[I] Oracle - Any Letsebuergesch (sp?) speakers here?
Ross
I'm working a (railfans) charter train in Luxembourg next Saturday,
and I've been tasked to put together some signs for the train. The
tour leader has asked for English, French, German and Dutch signage,
which I've managed to do. But we're in Luxembourg, so it would be nice
if the signs could feature some Letsebuergesch (which I just know I've
spelt wrong) [1,2]...
So, as I've not found anything like a Letsebuergesch <-> English
dictionary online, can anyone here provide me with the translations
for:
"Special train" (and if possible "for charter ticket holders only");
"No smoking" (and if possible "anywhere in this train");
and
"Thank you for your co-operation" or "for your understanding".
Come to think of it, if anyone wants to confirm the correct local
versions of those in French, Dutch or German I'd be grateful as I've
worked off fading memories of the last time I travelled on trains in
the area. ;-)
Mucho TIAs and so forth.
[1] Luxembourgois for the Francophones here. :-)
[2] Agent's spoiling chucker suggests "Cheeseburgers" for
"Letsebuergesch". Hmm.
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.
Demonstration of poor photography at <http://www.rosspix.me.uk>
AD: <http://www.merciacharters.co.uk> for European charters occasionally gripped by me
Gift
no smoking = niet roken (dutch) pas fumer (french)
thank you... = dank u voor uw medewerking (dutch) merci pour votre
cooperation (french)
letzeburgs is not a language I know well (spent some time there though, I
believe french and german are acceptable)
--
--
Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
"Ross" <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> schreef in bericht
news:teeb121nfbapbrsjf...@4ax.com...
Gift
> "Special train" (and if possible "for charter ticket holders only");
> "No smoking" (and if possible "anywhere in this train");
> and
> "Thank you for your co-operation" or "for your understanding".
>
Sonderzug
Nicht rauchen
Danke schön für Ihre Mitwirkung
Thats about it for my three official national languages (thank you Belgium)
Ross
<DljRf.102416$%13.3...@blueberry.telenet-ops.be>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> special train = voorbehouden rijtuig (dutch) train reservé ? (french) Sonderzug (german)
Memory suggests speciale trein (Dutch) and train spéciale (French): I
think it might be that the railways have moved from correct language
to their own usage; experience on the railways here in .uk shows they
do tend to use words and phrases to mean what they want to mean rather
than what the rest of the country thinks they mean!
> no smoking = niet roken (dutch) pas fumer (french) Nicht Rauchen (german)
> thank you... = dank u voor uw medewerking (dutch) merci pour votre
> cooperation (french) Danke schön für Ihre Mitwirkung (german)
Thanks for those.
> letzeburgs is not a language I know well (spent some time there though, I
> believe french and german are acceptable)
I've only really passed through on previous visits, and this is only
an extended day trip, but I thought it would be nice if I could
produce something in the local tongue.
Mind you, if I'd left it to the team leader to do, the signs would
only have been in English.
Richard Bos
> "Ross" <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:teeb121nfbapbrsjf...@4ax.com...
> > I'm working a (railfans) charter train in Luxembourg next Saturday,
> > and I've been tasked to put together some signs for the train. The
> > tour leader has asked for English, French, German and Dutch signage,
> > which I've managed to do. But we're in Luxembourg, so it would be nice
> > if the signs could feature some Letsebuergesch (which I just know I've
> > spelt wrong) [1,2]...
Letzebürgesch, IIRC.
> > So, as I've not found anything like a Letsebuergesch <-> English
> > dictionary online, can anyone here provide me with the translations
> > for:
> >
> > "Special train" (and if possible "for charter ticket holders only");
> > "No smoking" (and if possible "anywhere in this train");
> > and
> > "Thank you for your co-operation" or "for your understanding".
> >
> > Come to think of it, if anyone wants to confirm the correct local
> > versions of those in French, Dutch or German I'd be grateful as I've
> > worked off fading memories of the last time I travelled on trains in
> > the area. ;-)
> special train = voorbehouden rijtuig (dutch) train reservé ? (french)
> no smoking = niet roken (dutch) pas fumer (french)
Those two are Flemish translations, though. That may be the right thing
if Ross is going to travel mainly in Belgium, of course. More
Netherlandish phrasings would be "gereserveerde trein" ("rijtuig" is a
single carriage, AFAIK even in Flanders) and "verboden te roken".
> thank you... = dank u voor uw medewerking (dutch) merci pour votre
> cooperation (french)
>
> letzeburgs is not a language I know well (spent some time there though, I
> believe french and german are acceptable)
French is one of the two official languages of the country, and I don't
remember anyone from the Letzebürgesche part of the country that didn't
speak considerably better German than I do.
Richard
Ross
<4415e782...@news.xs4all.nl>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
[...]
> > "Ross" <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> schreef in bericht
> > news:teeb121nfbapbrsjf...@4ax.com...
>
> > > I'm working a (railfans) charter train in Luxembourg next Saturday,
> > > and I've been tasked to put together some signs for the train. The
> > > tour leader has asked for English, French, German and Dutch signage,
> > > which I've managed to do. But we're in Luxembourg,
> if Ross is going to travel mainly in Belgium, of course.
Nope. Solely in Luxembourg.
It's being run for a bunch of British railfans who want to travel over
various lines which are normally only used by freight trains.
The most interesting part of the day will be watching their reactions
when they discover that CFL (Luxembourg Railways) has declared the
train almost "dry" - i.e. they can have alcoholic drinks, but not very
many of them.
mr creek
Torak
>>>and I've been tasked to put together some signs for the train. The
>>>tour leader has asked for English, French, German and Dutch signage,
>>>which I've managed to do. But we're in Luxembourg, so it would be nice
>>>if the signs could feature some Letsebuergesch (which I just know I've
>>>spelt wrong) [1,2]...
>
> Letzebürgesch, IIRC.
One of my old friends - Danish, currently (and scarily) an Olympic
triathlete - has now lived in Luxembourg for many many years. I'll send
her an email and see if she can translate it for you.
Arthur Hagen
> no smoking = niet roken (dutch) pas fumer (french)
Won't there always be a Euro-standard sign for no smoking?
And quite often just the pictogram and no text?
Regards,
--
*Art
Ross
<dv51h8$88u$1...@tree.lightning.broomstick.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> Gift <gi...@baddabing.com> wrote:
>
> > no smoking = niet roken (dutch) pas fumer (french)
>
> Won't there always be a Euro-standard sign for no smoking?
There are a multitude of different signs, almost all of which are
based on the crossed-out fag, but there doesn't seem to be one
specific standard (although someone will doubtless now post one).
Same with the "standard" pictograms used across the European railway
network (and quite often by other transport organisations); they're
not *quite* standard as each country or organisation has its own
tweaks.
> And quite often just the pictogram and no text?
Yes, but the British variant has text [1], and as it's a British
company running the charter, we're looking at doing our own version of
the sign.
[1] and in many cases states a "maximum penalty" which bears little or
no relation to the actual maximum penalty currently in force. But then
"level 3 on the standard scale" is a bit of a mouthful for any sign...
Ross
<dv51h5$5bg$2...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
> >>"Ross" <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> schreef in bericht
> >>
> >>>I'm working a (railfans) charter train in Luxembourg next Saturday,
> >>>and I've been tasked to put together some signs for the train. The
> >>>tour leader has asked for English, French, German and Dutch signage,
> >>>which I've managed to do. But we're in Luxembourg, so it would be nice
> >>>if the signs could feature some Letsebuergesch (which I just know I've
> >>>spelt wrong) [1,2]...
> One of my old friends - Danish, currently (and scarily) an Olympic
> triathlete - has now lived in Luxembourg for many many years. I'll send
> her an email and see if she can translate it for you.
Thanks, Torak.
Even if it comes back too late for this trip, it'll be interesting and
I'll probably be able to use it in the future. Luxembourg appears to
be a growth area for British railfans at the moment for some reason.
Arthur Hagen
>
> [1] and in many cases states a "maximum penalty" which bears little or
> no relation to the actual maximum penalty currently in force.
Over here, I drive by a sign daily that states "No Littering" and "$219
fine"
Damn. Had it been $218, I might have flicked the fag butt out the window,
but if it's $219, no way!
Regards,
--
*Art
Ross
<dv55eu$967$1...@tree.lightning.broomstick.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
Strange amount for someone to chose, 219. 215 or 220, yes, as they're
nice round numbers, but 219 seems a little... different.
Way back when, in the days when I was a conductor and our trains had
just become all no-smoking areas, it wasn't that unusual for people to
offer to pay the 50 quid maximum penalty if I'd agree to let them
smoke. Generally they got invited into my brakevan for a quick fag; if
they were that desperate for a fix, I figured it was probably a good
bit of customer service.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Way back when, in the days when I was a conductor and our trains had
> just become all no-smoking areas, it wasn't that unusual for people to
> offer to pay the 50 quid maximum penalty if I'd agree to let them
> smoke. Generally they got invited into my brakevan for a quick fag; if
> they were that desperate for a fix, I figured it was probably a good
> bit of customer service.
What I think is criminally stupid are the airports that are /completely/ non
smoking. Some, like Chicago/O'Hare even prohibit smoking *outdoors*.
So, you have a passenger who's a hard addict, who's been on a transoceanic
flight for, say, 8-10 hours, with screaming kids and nervous accountants
around him. And he's got an hour before the next connecting
who-knows-how-long flight. And they /refuse/ the guy a fag? Do they /want/
people to go postal? I've seen people start *chewing* their cigarettes (of
course, the kiosks there don't sell any smokeless tobacco either, cause
that's bad for you too).
