London Banter - View Single Post - The restoration of St. John's Woo Station

Brimstone · March 14th 05, 03:47 PM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Nick Cooper" wrote in

message ...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:53:41 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:41:24 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:59:41 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:41:39 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:47:39 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper"
wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:52:03 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:17:10 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

thoss wrote:
So film director John Woo has been anointed a saint
and had a station named after him?

The station predates the film industry.

Clearly your grasp of history is almost as
non-existent as your sense of humour....

On this particular occasion in direct inverse
proportion to your sense of self-importance perhaps?

Or you're inability to accept that you were in error,
perhaps?

When you've learnt to read and write English feel free to
raise the subject
again.

Well, **** me, but obviously I've conned all those
editors and publishers who've paid for my writing in the
past!
Still, I
think a bit of bad editing when I changed what I first
started to type pales into insignificance compared to
your stunning belief that the film industry didn't exist
before 1939.

It's true some people are easily misled, but I'd be
interested to know how you arrive at the conclusion that I
believe that there was no film industry before 1939.

The station - which you said "predates the film industry" -
dates from 1939.

So are you saying that there was no St. John's Wood station
before that date?

No, but then the station under discussion is the
Jubilee/ex-Bakerloo one. You said "the station predates the
film industry," not "the station _name_ predates the film
industry."

So it's OK for you to make a mistake but no one else, is that
what you're saying?

Your entire posting was based on a mistake. That's somewhat
different from making a minor editing error in any otherwise
valid observation.

If only your observation had been valid this pointless sub thread
wouldn't have happened.

I hadn't pointed out your error initially, you mean?

Is there any point to this?

I don't know - you're the one who went off on one when your error
was pointed out.

A) I made a riposte, I didn't go "off on one".
B) Since that riposte wasn't directed at you why did you feel the
need to intervene?

You started waffling on about "self-importance," whilst simultaneously
compounding you original error by sticking to it, as well as furthur
proving your lack of a sense of humour. That's a pretty good
impression of losing it, even if you don't think you did.

If you had read my riposte correctly you would have seen that I admitted to
the error. With regard to lacking a of a sense of humour, or otherwise. Like
everyone else I have my "off" days and I also take a certain pleasure in
"killing" other people attempts at jest.

I'm curious, though, to know how anyone could have pointed out your
error in a way that might have provoked a different reaction from you.
If, for example, I had said, "The station does not predate the film
industry, because it dates from 1939," how would you have reacted?

I wouldn't, it's a simple statement of fact.

As to your apparent lack of a sense of humour, basically getting on
your high-horse to begin was is a pretty good indicator. Most jokes
don't bear close examination, but maybe when someone starts with,
"This penguin goes into a pub and asks for a pint...." you _do_ start
objecting to the liklihood of flightless birds drinking beer, let
alone being able to speak....

You've obvioulsy never met, nor heard of, the duck who has lunch in the pub
then?