James Farrar wrote:

After pedalling for however long it would take across London, I would
not be in a fit state to work. We have no showers available.

well **** off and die you fat *******

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:34:58 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:17:24 +0100, BIG_ONE
wrote;

well **** off and die you fat *******

Hmm, "Big One" appears not to have made it past NIN.

Feeding the troll, perhaps, but some people "run hotter" and therefore
sweat more than others regardless of fitness level.

This is true.

I walk from Charing Cross to my office at Great Portland Street and
back every day (subject to rain). The exertion level involved in
cycling in from SE23 is significantly higher...

--
James Farrar

September's coming soon

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross
wrote:

work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours
travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter
of the day commuting, I have no option.

Bike.

Asked and answered.

Car. Motorbike.

Do you propose to buy me one?

Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

--
James Farrar

September's coming soon

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from the congestion
charge.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Uncle Fester ) said:
Terry Harper wrote


Car travel in particular would be more expensive than
rail travel, even if there were zero running costs.
(A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a
Gold Card from my station).

It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from
the congestion charge.


It's a ******* finding parking for a bus.

An alternative fuel car (including dual fuel) is entitled to enter the
zone for a tenner a year providing emissions are low enough:
http://www.cclondon.com/downloads/Drivers.pdf

Likewise electrics are entitled to this discount on another form. See
http://www.cclondon.com/exemptions.shtml


--
Andrew

"Andrew Bell" wrote in message
k...
Uncle Fester ) said:
Terry Harper wrote


Car travel in particular would be more expensive than
rail travel, even if there were zero running costs.
(A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a
Gold Card from my station).

It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from
the congestion charge.


It's a ******* finding parking for a bus.

An alternative fuel car (including dual fuel) is entitled to enter the
zone for a tenner a year providing emissions are low enough:
http://www.cclondon.com/downloads/Drivers.pdf

Likewise electrics are entitled to this discount on another form. See
http://www.cclondon.com/exemptions.shtml


--
Andrew

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross
wrote:

work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours
travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter
of the day commuting, I have no option.

Bike.

Asked and answered.

Didn't notice, sorry.


Car. Motorbike.

Do you propose to buy me one?

If you'll buy me one in return.

You can buy me a house too, whilst you're at it.


Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take
it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option".

Rather different things.

Terry Harper has said there are alternative vehicles which don't
attract the full congestion charge. I'll take his word for that, and
simply suggest that there are options that you are, for whatever
reason, unwilling to acknowledge.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Ross" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross
wrote:

work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours
travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter
of the day commuting, I have no option.

Bike.

Asked and answered.

Didn't notice, sorry.


Car. Motorbike.

Do you propose to buy me one?

If you'll buy me one in return.

You can buy me a house too, whilst you're at it.


Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take
it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option".

Rather different things.

Terry Harper has said there are alternative vehicles which don't
attract the full congestion charge. I'll take his word for that, and
simply suggest that there are options that you are, for whatever
reason, unwilling to acknowledge.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

Now now. Don't be silly. Accept that for options to be viable they have to
be realistic rather than theoretical.
Think of sensible realistic options.
For example buying a hybrid car to beat a congestion charge would be silly.
Say 220 working days per year x £5 = £1,100. Rather less than the
depreciation of an expensive hybrid car so to most salaried p.a.y.e.
employees it's not in any realistic sense an option.
When I worked in central London my options for getting to work were proper
train, District Line or motorbike and I used them all from time to time.
Theoretically I could have walked, cycled, used several buses ( oh I forgot
two buses and tube could be done but that would have been a pointless waste
of time) or even used my car but in no practical way were they options that
could reallistically exercised on a regular basis. So they were not options
except in some daft schoolboyish arguement.



We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:28:57 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
"Ross" wrote in message
...

work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours
travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter
of the day commuting, I have no option.
[big snip]
Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take
it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option".

Rather different things.
[big snip]
Now now. Don't be silly.

Why not? Everyone else is being silly, in the "I don't agree therefore
any options presented are stupid and irrelevant" sense, so why
shouldn't I join in the fun?


Accept that for options to be viable they have to
be realistic rather than theoretical.
[big snip]

Yup. But, of course, realistic options rather rely on those they're
suggested to being open minded enough to actually realise that they're
realistic.

I think that's where the sticking point is, which makes the entire
conversation pointless, as it seems that any realistic option offered
gets an automatic response along the lines of "That's not realistic
because I don't like it".

Like you say, we're into schoolboy-ish arguments, and there ain't
nobody going to win because schoolboy arguments are never won; both
sides simply go off in a huff.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Ross" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:28:57 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
"Ross" wrote in message
...

work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three
hours
travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a
quarter
of the day commuting, I have no option.
[big snip]
Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel,
even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more
expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station).

What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take
it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option".

Rather different things.
[big snip]
Now now. Don't be silly.

Why not? Everyone else is being silly, in the "I don't agree therefore
any options presented are stupid and irrelevant" sense, so why
shouldn't I join in the fun?


Accept that for options to be viable they have to
be realistic rather than theoretical.
[big snip]

Yup. But, of course, realistic options rather rely on those they're
suggested to being open minded enough to actually realise that they're
realistic.

I think that's where the sticking point is, which makes the entire
conversation pointless, as it seems that any realistic option offered
gets an automatic response along the lines of "That's not realistic
because I don't like it".

Like you say, we're into schoolboy-ish arguments, and there ain't
nobody going to win because schoolboy arguments are never won; both
sides simply go off in a huff.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

No I,m not in a huff. I rather like a good arguement. End this as a score
draw?