In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I was just wondering where in London isn't within walking distance of a
bus route.

Eel pie Island? ;-)

A few minutes walk to a bus route.

Depends on your definition of 'walking distance'

A mile or so?


When I lived in London, I on occasion walked 5-6 miles across it to get
home in the wee small hours. No busses or taxis to be seen..and few
underground trains.

Plenty of night buses these days. Very entertaining passengers too,
usually. ;-)


Its a matter of time. In priciple a 12 mile walk is perfectly *possible*.

However, consider how you are going to get stuff HOME aftewards...

I rememeber walking less than a mile to buy a Christmas tree, ..a 9ft
tall Blue Spruce - and then carrying it to someone's home in the
pouring rain..

So every car journey involves carrying things too large for PT?

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frank Erskine wrote:

If you're in the position of complaining about how far you have to
travel to work then you're clearly unsuited to that particular job.

Who is complaining?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I expect to be able to drive on the roads I pay for, not "anywhere".

You personally pay for every road in the land?

I pay for my use of those roads. Indeed it's arguable that I pay many
times more than the use I make of those roads.

That isn't true even within London.

Are you disabled?

Are you constructing strawmen?

I was just wondering where in London isn't within walking distance of a
bus route.

Were you? How interesting.

On 9 Aug 2008 09:29:10 GMT, Huge wrote:

Sigh. I've been going to the USA regularly for nearly 30 years (my parents live
there). I've seen no more gun shops there than here.

You've seen Walmart, yes?

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I'm not sure if I feel sorry or not for those who chose to live miles
from work and are now feeling the pinch. Mainly since I live in town
and have to suffer commuters.

"You could perhaps have taken that into account when buying your place."

I doubt anyone predicted the rise in commuting since I bought this place.
Fuel prices, yes.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10 Aug 2008 09:48:47 GMT, Huge wrote:

I like Micheal Moore's

Really? Why would you pay any attention to that fat lying ****?

Because he's not lying (if he is, please cite) and because I'm not so
shallow as to think that his girth makes any difference.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
It is absolutely true - I work on the motorways and it`s great fun
seeing the difference in traffic speed and volume over the holidays.
Although for the last few months `ve seen fewer cars on the road, and
the ones I see are going closer to 56mph than i`ve ever seen before.
Most of my colleagues agree too. I think the fuel price increases are
biting and people are realising that public transport is actually a
viable option for most journeys.

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that *you*
think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

snip

Not sure about the cost effectiveness of conductors over driver only
buses! When I was a student in Birmingham (72-75) the public
transport system was superb. It is easy to make an effective PT
system in a city though. As soon as you are in non-urban Britain, it
is almost impossible to make PT pay.


But isn't that the point, the difference between PT run as a service
and PT run for profit, in the former the routes that make money offset
those that do not, in the latter those routes that don't make money
get axed - they then don't feed into those routes that do make money,
one is not going to drive their cars into town and then catch either
bus or train for the rest of the journey, people will just drive all
the way...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
It is absolutely true - I work on the motorways and it`s great fun
seeing the difference in traffic speed and volume over the holidays.
Although for the last few months `ve seen fewer cars on the road, and
the ones I see are going closer to 56mph than i`ve ever seen before.
Most of my colleagues agree too. I think the fuel price increases are
biting and people are realising that public transport is actually a
viable option for most journeys.

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that *you*
think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.


No, another pointless argument. We didn't evolve to use cars so *no*
journeys are necessary (we just used to die naturally if we couldn't get to
hospital etc) [holidays aren't necessary, entertainment is not necessary
etc] OR we choose to do something with the car and pay for it so all
journeys are necessary (or we wouldn't be paying for them). Neither side
will convince the other. The bane of usenet (


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

snip

What Joe Public could do is stop for hitchikers


Unfortunately that is not going to happen these days for various
reasons, some more obvious than others.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
snip

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think
their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.


Wrong, the fact that they consider their journey as necessary is the
problem - two examples - around here there is a real problem with
mums, their cars and the 'school run', many live closer to the school
(as the footpaths run) than the most direct driving route to the
school is, thus the journey is only necessary because the mums (and
kids) refuse to exercise their legs. Also, people will spend money on
fuel so that they can buy their baked-beans (or what ever) two pence
cheaper, never mind the fact that they are using 4p of fuel doing so,
than the local shop...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

In article ,
Jerry wrote:
What Joe Public could do is stop for hitchikers


Unfortunately that is not going to happen these days for various
reasons, some more obvious than others.

