Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:07:43 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the
years both specifically required the successful candidate to have
a driving *licence*. not once in either job was I required to
drive. --

Why quote-marks around "licence"?

They were asterisks indicating emphasis, not quote-marks. Does Forte
Agent misinterpret them?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:34:40 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood?

If you tell me what adiulthood is, I might be able to help you.

Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted...

Among other things.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680311.html
(82 002 between duties at Coventry in 1977)

"Chris Tolley" wrote...

Paul Weaver wrote:

forced to risk a dangerous night bus

That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.

If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have to
live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre and
just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
"Chris Tolley" wrote...

Paul Weaver wrote:

forced to risk a dangerous night bus

That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.

If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have
to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre
and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also have
no option but to find somewhere else to live?

"Brimstone" wrote...

"JNugent" wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote...

[ ... ]

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.
If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have
to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre
and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

... too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also
have no option but to find somewhere else to live?

It all rather depends on the terms offered.

It happens to more people than you might think - including my family when I
was a boy. Many such workers nowadays buy a property of their own which they
let out, in order to have a bolt-hole if they need it (modern
landlord-tenant law quite properly allows for a tenancy to be determined
within six months if the property is needed as a home for the owner).

In message , Laurence Payne
writes
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:07:43 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the years
both specifically required the successful candidate to have a driving
*licence*. not once in either job was I required to drive.
--

Why quote-marks around "licence"?

Because I was making the point that they only wanted a qualified driver,
not necessarily someone with a car.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:32:04 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Why quote-marks around "licence"?

They were asterisks indicating emphasis, not quote-marks. Does Forte
Agent misinterpret them?
--

So they were. On this screen they're very similar. Sorry.

JNugent wrote:
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5%
of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce
flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic
"evaporates".

Er... not quite.

I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell.
It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then
closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). ... The traffic
certainly does not "evaporate", even if the residents of the
approach roads
(some of whom seem very self-centred over this issue) think it
does. It
simply goes elsewhere (because it has to).

No. Of course some goes elsewhere, but some evaporates too. People
choose not to travel or not to drive. The stats show it. The effect
increases over time as people move house or change jobs.

Similarly most of the traffic that now occupies the M25 didn't exist
before the motorway was built.


Colin McKenzie

On 3 Oct 2005 21:15:50 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

See my sig. Think about what it means.

--
"Other people are not your property."

That, as long as a rich society has enabled you to accumulate enough
loot to feel "self-sufficient", you can then pretend to be independent
from it?

JNugent wrote:

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

ITYF it's brioche; cake is a mistranslation.

If you are going to make a point, I think it might be best to make it
without resorting to sarcasm. I'm happy to debate anything I said, and
correct it if necessary, but you'll need to make a case.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680391.html
(Hauling cakes? 92 034 Kipling heads south through Longsight in 2004.)