Regards,
--
*Art
Michael J. Schülke
> Nicht rauchen
I'd go for either "Bitte nicht rauchen" (nice) or "Rauchen verboten"
(official), and
> Danke schön für Ihre Mitwirkung
"Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis."
Michael
Richard Heathfield
> Gift wrote:
>
>> Nicht rauchen
>
> I'd go for either "Bitte nicht rauchen" (nice) or "Rauchen verboten"
In Polish, it's "Palenie Wzbronione", which has a certain flavour to it.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Ross
<MPG.1e807c051...@news.individual.de>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> Gift wrote:
>
> > Nicht rauchen
>
> I'd go for either "Bitte nicht rauchen" (nice) or "Rauchen verboten"
> (official), and
I'm using "Rauchen verboten" on the notices to make it clear it's a
ban rather than a request.
> > Danke schön für Ihre Mitwirkung
>
> "Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis."
That's just made a bell go off in my head: "Ah, *now* I remember,
that's the phrase I've seen used!"
Thanks.
Ross
<dv5dv8$b1e$1...@tree.lightning.broomstick.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> Ross <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Way back when, in the days when I was a conductor and our trains had
> > just become all no-smoking areas, it wasn't that unusual for people to
> > offer to pay the 50 quid maximum penalty if I'd agree to let them
> > smoke. Generally they got invited into my brakevan for a quick fag; if
> > they were that desperate for a fix, I figured it was probably a good
> > bit of customer service.
>
> What I think is criminally stupid are the airports that are /completely/ non
> smoking. Some, like Chicago/O'Hare even prohibit smoking *outdoors*.
> So, you have a passenger who's a hard addict, who's been on a transoceanic
> flight for, say, 8-10 hours, with screaming kids and nervous accountants
> around him. And he's got an hour before the next connecting
> who-knows-how-long flight. And they /refuse/ the guy a fag? Do they /want/
> people to go postal?
I've never smoked in my life, I don't like being in cigarette smoke (I
find it irritates my throat), I've a serious downer on smokers who
think they have a right to light up wherever they want (such as in
no-smoking mess rooms) and so on and so forth. But, it's an addiction,
and one the government has deemed legal at that. So, I think there
should be provision made for the addicted to get their fix.
There are plenty of airports around the world which manage to have
designated smoking areas - I'm trying to remember which airport had
little cubicles a smoker shut themselves into. Scandinavian railways
have a similar idea; somewhere in the train there will be a little
compartment for maybe two or three people which is the smoking area.
I like that idea.
They also have a similar closet for mobile phone users, which idea I
also like. Now, if they could fit one for the idiots who think that
MP3s should always be played at full volume on the phone speaker
rather than using an earpiece, I'd be a happy bunny for a moment or
three.
> I've seen people start *chewing* their cigarettes [...]
<sigh> Poor sods.
When people get to the stage of chewing cigarettes, they're in need of
a serious fix.
Again way back when, we used to run trains from Birmingham to Pwllheli
in north-west Wales, with crews from my depot working the first
section from Birmingham to Shrewsbury. They were slow trains, because
of the route they took along the coast, taking about 5 hours for the
complete journey, and at the time the trains used were the same trains
we used for local commuter services [1]. All no smoking. There used to
be a "parcels area" with tip up seats, which could be locked off, so
we'd break all the rules and turn it into a smoking room. I wouldn't
go so far as to say we stopped riots from happening, but I know we
used to have some very relieved passengers using the facility.
[1] class 150 units, for those who know such things
Torak
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:40:27 -0500, Arthur Hagen wrote in
>>
>>smoking. Some, like Chicago/O'Hare even prohibit smoking *outdoors*.
>>So, you have a passenger who's a hard addict, who's been on a transoceanic
>>flight for, say, 8-10 hours, with screaming kids and nervous accountants
>>around him. And he's got an hour before the next connecting
>>who-knows-how-long flight. And they /refuse/ the guy a fag? Do they /want/
>>people to go postal?
>
> I've never smoked in my life, I don't like being in cigarette smoke (I
> find it irritates my throat), I've a serious downer on smokers who
> think they have a right to light up wherever they want (such as in
> no-smoking mess rooms) and so on and so forth. But, it's an addiction,
> and one the government has deemed legal at that. So, I think there
> should be provision made for the addicted to get their fix.
Yeah, and more help for them to kick the habit. As I may have mentioned
once or twice, I can't see the point in saying "Hello Mr Shopkeeper, I'd
like to kill myself by installments at £4.50 a day please!"
> There are plenty of airports around the world which manage to have
> designated smoking areas - I'm trying to remember which airport had
> little cubicles a smoker shut themselves into. Scandinavian railways
> have a similar idea; somewhere in the train there will be a little
> compartment for maybe two or three people which is the smoking area.
At Skavsta airport in Sweden they've got little booths - open,
three-walled things so the smokers aren't isolated - with a powerful
ventilation system that draws the smoke out. That way the smokers can
puff away at their death sticks without either cutting themselves off or
annoying anyone else.
> They also have a similar closet for mobile phone users, which idea I
> also like. Now, if they could fit one for the idiots who think that
> MP3s should always be played at full volume on the phone speaker
> rather than using an earpiece, I'd be a happy bunny for a moment or
> three.
Or the ones who have it so loud in their headphones that it makes close
to no difference from speakers.
Torak
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:07:19 +0100, Michael J. Schülke wrote in
>>
>>>Nicht rauchen
>>
>>I'd go for either "Bitte nicht rauchen" (nice) or "Rauchen verboten"
>>(official), and
>
> I'm using "Rauchen verboten" on the notices to make it clear it's a
> ban rather than a request.
Come to that, why to people put up things saying "Thank you for not
smoking"? Those notices always annoy me... possibly because I'm a
semantically picky bugger.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:15:13 -0500, Arthur Hagen wrote in
> <dv55eu$967$1...@tree.lightning.broomstick.com>, seen in
> alt.fan.pratchett:
>> Ross <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > [1] and in many cases states a "maximum penalty" which
>> > bears little or no relation to the actual maximum
>> > penalty currently in force.
>>
>> Over here, I drive by a sign daily that states "No
>> Littering" and "$219 fine"
>> Damn. Had it been $218, I might have flicked the fag butt
>> out the window, but if it's $219, no way!
>
> Strange amount for someone to chose, 219. 215 or 220, yes,
> as they're nice round numbers, but 219 seems a little...
> different.
My totally uninformed guess is that the lawmakers may have
been working on what fine was too much, and chosen the round
number $220 for *that*, whithout realising, until it was too
late, that the way they'd phrased it made the maximum fine
$219.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> There are plenty of airports around the world which manage
> to have designated smoking areas - I'm trying to remember
> which airport had little cubicles a smoker shut themselves
> into. Scandinavian railways have a similar idea; somewhere
> in the train there will be a little compartment for maybe
> two or three people which is the smoking area.
>
> I like that idea.
The last time I was on a train, there was a whole carriage
designated "the smoking carriage". I agree, a nice idea.
Putting it between the non-smoking carriage I was in and the
buffet car, OTOH...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Come to that, why to people put up things saying "Thank you
> for not smoking"? Those notices always annoy me... possibly
> because I'm a semantically picky bugger.
"Beware of notices saying 'Thank you for not smoking' because
there's magic afoot. Otherwise, how do they know?"
-Nanny Ogg's Cookbook.
Richard Heathfield
> My totally uninformed guess is that the lawmakers may have
> been working on what fine was too much, and chosen the round
> number $220 for *that*, whithout realising, until it was too
> late, that the way they'd phrased it made the maximum fine
> $219.
Or perhaps everyone on the committee wrote down what they thought the fine
should be, and then handed their pieces of paper to the chairman.
The chairman then discarded the one that said "$1,000,000" and the one that
said, "whaddya mean, a fine? WE should pay HIM".
Finally, he added together all the remaining numbers and divided by the
number of people present (less 2 - see above), ignoring fractions.
Arthur Hagen
> Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
>
>> My totally uninformed guess is that the lawmakers may have
>> been working on what fine was too much, and chosen the round
>> number $220 for *that*, whithout realising, until it was too
>> late, that the way they'd phrased it made the maximum fine
>> $219.
>
> Or perhaps everyone on the committee wrote down what they thought the
> fine should be, and then handed their pieces of paper to the chairman.
>
> The chairman then discarded the one that said "$1,000,000" and the
> one that said, "whaddya mean, a fine? WE should pay HIM".
>
> Finally, he added together all the remaining numbers and divided by
> the number of people present (less 2 - see above), ignoring fractions.
If I were to guess, it's because someone figured that people are more likely
to notice an odd number, and they presumably do want the sign to be noticed.
Regards,
--
*Art
Peter Ellis
>
> If I were to guess, it's because someone figured that people are more likely
> to notice an odd number, and they presumably do want the sign to be noticed.
Well, my guess is that it was set at $200 a while back, and then there's
some other law saying that all fines should be incremented in line with
inflation. So after a few years you end up with weird values.
Peter
Ross
<dv6io5$lp0$2...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
They always irritate me because they get interpreted as a request even
when they're in places where you're either allowed to smoke or you're
not, such as trains.
Similarly with the "No Smoking Please" stickers which appeared on
buses during my teenage years all those decades ago.
There's a time and a place for sounding friendly, and a sign
prohibiting something isn't it.