I can't remember when last I saw a hitchhiker - so I'd guess they're
equally as frightened of drivers.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

Dave, thanks for all the constructive postings you've made over the
years, but I shan't be reading them any more. Your bigotry and
hypocrisy, and now 'ad hominem' - hell, it isn't even as good as that,
it's simple name calling, has finally made your postings unwelcome here.

Humpty Dumpty said in one of the Alice novels 'words mean what I want them
to'.

Hardly name calling. And I thought you'd have understood the reference
given the context. Ah well.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
snip

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you*
think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

Dave, thanks for all the constructive postings you've made over the
years, but I
shan't be reading them any more. Your bigotry and hypocrisy, and now
'ad
hominem' - hell, it isn't even as good as that, it's simple name
calling, has
finally made your postings unwelcome here.



We'll take it that the truth hurts...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-14, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 9 Aug 2008 09:29:10 GMT, Huge wrote:

Sigh. I've been going to the USA regularly for nearly 30 years (my
parents live
there). I've seen no more gun shops there than here.

You've seen Walmart, yes?

Since you've deleted all the context, I'm disinclined to answer this, but
Walmart stopped selling guns over a year ago, and they never were a "gun
shop".


In the context of guns being freely available a "gun shop" is a shop that
sells guns over the counter - to declare otherwise is pointless hair
splitting and the fact they sell doll's clothes and beef jerky as well, is
irrelevant. I am glad to hear they have stopped but, on my last visit to a
Walmart, you could buy hunting rifles at age 18 on production of a driver's
licence and handguns at 21 (I went to the counter and had a look - next to
the tools, natch!).


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Huge" wrote in message
...
snip

You can imagine whatever fantasist ******** you like. Discuss them
with Dave.


Why should I discuss them with Dave when you are a master in the
genre?...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-14, Jerry wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
snip

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think
their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.


Wrong,

Thanks for your entry. Next applicant, please.


"You can imagine whatever fantasist ******** you like. Discuss them
with..."

....Steve Firth - (or one other many other fantasist found on Usenet).
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Bob Mannix wrote:

I am glad to hear they have stopped but, on my last visit to a
Walmart, you could buy hunting rifles at age 18 on production of a driver's
licence and handguns at 21

And?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

Dave, thanks for all the constructive postings you've made over the
years, but I shan't be reading them any more. Your bigotry and
hypocrisy, and now 'ad hominem' - hell, it isn't even as good as that,
it's simple name calling, has finally made your postings unwelcome here.

Humpty Dumpty said in one of the Alice novels 'words mean what I want them
to'.

Hardly name calling. And I thought you'd have understood the reference
given the context. Ah well.

I suggest that in this context the one aping Mr Dumpty is you. Because
you appear to have set yourself up as the arbiter of what the word
"unecessary" means according to your perception of what it necessary.

Jerry wrote:

Wrong, the fact that they consider their journey as necessary is the
problem - two examples - around here there is a real problem with
mums, their cars and the 'school run', many live closer to the school
(as the footpaths run) than the most direct driving route to the
school is, thus the journey is only necessary because the mums (and
kids) refuse to exercise their legs. Also, people will spend money on
fuel so that they can buy their baked-beans (or what ever) two pence
cheaper, never mind the fact that they are using 4p of fuel doing so,
than the local shop...

A few years ago, I would have said that if you want to live in the sort
of country that you seem to want to live in, then China has an open
immigration policy. However even China has now seen that dictating to
people what their transport and lifestyle choices should be isn't the
way to run a country. Now my advice has to be that you shopuld apply to
live in North Korea. It will offer you everything that you want,
including enforcement of physical activity upon individuals.

May you enjoy your Paradise.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Mannix wrote:

I am glad to hear they have stopped but, on my last visit to a
Walmart, you could buy hunting rifles at age 18 on production of a
driver's
licence and handguns at 21


....and... I was answering the point that Walmart was "not a gun shop", which
it clearly was.

