On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway wrote:

Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you, without any explanation. To quote from page 3 of TfL's "Get the
most out of your Oyster card" leaflet: "If you have a Travelcard/Bus
Pass on your Oyster card it is for your use only so you cannot let
someone else use it." However, "You can let a friend or someone else,
use your card, if you only use Oyster to pay as you go."

Why is this the policy, and is it enforceable?

I've often wondered how (or whether) they enforce it, as photocards
aren't required for Travelcards on Oyster.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)
Yes.
No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you, without any explanation. To quote from page 3 of TfL's "Get the
most out of your Oyster card" leaflet: "If you have a Travelcard/Bus
Pass on your Oyster card it is for your use only so you cannot let
someone else use it." However, "You can let a friend or someone else,
use your card, if you only use Oyster to pay as you go."
Why is this the policy

In general, tube tickets (like those on the mainline railways) have
been non-transferable for a long time.

So it's a matter of tradition more than anything else?

I think it's there to stop re-sale.

Incidentally, do paper Travelcards have the same policy?

Yes.

Do I not violate this rule, then, by walking up to the ticket window and
purchasing two Travelcards, one for myself and one for a travel
companion? Why is the ticket agent even willing to sell more than one
Travelcard for the same period to a single person, when obviously that
individual will not be using more than one of them?

Or does the restriction only apply once the ticket has been used?

I suspect the logic used is that the ticket can only be used by the
person for whom it is bought, whether the buyer is the passenger or
not.


--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On 29 Sep 2006 10:42:24 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 23:42:33 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you,

At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

[1] Ok, some usenet providers are better than other never the less

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

[1] Ok, some usenet providers are better than other never the less

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet! I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on every
machine I connect to the 'net with.

On 30 Sep 2006 07:00:59 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet!

What basic mistake?

I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on every
machine I connect to the 'net with.

I cry for you.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Poldie wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James
Farrar writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google
Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that
regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's
of propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider
will be quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question:
Why exclude people using a different method of reading usenet
articles from yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet! I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on
every machine I connect to the 'net with.

Fair enough. Actually, Google must have been particularly slow that
evening; it's included your last post in less than 10 minutes. Your
"sin" in using GG might have been overlooked if you hadn't made a "basic
mistake" in your answer!

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

Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James
Farrar writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google
Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that
regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's
of propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider
will be quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question:
Why exclude people using a different method of reading usenet
articles from yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet! I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on
every machine I connect to the 'net with.

Fair enough. Actually, Google must have been particularly slow that
evening; it's included your last post in less than 10 minutes.

Yes, I made a post to alt.test shortly afterwards which took hours to
turn up - usually it's pretty quick.

Your "sin" in using GG might have been overlooked if you hadn't made a "basic
mistake" in your answer!

How dare I use Google instead of what some nerd has on his list of
acceptable Usenet clients! Imagine the ridicule I'll now face amongst
my peers - can I ever again show my face in polite society?

The answer I gave was what I honestly believed to be true at the time.
If my wife asks to borrow my travelcard once I'm home from work I'm
hardly likely to tell her "no - go and buy your own!" before ripping
mine up in front of her, and I'd be suprised if anyone else would. The
Oyster webpage has this Q&A:

Q) Can I share my Oyster card if it has pay as you go with Auto top-up?
A) Yes, as long as you only have pay as you go on your card. If you
also have a season ticket on your Oyster card, it must not be used by
anyone else.

It doesn't mention travelcards. And as has been implied elsewhere in
this discussion, there's no difference between someone ordering an
Oyster Travelcard and then giving it to someone to keep, and buying two
travelcards at a station and handing one to someone to keep.

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 07:00:59 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet!

What basic mistake?

Accusing someone of "contradicting" an article on Usenet when it was
probable that they were using a Usenet client that was likely to have
been responsible for a delay which meant they weren't contradicting
them after all (at least, not knowingly).

I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on every
machine I connect to the 'net with.

I cry for you.

Why - would I be happier, or perhaps better paid, if I went to the
effort of installing Thunderbird and finding a free news server each
time I wanted to browse or post to Usenet, rather than simply firing up
Firefox?