On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your
extensive research.

E.

On 19/02/2016 10:39, eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have
allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your extensive
research.

E.


There's certainly enough trying to go Northbound from Shadwell as well -
I could lean out of my window and ask them for their views, but I'd
prefer to keep the remaining heat in (my central heating is on the blink)

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:39:56 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your
extensive research.

*sigh*

There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

--
Spud

On 2016-02-19 10:56:43 +0000, d said:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:39:56 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your
extensive research.

*sigh*

There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

That would be fewer not less people. Maybe though you're one of the
lesser people of these islands.

E.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:42:14 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 10:56:43 +0000, d said:
There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

That would be fewer not less people. Maybe though you're one of the
lesser people of these islands.

Picking someone up on grammar or spelling means you instantly lose the argument
since you clearly have nothing of actual relevance to add.

Thanks for playing.

--
Spud

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:12:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:42:14 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 10:56:43 +0000, d said:
There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

That would be fewer not less people. Maybe though you're one of the
lesser people of these islands.

Picking someone up on grammar or spelling means you instantly lose the argument
since you clearly have nothing of actual relevance to add.

Means to whom? Your poor skills with the English language undermine
your arguments on every topic, if they're even intelligible.

And when did you last add anything of actual relevance anyway?

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:19:03 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:12:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:42:14 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 10:56:43 +0000, d said:
There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

That would be fewer not less people. Maybe though you're one of the
lesser people of these islands.

Picking someone up on grammar or spelling means you instantly lose the
argument
since you clearly have nothing of actual relevance to add.

Means to whom? Your poor skills with the English language undermine
your arguments on every topic, if they're even intelligible.

Two in a row, this group is surpassing itself today.

--
Spud

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\02\18 11:45, Theo wrote:
The army and some older municipal vehicles aren't constrained by this rule
and use other parts of the letter space.

Which letter space? Latin or Greek?

Greek. Newer municipals use common letters on an orange plate. I can't
remember if the army also use common letters on newer stuff (army kit tends
to last a long time).

I think it's Saudi Arabia that has plates in Arabic numbers and letters (but
not in script) and then a smaller Latin transliteration underneath.

Theo

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 02:40:51PM +0000, d wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Oh GOOD sigmonster.
?

Please don't try to pretend that you're new to this internet thing. We
all know that you're not.

--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

The Law of Daves: in any gathering of technical people, the
number of Daves will be greater than the number of women.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:40:26 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 02:40:51PM +0000, d wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Oh GOOD sigmonster.
?

Please don't try to pretend that you're new to this internet thing. We
all know that you're not.

I never claimed otherwise. But I still have no idea what you were referring to.
TBH I don't particularly care either.

--
Spud