They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

Paul Corfield typed

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Agreed. See my other posting.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Human nature.

Surely you don't expect people to sit back and say nothing more than
"I expect we'll find out all about it when the official report comes out
and the officials tell us what happened"?

People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and theories by
communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

--
Paul Terry

2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article m,
(Roland Perry) wrote:
Yes, but before that news broke, it was still worthwhile trying to set
the scene correctly. The theorists had some very strange ideas about
the layout at the various parts of the KX complex.

Can you get treatment for that?

Not on the NHS.


--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:40:32 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Human nature.
Surely you don't expect people to sit back and say nothing more than
"I expect we'll find out all about it when the official report comes out
and the officials tell us what happened"?

I'm obviously not human then. I can fully understand people discussing
privately how they feel or perhaps commenting on facts released by the
police or by TfL. I genuinely see no value in people trying to speculate
on whether you can chuck bombs on Circle Line trains from opposing
platforms at Kings Cross or how quickly you can dash to the Piccadilly
Line. It's over and done with - what does knowing or speculating add to
anyone's future journey plans?

Is Kings Cross station going to be redesigned to prevent people moving
too quickly from one platform to another just in case someone might
decide to place bombs? - I hardly think so. People placing bombs in any
public place is a risk that many, many people have to live with to
varying degrees of probability. Our world and our lives are not going to
be redesigned to try to make them bomb proof.

Given that the Police appear to be saying that these were suicide
bombers why are people still talking about the possibilities of there
being one bomber? That discussion has been overtaken by events.

People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and theories by
communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

I think it is pointless in this particular context. I'm obviously just
odd.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:40:32 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:


People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and
theories by communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

I think it is pointless in this particular context.

It's pointless in the sense that others have more information and will
reach valid conclusions more certainly and quickly (as the police did).
But I can understand people wanting to understand how it happened, in
the same way that people do whenever there's a railway accident. What
****ed me off was people with little real knowledge of the Underground
thrashing around in ignorance as though they were the only ones
qualified to produce some credible theories (all of which turned out to
be wrong anyway).

I'm obviously just odd.

Compared to many of the people cross-posting to this NG since last
Thursday, you are decidedly even!

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

]
Paul Corfield a écrit :

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

I can fully understand people discussing
privately how they feel or perhaps commenting on facts released by the
police or by TfL. I genuinely see no value in people trying to speculate
on whether you can chuck bombs on Circle Line trains from opposing
platforms at Kings Cross or how quickly you can dash to the Piccadilly
Line.

I'm obviously just odd.

Well, that makes us even, then :) .

Not to mention that the ones who speculated the most (and felt entitled to
write quite authoritatively on what could and what could not have been, what
was more likely and less likely, etc.) turned out to be also the most
clueless about the Underground!

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

It's over and done with - what does knowing or speculating add to
anyone's future journey plans?

It doesn't. But this newsgroup is not just about journey plans - it has
often included speculative discussion such as "what if the Aldwych
branch were to be re-opened and extended to Waterloo".

As Richard says, it is only natural that people want to understand how
the events of last week happened, especially given the prominent role
that London's Transport plays in most of our lives.

I would be much more worried if everyone thought that such events should
not be discussed here until some official report finally appeared in the
distant future.

Given that the Police appear to be saying that these were suicide
bombers why are people still talking about the possibilities of there
being one bomber?

I think it is important to realise that most of the wilder and more
inaccurate speculation comes from articles posted to alt.conspiracy,
which have also been cross-posted here. Unfortunately, many of these
lack the sound knowledge of London's transport system normally found in
u.t.l. - and many are also not aware of the up-to-date information that
we see here in London.

--
Paul Terry

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In message , at 16:59:00 on
Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Helen Deborah Vecht
remarked:
Liverpool Street is NOT Liverpool.

But Liverpool Lime Street is! (Keeping on a transport topic).

Tourists at places where trains go to both LS and LLS (and I believe
there was one such pair of trains timed to depart Cambridge at the exact
same time) often do get confused.
--
Roland Perry

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of
 

In article m,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at 16:59:00 on
Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Helen Deborah Vecht
remarked:
Liverpool Street is NOT Liverpool.

But Liverpool Lime Street is! (Keeping on a transport topic).

Tourists at places where trains go to both LS and LLS (and I believe
there was one such pair of trains timed to depart Cambridge at the
exact same time) often do get confused.

I think there may still be one such pair left. Most Central trains through
Cambridge now are Stansted to Briminghams. You have to change at Ely for
Liverpool Lime Street.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:49:24 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

It's over and done with - what does knowing or speculating add to
anyone's future journey plans?

It doesn't. But this newsgroup is not just about journey plans - it has
often included speculative discussion such as "what if the Aldwych
branch were to be re-opened and extended to Waterloo".

Yes I know all that. It just seems indecent to me that people are making
ignorant statements when the dead have not yet been recovered. Perhaps
I'm being oversensitive but discussion about extending the whatever line
to wherever tends not to have over 50 dead people as the backdrop.

As Richard says, it is only natural that people want to understand how
the events of last week happened, especially given the prominent role
that London's Transport plays in most of our lives.

Yes - *understand* how they happened with that understanding being based
on the facts. Not invent 2,537 different theories about them.

I would be much more worried if everyone thought that such events should
not be discussed here until some official report finally appeared in the
distant future.

Well to be completely fair I think there is a good flow of information
emerging from different sources. I think it needs to be understood that
there is no point in people "over promising" in terms of what can be
done and by when. The incident is also unprecedented so there is an
element of new ground and new issues being covered.

The only time that the full picture truly does emerge is when an
official report does get published. That should also identify the issues
and propose actions that are hopefully pragmatic and affordable.
Thankfully we have not had politicians running round making promises
they have no intention of keeping. My own preference would be for people
to take a calmer, more considered view and to wait to hear from those
authorities who can speak definitively. I'm sure 99% of people will take
no notice of that though as the alternative is just too titillating and
exciting.

Given that the Police appear to be saying that these were suicide
bombers why are people still talking about the possibilities of there
being one bomber?

I think it is important to realise that most of the wilder and more
inaccurate speculation comes from articles posted to alt.conspiracy,
which have also been cross-posted here. Unfortunately, many of these
lack the sound knowledge of London's transport system normally found in
u.t.l. - and many are also not aware of the up-to-date information that
we see here in London.

I am obviously aware that the "loony squad" have been crossposting.
Trying to ignore their nonsense is not a particularly palatable
exercise.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!