I could add that there are few 21 year olds in my home town I would like to
see armed with a handgun for good measure but that was not the main point.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Mannix wrote:

I am glad to hear they have stopped but, on my last visit to a
Walmart, you could buy hunting rifles at age 18 on production of a
driver's
licence and handguns at 21


...and... I was answering the point that Walmart was "not a gun shop",
which it clearly was.

It's no more a gun shop than Asda is a HiFi store. A gun shop is a shop
that sells guns and products associated with gunnery as the main form of
their business. By your bizarre reckoning Harrods is "a gun shop".

I could add that there are few 21 year olds in my home town I would like
to see armed with a handgun for good measure but that was not the main
point.

And I would like to see most children taught to shoot, because the
discipline and the learned responsibility can go a long way to eliminate
the fascination with guns that comes from not experiencing what a gun is
and what shooting is. Of course this won't suit the morons who blame the
object for the outcome.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
saying something like:

In article ,
Jerry wrote:
What Joe Public could do is stop for hitchikers


Unfortunately that is not going to happen these days for various
reasons, some more obvious than others.

I can't remember when last I saw a hitchhiker - so I'd guess they're
equally as frightened of drivers.

You can no longer buy hatpins to stab the driver's leg with when he gets
fresh, hence a reduction in hitchhikers.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

wrote in message ...
On 13 Aug,
"ARWadworth" wrote:

My girlfriend leaves her house in a morning with her child at the same
time
as her next door neighbour leaves with it's child. My girlfriend walks
and
her next door neighbour drives. Nine times out of ten the girlfriend's
child arrives in class before the neighbours.

A neighbour used to get her car out of the garage to take her daughter to
the
local primary school, and then put it away afterwards. They only lived
next
door to the school. It was 200yards by footpath without having to cross
any
roads. My kids (after teh first month or so) were just shooed out of the
door
and always got there safely. We could watch them most of the way out the
window.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

How does she find a parking spot park within 200 yards of the school?

I use the term "park" as a general word as "abandoned across a drive, stuck
out in the middle of the road or parked on the school crossing" seems to be
the norm outside schools.

Adam

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

Dave, thanks for all the constructive postings you've made over the
years, but I shan't be reading them any more. Your bigotry and
hypocrisy, and now 'ad hominem' - hell, it isn't even as good as that,
it's simple name calling, has finally made your postings unwelcome here.

Humpty Dumpty said in one of the Alice novels 'words mean what I want them
to'.

Hardly name calling. And I thought you'd have understood the reference
given the context. Ah well.

I suggest that in this context the one aping Mr Dumpty is you. Because
you appear to have set yourself up as the arbiter of what the word
"unecessary" means according to your perception of what it necessary.

Takes a very pedantic person to not understand what was meant. One who
also doesn't understand what was meant by a gun shop. Or perhaps you think
corner shops sell corners?

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
It is absolutely true - I work on the motorways and it`s great fun
seeing the difference in traffic speed and volume over the holidays.
Although for the last few months `ve seen fewer cars on the road, and
the ones I see are going closer to 56mph than i`ve ever seen before.
Most of my colleagues agree too. I think the fuel price increases are
biting and people are realising that public transport is actually a
viable option for most journeys.

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that *you*
think
their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

The Cambridge dictionary definiton says:-

unnecessary (ad)- not needed or not wanted, or more than is needed or wasted


So

"Not needed" is decided by the person who chooses to drive. They choose and
have a right to do so.

"Not wanted" is not decided by the person who drives to somewhere and then
is refused entry when they arrive.

Adam

Huge wrote:
On 2008-08-14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2008-08-13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
It is absolutely true - I work on the motorways and it`s great fun
seeing the difference in traffic speed and volume over the
holidays. Although for the last few months `ve seen fewer cars on
the road, and the ones I see are going closer to 56mph than i`ve
ever seen before. Most of my colleagues agree too. I think the
fuel price increases are biting and people are realising that
public transport is actually a viable option for most journeys.

I dunno what percentage of journeys made are strictly speaking
unnecessary, but I'll bet it's high.

It's zero. No-one makes an unecessary journey, ever. The fact that
*you* think their journeys are unecessary is *your* problem.

Ah. Another Humpty Dumpty.

Dave, thanks for all the constructive postings you've made over the
years, but I shan't be reading them any more. Your bigotry and
hypocrisy, and now 'ad hominem' - hell, it isn't even as good as
that, it's simple name calling, has finally made your postings
unwelcome here.

