Underline?
 

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:12:19 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
which contradicts his earlier claim, supposedly based on the same source -

When someone has to post a 3 page response you know they've lost the argument.


Eh ? You're the one who claimed there'd been a plan to run full
size size express trains through 16ft 6in platform tunnels. Not me.

Based on a garbled "understanding" this link you'd found, all by yourself

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

Are you changing your mind again and claiming the link is correct, and that
there was such a plan after all ? A plan for which nobody else can
find any evidence ?




michael adams

....

Underline?
 

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:49:46 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
Eh ? You're the one who claimed there'd been a plan to run full
size size express trains through 16ft 6in platform tunnels. Not me.

Based on a garbled "understanding" this link you'd found, all by yourself

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

Are you changing your mind again and claiming the link is correct, and that
there was such a plan after all ? A plan for which nobody else can
find any evidence ?

I simply pointed out they were the same size as the moorgate tunnels. You
seemd to think you'd made some killer point however *shrug*

My original point was that the plans for the system were around for a decade
before these were built. They were based on them and are in the same location.
Do you deny this?

--
Spud

Underline?
 

wrote in message ...


My original point was that the plans for the system were around for a decade
before these were built.

Indeed. So that presumably you have evidence for this claim,
over and above the link you posted.


michael adams

....

Underline?
 

When I read this argument about the purpose of these tunnels, I can't help thinking of the questioning of Nathaniel Whatsisname in Pickwick Papers:

"On this question there arose the edifying brow-beating, customary on such points. First of all, Mr. Winkle said it was quite impossible for him to say how many times he had seen Mrs Bardell. Then he was asked if he had seen her twenty times, to which he replied, 'Certainly--more than that.' Then he was asked whether he hadn't seen her a hundred times--whether he couldn't swear that he had seen her more than fifty times-- whether he didn't know that he had seen her at least seventy-five times, and so forth; the satisfactory conclusion which was arrived at, at last, being, that he had better take care of himself, and mind what he was about."