Michael Hoffman wrote:
Kev wrote:

5 minutes or less more or less forget getting
a seat unless you want to squeeze between Mr and Mrs Fatty or asked the
ingorant ******* to move their bag off the seat next to them.

Is this really that hard? I find people are usually quite willing to
move their bags on a full train.

Surely the point is that you shouldn't have to ask? On a crowded
train, anyone who has to be asked to move a bag on the seat next to
them is clearly an antisocial sh*t. Of course, the latest development
is people sitting on the outside seat with their bags on the inside
one, so not only do you have to ask them to move their bag, but they
have to get up to let you in as well, which will usually precipitate
much humphing and grunting. Hanging's too good for them!

Patrick

Michael Hoffman wrote:

Kev wrote:

5 minutes or less more or less forget getting
a seat unless you want to squeeze between Mr and Mrs Fatty or asked the
ingorant ******* to move their bag off the seat next to them.

Is this really that hard? I find people are usually quite willing to
move their bags on a full train.
But why should it be necessary to ask. Let's think about this. There
are a dozen people standing by the doors but somebody insists on
occupying a seat with their shopping bag. They only move the bag if
asked to do so.

Kevin

wrote:

Surely the point is that you shouldn't have to ask? On a crowded
train, anyone who has to be asked to move a bag on the seat next to
them is clearly an antisocial sh*t.
Almost as bad as the people who sit on the 3 abreast seats but then
encrouch onto the adjacent vacant seat so intimidating people not to
sit there.

Kevin

Kev wrote:

Almost as bad as the people who sit on the 3 abreast seats but then
encrouch onto the adjacent vacant seat so intimidating people not to
sit there.

On the 321s I'd have a job not doing. 2+3 is a poor design.

Neil

On 15 Nov 2006 07:18:12 -0800, wrote:


Michael Hoffman wrote:
Kev wrote:

5 minutes or less more or less forget getting
a seat unless you want to squeeze between Mr and Mrs Fatty or asked the
ingorant ******* to move their bag off the seat next to them.

Is this really that hard? I find people are usually quite willing to
move their bags on a full train.

Surely the point is that you shouldn't have to ask? On a crowded
train, anyone who has to be asked to move a bag on the seat next to
them is clearly an antisocial sh*t. Of course, the latest development
is people sitting on the outside seat with their bags on the inside
one, so not only do you have to ask them to move their bag, but they
have to get up to let you in as well, which will usually precipitate
much humphing and grunting. Hanging's too good for them!

But then surely the fun is to need to disturb their comfort again with
a trip to the buffet returning with a menacing mug of something hot.
That precipitates a visit to the loo. You even have to go to get
something out of your luggage. Hours of harmless amusement!

Guy Gorton

Guy Gorton wrote:
On 15 Nov 2006 07:18:12 -0800, wrote:


Michael Hoffman wrote:
Kev wrote:

5 minutes or less more or less forget getting
a seat unless you want to squeeze between Mr and Mrs Fatty or asked the
ingorant ******* to move their bag off the seat next to them.

Is this really that hard? I find people are usually quite willing to
move their bags on a full train.

Surely the point is that you shouldn't have to ask? On a crowded
train, anyone who has to be asked to move a bag on the seat next to
them is clearly an antisocial sh*t. Of course, the latest development
is people sitting on the outside seat with their bags on the inside
one, so not only do you have to ask them to move their bag, but they
have to get up to let you in as well, which will usually precipitate
much humphing and grunting. Hanging's too good for them!

But then surely the fun is to need to disturb their comfort again with
a trip to the buffet returning with a menacing mug of something hot.
That precipitates a visit to the loo. You even have to go to get
something out of your luggage. Hours of harmless amusement!

Hahaha, I like your thinking!

Patrick

"allan tracy" wrote:


Well if (big if) you can ignore the fact that the whole place looks as
if it was planned by some Eastern European Communist Government then
actually it's not a bad place to live.

It's pretty safe compared to London, good shopping, very good train
service and even on the stopping Virgin trains (mostly from Brum) you
can usually get a seat.

Compared to London quality of life will be much improved, especially if
you have kids.