Ross
<Xns9786A104...@130.133.1.4>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
> Also Sprach Ross:
>
> > There are plenty of airports around the world which manage
> > to have designated smoking areas - I'm trying to remember
> > which airport had little cubicles a smoker shut themselves
> > into. Scandinavian railways have a similar idea; somewhere
> > in the train there will be a little compartment for maybe
> > two or three people which is the smoking area.
> > I like that idea.
>
> The last time I was on a train, there was a whole carriage
> designated "the smoking carriage". I agree, a nice idea.
Nope, I'd say they ceased being a nice idea in the UK at about the
time the proportion of smokers dropped to less than 50% of the
population.
Instead they became a large, mostly empty space on otherwise
well-loaded trains, because people would sit in non-smokers and wander
down to the smoker for a drag. And then wander back again breathing
smoke over the non-smokers in the adjacent carriage.
And the airflow through the train would drag the smoke and the smell
at least a coach-and-a-half from the smoker.
I won't mention the amount of crap you could pick up in those coaches;
you just needed to compare the difference between how dirty your hands
were after working a train with smoking carriages and one without. :-(
Last week travelling in .cz I noted that people were doing the same:
sitting in a non-smoking compartment and wandering down to the mostly
empty smoking compartments in the same coach for a fag. Colour me
unimpressed, especially when I'd ended up sitting in a smoker because
all the non-smoking compartments were full...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On 14 Mar 2006 15:49:31 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote in
> <Xns9786A104...@130.133.1.4>, seen in
> alt.fan.pratchett:
>> The last time I was on a train, there was a whole carriage
>> designated "the smoking carriage". I agree, a nice idea.
>
> Nope, I'd say they ceased being a nice idea in the UK at
> about the time the proportion of smokers dropped to less
> than 50% of the population.
>
> Instead they became a large, mostly empty space on
> otherwise well-loaded trains, because people would sit in
> non-smokers and wander down to the smoker for a drag. And
> then wander back again breathing smoke over the non-smokers
> in the adjacent carriage.
Fair enough then. My eyes were watering too much to notice if
that was the case in this one...
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> Nope, I'd say they ceased being a nice idea in the UK at about the
> time the proportion of smokers dropped to less than 50% of the
> population.
Interesting.. the last time I was in a smoking carriage (1 out of 8
IIRC at the end of the train) it was full of bloody non-smokers moaning
about the smokers in there, even though when I nipped off to the loo
most of the rest of the train was half empty (apart from the screaming
and yelling kiddy-winkies running about the place).. that was a Midland
train on the Bed-Pan line about 7 years ago, when there were as many
smokers as there are now.. I don't think to be honest Ross, that you've
ever worked when the number of smokers in the UK has been 50%.. it's
only ever been 25-30% of the adult population for as long as I can
remember, and I'm older than you I think..
Gid
Richard Bos
> Gift wrote:=20
>
> > Nicht rauchen
>
> I'd go for either "Bitte nicht rauchen" (nice) or "Rauchen verboten"=20
> (official), and
>
> > Danke sch=F6n f=FCr Ihre Mitwirkung
>
> "Vielen Dank f=FCr Ihr Verst=E4ndnis."
Or if you want to support Operation Mindfuck, "Vielen Dank für die
Blumen".
Richard
Torak
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:07:52 +0000, Torak wrote in
>>
>>smoking"? Those notices always annoy me... possibly because I'm a
>>semantically picky bugger.
>
> They always irritate me because they get interpreted as a request even
> when they're in places where you're either allowed to smoke or you're
> not, such as trains.
>
> Similarly with the "No Smoking Please" stickers which appeared on
> buses during my teenage years all those decades ago.
>
> There's a time and a place for sounding friendly, and a sign
> prohibiting something isn't it.
I'd quite like to see a sign saying "DON'T BLOODY SMOKE OR I'LL FLING
YOU OUT THE CARRIAGE E DOOR."
But maybe that's just me.
Alec Cawley
a...@broomstick.com says...
$100 18 years ago, with annual inflation adjustment but rounded to the
nearest dollar.
Aquarion
> Ross wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:40:27 -0500, Arthur Hagen wrote in
> >>
> >>What I think is criminally stupid are the airports that are /completely/ non
> >>smoking. Some, like Chicago/O'Hare even prohibit smoking *outdoors*.
> >>So, you have a passenger who's a hard addict, who's been on a transoceanic
> >>flight for, say, 8-10 hours, with screaming kids and nervous accountants
> >>around him. And he's got an hour before the next connecting
> >>who-knows-how-long flight. And they /refuse/ the guy a fag? Do they /want/
> >>people to go postal?
> >
> > I've never smoked in my life, I don't like being in cigarette smoke (I
> > find it irritates my throat), I've a serious downer on smokers who
> > think they have a right to light up wherever they want (such as in
> > no-smoking mess rooms) and so on and so forth. But, it's an addiction,
> > and one the government has deemed legal at that. So, I think there
> > should be provision made for the addicted to get their fix.
>
> Yeah, and more help for them to kick the habit. As I may have mentioned
> once or twice, I can't see the point in saying "Hello Mr Shopkeeper, I'd
> like to kill myself by installments at £4.50 a day please!"
*shrug*
As far as I'm concerned, people can do exactly whatever the hell they
like with their body, be it smoke it, pickle it or slice it up and serve
it with fine white wine. (FTR, I don't smoke, though I do drink)
I disagree with the smoking ban on the principle that if no-smoking pubs
are such a good idea, why aren't there more no-smoking pubs already,
since that's what the 'market economy' is all about. I fully agree with
the "No smoking at the bar" policy, because bar staff don't get paid
enough to work in a high health risk environment, and object strongly to
being told what I should and shouldn't do.
I also find the militant anti-smokers almost as annoying as the militant
smokers. I find dealing with either beneifits from Churchill's diplomacy
advice[1], although the former tend to be able to run faster than the
latter.
Ross
<dv7hdv$26s$2...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
> Ross wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:07:52 +0000, Torak wrote in
> >>
> >>Come to that, why to people put up things saying "Thank you for not
> >>smoking"? Those notices always annoy me... possibly because I'm a
> >>semantically picky bugger.
> >
> > They always irritate me because they get interpreted as a request even
> > when they're in places where you're either allowed to smoke or you're
> > not, such as trains.
> > There's a time and a place for sounding friendly, and a sign
> > prohibiting something isn't it.
>
> I'd quite like to see a sign saying "DON'T BLOODY SMOKE OR I'LL FLING
> YOU OUT THE CARRIAGE E DOOR."
>
> But maybe that's just me.
Um. A tad drastic, maybe.
Anyway, I only used to put people through carriage windows, not out of
the doors. [1]
Then some sod invented double-glazed windows for trains, which rather
spoilt the game.
[1] Now that I think of it, I did once almost put someone out of a
carriage door at about 75mph, but that was someone who thought opening
the door into the path of a moving train was amusing [2]. They didn't
think it was quite such a fun game after they'd almost followed the
door.
[2] Yes, I could (and still can) be incredibly immature at times.
Downright dangerous, too, on occasion.
Ross
<1hc7pg6.3hacwsz12l1pN%aqus...@mailinator.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> I disagree with the smoking ban on the principle that if no-smoking pubs
> are such a good idea, why aren't there more no-smoking pubs already,
> since that's what the 'market economy' is all about.
I wasn't aware that the smoking ban was only going to apply to pubs
and such-like places.
Must tell my company; they can save a lot of hassle by not having to
implement and enforce a no smoking policy in all the various staff
areas where smoking is currently allowed.
Ross
<MPG.1e8154b3d...@news.btinternet.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> In article <3fae129uo9m95ku0r...@4ax.com>, Ross
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
> > Nope, I'd say they ceased being a nice idea in the UK at about the
> > time the proportion of smokers dropped to less than 50% of the
> > population.
>
> Interesting.. the last time I was in a smoking carriage (1 out of 8
> IIRC at the end of the train) it was full of bloody non-smokers moaning
> about the smokers in there, even though when I nipped off to the loo
> most of the rest of the train was half empty (apart from the screaming
> and yelling kiddy-winkies running about the place).. that was a Midland
> train on the Bed-Pan line about 7 years ago, when there were as many
> smokers as there are now..
IMX it's the other way round, has been for the 25 years I've been
travelling (and later working) on trains. The only way you can get a
"decent" seat as a non-smoker is to sit in the smoker, because the
rest of the train is "full" [1]. Then you notice the number of people
who come into the smoker for a quick fag and bugger off back into
non-smoking.
I once asked people why they did this. The general reason was that the
smoking carriage had poor air quality (there's a surprise!) and smelt.
If I was feeling more cynical than ever, I'd note that it's typical of
people to want to pollute without putting up with the pollution they
create.
Mileage varies of course; I've never worked the MML. My intercity
knowledge was West Coast and some CrossCountry.
I am intrigued as to how you can tell that most of the rest of the
train is empty just by nipping to the loo from a smoker when loos are
at the end of the carriage on InterCity stock... I think I'm just as
permitted to exaggerate the percentage of smokers as you are the
occupation of a train. ;-)
> I don't think to be honest Ross, that you've
> ever worked when the number of smokers in the UK has been 50%.. it's
> only ever been 25-30% of the adult population for as long as I can
> remember, and I'm older than you I think..
I haven't, indeed, but I have been on for 16 years and I'm happy to
say that *never* have the trains I worked justified a full smoking
vehicle, even on a 1-in-10 basis.
[1] "Full" means "There are no bays of seats available, so wherever
you sit you'll have to sit next to/share a table with someone else".
Doing that means you don't have a "decent seat", at least judging by
the behaviour of a large number of passengers in this country.
People complain about "airline" seats on trains. Experience has shown
that airline seats double the nominal (but not actual) seating
capacity, because people will generally not sit at a table/bay seat
where one other person is sat, which gives only a 1-in-4 occupancy
rate. Airlines get a 1-in-2 occupancy rate. Peak trains work slightly
differently, but the basic rules still apply; seat occupancy above 50%
is rare except on the busiest trains.
Peter Davies
You'd love the South African ones, then. They usually go: "This is a
non-smoking building."
It works slightly better in Afrikaans, because there you can at least say:
"Hierdie is 'n rookvrye gebou" (this is a smoke-free building), but it's
pretty dim either way.
..PeterH
Gid Holyoake
Snippetry..
> I am intrigued as to how you can tell that most of the rest of the
> train is empty just by nipping to the loo from a smoker when loos are
> at the end of the carriage on InterCity stock... I think I'm just as
> permitted to exaggerate the percentage of smokers as you are the
> occupation of a train. ;-)
I had to walk nearly the full length of the train to find a loo that
was a) vacant b) in working order with a door that actually shut and c)
was in a sufficiently sanitary state for me to want to use..
Why *do* some people make such a horrible mess in public toilets?..
I've never been able to work that out..
Gid
Michael J. Schülke
> You'd love the South African ones, then. They usually go: "This is a
> non-smoking building."
I actually wanted to recommend something along these lines to Ross -- at
least one train company here tells it's customers: "Dies ist ein
Nichtraucherzug" -- "This is a non-smokers' train". However, that works
better in an announcement than on a sign, it's just too long.
Michael
Suzi
[Snip]
> IMX it's the other way round, has been for the 25 years I've been
> travelling (and later working) on trains. The only way you can get a
> "decent" seat as a non-smoker is to sit in the smoker, because the
> rest of the train is "full" [1].
>
> [1] "Full" means "There are no bays of seats available, so wherever
> you sit you'll have to sit next to/share a table with someone else".
You have a *very* peculiar definition of "full"!
> Then you notice the number of people
> who come into the smoker for a quick fag and bugger off back into
> non-smoking.
>
> I once asked people why they did this. The general reason was that the
> smoking carriage had poor air quality (there's a surprise!) and smelt.
[Snip]
Actually, the times I've done it it has because I was travelling with a
non-smoking colleague - when on my own and using the Midland Line trains
through Bedford I, and most of the other smokers, sat in the smoking
carriage... this is judging by there only being a small number trotting
back and forth... and the carriage tended to fill up more quickly than
the other carriages.
Suzi
Jens Ayton
> Torak:
>>
>> Come to that, why to people put up things saying "Thank you
>> for not smoking"? Those notices always annoy me... possibly
>> because I'm a semantically picky bugger.
>
> "Beware of notices saying 'Thank you for not smoking' because
> there's magic afoot. Otherwise, how do they know?"
> -Nanny Ogg's Cookbook.
"We do thank people for not smoking." "Why? You don't know they're
not going to." -- Vimes.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
Ross
<MPG.1e823242b...@192.168.0.3>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
> In article <e32g121d4jre4drri...@4ax.com>, Ross
> junk...@ross-mail.me.uk wibbled...
>
> [Snip]
> > IMX it's the other way round, has been for the 25 years I've been
> > travelling (and later working) on trains. The only way you can get a
> > "decent" seat as a non-smoker is to sit in the smoker, because the
> > rest of the train is "full" [1].
> >
> > [1] "Full" means "There are no bays of seats available, so wherever
> > you sit you'll have to sit next to/share a table with someone else".
>
> You have a *very* peculiar definition of "full"!
It's not *my* definition, per se; it's a general railway usage based
on what years of working on trains has taught us that far too many
passengers mean when they say "the train was full and I *had* to stand
again". :-(
Mind you, I've had passengers adamant that they were forced to stand
when on a 6-car train 4 cars were occupied by a total of 10 people,
with only the rear two anything like busy.
> > Then you notice the number of people
> > who come into the smoker for a quick fag and bugger off back into
> > non-smoking.
> >
> > I once asked people why they did this. The general reason was that the
> > smoking carriage had poor air quality (there's a surprise!) and smelt.
> [Snip]
>
> Actually, the times I've done it it has because I was travelling with a
> non-smoking colleague [...]
There's an exception to prove every rule, of course. I'm the one to
the rule which says "All train drivers are professional" ;-)
Ross
<MPG.1e8220118...@news.btinternet.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> In article <e32g121d4jre4drri...@4ax.com>, Ross
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
> > I am intrigued as to how you can tell that most of the rest of the
> > train is empty just by nipping to the loo from a smoker when loos are
> > at the end of the carriage on InterCity stock... I think I'm just as
> > permitted to exaggerate the percentage of smokers as you are the
> > occupation of a train. ;-)
>
> I had to walk nearly the full length of the train to find a loo that
> was a) vacant b) in working order with a door that actually shut and c)
> was in a sufficiently sanitary state for me to want to use..
You have my sympathy.
Don't travel on the East Coast, though; GNER have kindly removed 50%
of the toilets from their trains during the refurbishments. To make
matters worse, you go to use the loo, see there's a queue, and wander
off down the train. Eventually you wander back and notice (a) the
queue has got longer and (b) the indicator on the door is green. So
you ask if there's anyone in there and the first person says
"I think so, the door won't open. I've tried pushing it and pulling
it..."
"The door slides, mate"
"Wot?"
"Like this..." <fx: sound of door sliding open>
"Oh"
> Why *do* some people make such a horrible mess in public toilets?..
> I've never been able to work that out..
Because they're scum, I think.
You should see the state of the driving cabs on some of our trains.
Empty ashtrays and bins but the floor full of rubbish and fag ends,
the desk covered in fag ash, and other rubbish dropped in cupboards or
behind equipment. :-(
Aquarion
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:40:05 +0000, Aquarion wrote in
> <1hc7pg6.3hacwsz12l1pN%aqus...@mailinator.com>, seen in
> alt.fan.pratchett:
>
> > I disagree with the smoking ban on the principle that if no-smoking pubs
> > are such a good idea, why aren't there more no-smoking pubs already,
> > since that's what the 'market economy' is all about.
>
> I wasn't aware that the smoking ban was only going to apply to pubs
> and such-like places.
>
> Must tell my company; they can save a lot of hassle by not having to
> implement and enforce a no smoking policy in all the various staff
> areas where smoking is currently allowed.
I apologise for that particular broad stroke, but the central place used
as an example for the ban was pubs.
I do think all office indoor work places should probably be non-smoking,
but I also think that's better off as an argument within the company
than something that needs the blunt instrument of legislation to battle.
--
Matthew Seaman
> People complain about "airline" seats on trains. Experience has shown
> that airline seats double the nominal (but not actual) seating
> capacity, because people will generally not sit at a table/bay seat
> where one other person is sat, which gives only a 1-in-4 occupancy
> rate. Airlines get a 1-in-2 occupancy rate. Peak trains work slightly
> differently, but the basic rules still apply; seat occupancy above 50%
> is rare except on the busiest trains.
I wouldn't mind airline style seats in trains if the fricking railway
companies would put them further apart than the length of my thigh
bones. Most train seating seems to be designed for diddy-men. At
least nowadays I don't need to commute to work by train.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
Suzi
junk...@ross-mail.me.uk wibbled...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:15:16 +0000 (UTC), Suzi wrote
[Snip]
> > You have a *very* peculiar definition of "full"!
>
> It's not *my* definition, per se; it's a general railway usage based
> on what years of working on trains has taught us that far too many
> passengers mean when they say "the train was full and I *had* to stand
> again". :-(
>
> Mind you, I've had passengers adamant that they were forced to stand
> when on a 6-car train 4 cars were occupied by a total of 10 people,
> with only the rear two anything like busy.
You have some very odd passengers then - this is not something I've ever
experienced in all my years of using either the Bed-Pan line or, now,
the First Great Western out of and into Wales! On those trains full
means "every seat taken, and their are people all the way down the
middle of each carriage and out into the between carriage lobby areas"..
now *that's* full!
Suzi
Orjan Westin
>> when on a 6-car train 4 cars were occupied by a total of 10 people,
>> with only the rear two anything like busy.
>
> You have some very odd passengers then - this is not something I've
> ever experienced in all my years of using either the Bed-Pan line or,
> now, the First Great Western out of and into Wales! On those trains
> full means "every seat taken, and their are people all the way down
> the middle of each carriage and out into the between carriage lobby
> areas".. now *that's* full!
That's a normal train to and from work, for me. It's still better than
the tube, though.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Arthur Hagen
>
> I wouldn't mind airline style seats in trains if the fricking railway
> companies would put them further apart than the length of my thigh
> bones. Most train seating seems to be designed for diddy-men.
Fitting your shoulders is just as much of a problem on trains and airplanes.
Fit three normal-sized but heavy-boned men next to each other, and they
either have to all twist the same way, or the poor sod in the middle will
have to sit hunched for the entire trip.
I'm not much for carriers registering personal information about customers,
but *width* should most definitely be registered. Combined with a computer
program, that could help avoid situations like placing two body builders and
a fat person on one row and two pipsqueaks and a child on the next. It's
either that, or start using benches again.
Regards,
--
*Art
Random C
Suzi <spam...@lovegoddess.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> You have some very odd passengers then - this is not something I've ever
> experienced in all my years of using either the Bed-Pan line or, now,
> the First Great Western out of and into Wales! On those trains full
> means "every seat taken, and their are people all the way down the
> middle of each carriage and out into the between carriage lobby areas"..
> now *that's* full!
>
> Suzi
Nonono, *full* is when you have to run along the train finding a door
where there's a little gap to force yourself into and people aren't just
stood in the aisle, they're stood between the seats that face each
other.
Richard Heathfield
I take it you've never been to India.
"Full" is when there's no room left on the roof.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Torak
Height would be good as well. Or, on Ryanair, counting "tall people" in
the category of people who get to board early.
Jens Ayton
>
> Height would be good as well. Or, on Ryanair, counting "tall people" in
> the category of people who get to board early.
Getting a first-half boarding past and running to the plane to grab
emergency exit seats has worked for me, but it's hardly dignified.
Torak
> Torak:
>
>> Height would be good as well. Or, on Ryanair, counting "tall people"
>> in the category of people who get to board early.
>
> Getting a first-half boarding past and running to the plane to grab
> emergency exit seats has worked for me, but it's hardly dignified.
I usually manage to get a boarding pass <15 (at Skavsta I *almost*
always manage to get number 1), but still I end up with a horde of
kiddie families charging aboard and piling in before me. At least they
usually don't grab the legroom seats.
On the whole, I find that elbows work wonders. :-)
Orjan Westin
> Jens Ayton wrote:
>> Torak:
>>
>>> Height would be good as well. Or, on Ryanair, counting "tall people"
>>> in the category of people who get to board early.
>>
>> Getting a first-half boarding past and running to the plane to grab
>> emergency exit seats has worked for me, but it's hardly dignified.
>
> I usually manage to get a boarding pass <15 (at Skavsta I *almost*
> always manage to get number 1), but still I end up with a horde of
> kiddie families charging aboard and piling in before me.
Well, yes, since the staff asks that people with children and
disabilities are let forward in the queue so they can board first.
There might be a reason for this.
Speaking as someone who has flown with children on RyanAir many times,
both before and after they started to do this, I can say it makes a huge
difference. When there were no special privileges for us, we would get
more or less trampled by people trying to get aboard first, at any cost.
On my own, I can handle that, but when I have children with me, I'd
rather they not get torn away from me, or stepped on by hurried people
who seem to see it as some sort of competition in getting aboard first.
Most people with children did the same thing.
This meant that we would board last, when all the overhead lockers were
full (since people find it very hard to take the measurements of cabin
baggage seriously), and there were only single seats left.
Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents five
rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
> At least they
> usually don't grab the legroom seats.
No, because children are not allowed to sit on the rows by the emergency
exits, for very good reasons.
> On the whole, I find that elbows work wonders. :-)
As does a healthy amount of disregard for the rules of the airline, lack
of consideration and an inability to empathise, I believe.
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>>Jens Ayton wrote:
>>>Torak:
>>>
>>>>Height would be good as well. Or, on Ryanair, counting "tall people"
>>>>in the category of people who get to board early.
>>>
>>> Getting a first-half boarding past and running to the plane to grab
>>>emergency exit seats has worked for me, but it's hardly dignified.
>>
>>I usually manage to get a boarding pass <15 (at Skavsta I *almost*
>>always manage to get number 1), but still I end up with a horde of
>>kiddie families charging aboard and piling in before me.
>
> Well, yes, since the staff asks that people with children and
> disabilities are let forward in the queue so they can board first.
> There might be a reason for this.
>
> Speaking as someone who has flown with children on RyanAir many times,
> both before and after they started to do this, I can say it makes a huge
> difference. When there were no special privileges for us, we would get
> more or less trampled by people trying to get aboard first, at any cost.
Obviously it's better to let them on in advance. The problem arises when
parents don't realise that kids aren't allowed to sit in the emergency
exit seats, so they try to strap their kiddies in there because there's
more space for the parents to get in. There's always one.
>>At least they
>>usually don't grab the legroom seats.
>
> No, because children are not allowed to sit on the rows by the emergency
> exits, for very good reasons.
Yup. Unfortunately not everyone knows that, and need to be told by the
stewards who are already having to bustle up and down the over-crowded
aisle.
>>On the whole, I find that elbows work wonders. :-)
>
> As does a healthy amount of disregard for the rules of the airline, lack
> of consideration and an inability to empathise, I believe.
That's another good plan. I'll try it some time.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Well, yes, since the staff asks that people with children and
> disabilities are let forward in the queue so they can board first.
> There might be a reason for this.
The main reason is that the cabin crew can better assist people with special
needs then, like showing how to buckle up a toddler or help stow away
crutches.
> Speaking as someone who has flown with children on RyanAir many times,
Might I suggest choosing a different airline when travelling with kids?
Ryanair is going to be cramped, with too few cabin attendants, and it's not
a good choice for your fellow passengers to be subjected to kids on Ryanair.
> both before and after they started to do this, I can say it makes a
> huge difference. When there were no special privileges for us, we
> would get more or less trampled by people trying to get aboard first,
> at any cost.
> On my own, I can handle that, but when I have children with me, I'd
> rather they not get torn away from me, or stepped on by hurried people
> who seem to see it as some sort of competition in getting aboard
> first. Most people with children did the same thing.
Going in *last* would also accomplish that. And if you don't need
assistance from the cabin crew, that's what I'd recommend.
> This meant that we would board last, when all the overhead lockers
> were full (since people find it very hard to take the measurements of
> cabin baggage seriously), and there were only single seats left.
>
> Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents
> five rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass? If
not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the illiterates
to their correct seats.
I've said it before, but it needs saying again. Kids and their travel
companions should be placed at the very back of the plane, divided from the
rest by a sound proof curtain. The airline knows how many kids and
companions there's going to be on a flight, so this is very doable. This
also means that once the kids and their companions have bordered, no-one
else have to fight their way past kicking and toy-tossing spawn or their
parents who stand in the aisle because it took forever to strap the menace
in its seat, so they still haven't put away their clothes and carry-ons.
Also, the kids would be in the safest seats in the plane. And it would be
easier to balance the plane too. And, most of all, someone in row 18 won't
be bothered by screaming kids while their parents sleep with headphones on
and don't give a damn.
>> At least they
>> usually don't grab the legroom seats.
No, but they invariably kick the seat in front of them.
> No, because children are not allowed to sit on the rows by the
> emergency exits, for very good reasons.
Yes, their parents, who would block the row and let hundreds die instead of
tossing the dead body aside and move on.
>> On the whole, I find that elbows work wonders. :-)
>
> As does a healthy amount of disregard for the rules of the airline,
> lack of consideration and an inability to empathise, I believe.
It's time that *parents* start showing some empathy for their fellow
travellers. Putting headphones on, going to sleep, and letting the rest of
the plane take care of Dennis the Menace is an act of terror. Yet, my
experience from ALL the plane trips I've taken over the years is that
parents are the most inconsiderate passengers ever, with very very few
exceptions.
Regards,
--
*Art
Jens Ayton
>
> Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass?
> If not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the
> illiterates to their correct seats.
No. RyanAir is a scrum.
> I've said it before, but it needs saying again. Kids and their travel
> companions should be placed at the very back of the plane, divided from
> the rest by a sound proof curtain. The airline knows how many kids and
> companions there's going to be on a flight, so this is very doable.
That takes time. RyanAir, in particular, aim for a 25-minute
turn-around. This doesn't leave time to clean the plane, let alone
reconfigure it.
Graycat
<a...@broomstick.com> jotted down:
>Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>
>> This meant that we would board last, when all the overhead lockers
>> were full (since people find it very hard to take the measurements of
>> cabin baggage seriously), and there were only single seats left.
>>
>> Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents
>> five rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
>
>Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass? If
>not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the illiterates
>to their correct seats.
There are no assigned seats on Ryan Air flights, that's why
everyone rushes to grab the best ones.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Orjan Westin
> Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes, since the staff asks that people with children and
>> disabilities are let forward in the queue so they can board first.
>> There might be a reason for this.
>
> The main reason is that the cabin crew can better assist people with
> special needs then, like showing how to buckle up a toddler or help
> stow away crutches.
Yup.
>> Speaking as someone who has flown with children on RyanAir many
>> times,
>
> Might I suggest choosing a different airline when travelling with
> kids? Ryanair is going to be cramped, with too few cabin attendants,
> and it's not a good choice for your fellow passengers to be subjected
> to kids on Ryanair.
Hm...
I see what you mean, but you're tarring all kids with the same brush
here. So far, my kids have not screamed, had fights, or kicked the seat
in front, so for me there's no reason to chose another airline out of
consideration to other passengers.
The alternative has so far been to not take the trip at all, since
RyanAir has been ridiculously cheaper than any other airline we could
have flown with. That has now changed, thanks to a new Norwegian
airline, so in all likelyhood we will make a lot fewer flights with kids
on RyanAir from now on.
>> When there were no special privileges for us, we
>> would get more or less trampled by people trying to get aboard first,
>> On my own, I can handle that, but when I have children with me, I'd
>> rather they not get torn away from me, or stepped on by hurried
>> people who seem to see it as some sort of competition in getting
>> aboard first. Most people with children did the same thing.
>
> Going in *last* would also accomplish that. And if you don't need
> assistance from the cabin crew, that's what I'd recommend.
Gladly, if it weren't for your false assumption.
>> Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents
>> five rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
>
> Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass?
No designated seating.
Lot's of cheap airlines do this, since it saves time at check-in, where
I've often waited a long time for the person in front of me to pick a
seat, on other airlines.
It's a free for all, and the person who's most adept at trampling the
others gets to pick a seat first upon boarding, hence Torak's use of
sharp elbows.
>>> At least they
>>> usually don't grab the legroom seats.
>
> No, but they invariably kick the seat in front of them.
Not so. When they're too small to understand why they shouldn't, they
can't reach the seat in front. When they're big enough to do so, they
can be told not to and why.
Works for my kids, so it's obviously not invariably true.
>> No, because children are not allowed to sit on the rows by the
>> emergency exits, for very good reasons.
>
> Yes, their parents, who would block the row and let hundreds die
> instead of tossing the dead body aside and move on.
That's a needlessly brutal statement, and not strictly true. If
somebody who is obviously weak sits down by an emergency exit, they
should be asked to move (and I've seen this happen on airlines more
concerned with safety than the low-cost airlines). You need a bit of
strength to be able to open the damn things, you know.
>>> On the whole, I find that elbows work wonders. :-)
>>
>> As does a healthy amount of disregard for the rules of the airline,
>> lack of consideration and an inability to empathise, I believe.
>
> It's time that *parents* start showing some empathy for their fellow
> travellers.
It could be that you never notice the ones who do exactly that. A
quiet, well behaved kid is not really noticeable, I expect.
> Putting headphones on, going to sleep, and letting the
> rest of the plane take care of Dennis the Menace is an act of terror.
Yes, I agree.
> Yet, my experience from ALL the plane trips I've taken over the years
> is that parents are the most inconsiderate passengers ever, with very
> very few exceptions.
I'm glad you acknowledge there are exceptions. I consider myself one,
since I'm conscious about other passengers and look after my kids. I've
seen many other parents do the same.
Of course, I've only flown inside Europe, and can't say anything about
the state of parental responsibility in USA flights, which is where I
expect most of your experiences have taken place.
I'd also like to see people drink less alcohol on flights. Not that I
mind drinking as such, but there are a fair few who drink too much. If
I keep my kids quiet, I'd appreciate if the guys in the row behind
refrained from talking very loudly, singing loudly out of tune, rattling
the backs of our seats when trying to figure put how to open and close
their tables and throwing peanuts at their friends in front of us.
Jens Ayton
> Arthur Hagen:
>> Orjan Westin:
>>>
>>> No, because children are not allowed to sit on the rows by the
>>> emergency exits, for very good reasons.
>> Yes, their parents, who would block the row and let hundreds die
>> instead of tossing the dead body aside and move on.
>
> That's a needlessly brutal statement, and not strictly true. If
> somebody who is obviously weak sits down by an emergency exit, they
> should be asked to move (and I've seen this happen on airlines more
> concerned with safety than the low-cost airlines). You need a bit of
> strength to be able to open the damn things, you know.
Even on RyanAir, they check who's sitting there -- there are pretty
strict rules about handicapped people and the elderly, as well as kids
-- and that there's no baggage or shoes on the floor at those seats.
Sitting in an emergency exit row involves taking a certain amount of
responsibility.
esmi
> Arthur Hagen:
>>Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass?
>>If not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the
>>illiterates to their correct seats.
>
>
> No. RyanAir is a scrum.
Ditto EasyJet.
esmi
Ross
<1hc92is.8t09eklt2erxN%aqus...@mailinator.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
[...]
> I do think all office indoor work places should probably be non-smoking,
> but I also think that's better off as an argument within the company
> than something that needs the blunt instrument of legislation to battle.
I used to think that way until I moved to this particular bit of the
railway.
Here nothing short of a massive fine is going to make the company do
something about the various staff members who repeatedly disregard the
smoking prohibition (which applies in all staff areas of the station
except the smoking messroom).
Ross
<MPG.1e82aa891...@192.168.0.3>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
> In article <letg12ljrdd8e41i3...@4ax.com>, Ross
> junk...@ross-mail.me.uk wibbled...
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:15:16 +0000 (UTC), Suzi wrote
> [Snip]
> > > You have a *very* peculiar definition of "full"!
> >
> > It's not *my* definition, per se; it's a general railway usage based
> > on what years of working on trains has taught us that far too many
> > passengers mean when they say "the train was full and I *had* to stand
> > again". :-(
90% of noticeable passengers are odd, but then we only notice about 1%
of passengers in the first place...
> this is not something I've ever
> experienced in all my years of using either the Bed-Pan line or, now,
> the First Great Western out of and into Wales! On those trains full
> means "every seat taken, and their are people all the way down the
> middle of each carriage and out into the between carriage lobby areas"..
> now *that's* full!
That's what full means, yes. But I didn't mention full - I
deliberately typed "full" - note the quotes around it. :-)
There are degrees of occupancy: waste of time running, empty, almost
empty, quiet, not worth commenting on, "full", busy, full, and finally
wedged solid.
Ross
<864q1zq...@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> Ross <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> writes:
>
> > People complain about "airline" seats on trains. Experience has shown
> > that airline seats double the nominal (but not actual) seating
>
> I wouldn't mind airline style seats in trains if the fricking railway
> companies would put them further apart than the length of my thigh
> bones. Most train seating seems to be designed for diddy-men. At
> least nowadays I don't need to commute to work by train.
Don't use the Merseytravel-funded refurbished Pacer units operated by
Northern. In fact, if one approaches, run the other way.
I've managed to avoid them myself, but by repute the seats are
designed for people no taller than the average 5-year-old. :-(
Lesley Weston
a...@broomstick.com wrote on 16/03/2006 6:08 AM:
> Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Speaking as someone who has flown with children on RyanAir many times,
>
> Might I suggest choosing a different airline when travelling with kids?
> Ryanair is going to be cramped, with too few cabin attendants, and it's not
> a good choice for your fellow passengers to be subjected to kids on Ryanair.
>
>> both before and after they started to do this, I can say it makes a
>> huge difference. When there were no special privileges for us, we
>> would get more or less trampled by people trying to get aboard first,
>> at any cost.
>> On my own, I can handle that, but when I have children with me, I'd
>> rather they not get torn away from me, or stepped on by hurried people
>> who seem to see it as some sort of competition in getting aboard
>> first. Most people with children did the same thing.
>
> Going in *last* would also accomplish that. And if you don't need
> assistance from the cabin crew, that's what I'd recommend.
>
>> This meant that we would board last, when all the overhead lockers
>> were full (since people find it very hard to take the measurements of
>> cabin baggage seriously), and there were only single seats left.
>>
>> Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents
>> five rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
>
> Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass? If
> not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the illiterates
> to their correct seats.
>
> I've said it before, but it needs saying again.
I don't think it needs saying even once.
> Kids and their travel
> companions should be placed at the very back of the plane, divided from the
> rest by a sound proof curtain. The airline knows how many kids and
> companions there's going to be on a flight, so this is very doable. This
> also means that once the kids and their companions have bordered, no-one
> else have to fight their way past kicking and toy-tossing spawn or their
> parents who stand in the aisle because it took forever to strap the menace
> in its seat, so they still haven't put away their clothes and carry-ons.
> Also, the kids would be in the safest seats in the plane. And it would be
> easier to balance the plane too. And, most of all, someone in row 18 won't
> be bothered by screaming kids while their parents sleep with headphones on
> and don't give a damn.
I take it you originally emerged fully-adult and fully-armed from your
father's forehead? It's odd that no-one but me and apparently Orjan can
remember their own childhood and thus make allowances for people who will
eventually become adults but are at present still learning how.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
junk...@ross-mail.me.uk wrote on 15/03/2006 4:44 AM:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:33:40 +0000 (UTC), Gid Holyoake wrote in
> <MPG.1e8154b3d...@news.btinternet.com>, seen in
> alt.fan.pratchett:
<snip>
>> I don't think to be honest Ross, that you've
>> ever worked when the number of smokers in the UK has been 50%.. it's
>> only ever been 25-30% of the adult population for as long as I can
>> remember, and I'm older than you I think..
>
> I haven't, indeed, but I have been on for 16 years and I'm happy to
> say that *never* have the trains I worked justified a full smoking
> vehicle, even on a 1-in-10 basis.
>
>
>
> [1] "Full" means "There are no bays of seats available, so wherever
> you sit you'll have to sit next to/share a table with someone else".
> Doing that means you don't have a "decent seat", at least judging by
> the behaviour of a large number of passengers in this country.
>
> People complain about "airline" seats on trains. Experience has shown
> that airline seats double the nominal (but not actual) seating
> capacity, because people will generally not sit at a table/bay seat
> where one other person is sat, which gives only a 1-in-4 occupancy
> rate. Airlines get a 1-in-2 occupancy rate. Peak trains work slightly
> differently, but the basic rules still apply; seat occupancy above 50%
> is rare except on the busiest trains.
OK, I'm not the oldest afper, but most of my travelling on UK trains was
done in my childhood when carriages had compartments - a long bench seat
upholstered in scratchy moquette down each side of a tiny "room", facing
each other at right angles to the long axis of the train, with no tables
involved - so people chose smoking or non-smoking compartments from many
possible ones, and stayed in them. If it was a corridor train (they weren't
all), some smokers might sit with their non-smoking companions and move to a
smoking compartment when they needed to. It worked very well; people came
back from a smoking break smelling of smoke, but so they did everywhere they
went. Since most adults in the UK smoked then, non-smokers weren't so
sensitive to the smell and there were no emotional overtones - just a nasty
smell among so many other nasty smells in the world.
Most afpers are too young to have known this situation, but people must
surely have seen enough old movies and new dress-up dramas, and read enough
old novels to have some idea of what I'm talking about. Or has the situation
in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
Lesley Weston
ab...@brynamman.org.uk wrote on 15/03/2006 5:01 AM:
<snip>
> Why *do* some people make such a horrible mess in public toilets?..
> I've never been able to work that out..
The area around Vancouver is full of mountains that people like to hike in.
One of the more demanding (but worthwhile) hikes is up to Garibaldi Lake - a
really steep slope switchbacking unrelentingly up for six kilometres before
you begin the actual hiking itself. Beside the lake is a campsite that can
only be reached by this trail; it has pit-toilets that are spotlessly clean,
with plenty of paper and generally welcoming. In the parking lot at the foot
of the trail, which can be reached without any effort, there are also
pit-toilets; these are disgustingly filthy, covered in graffiti and with
plenty of paper, but it's all strewn around on the floor. This might answer
your question.
Alec Cawley
brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Most afpers are too young to have known this situation, but people must
> surely have seen enough old movies and new dress-up dramas, and read enough
> old novels to have some idea of what I'm talking about. Or has the situation
> in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
> livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
> smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
It has happened that that films have been edited to remove cigarettes.
And the company I work for makes probably the best equipment for doing
this. And significant numbers of people make quite good incomes from
operating that machinery, So, without saying that the situation you
describe *has* arrived, I consider it a better than evens bet.
Torak
>> This meant that we would board last, when all the overhead lockers
>> were full (since people find it very hard to take the measurements of
>> cabin baggage seriously), and there were only single seats left.
>>
>> Would you have liked to sit alone with some strangers, your parents
>> five rows away, when you were four years old? Or two?
>
> Surely, you get the seats you've been assigned on your boarding pass?
> If not, the cabin crew will be able to correct this and guide the
> illiterates to their correct seats.
No assigned seats on Ryanair. It's a free-for-all. That's why you get
assigned a number based on the order in which you check in.
Boarding is then in order; first kids and other "require assistance"
passengers, then boarding passes 1-65, then the rest. You get whatever
seat you grab.
Torak
> Arthur Hagen:
>
>> I've said it before, but it needs saying again. Kids and their travel
>> companions should be placed at the very back of the plane, divided
>> from the rest by a sound proof curtain. The airline knows how many
>> kids and companions there's going to be on a flight, so this is very
>> doable.
>
> That takes time. RyanAir, in particular, aim for a 25-minute
> turn-around. This doesn't leave time to clean the plane, let alone
> reconfigure it.
It's very annoying. It's also why it's filthy.
When I flew to Gothenburg last week I sat next to Peter Harryson - a
Swedish TV presenter - who had a few choice words about it. Apparently
he'll be going back to BA.
Wish I could do the same - indeed, when I stop flying back and forth all
the time I hopefully will.
Suzi
Weston brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk wibbled...
[Snip]
> OK, I'm not the oldest afper, but most of my travelling on UK trains was
> done in my childhood when carriages had compartments - a long bench seat
> upholstered in scratchy moquette down each side of a tiny "room", facing
> each other at right angles to the long axis of the train, with no tables
> involved - so people chose smoking or non-smoking compartments from many
> possible ones, and stayed in them. If it was a corridor train (they weren't
> all), some smokers might sit with their non-smoking companions and move to a
> smoking compartment when they needed to. It worked very well; people came
> back from a smoking break smelling of smoke, but so they did everywhere they
> went. Since most adults in the UK smoked then, non-smokers weren't so
> sensitive to the smell and there were no emotional overtones - just a nasty
> smell among so many other nasty smells in the world.
<sigh> Those were the days - I used to love corridor trains... shame
these days it's all about packing them in as densely as you can with
minimal comfort :-(
Suzi
Random C
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I take it you originally emerged fully-adult and fully-armed from your
> father's forehead? It's odd that no-one but me and apparently Orjan can
> remember their own childhood and thus make allowances for people who will
> eventually become adults but are at present still learning how.
Personally on the many occasions I've had my seat-back kicked for most
of the journey - which has happened on easyjet and a BA long-haul in
which I wasn't in economy - it wasn't the kid I turned round and had a
go at, it was the parents. In the case of the BA long-haul flight, the
parent was stood in the aisle aside from when meals were being served,
so that the child could lie across the seats and insisted their child's
thrashing about wasn't coming anywhere near my seat.
When it didn't stop I called the steward and asked to be moved, but
apparently the flight was full and because the child pretended to be
asleep when the steward was stood there, there was nothing could be
done. Is it any wonder that some people get fed up with parents who
won't actually parent their children and instead see it as their job to
prevent their kids from getting told off for treating the entire world
as their playground?
Jens Ayton
>
> When I flew to Gothenburg last week I sat next to Peter Harryson - a
> Swedish TV presenter - who had a few choice words about it. Apparently
> he'll be going back to BA.
A Swedish opera & musical singer, who's done some TV presenting. The
new season of Så ska det låta (The Lyrics Board) just isn't the same...
Arthur Hagen
Note that I'm not criticising the kids, but the *parents*. My parents made
bloody sure that I wouldn't be a nuisance to others, either by avoiding
situations where this could be a problem, by never having used an empty
threat combined with letting us know up front exactly what would happen if
we didn't behave, and by monitoring us like hawks, nipping potential
problems in the bud. And they taught us to read at an early age, which is a
great way of preventing boredom.
Kids will be kids, and will push any boundaries they find, especially in new
situations. That's why it's so important to coach your kids, prepare quiet
activities for them, and monitor them. Not one out of three -- ALL three.
If there's a chance your kids are going to be a menace on a trip and you
can't prevent it, don't go. Drop the damn vacation. That would be
responsible.
Regards,
--
*Art
Torak
> Torak:
>
>> When I flew to Gothenburg last week I sat next to Peter Harryson - a
>> Swedish TV presenter - who had a few choice words about it. Apparently
>> he'll be going back to BA.
>
> A Swedish opera & musical singer, who's done some TV presenting. The
> new season of Så ska det låta (The Lyrics Board) just isn't the same...
So I assume. Who have they got on the pianos?
Grymma
<snip>
> Note that I'm not criticising the kids, but the *parents*. My parents
> made bloody sure that I wouldn't be a nuisance to others, either by
> avoiding situations where this could be a problem, by never having used
> an empty threat combined with letting us know up front exactly what would
> happen if we didn't behave, and by monitoring us like hawks, nipping
> potential problems in the bud. And they taught us to read at an early
> age, which is a great way of preventing boredom.
Same here, and I try to instil the same values in my own children.
> Kids will be kids, and will push any boundaries they find, especially in
> new situations. That's why it's so important to coach your kids, prepare
> quiet activities for them, and monitor them. Not one out of three -- ALL
> three. If there's a chance your kids are going to be a menace on a trip
- there is *always* this possibility, even with the best will in the world,
or the most usually best behaved children in the world...
> and you can't prevent it, don't go. Drop the damn vacation. That would
> be responsible.
Wait up! A whole family should never have a holiday, if a childs possible
bad behaviour can't be prevented?
Would you actually tell that to someone on an aeroplane when their kid is
swinging off the seat/doing whatever?
What about kids with learning and/or behavioural disorders? Should they and
their family never have a holiday, just to placate the sensitivities of
other holidaygoers? And how do *you* tell the difference between the two?
I've yet to meet children with labels on 'em...
It's not the bad behaviour, it's how the parent then deals with the bad
behaviour, surely?
I used to look at children misbehaving, and perhaps think similar thoughts
about them to myself. Now that I have a child with challenging behaviour, I
think twice about being so judgemental...
(And we had a grand first ever family holiday last summer, despite a few
outbursts. It actually brought out the best, rather than the worst, in my
challenging child.)
--
Grymma AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; B.F.(use 'reply to')
Not only do I not know what's going on,
I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did.
Paul Harman
news:C03F4DF0.4407F%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Or has the situation
> in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
> livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
> smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
Wasn't that Arthur C Clarke, I think "Ghost from the Grand Banks", where one
character wrote software to edit the relevant frames in movies to remove the
cigarettes and smoke?
Paul
netcat
> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:C03F4DF0.4407F%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > Or has the situation
> > in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
> > livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
> > smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
As I recall, that was not even close to all they edited out. The old
movies needed editing simply because they were considered unbearably
slow by modern audiences.
rgds,
netcat
Jens Ayton
> Jens Ayton:
No-one I've ever heard of.
Andy Davison
> You should see the state of the driving cabs on some of our trains.
> Empty ashtrays and bins but the floor full of rubbish and fag ends,
> the desk covered in fag ash, and other rubbish dropped in cupboards or
> behind equipment. :-(
On LUL drivers aren't allowed to smoke in the cab but some still do. It is
pointed out to them if they leave the cab in a state. As for rubbish in
cabs it is usually wedged into anywhere where there is a draught coming in
(loads of draughts on A stock cabs).
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Andy Davison
>> Mind you, I've had passengers adamant that they were forced to stand
>> when on a 6-car train 4 cars were occupied by a total of 10 people,
>> with only the rear two anything like busy.
>
> You have some very odd passengers then - this is not something I've ever
> experienced in all my years of using either the Bed-Pan line or, now,
> the First Great Western out of and into Wales! On those trains full
> means "every seat taken, and their are people all the way down the
> middle of each carriage and out into the between carriage lobby areas"..
