On Oct 30, 6:13 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:11:05 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On Oct 30, 1:46 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:02 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
[...]
Many would, yes. But you said that "nearly everyone arriving there by
train immediately goes somewhere else, by another train, by
Underground or by bus" - clearly they don't, given the stream of
people crossing the Thames on London Bridge every morning.

I concatenated too much, but could have rectified it by adding "or on
foot".

Which is trivially true for nearly every station in London, whether
DLR, Tube or NR. (I can't think of any obvious counter-examples. St.
James's Park, possibly.)

And by "somewhere else" perhaps I could really spell out "somewhere to
which other stations are nearer" and so on. I think the point is
clear.

Yes, that you were wrong in the first place, and are scrambling with
semantics in order to avoid admitting it

I think you are picking holes in my wording to obscure my original
point that the importance of London Bridge is that so many trains go
there, not that so many people's destination is near there.

This was in answer to the suggestion that London Bridge is a more
important location for a station than Cannon Street. I suggested
that, on that basis, Clapham Junction should be a terminus instead of
Victoria and Waterloo.