|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:22:15 +0100 JNugent wrote: On 06/09/2014 21:21, d wrote: JNugent wrote: d wrote: But what I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights. Why? Are you unable to read or just stupid? Neither of those. And yet... Try and figure it out from previous posts. Why? Well you see , the point of a post is so you can read it and the point doesn't have to be made again for people too stupid to understand it first time. Are you unable to justify your desire to prevent others from living their lives as they wish and to force them to be like you? Everyone living their lives exactly the way they want with no regards to anyone else is whats known as anarchy. Like the market took care of acid rain, NOx in car exhaust, DDT etc? Those things are not subject to market pressures so you wouldn't expect the market to "deal" with them. Not if you have any common sense, at least. Oh, well do explain how aircraft noise and pollution is subject to market pressures then. Do you actually know anything about economics? Somewhat more than you apparently. Sometimes that self interest needs to be tempered in the interests of everyone as a whole. And you should be the temperer, right? Why not? Who should do it, you with your screw everyone else, I'm alright jack attitude? Boltar, the eco-warrior! Who would have believed it? |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:57:16 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2014 09:02, d wrote: Well you see , the point of a post is so you can read it and the point doesn't have to be made again for people too stupid to understand it first time. Your previous posts in this thread do not explain where you got this idea that your desires and wishes are more important than those of others. Ah, he we go - the flip it routine. Pretend your stance is mine. Do try harder. Everyone living their lives exactly the way they want with no regards to anyone else is whats known as anarchy. Your living your life exactly the way you want to and preventing others from living theirs as they wish to is known as sociopathy. See above. At the very least, you need to demonstrate that your rights are superior to everyone else's. Odd that because you seem to be of the attitude that "I want to fly and should be allowed to fly whenever I want where I want because thats more important than ANY other consideration". Right? Oh, well do explain how aircraft noise and pollution is subject to market pressures then. They aren't. They are subject to legislation. Legislation is not the market, though it can have the effect of looking Oh well done, at least you have half a clue. Now do you think that legislation would have come about if left purely to the market? No, I don't think so. Hardly. LOL. Ok, if you say so :o) Who should do it, Everyone should do it for themselves individually, the aggregate of their wishes and actions being known as "the market". The market has its place, but it needs to be managed. Give it free reign and there's chaos. I thought you claimed to *know* about economics? You might want to revisit the last few years wrt the banks to understand where an essentially unregulated market eventually ends up. you with your screw everyone else, I'm alright jack attitude? You are, of course, describing your own, utterly selfish and self-centred attitude there. You don't want to fly and so you see no reason why others should. Care to repost where I said that? Oh, thats right, I didn't. All I'm saying is the number of flights should be limited, not left to the market because enviromental considerations in this case are more important. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 03:21:18 -0500
Recliner wrote: Boltar, the eco-warrior! Who would have believed it? Not really. But I spent 6 months working right next door to heathrow and it was bad enough just being there 9-6. For the residents it must be a ****ing nightmare. Only utterly selfish ****s would wish more aircraft in the skys just so they can visit disneyworld in florida next week on a whim or wherever. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 15:24:56 on Sun, 7 Sep 2014, tim..... remarked: never disposes of material things until they have worn out ... It's the list of things that I do that the press regularly complains that people don't do that wastes energy How strictly is "dispose of" correlated with "throw away"? I was just making the point that I don't: wear something once and never again or replace electrical goods because they aren't the latest colour, or even because they don't have the most recent number on the front It's also possible to sell things, freecycle/eBay/Gumtree, give to friends/relatives/neighbours/Oxfam and so on. I know, but that isn't always a useful disposal, and if the person who buys it is only going to wear it once and than they throw it away, it hasn't solved the problem Ah, perhaps when you said "material" you mainly meant "clothing" rather than "tangible". I was referring to anything that a sub-set of the population just discard because they have had it a few months and want a new one because marking people tell them that they need a new one I wasn't referring to things that have a "natural" second hand market Does a PC that'll only run Windows XP now qualify as "worn out", I don't know. I've never got a PC to last longer than about 4 years without "blowing up" in some way. Gosh. My laptop is over four years old and I still regard it as "new". My desktop PC is coming up for ten years old and the only real problem with it is the XP [I have upgraded its HDD capacity though]. I accept that I have been "unlucky", but that is just how it is tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 08/09/2014 12:47, d wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:57:16 +0100 JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2014 09:02, d wrote: Well you see , the point of a post is so you can read it and the point doesn't have to be made again for people too stupid to understand it first time. Your previous posts in this thread do not explain where you got this idea that your desires and wishes are more important than those of others. Ah, he we go - the flip it routine. Pretend your stance is mine. Do