Newbie in need of help!
 

I'm possibly about to change jobs and am trying desperately to figure out how much it's going to cost me to get to work if it comes off.

I currently split my week pretty much 50/50 between Kent & Hounslow (where he-who-thinks-he-knows-best lives) and I've got prices for trains from both locations to Waterloo but what I really need to know is how much it would cost for monthly travelcards on an Oyster for zones 1&2 and zones 1-4 so that I can build up a clear picture in my mind of whether I'll be able to afford to say yes if they offer me the job!

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)

If the above is allowed does anyone think that it would be best if he got a 1-4 and I got a 1&2 so that all my/our options would be covered.

Blimey, this new job lark is trickier than it seems!

Newbie in need of help!
 

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:30:18 +0100, AndreaC
wrote:


I'm possibly about to change jobs and am trying desperately to figure
out how much it's going to cost me to get to work if it comes off.

I currently split my week pretty much 50/50 between Kent & Hounslow
(where he-who-thinks-he-knows-best lives) and I've got prices for
trains from both locations to Waterloo but what I really need to know
is how much it would cost for monthly travelcards on an Oyster for
zones 1&2 and zones 1-4 so that I can build up a clear picture in my
mind of whether I'll be able to afford to say yes if they offer me the
job!

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)

If the above is allowed does anyone think that it would be best if he
got a 1-4 and I got a 1&2 so that all my/our options would be covered.

Blimey, this new job lark is trickier than it seems!

If you need the flexibility of travel within zones 1-4 then that is what
you should buy - especially if you cannot narrow down to weekly "lumps"
when you might be travelling 1-2 or 1-4.

Fare info is here

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tick...006.pdf#page=1

An Oyster card can hold two types of validity - a Travelcard season
ticket *and* money for use as "pay as you go". A Travelcard on Oyster
has all the validity of an old paper / magnetic stripe ticket so no
change. It is valid on the main line trains. If someone decides just to
use "pay as you go" then that is typically (there a few exceptions) NOT
valid on the main line network. PAYG fares are less than you would pay
if you paying with cash for bus / tube / dlr fares. The two products
can work together to provide a travelcard season ticket for regular
trips and then provide a fund of cash on the card for ticket extensions
if you travel beyond your normal zonal validity (but only for tube and
dlr modes).

An Oyster card that has a weekly, monthly or longer travelcard on it is
NOT transferable so you cannot share the card with the other half.

The other half may find it beneficial to have an Oyster card with money
on it for pay as you go use in the Hounslow area as it will be valid on
the tube and bus services there. This is where money is deducted from
the card for each trip but a discount to the normal cash fare and also
the card will cap deductions at the equivalent One Day ticket less 50p.
However it is not valid on the SWT main line service to Waterloo and
won't be for a few years yet. The extent to which main line train
services are used is the key determinant as to whether

If you were prepared to travel by tube and bus rather than main line
rail then you would need a Z12 travelcard for your main journeys and
provided you had some cash in your Oyster PAYG "purse" then you can
travel beyond Z12 by tube and the ticket gates will deduct any money due
for an extension ticket automatically at the end of your journey. Your
travelcard already gives you bus validity all over London anyway so
there is no charge for any of those you might use at Richmond /
Hounslow. Only you can tell if the incremental cost of a Z14 travelcard
is worth having if you would prefer the convenience of using SWT direct
train services via Waterloo rather than diverting to the tube and bus
network.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

Newbie in need of help!
 

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."

[The punctuation is TfL's!]

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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, and is it enforceable?

Incidentally, do paper Travelcards have the same policy? I was at
Edgware, trying unsuccessfully to persuade the ticket machine to accept
my credit card, when a random stranger handed me his day Travelcard.
(He did not ask for compensation.) Great, I thought, that solved my
problem. But the person at the gates, who happened to have witnessed
the transaction, would not let me through, insisting that the card
wasn't mine. Who was right?

When unlimited cards were first introduced in New York, the MTA made it
quite clear that unlimited cards could be shared. (Obviously, only one
person may use an unlimited card at a time, although that doesn't apply
to pay-per-ride cards, which permit access to up to four together and
keep track of their free bus transfers.)
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Newbie in need of help!
 

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).

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

I presume PAYG is transferable because it's considered to be like
cash.

Incidentally, do paper Travelcards have the same policy?

Yes.

I was at
Edgware, trying unsuccessfully to persuade the ticket machine to accept
my credit card, when a random stranger handed me his day Travelcard.
(He did not ask for compensation.) Great, I thought, that solved my
problem. But the person at the gates, who happened to have witnessed
the transaction, would not let me through, insisting that the card
wasn't mine. Who was right?

The member of staff, I'm afraid.


--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Newbie in need of help!
 

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?

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 was at
Edgware, trying unsuccessfully to persuade the ticket machine to accept
my credit card, when a random stranger handed me his day Travelcard.
(He did not ask for compensation.) Great, I thought, that solved my
problem. But the person at the gates, who happened to have witnessed
the transaction, would not let me through, insisting that the card
wasn't mine. Who was right?

The member of staff, I'm afraid.

Then it's good he stopped me, I suppose. (Incidentally, he had an
American accent, but he obviously wasn't a transplanted New York token
clerk, since he was quite polite about denying me entry.)

If the ticket office isn't open at all times that trains run, it would
be nice if the ticket machines were repaired so that they accept credit
cards without chip-and-PIN. I realize that all British credit cards
have chip-and-PIN, but not everybody who rides the Tube is British.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

Newbie in need of help!
 

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

Newbie in need of help!
 

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

Newbie in need of help!
 

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)

Newbie in need of help!
 

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.

Newbie in need of help!
 

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?

Newbie in need of help!
 

Poldie wrote:
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.

Unfortunately that's not true. There are three different products being
talked about in this discussion:

- Oyster with only pay-as-you-go credit on it
- Oyster with a season ticket on it (7-day travelcard, month travelcard
or longer)
- Paper One Day Travelcard (ODTC)

Only the first of those can be shared with other people. Neither an
Oyster with a season ticket nor a paper travelcard can be shared with
someone else.

When that Q&A you quote talks about season tickets, it is talking about
seven-day or longer tickets (which are always a type of travelcard).
One-day travelcards do not exist on Oyster.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Newbie in need of help!
 

On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

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?

Well, you could invest EUR10/year in a news.individual.net
subscription, accessible from anywhere. Whether you'd be happier or
not is up to you. But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Newbie in need of help!
 

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:
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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

Ok, I take that back, but you did seem to be upset with the fact I'm
not using a "real" news server & reader.

But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

If that was all I'd said then yes, I'd have deserved your slightly
patronizing comments about people who weren't "technically savvy" doing
"silly things", but my comment, way back in my second contribution to
this thread was actually:

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

which I thought made the situation clear enough. Apparantly I was wrong!

Newbie in need of help!
 

On 30 Sep 2006 10:04:13 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:
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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

Ok, I take that back, but you did seem to be upset with the fact I'm
not using a "real" news server & reader.

Not upset, just giving a recommendation.

But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

If that was all I'd said then yes, I'd have deserved your slightly
patronizing comments about people who weren't "technically savvy" doing
"silly things", but my comment, way back in my second contribution to
this thread was actually:

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

which I thought made the situation clear enough. Apparantly I was wrong!

It seems to imply that if they didn't show by then, you'd expect them
not to exist.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

Newbie in need of help!
 

In message , James Farrar
writes

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.

Another thing I've noticed is that some GG users seem to be under the
impression that Google run/own news groups.

Causes all sorts of problems in Other Places that does.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)