I know people have different ideas as to what constitutes quality of life,
but I think I would hate to live in MK.

Too far from the coast for whimsical day trips - certainly by public
transport.

Too far from genuinely outstanding or interesting countryside (sorry
Chilterns - South Downs/Lake District/Suffolk coast you ain't).

Paucity of cultural interest

Functional but uninspiring architecture

'Stepford wives' image of identikit population - deserved or otherwise.

For those after 'good schools', IIRC the Bucks selective system does not
extend to MK, hence a choice of bog standard comps which, when I last read
the school league tables, did not perform especially well.

I know it has good shops, but these days that's not much of a USP. Anyway,
my old fashioned view is that shopping is best conducted in a high street
with lots of hustle and bustle and traffic and noise, not a soulless mall.

Also, I would have thought selling a London property in echange for a
Milton Keynes one could a mean a significant upgrade.

But a much lower probability of market-beating price growth in the future.

Chris

In message . com, Kev
writes
But why should it be necessary to ask. Let's think about this. There
are a dozen people standing by the doors but somebody insists on
occupying a seat with their shopping bag. They only move the bag if
asked to do so.

As someone "guilty" of putting my bag on the seat next to me, I do this
for both ease of access and security. I have no problem whatsoever
moving my bag if someone needs a seat, whether they ask or not.
--
Kenny

Chris Read wrote:

Too far from the coast for whimsical day trips - certainly by public
transport.

A matter of prefence - that one never bothered me, though that said I
don't object to the odd walk on the beach at Scheveningen while over
here in .nl

Too far from genuinely outstanding or interesting countryside (sorry
Chilterns - South Downs/Lake District/Suffolk coast you ain't).

That I do miss, having previously lived in the North West and so had
the Lakes, Peaks and North Wales nearby, the Dales not too far and
Scotland a bit closer. That said, it's only a couple of hours by train
to Manchester, though cost does of course figure in that.

Paucity of cultural interest

It has a successful theatre and art gallery, and there is history, you
just have to look for it.

Functional but uninspiring architecture

This is true in places.

'Stepford wives' image of identikit population - deserved or otherwise.

It has "chavs", but so does any large town or city. It does have a
very transient population by its nature, but I don't think that always
counts against it.

For those after 'good schools', IIRC the Bucks selective system does not
extend to MK, hence a choice of bog standard comps which, when I last read
the school league tables, did not perform especially well.

Two of the schools (Denbigh and Shenley Brook End) have a very good
reputation, though two more (the names of which escape me) aren't
reputed to be as good. Beware of the league tables. My comprehensive
(which nonetheless called itself Ormskirk Grammar) was a superb school
in just about every way, which was known to all locally. It didn't
feature very high in the league tables because it refused to write off
"low performers" by entering them for lower-level exams and selecting
them out of the sixth form, but instead gave everyone who attended a
good opportunity to learn. This, stupidly, resulted in an average
league table rating, as I recall.

I know it has good shops, but these days that's not much of a USP. Anyway,
my old fashioned view is that shopping is best conducted in a high street
with lots of hustle and bustle and traffic and noise, not a soulless mall.

MK shopping centre has all of that bar traffic, but it can be a bit
soulless, yes. My preference with shopping involves going in, getting
what I want and going out in the shortest amount of time possible,
though, so it suits me fine

But a much lower probability of market-beating price growth in the future.

This is probably true; house prices in MK are very reasonable for the
(edge of the) South East.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:

A surprisingly good location

Apropos of nothing at all, and completely off topic, but since
you're an MK resident, Neil, I'll ask anyway...

I was reading a 1972 issue of /Practical Electronics/ t'other day,
as you do. A news article revealed that in the progressive new
city of MK, as well as 'phone lines the GPO would be installing
a co-ax cable to the houses. The writer couldn't think of any
immediate use, apart from the ever thrilling possibility of having
your gas meter read remotely, but was sure that lots of uses would
be found, including the new Viewdata terminals that were just
around the corner (I believe it was actually 1975 before Prestel
was launched).

Does that infrastructure still exist, and has anyone found a use
for it yet?

Cheers

mark-r

--
Currently sigless.