try harder. You are the one who wants to control others. Not I. Everyone living their lives exactly the way they want with no regards to anyone else is whats known as anarchy. Your living your life exactly the way you want to and preventing others from living theirs as they wish to is known as sociopathy. See above. See what above? At the very least, you need to demonstrate that your rights are superior to everyone else's. Odd that because you seem to be of the attitude that "I want to fly and should be allowed to fly whenever I want where I want because thats more important than ANY other consideration". Right? Wrong. I do not expect to be able to obtain any service without paying the market price for it. The market factors in other peoples' needs for scarce resources which have alternative uses. Oh, well do explain how aircraft noise and pollution is subject to market pressures then. They aren't. They are subject to legislation. Legislation is not the market, though it can have the effect of looking Oh well done, at least you have half a clue. Now do you think that legislation would have come about if left purely to the market? No, I don't think so. Are you mad? How on Earth could the market produce legislation? Who - in their right mind - would suggest such a thing? Hardly. LOL. Ok, if you say so :o) Who should do it, Everyone should do it for themselves individually, the aggregate of their wishes and actions being known as "the market". The market has its place, but it needs to be managed. Give it free reign and there's chaos. I thought you claimed to *know* about economics? You might want to revisit the last few years wrt the banks to understand where an essentially unregulated market eventually ends up. That has nothing to do with unregulated markets and everything to do with banks doing what the government told them to so. But you thought for a moment you were on safer ground with a spot of bank-bashing, no matter how ill-informed. you with your screw everyone else, I'm alright jack attitude? You are, of course, describing your own, utterly selfish and self-centred attitude there. You don't want to fly and so you see no reason why others should. Care to repost where I said that? One would not expect even you to say it in those terms. But you have said, more than once, that you want access to flying restricted. Oh, thats right, I didn't. Well, you don't realise what you have said. All I'm saying is the number of flights should be limited, not left to the market because enviromental considerations in this case are more important. And you say that that is different from preventing people from flying, do you? Or perhaps you are really arguing that only the very rich should be allowed to fly (because that's how it used to be). |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:20:32 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:50:15 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014, d remarked: I spent 6 months working right next door to heathrow and it was bad enough just being there 9-6. For the residents it must be a ****ing nightmare. Only utterly selfish ****s would wish more aircraft in the skys just so they can visit disneyworld in florida next week on a whim or wherever. Heathrow has exactly zero flights to Orlando[1], so that market is catered for elsewhere (and rarely at a week's notice). Clearly you had trouble understanding the "or wherever" phrase in the example. Here, let me help you: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...glish/wherever -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 22:41:46 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2014 12:47, d wrote: Ah, he we go - the flip it routine. Pretend your stance is mine. Do try harder. You are the one who wants to control others. Not I. Limiting is not the same as controlling. You OTOH are quite happy to see others screwed over as long as you get what you want when you want. Your living your life exactly the way you want to and preventing others from living theirs as they wish to is known as sociopathy. See above. See what above? Getting too complicated already for you? I recommend a lie down before you post. I do not expect to be able to obtain any service without paying the market price for it. The market factors in other peoples' needs for scarce resources which have alternative uses. ******** does it. The market factors in the ability of people to get what they want in any way they can. Oh well done, at least you have half a clue. Now do you think that legislation would have come about if left purely to the market? No, I don't think so. Are you mad? How on Earth could the market produce legislation? Well you tell me. You're the one claiming the market solves every problem and would somehow magically "solve" any pollution and enviromental issues wrt airport expansion. Or are you wriggling on that hook now? Who - in their right mind - would suggest such a thing? You would. You might want to revisit the last few years wrt the banks to understand where an essentially unregulated market eventually ends up. That has nothing to do with unregulated markets and everything to do with banks doing what the government told them to so. Oh for christ sake man, get a ****ing clue. You think the government told them to create CDOs then hide the bad investments inside them do you? You know, you talk about the market but you don't have the first clue how markets actually work. Speaking as someone who worked in the City for 10 years, albeit in IT , I think I have a fairly reasonable grasp of how things were since I worked on the systems that banks used to do all that ****. The rest of your argument is just a mishmash of denial and plain rubbish and frankly its not worth arguing with you any more so feel free to have the last word and spout more nonsense. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 09/09/2014 09:42, d wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2014 12:47, d wrote: Ah, he we go - the flip it routine. Pretend your stance is mine. Do try harder. You are the one who wants to control others. Not I. Limiting is not the same as controlling. Yes, it is. You wish to control the lives of others by reducing their options. You wish people only to be allowed to do what you want to do. You OTOH are quite happy to see others screwed over as long as you get what you want when you want. Where does that come from? Your living your life exactly the way you want to and preventing others from living theirs as they wish to is known as sociopathy. See above. See what above? Getting too complicated already for you? I recommend a lie down before you post. Nothing you had typed above, in any previous post in the thread, could be taken as a coherent response to your behaviour being characterised as sociopathic. I do not expect to be able to obtain any service without paying the market price for it. The market factors in other peoples' needs for scarce resources which have alternative uses. ******** does it. The market factors in the ability of people to get what they want in any way they can. Ah... you're yet another of these stream-of-consciousness posters who types random words and hopes to impress with them. Oh well done, at least you have half a clue. Now do you think that legislation would have come about if left purely to the market? No, I don't think so. Are you mad? How on Earth could the market produce legislation? Well you tell me. Tell you what? That the market produces legislation when everyone but you knows that it doesn't? You're the one claiming the market solves every problem and would somehow magically "solve" any pollution and enviromental issues wrt airport expansion. Or are you wriggling on that hook now? I have made no such claim. Who - in their right mind - would suggest such a thing? You would. Well, only to the extent that your "You would" has no basis in fact. You might want to revisit the last few years wrt the banks to understand where an essentially unregulated market eventually ends up. That has nothing to do with unregulated markets and everything to do with banks doing what the government told them to so. Oh for christ sake man, get a ****ing clue. You think the government told them to create CDOs then hide the bad investments inside them do you? Let's not worry about banks too much - it was only a red herring you raised in order to avoid discussing the manifestation of your own sociopathy. You know, you talk about the market but you don't have the first clue how markets actually work. Speaking as someone who worked in the City for 10 years, albeit in IT , I think I have a fairly reasonable grasp of how things were since I worked on the systems that banks used to do all that ****. Banks are active in the market for money (and are usually highly controlled and constrained). "The market" is much wider than that and is not usually anything like as constrained as is the market for money. Telling bank staff to switch off their PC and then switch it on again does not make you an economist. The rest of your argument is just a mishmash of denial and plain rubbish and frankly its not worth arguing with you any more so feel free to have the last word and spout more nonsense. I could not compete with yours. Should I switch off this PC then switch it back on again? |
Quote:
periods. Why is somehow unacceptable for a Northen Line extension to Clapham Junction to be overcrowded when the rest of the Northern is routinely overcrowded? Do TfL intend to close down most of the Tube network because there is overcrowding every day? |
Quote:
Thameslink route will be fully utilised - a very good objective, by the way - no-one seems to have twigged that a service to and from Clapham Junction might be a good idea. |
Quote:
the line's operating costs would not require a subsidy from the tax-payer. That many would change at Clapham Junction and not at Victoria or Waterloo is to be welcomed as both those termini are overloaded during the rush hour peaks. How much will TfL have to spend over the next twenty years to provide Victoria and Waterloo with extra capacity which is necessary for only a few hours a week? |
Wandsworth Council did offer to pay for an extension from Clapham Junction.
As an avid Internet researcher, you should find details somewhere. If the trains are full leaving Clapham Junction, so much the better. Is anyone seriously suggesting that it is better to provide public transport capacity that few people use than capacity that is over subscribed? Your hypothetical "people further down the line" are already travelling without using this extension. Why would they not be able to continue to do so? The extension would be a normal Northern Line service. If it could not absorb all the Clapham Junction passengers, so what? No one single new transport provision is going to solve all London's transport problems; not Crossrail, not Thameslink, not this suggestion. Each will make a considerable contribution and rapidly become indispensable London Overground trains do leave Clapham Junction very full. That why an additional service is required! |
Quote:
morning rush hour. I have, however, been there several times during the evening peak. (I once worked in Battersea) You're missing two crucial points. First, it is not necessary to frequent Clapham Junction to recognise that it is a busy station. Anyone who travels during the rush hour knows that the entire transport system is hugely over subscribed during the peak period. It is obvious to anyone with any common sense that main transport hubs like Clapham Junction will be particularly busy. Second, it is precisely because a Northern Line extension would be extremely busy that I recommend it. I strongly oppose public money being frittered away on silly, loss-making, transport schemes that only a handful of people will use. (My local example is the new station on Lea Bridge Road in the only unpopulated part of Leyton. The previous station of the same site was closed because no-one used it) Public transport loses money and much of it loses money hand over fist. For various reasons public finances will be under strain for a very long time to come, and sooner or later senior national politicians will wake up to the truth that we can't afford to subsidise public transport in the way we have in recent years. By far the most effective way to head off a Thatcherite reaction is to make sure that all public transport is very heavily used and requires minimal subsidy per person carried. The converse is also true. Therefore any new public transport project should meet two conditions: that it makes a major contribution to reducing a major problem and that it is heavily utilised. A Northern Line extension to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth would meet both those conditions. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:11:50 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:33:56 on Tue, 9 Sep 2014, d remarked: I spent 6 months working right next door to heathrow and it was bad enough just being there 9-6. For the residents it must be a ****ing nightmare. Only utterly selfish ****s would wish more aircraft in the skys just so they can visit disneyworld in florida next week on a whim or wherever. Heathrow has exactly zero flights to Orlando[1], so that market is catered for elsewhere (and rarely at a week's notice). Clearly you had trouble understanding the "or wherever" phrase in the example. And you appear to be having difficulty understanding that many other resort destinations are also not served from Heathrow. Oh. Well thanks for the heads up. Obviously the sort of planes used to fly to resort destinations are completely different to planes that don't so I guess that makes my example completely invalid , right? Btw, DisneyLAND is in LA and I'm fairly sure there are flights to LA from Heathrow unless you care to prove otherwise. No? Shall we move on then? So now your pedantry is out the way do you have anything valid to add or have you shot you single sad little bolt? -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:49:26 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: There are, but I've never heard of someone flying from the UK to DisneyLAND. They all seem to head for Florida. Why not go canvas the passengers on an LA flight, especially ones with kids. I'm sure you'll find plenty. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-06 12:18:25 +0000, Mizter T said:
Blimey, you've changed your tune pretty radically! Not so long ago you seemed to consider Heathrow as one of the gates of hell. That's because Heathrow has itself changed massively. First T5 (which had a very bad false start but now seems to be working nicely) and then the new T2 replacement. It is still overloaded which causes runway/taxiway delays, but it's nothing like it was 10 years ago. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2014-09-06 12:18:25 +0000, Mizter T said: Blimey, you've changed your tune pretty radically! Not so long ago you seemed to consider Heathrow as one of the gates of hell. That's because Heathrow has itself changed massively. First T5 (which had a very bad false start but now seems to be working nicely) and then the new T2 replacement. It is still overloaded which causes runway/taxiway delays, but it's nothing like it was 10 years ago. IME LHR has replaced one problem with another There are no longer queues an hour long to get through security to check in Instead they have replaced this with a 2 mile long walk from your arrival stand to immigration where there's an hour long queue to get your passport checked (though the latter's also a problem the last time I was at STN) tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-14 13:47:09 +0000, tim..... said:
There are no longer queues an hour long to get through security to check in I did note that "5 men" on the "where's the worst queue" display meant a wait of about 3-4 minutes if that. Thoroughly impressed. I've used T5 at various times now and I never had to wait long. Instead they have replaced this with a 2 mile long walk from your arrival stand to immigration where there's an hour long queue to get your passport checked (though the latter's also a problem the last time I was at STN) I've not flown into T5, but this seems to be an increasing problem. It's a shame the biometric passports don't have fingerprint biometrics - would be far quicker and easier to do the autogates that way, and you could fit in far more of them in the space. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"tim....." wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On 2014-09-06 12:18:25 +0000, Mizter T said: Blimey, you've changed your tune pretty radically! Not so long ago you seemed to consider Heathrow as one of the gates of hell. That's because Heathrow has itself changed massively. First T5 (which had a very bad false start but now seems to be working nicely) and then the new T2 replacement. It is still overloaded which causes runway/taxiway delays, but it's nothing like it was 10 years ago. IME LHR has replaced one problem with another There are no longer queues an hour long to get through security to check in True, security queues Are now normally shirt. Instead they have replaced this with a 2 mile long walk from your arrival stand to immigration where there's an hour long queue to get your passport checked (though the latter's also a problem the last time I was at STN) Heathrow walks are generally no longer now than they were 20 years ago. The immigration queues did get longer when the government demanded more checks on EU passports, but seem to be better now. Human passport desks are still quicker than the e-passport machines, though. However, the Heathrow e-passport readers seem to be better than the few I've used abroad. I arrived at Gatwick North yesterday evening and found no Immigration queues. But you now do need a £1 or €1 coin to release a baggage trolley. And while I waited a few minutes for my bag to arrive, I was able to buy my rail ticket right after Immigration, with almost no queue, rather than when I got to the railway station, where the queues were long. That helped me catch an earlier train. All in all, a very smooth experience, just like most Heathrow arrivals (I've used Heathrow T1, T3, T4 and T5 this year, all without delays or problems; I'm looking forward to using the new T2 later this year). Stansted was a bit worse, but tolerable. On my route home, as I had a heavy suitcase, I sought a step-free route. My chosen route involved three trains, and all five lifts and one escalator worked impeccably. Driving would have been quicker and easier, but wasn't an option as I left from one airport and returned via another. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk