On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:09:15 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

On 4/19/2012 10:59 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el m, Frank
escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".

Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to
orientate himself."

The first sounds better to me.

When I was in school, I was taught that "orient" was correct, and that
"orientate" was a back-formation from "orientation".

Absolutely correct.

Den 17.04.2012 10:57, skrev Nick Odell:

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land. England need more nuclear power and
should learn from France how to do it.
--
jo
"My views have changed because nuclear energy is the only
non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace
fossil fuels while satisfying the world’s increasing demand for
energy." —Patrick Moore

Jo Stein wrote:

Den 17.04.2012 10:57, skrev Nick Odell:

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land. England need more nuclear power and
should learn from France how to do it.

applause
--
Tim Watts

In message , Jo Stein
wrote
Den 17.04.2012 10:57, skrev Nick Odell:

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land. England need more nuclear power and
should learn from France how to do it.

Don't you mean learn from Japan on how to do it.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Jo Stein wrote:
Den 17.04.2012 10:57, skrev Nick Odell:

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.


England need more nuclear power and
should learn from France how to do it.

That however, I agree with..


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
--
jo
"When you are in a hole, stop digging"

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Jo Stein wrote:

Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Apr 20, 12:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".

Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."

8

The first sounds better to me.

better than "it took him a moment to become oriental"?

Er

better than "it took him a moment to become Oriental"?

The capital is important as in "to orient oneself towards the Orient, is
to become an Oriental' blah blah.

The word you seek is "orientate".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/orientate

Orient(e) is East. In several European languages.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...rient?q=orient

You ARE an ignorant old bugger aren't you?
Well you never learn't English language at Cambridge did you?

On Saturday, April 21, 2012 4:11:02 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Jo Stein wrote:

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

Sounds like something from that 'Thrive' video on youtube.

On Apr 21, 4:16*pm, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Jo Stein wrote:

Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...imate_c hange

His English is bad but he has a valid point.

Bit more on the topic of methane clathrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Bit more here again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbi9...eature=related

Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:
On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:
....
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...imate_c hange

His English is bad but he has a valid point.

My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about that:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-is-too-late/
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earth’s energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 “Argo” floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.

JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.
--
jo
"Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:39:10 +0200, Jo Stein wrote:

Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:
On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:
...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going
to win. The sea level is accelerating today and this
acceleration can only be stopped by reducing the extra energy
that has resently been stored in the sea. How will you reduce
the extra energy stored in the sea?

What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
makes any sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_and_climate_c hange

His English is bad but he has a valid point.

My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about
that:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...es-hansen-ted-
talk-co2-10-years-is-too-late/
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 €œArgo€� floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.

JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear
energy.

Now, that I do agree with.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:47:58 -0700, harry wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:19Â*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artÃ*culo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".

Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to
orient himself."

8

The first sounds better to me.

better than "it took him a moment to become oriental"?

Er

better than "it took him a moment to become Oriental"?

The capital is important as in "to orient oneself towards the Orient,
is to become an Oriental' blah blah.

The word you seek is "orientate".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/orientate

Orient(e) is East. In several European languages.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...rient?q=orient

You ARE an ignorant old bugger aren't you? Well you never learn't
English language at Cambridge did you?

The nearest thing to a definitive view is Fowler. And he says that
'orient' is the early form, with 'orientate' a French-derived
alternative. And that either form is acceptable (although he prefers
'orient').



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

I can not find a single coherent statement of accepted scientific theory
or factual data in the above sentence. In short not one statement in it
is correct. So really I give up.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Jo Stein wrote:

Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.

Well that of course is also completely wrong.

Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

Phew. I thought I had suddenly had a brainstorm.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Jo Stein wrote:

Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:

Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.
Well that of course is also completely wrong.
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

stream of pseudoscientific consciousness, or was we know it, greenDribble.

Or, conversely its an encrypted Al Qaeda instruction. Q? Can you run
this through the fluffandbollox filter and see if it represents a
National Threat?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as
before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising
and will slowly cover the land.
Well that of course is also completely wrong.
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.
It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.

Takes a total tosser to know a total tosser, it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...imate_c hange

His English is bad but he has a valid point.

No he doesn't.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:
On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:
...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is
going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration
can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been
stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the
sea?

What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
makes any
sense at all.

It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...imate_c hange


His English is bad but he has a valid point.

My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about that:

James Hansen is a farid more or less.

Next?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-is-too-late/

Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 €œArgo€� floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.

JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.

Not last time I heard.
He was all for wanking machines ^H^H^H^H^H^ wind mills.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:19 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artÃ*culo , Frank
Erskine escribió:
...and "orient" rather than "orientate".
Not so sure about that one.
"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."
8
The first sounds better to me.
better than "it took him a moment to become oriental"?
Er

better than "it took him a moment to become Oriental"?

The capital is important as in "to orient oneself towards the Orient, is
to become an Oriental' blah blah.

The word you seek is "orientate".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/orientate


no it isn't.


Orient(e) is East. In several European languages.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...rient?q=orient

You ARE an ignorant old bugger aren't you?
Well you never learn't English language at Cambridge did you?

No, I learnt it long befire that.

o·ri·ent (ôr-nt, -nt, r-)
n.

On 22.04.2012 01:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
-- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who
know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really
possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.

I try to find out more about you, and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908
an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).
--
jo
".. I think it's important to realize that when two opposite
points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth
does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them.
It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins

Jo Stein wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

-- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To
people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know
how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.

I try to find out more about you, and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908

Someone else who uses the same nick. Not even in the same country.

an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).

The TuNiP is a senile old fart in england, MUCH older than that.

jo
".. I think it's important to realize that when two opposite
points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth
does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them.
It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of
it so decent news readers can drop it auto from the quoting.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:14:53 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

next thing we know there'll be a new word - burglariser

I prefer burglarist.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:11:33 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

But the z form is so ugly - Merkins love them. But then with them, too
often, uglification is an art form.

I know - look at the rear of many American cars. They just don't know
how to finish them off, as if the back is unimportant.

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:14:53 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

next thing we know there'll be a new word - burglariser

I prefer burglarist.

and then burlglariserised.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:04:06 +0100, grimly4 wrote:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:11:33 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

But the z form is so ugly - Merkins love them. But then with them, too
often, uglification is an art form.

I know - look at the rear of many American cars. They just don't know
how to finish them off, as if the back is unimportant.

At least with the Pontiac Aztek the rear styling matched the rest of the
vehicle, I suppose. :-)

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:59:11 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".

Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to
orientate himself."

The first sounds better to me.

"Train station" is even worse.
I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Having grown up in a suburb where the trains all terminated at
Waterloo, the first time I travelled from south of the river to
Victoria and learned I would be passing _through_ Waterloo without
stopping, I became quite anxious - until I discovered how this
happened.

Nick

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train
terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.

Why would it do that? Hint: Trains do not have to leave a station in
the same direction they arrived, be that station a through or
terminus type.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.

There are plenty of 'termini' where the train stops, passengers alight
and board, and then the train reverses and goes on somewhere else.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train
terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.
Why? The train could be going onto other stations.
It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.

Why would it do that?

I don't know any other meaning of terminating a train.

A train *service* yes, but not the train.



Hint: Trains do not have to leave a station in
the same direction they arrived, be that station a through or
terminus type.


Irrelevant.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.
Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.

There are plenty of 'termini' where the train stops, passengers alight
and board, and then the train reverses and goes on somewhere else.


I cant see why you made that (stultifyingly obvious) point with respect
to what I said. Its nothing to do with it.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles wrote:

I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Why? The train could be going onto other stations.

It would be more interesting if it did. The thought of it vanishing into
a pile of scrap at platform 12, is interesting, to say the least.

There are plenty of 'termini' where the train stops, passengers alight
and board, and then the train reverses and goes on somewhere else.

I think someone is making a big deal out of it being the service that
terminates and not the train.
I don't recall announcements saying "the train terminates here", only "the
service" or "the train service" terminates here, not that i use the trains
much these days.

In article ,
Nick Odell wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:59:11 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".

Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to
orientate himself."

The first sounds better to me.

"Train station" is even worse.
I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Having grown up in a suburb where the trains all terminated at
Waterloo, the first time I travelled from south of the river to
Victoria and learned I would be passing _through_ Waterloo without
stopping, I became quite anxious - until I discovered how this
happened.

I can undertand it happening if you were going to Charing Cross, but
Victoria takes a bit of imagination.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article ,
Nick Odell wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:59:11 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

...and "orient" rather than "orientate".
Not so sure about that one.

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to orient
himself."

"When he emerged from the train station, it took him a moment to
orientate himself."

The first sounds better to me.
"Train station" is even worse.
I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

Having grown up in a suburb where the trains all terminated at
Waterloo, the first time I travelled from south of the river to
Victoria and learned I would be passing _through_ Waterloo without
stopping, I became quite anxious - until I discovered how this
happened.

I can undertand it happening if you were going to Charing Cross, but
Victoria takes a bit of imagination.

ISYR doing that on a surface rain some years back - Victora to
waterloo..now I got off there to go somewhere else. But the train went
off somewhere else as well



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:29:30 +0100 Charles wrote :
I was interested in the announcment at Waterloo "this train terminates
here". It would have been interesting if it hadn't.

We get "This train will be terminated at ..." as if some form of railway
euthanasia was about to happen.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to
ignore ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-idUSBRE83G0LE20120417

On Apr 21, 6:39*pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:





On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob *wrote:
*On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
* *In ,
* * *Jo *wrote:
...
* *Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
* *The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
* *stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
* *the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?

* *What*are* *you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
* *sense at all.

*It all sounds scarily like Drivel.

He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and...

His English is bad but he has a valid point.

My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
* Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
* including a detailed look at the Earth’s energy imbalance that was
* made possible by data from 3000 “Argo” floats that measure ocean
* temperature at different depths. *Dr. Hansen said that the current
* imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
* energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
* equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
* days per year.

JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * jo
* "Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
* *or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.
And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.