Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:


http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/onl...bruary05.shtml

Online column :: February 2005
4x4 vehicles are just plain daft

There is a war rumbling on the city streets, between 4 x4 owners and the
rest of us. Driving a 4x4 in town is just plain daft. They are gas
guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and park, and take up far
more space than conventional vehicles. And yet, one in seven new
vehicles in London is some kind of SUV or 4x4.

Over the past few months, a canny little campaign, the alliance against
urban 4x4s, led by a few activists in North London, has attracted
massive publicity with a series of clever stunts. The best has been
issuing mock parking tickets, which ressemble official ones but actually
set out the arguments against driving these ridiculous cars in towns.
For example, the one in Camden has the council logo but with the word
Carbon replacing the council’s name. It highlights the ‘poor vehicle
choice’ and directs people to a website to show how our descendants will
‘pay for our dependence on fossil fuels....................[snip]


Also found this website: http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk




Mike

Huge wrote:
Mike writes:

Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:


Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

Pot, kettle, black.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

It highlights the 'poor vehicle
choice' and directs people to a website to show how our descendants
will
'pay for our dependence on fossil fuels

Possibly not that "poor" if you want to flout speed limits and tear
over speed bumps without even feeling them - that seems to be the main
selling point for these vehicles as far as "townies" are concerned and
is something our descendants probably won't be able to do.

Outside rural areas, where people need high ground clearances to drive
across fields, these vehicles are indeed "plain daft" and just seem to
be bought by people who think speed limits don't aply to them.

Huge wrote:

Mike writes:
Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible and
(unlike your response) was not flamebait.

I disagree with it, but he has every right to post it here. If you
object to what he's said, you're welcome to tell us why. Otherwise I
suggest you go back to uk.transport, or better still off line!

Huge wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) writes:

Huge wrote:


Mike writes:

Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. It was lies and bull****, beginning to end.

In your opinion.

I can't see what's wrong with posting it here, it's about transport and
there are lots of them in London

On 13 Feb 2005 17:43:31 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

Heavy irony.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Huge wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) writes:
Huge wrote:

Mike writes:
Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. It was lies and bull****, beginning to end.

Beginning to end??? I think not! He alerted us to an online column that
does exist. "Lies and bull****" may be an accurate description of the
first paragraph (though if the one in seven figure is wrong, please tell
us what the real figure is) but the same can't be said for the second
paragraph. It alerts us to a new, innovative, grassroots campaign (and
gives the URL for their website).

You may disagree with the objectives of the campaign (as I do, for I
think emmissions trading is a better solution to the environmental
problems). But if that's the case, please either post your objection or
shut up.

and (unlike your response) was not flamebait.

I disagree with it, but he has every right to post it here.

Sure he does. And I have every right to tell him to **** off and die.

Every right??? I accept you have the legal right, but I think that's the
only right you have to do so.

If you object to what he's said, you're welcome to tell us why.

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

How dare you libel me like that! There is nothing hypocritical about
posting a polite objection to an abusive off topic response to an on
topic post. Assuming you are the real Huge, I really thought you'd been
on usenet long enough to know that. And I'm not in charge, I'm just
reminding you what the situation is. Why shoot the messenger down in
flames?

Otherwise I
suggest you go back to uk.transport, or better still off line!

What was it you were saying about "every right to post" not 10
seconds ago, hypocrite?

'Twas a suggestion, not a demand. And I suggested it for a reason. Do
you honestly think the newsgroup benefits from you telling people to
**** off when they've done nothing wrong? If you can't post something
intelegent, please don't post anything at all!

In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:

Christian Wolmar has written ...

They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.

Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")
--
Roland Perry

Huge (to Mike)...

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

Huge (to Aidan)...

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

IRONY OVERLOAD! IRONY OVERLOAD!

I have a vague recollection that you've posted useful messages in the past,
but now you're a continuous waste of space. If you ever sort your problems
out, please come back with a different name so that you'll escape my
killfile.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:


Christian Wolmar has written ...


They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.


Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")

I agree. It's the sheer stupidity of driving *any* private vehicle
around London that needs to be addressed.

Dan