard which matters most. But we've
seen that timing is not your strong suit.

No, I'm not nearly as imaginative as you. I'm a boring engineer who
simply sticks to the facts, and doesn't feel the need to invent new
ones when proved wrong.

As an aside, and don't take this the wrong way, but have you recently
had some traumatic event? You seem to be arguing much more than
usual, often claiming expertise that you don't have. Perhaps you
should take a break of a few weeks from posting on, or even reading,
these news groups?