What a patronising post...



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:20:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
I know a number of Maggie's early policies were harsh and unpopular,
but at the end of the day, she did what was necessary to dig the
country out of the financial hole that it had gotten itself into, and I
have a feeling that we just might find history repeating itself over
the next few years ...

Had her policies not closed the coal mines and subsequently squandered our
oil and gas reserves in the quest for 'jam now' and to reward her
paymasters we'd not have to be buying in so much energy from other
counties.

Here we go again ...

Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone) and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century. Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills.

Calligan closed about the same number of mines in the four years
before Thatcher got in than she did during the four years after.

Thatcher supported the embargo on burning gas for power generation for
nearly 10 years but once the electrical supply industry had been
privatised the government couldn't tell the generating companies which
fuel they could and couldn't burn.

Gas was cheaper and (far) less polluting than British mined coal (*)
and the combined cycle gas turbine stations were far wore efficient.
The embargo on gas was putting up the price of energy and making us
uneconomic compared with competitors in Europe who had been burning
gas since it was first discovered under the North Sea.

(*) The coal we used to mine in the Yorks/Derby/Notts coalfield was of
too low quality to be burnt in the big new generating stations in the
nearby "Megawatt Valley".

Derek

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
snip

Here we go again ...


snip

Yes, here we go again, more fantasist ******** from the defenders of
Thatcherism.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


It's no more a gun shop than Asda is a HiFi store. A gun shop is a shop
that sells guns and products associated with gunnery as the main form of
their business. By your bizarre reckoning Harrods is "a gun shop".


If it still sells guns it is.
You are confusing a shop that sells guns with a specialist gun shop.

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
news:Ty_ok.42619

How does she find a parking spot park within 200 yards of the school?

She drives to get exercise,, get in car.. drive past school.. look for
parking space.. park three hundred yards from school.. walk in. QED

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:10:44 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:


"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
.. .
snip

Here we go again ...


snip


unsnip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone) and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century. Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills."

Yes, here we go again, more fantasist ******** from the defenders of
Thatcherism.

You find this fantastic?

Takes all sorts.

Derek

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:10:44 +0100, "Jerry"

wrote:


"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
. ..
snip

Here we go again ...


snip


unsnip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone)
and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century. Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills."

Yes, here we go again, more fantasist ******** from the defenders of
Thatcherism.

You find this fantastic?
snip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone)"

The question is about the reserves, not the fact that something is
(obviously) finite, the facts remains that the UK is sitting on
several hundred years of coal supplies and the reason that pits closed
in the Thatcher/Major period of government was for *political* reasons
and *not* economic reasons - as was the case in immediate -
preceding - Wilson/Callaghan (or even the previous Heath) period of
government. The question now is not how to use coal (technology moves
on), for we still do use/import coal, but how we are going to (safely)
extract it and extract it we will have to do at some point in the not
to distant future if we are going to stay a *independently* energy
secure nation.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

What Joe Public could do is stop for hitchikers

Unfortunately that is not going to happen these days for various
reasons, some more obvious than others.

I think something as mundane as faster speed of traffic is at least part
of it. Sometimes I'm in a cheerful, generous mood in which I'd be happy
to give someone a lift. Sometimes I see hitchhikers. Occasionally, the
two coincide, which ought to mean that I pick them up. But on a main
road (and people don't hitch around town), by the time I've seen
someone, mentally processed the fact that they're looking for a lift,
decided that I'd be happy to do so, and prepared to slow down and stop,
I'm hundreds of yards down the road - and probably can't sensibly stop
in the traffic anyway. I saw someone hitching halfway down a busy
motorway sliproad the other day - out of sight round the corner from the
roundabout, and an awful place to stop.

Pete

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:10:44 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:


"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
snip

Here we go again ...


snip


unsnip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone) and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century. Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills."

Yes, here we go again, more fantasist ******** from the defenders of
Thatcherism.

You find this fantastic?
snip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone)"

The question is about the reserves, not the fact that something is
(obviously) finite, the facts remains that the UK is sitting on several
hundred years of coal supplies and the reason that pits closed in the
Thatcher/Major period of government was for *political* reasons and *not*
economic reasons - as was the case in immediate - preceding -
Wilson/Callaghan (or even the previous Heath) period of government. The
question now is not how to use coal (technology moves on), for we still do
use/import coal, but how we are going to (safely) extract it and extract
it we will have to do at some point in the not to distant future if we are
going to stay a *independently* energy secure nation.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...


