On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:07:49PM +0100, Eric wrote:

The response to which has been known to be "aggressive compliance",
feigned deafness, or abuse.

Just out of interest, how do you know it's *feigned* deafness? It's
entirely possible for a deaf person to have a conversation with someone
in front of or beside them, or use a phone or an ipod, or do all kinds
of other things that involve hearing, but not be able to hear you at
all, or not be aware that you're talking to them, or not understand a
word you're saying.

In my case, I'm deaf in one ear. If you talk to me from my left, I
won't hear you, even though I can listen to an ipod in stereo: my
deafness mostly affects the frequencies of the human voice, and
especially those used for consonants. If I'm having a conversation with
someone in a noisy environment like a station or a London street, then
I'm *concentrating hard* to hear enough to figure out what they're saying,
and I'm supporting that by lip-reading. If I'm not looking at you, then
your mouth-noises are meaningless - in fact, they're irritating
background noise that I have to try hard to ignore.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Vegetarian: n: a person who, due to poor lifestyle choices,
is more likely to get arse cancer than a normal person

In message
,
Mizter T writes
On Aug 2, 4:26*pm, Clive wrote:
In message ,
Brian Watson writes:
Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal.
Get over it.
Or, get back to Nepal until you have consideration for your fellow man.
Interesting how you seem to *know* that Brian is one of the
inconsiderate ones!
Just a generalisation. Anyone with a backpack should know better than
to infest the tube network during rush-hour. Perhaps a backpack should
attract the same price ticket as the individual carrying it.
--
Clive

On 2010-08-03, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:07:49PM +0100, Eric wrote:

The response to which has been known to be "aggressive compliance",
feigned deafness, or abuse.

Just out of interest, how do you know it's *feigned* deafness? It's
entirely possible for a deaf person to have a conversation with someone
in front of or beside them, or use a phone or an ipod, or do all kinds
of other things that involve hearing, but not be able to hear you at
all, or not be aware that you're talking to them, or not understand a
word you're saying.

In my case, I'm deaf in one ear. If you talk to me from my left, I
won't hear you, even though I can listen to an ipod in stereo: my
deafness mostly affects the frequencies of the human voice, and
especially those used for consonants. If I'm having a conversation with
someone in a noisy environment like a station or a London street, then
I'm *concentrating hard* to hear enough to figure out what they're saying,
and I'm supporting that by lip-reading. If I'm not looking at you, then
your mouth-noises are meaningless - in fact, they're irritating
background noise that I have to try hard to ignore.


I believe you, but on balance of probabilities (and occasional real
evidence) not all of them are due to this.

Eric

On 2010-08-03, Clive wrote:
In message
,
Mizter T writes
On Aug 2, 4:26*pm, Clive wrote:
In message ,
Brian Watson writes:
Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal.
Get over it.
Or, get back to Nepal until you have consideration for your fellow man.
Interesting how you seem to *know* that Brian is one of the
inconsiderate ones!
Just a generalisation. Anyone with a backpack should know better than
to infest the tube network during rush-hour.

Anyone with a backpack may have a cross-london connection, or a bed
for the night that may disappear if they don't get there on time,
or ... Please don't use a generalisation to justify a universal rule,
you will always hurt someone.

Perhaps a backpack should
attract the same price ticket as the individual carrying it.

How do you want to define and enforce the rules for size and type of
luggage to require a charge?

Eric

On Aug 3, 6:28*pm, Clive wrote:

Mizter T writes:

On Aug 2, 4:26*pm, Clive wrote:

Brian Watson wrote:
Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal.
Get over it.

Or, get back to Nepal until you have consideration for your fellow man..

Interesting how you seem to *know* that Brian is one of the
inconsiderate ones!

Just a generalisation. * Anyone with a backpack should know better than
to infest the tube network during rush-hour. * Perhaps a backpack should
attract the same price ticket as the individual carrying it.

Whatever.

In message , at 18:55:05 on Tue, 3
Aug 2010, Eric remarked:
How do you want to define and enforce the rules for size and type of
luggage to require a charge?

It's already in the NCoC. (appendix B)
--
Roland Perry

On 2010-08-03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:55:05 on Tue, 3
Aug 2010, Eric remarked:
How do you want to define and enforce the rules for size and type of
luggage to require a charge?

It's already in the NCoC. (appendix B)

If that was considered to be appropriate for the tube.

E.

On Aug 3, 7:51*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 18:55:05 on Tue, 3
Aug 2010, Eric remarked:

How do you want to define and enforce the rules for size and type of
luggage to require a charge?

* It's already in the NCoC. (appendix B)

Which doesn't apply to the London Underground. Instead the TfL
conditions of carriage do - see (PDF):
http://preview.tinyurl.com/25tf3vl

Relevant bit is section 12...

---quote---
12.1.2. You may bring with you:
• personal luggage that you are able to carry yourself (including up/
down fixed stairways)
• folding buggies, folding pushchairs and folding cycles that you are
able to carry yourself (including up/down fixed stairways)
• any other item, provided it is not dangerous or likely to injure
anyone.

12.1.3. You must not bring with you anything that:
• is more than 2 metres long
• you are unable to carry yourself (including up/down fixed stairways)
• is a hazardous or inflammable substance
• is likely to cause injury or offence to other customers or to our
staff
• is likely to cause damage to buses, Underground trains or stations.
---/quote---

Anti-rucksack-ites will of course pounce on the "likely to cause
injury or offence to other customers" line as a way that rucksacks
could be banned, an interpretation that wouldn't pass muster for a
second with LU staff or management, TfL 'chiefs' (as the tabloids love
to say), the Mayor, London Assembly members, MPs or the Department for
Transport let alone any police officer or indeed court of law - of
course I doubt that'll stop Clive claiming it does though...

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:26:13 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:
In message , Bruce
writes
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:17:28 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

Not sure if the prospect of being killfiled is supposed to make me feel
in some way threatened or bothered. Plainly it won't! It might be a
first, though (unless others have done it for reasons of boredom!).


Still here, Ian. Beginning to yawn, though. ;-)

"And when Bagpuss goes to sleep......."


All his friends go to sleep too?

Zzzzzzz. ;-)