Re: Shock horror: Bob Crowe talks sense

In message <5rtkjjyyd0dt$.1xg2wwsr0zqkd$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)> wrote:

rail wrote:

In message <lzjyc4nk7diq$.r0yjbaxgbikz$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)> wrote:

rail wrote:

In message <uiq4xntlbgbx$.hsxivsgr4x2k.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)> wrote:

rail wrote:

In message <s1l6czxlvil4.x6mpfg9wk4w9$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)>
wrote:

rail wrote:
In message <1tjoud3oryr6h$.jeh0cq2wge4t.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Tolley <cj.tolley@xxxxxxxxxxx (ukonline really)>
wrote:

Well you've comprehensively missed the point there, congratulations.

Thanks for the congratulations, but as you haven't made any clearer the
point I'm supposed to have missed, I'm as unable to answer it as I was
before.

The bit about things being cheaper in Scotland.

Ah, but *that* wasn't my argument. It was merely a response to the
example you offered. My argument was always about the original
"allegation".

That was certainly not clear.

[snip]

So you can imagine it then?

Eh? Point-missing, pot/kettle, cf. your earlier comment above.

Err... the point is you have managed to imagine it and to find a case where
it doesn't apply.

"I can't imagine..." is a figure of speech rather than an indication of
a lack of a certain faculty.

I was using it in that sense.

I haven't needed to imagine anything in this conversation. The nearest I've
come was some hard pondering about the name of the bridge/river in N Yorks
that I drove across some years back. I can remember only that it was wooden
and that the toll-booth was at one end, tacked on to the side of a house.


Can't help you there though there is a similar one west of Oxford and one
across the Thames at Pangbourne.

If you couldn't imagine it there would be no point in
trying to disprove it.

I'm at a loss to follow your train of thought.

It's the 1815 ex Waterloo...


Also you have caefully snipped the relevance of my
earlier comparison, why?

Brevity. It didn't seem to contribute to the further discussion. That's
why I do most of my snipping. That's not abnormal, is it?

It is when it is a vital part of the comparison.


What do I need to imagine? I have provided a case of a more expensive
stretch of water to cross than the Solent, and as I suggested, it is a
British river. QED.

Are you always so intemperate when proved wrong?

Do you always take playful comments so seriously?

Not when they are /clearly/ playful comments, as above, "brain",
"football pitch" etc.)

Also I can't see how I can be 'proved wrong' when I didn't make the original
allegation, merely reported it.

Well, yes, you reported it, originally, and then next time round you
went some way to defending it, even to the point of showing your
working. By that stage, it looked like you'd adopted it.


Merely showing how such a belief can come about doesn't mean I have adopted
it all for my very own. To be serious, such a belief has enough truth in it
for it to be a powerful disinsentive to companies that may think of setting
up on the island

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
.

Relevant Pages