But we are not "independently energy-secure" now, are we ? We are beholden
to the Ruskies and Frogs for just about all our gas. We get our oil from the
middle east. Whilst we do still generate most of our own electricity, we
couldn't even do that, without importing the combustibles for our power
station furnaces, or the uranium to process for our nuclear generation
capability. Even some of our electricity comes here courtesy of the Frogs
via the cables under the Channel. Far from being independant, if all of
these raw materials were denied us, we would rapidly go dark, and become
very cold ...

Even if we were to manage to reopen the mines, or dig new ones, I'm pretty
sure that their contribution to our ability to restore energy independence
in this country, would not be anything even close to what would be required.

Arfa

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

By your bizarre reckoning Harrods is "a gun shop".

Harrods is a department store. You should know what that means and the
historical origins of them. So yes, if you can buy a gun there, Harrods
is as much a 'gun shop' as 'Joe Bloggs Guns' of Hicksville, Texas, the
only difference being in the procedures of supply.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

Jerry wrote:
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:10:44 +0100, "Jerry"

wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
snip
Here we go again ...

snip

unsnip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone)
and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century. Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills."

Yes, here we go again, more fantasist ******** from the defenders of
Thatcherism.
You find this fantastic?
snip

"Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone)"

The question is about the reserves,

No, it isn't.

The question s about how much it costs to extract it.

If for example it takes more energy to extract it than it produces when
burnt, its not much of a ruddy fuel is it?

As usual its the contrast between cost accounting, and hard
mathematically derived facts. and Soschlism. which has Great Ideas, but
Cant Count.

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
Had her policies not closed the coal mines and subsequently squandered
our oil and gas reserves in the quest for 'jam now' and to reward her
paymasters we'd not have to be buying in so much energy from other
counties.

Here we go again ...

Wonder why this usually means a wealth of misinformation is to follow...

Mining is an extractive industry (when the coal's gone it's gone) and
had been in trouble with mines closing since before the start of the
20th century.

Mines will always close when the thing being mined runs out or is too
difficult to reach.

Maybe it's just as well that the railways had stopped
burning coal for their motive power and the iron and steel industry
had stopped using coal and the textile industry had folded with it's
big consumption of coal to feed the steam engines in the mills.

And these all ran on what?

Calligan closed about the same number of mines in the four years
before Thatcher got in than she did during the four years after.

Now that's a nice statistic taken out of context. Are you a politician?

Thatcher supported the embargo on burning gas for power generation for
nearly 10 years but once the electrical supply industry had been
privatised the government couldn't tell the generating companies which
fuel they could and couldn't burn.

Well yes. And just who privatised the generating industry? And even then a
sensible government would have retained some degree of control.

Gas was cheaper and (far) less polluting than British mined coal (*)
and the combined cycle gas turbine stations were far wore efficient.
The embargo on gas was putting up the price of energy and making us
uneconomic compared with competitors in Europe who had been burning
gas since it was first discovered under the North Sea.

Well we're certainly paying the price for that 'jam now' policy.

(*) The coal we used to mine in the Yorks/Derby/Notts coalfield was of
too low quality to be burnt in the big new generating stations in the
nearby "Megawatt Valley".

Sounds like more poor design.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Pete Verdon d wrote:
Sometimes I see hitchhikers. Occasionally, the
two coincide, which ought to mean that I pick them up. But on a main
road (and people don't hitch around town)

They certainly used to in London. Late at night after the tube had stopped.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

By your bizarre reckoning Harrods is "a gun shop".

Harrods is a department store. You should know what that means and the
historical origins of them. So yes, if you can buy a gun there, Harrods
is as much a 'gun shop' as 'Joe Bloggs Guns' of Hicksville, Texas, the
only difference being in the procedures of supply.

Of course.

If you want to buy a can of beans, Tesco is a bean shop. Televsion? Well
my local Tesco sells them - so it is a television shop. As a percentage
of turnover, both beans and televisions might be infinitessimal. Surely,
in so many ways, we accept that a shop is defined by what it sells
rather than some other classification that bears little or no relation
to what it actually sells.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org