> now that's full!
What Ross describes happens all the time on the tube. In peak hours it is
really full but at other times the squash can vary depending on the art of
the train you are on. Everybody wants to get in at their door (ie the one
closest to the exit where they get out). As a lot of people find that their
door is the same one, even if they are getting out at different stations,
they all cram into one carriage through the same doorway and often have to
wait for people getting off because it was their door too. At times it can
be sardines at the back of the train and there are seat available at the
front.
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Torak
> Torak:
>> Jens Ayton:
>>> Torak:
>>>
>>>> When I flew to Gothenburg last week I sat next to Peter Harryson - a
>>>> Swedish TV presenter - who had a few choice words about it.
>>>> Apparently he'll be going back to BA.
>>>
>>> A Swedish opera & musical singer, who's done some TV presenting.
>>> The new season of Så ska det låta (The Lyrics Board) just isn't the
>>> same...
>>
>> So I assume. Who have they got on the pianos?
>
> No-one I've ever heard of.
Can't be much cop, then. The Harryson-Wells-Berglund triumvirate is the
One True Way!
Lesley Weston
Did you fly when you were a small child, and can you remember it? Boring,
wasn't it? Perhaps getting a reaction out of an adult who is irrelevant to
the child relieves the boredom a little. But I agree that the parents should
at least try to stop their children bothering other people, and preferably
succeed.
Lesley Weston
OK, I have no argument with that, except that that's not how your previous
post reads at all. My children were taught from the beginning to display
consideration towards other people, and we used to receive compliments on
how likeable they were.
Lesley Weston
Lesley Weston
Could be as well, but it's definitely "Earth". Anyway, Alec says it's not SF
any more but reality, so I guess it doesn't matter who dreamed it up.
Lesley Weston
Random C
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Did you fly when you were a small child, and can you remember it?
No, we usually went to Pontins which was what they knew I'd enjoy. My
parents managed quite well to keep me occupied in the car, without the
benefit of a screen showing an assortment of films set into the seat
back and despite my travel sickness which meant I couldn't read a book
etc. Quite often I slept. Why this child could not sleep on what was
supposed to be a 'night' flight, with the lights out etc, I don't know.
I know why *I* couldn't sleep.
> Boring,
> wasn't it? Perhaps getting a reaction out of an adult who is irrelevant to
> the child relieves the boredom a little. But I agree that the parents should
> at least try to stop their children bothering other people, and preferably
> succeed.
The parent consistently denied that the child was doing anything at all
but the seat sure as hell wasn't kicking itself. I should probably also
have mentioned that this was not a toddler - the child was at least 7.
Dorothy J Heydt
netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>
>> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:C03F4DF0.4407F%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> > Or has the situation
>> > in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
>> > livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
>> > smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
The protagonist of Willis's _Remake_ earns a miserable living by
editing out smoking, drinking, and a couple of other no-nos from
classic movies. As a final act of rebellion, he goes and edits
them all back in.
>As I recall, that was not even close to all they edited out. The old
>movies needed editing simply because they were considered unbearably
>slow by modern audiences.
I recently watched the 1931 hit _Grand Hotel_ and I didn't find
it slow, but incredibly stupid in parts. If John Barrymore had
climbed into my hotel room to burgle my jewelry and tried to
cover his tracks by saying, "I'm someone who could love you,"
I would have shattered his famous profile with the desk lamp and
called the cops.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Karen
Davison <an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes
>
>What Ross describes happens all the time on the tube. In peak hours it is
>really full but at other times the squash can vary depending on the art of
>the train you are on. Everybody wants to get in at their door (ie the one
>closest to the exit where they get out). As a lot of people find that their
>door is the same one, even if they are getting out at different stations,
>they all cram into one carriage through the same doorway and often have to
>wait for people getting off because it was their door too. At times it can
>be sardines at the back of the train and there are seat available at the
>front.
In the rush hours (which widen all the time) its pretty much sardines in
every carriage. I try to travel at the fringes of the rush hour and
from the outer ends of the tube, but I do try to get the carriage
closest to the station exit because if I don't I can have trouble
getting out at all at peak times.
The crush on the platform to get out is so great that you can be joined
by the next couple of arrivals before you get off to the escalators
which is a powerful incentive, even for the able bodied, to 'sardine'
in the optimal carriage rather than semi-sardine further down the train.
If you have to change a couple of times courtesy of random signals
failures and trains terminating early it can make a significant
difference to travel time, especially important when travelling in the
crowd is a problem.
Now let us sing hymn 94 'All tubes bright and beautiful, maintained by
governments all'
--
Karen/hypatia Ka...@lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org
Confused? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
Discworld Convention 2006, August 18-21, http://www.dwcon.org
Andy Davison
> Now let us sing hymn 94 'All tubes bright and beautiful, maintained by
> governments all'
Ahhh! "Maintained"!
Excuse me while I calm down after being hit by that wonderful wave of
nostalgia. Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I don't think train
drivers should have to report bolts missing from rail joints at all,
certainly not for 8 days because Metronet don't consider replacing them to
be a priority. Bastards!
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Richard Heathfield
> Did you fly when you were a small child, and can you remember it?
Yes.
> Boring, wasn't it?
No, it was entrancing! The sheer awesome grandeur of the view from 28,000
feet was just astounding to behold. I will never forget what it felt like.
And no, I didn't try to kick seven bells out of the guy in the seat in
front.
Mind you, when I was a kid, if you misbehaved you got a thump. That doesn't
seem to apply nowadays.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Karen
Davison <an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk> writes
Just occasionally I like to think 'Harry Potter trains', recall the days
of yore when trains had rails to run on which stayed nailed to the
ground, signals worked...even at Neasden, only the crumbliest flake was
chocolate...
Metronet, bless their cotton socks, is in a state of repair and
bounciness that as things are I can't actually travel on it - this means
getting to another line and even more antisocial travelling. One would
think that enablement law applied to such a thing as public transport -
hohoho.
Kat Richardson
I remember that as part of Connie Willis's Remake, too.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker--coming from Roc in October, 2006
http://www.katrichardson.com/
Andy Davison
> Just occasionally I like to think 'Harry Potter trains', recall the days
> of yore when trains had rails to run on which stayed nailed to the
> ground, signals worked...even at Neasden, only the crumbliest flake was
> chocolate...
Nailed? They should be held in rail chairs by keys or Pandrol clips. The
chairs should be screwed down but not all are as leaving the screws out of
some of them is the cheap way to allow for heat expansion in the summer
albeit at the expense of prevention of gauge spread but the track is
over-sleepered so in theory this shouldn't matter unless the sleepers are
rotten as happened at Watford 3 years back. And don't get me onto the
subject of missing Pandrol clips, especially in the Ickenham area. Sheesh!
As for the signals at Neasden, I think the track bed is dodgy as Tubelines
are working on the points at the south end of the depot with tedious
regularity.
> Metronet, bless their cotton socks, is in a state of repair and
> bounciness that as things are I can't actually travel on it - this means
> getting to another line and even more antisocial travelling. One would
> think that enablement law applied to such a thing as public transport -
> hohoho.
This is all very well unless the other line is 'maintained' by Tubelines.
They are responsible for the track by Neasden depot where a rail joint came
undone last November so badly that a 5 mph speed restriction had to be put
in place from 15:15 to close of traffic. What annoyed me about that was
that I reported the missing bolts half an hour earlier but the speed
restriction can't be put in place until it is confirmed by a manager which
can take time during which a train could derail especially as they do 50mph
over that section.
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Lesley Weston
null....@lycos.com wrote on 17/03/2006 9:26 PM:
> Paul Harman wrote:
>
>> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:C03F4DF0.4407F%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk...
>>> Or has the situation
>>> in David Brin's "Earth" already started, with people earning handsome
>>> livings by editing old movies to remove all visible signs of charcters
>>> smoking, so as not to offend modern audiences?
>>
>>
>> Wasn't that Arthur C Clarke, I think "Ghost from the Grand Banks", where
>> one character wrote software to edit the relevant frames in movies to
>> remove the cigarettes and smoke?
>>
>> Paul
>
> I remember that as part of Connie Willis's Remake, too.
It seems to be all of the above. Hardly surprising that it's now become
reality.
Lesley Weston
aqus...@mailinator.com wrote on 14/03/2006 3:40 PM:
> Torak <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ross wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:40:27 -0500, Arthur Hagen wrote in
>>>>
>>>> What I think is criminally stupid are the airports that are /completely/
>>>> non
>>>> smoking. Some, like Chicago/O'Hare even prohibit smoking *outdoors*.
>>>> So, you have a passenger who's a hard addict, who's been on a transoceanic
>>>> flight for, say, 8-10 hours, with screaming kids and nervous accountants
>>>> around him. And he's got an hour before the next connecting
>>>> who-knows-how-long flight. And they /refuse/ the guy a fag? Do they
>>>> /want/
>>>> people to go postal?
>>>
>>> I've never smoked in my life, I don't like being in cigarette smoke (I
>>> find it irritates my throat), I've a serious downer on smokers who
>>> think they have a right to light up wherever they want (such as in
>>> no-smoking mess rooms) and so on and so forth. But, it's an addiction,
>>> and one the government has deemed legal at that. So, I think there
>>> should be provision made for the addicted to get their fix.
>>
>> Yeah, and more help for them to kick the habit. As I may have mentioned
>> once or twice, I can't see the point in saying "Hello Mr Shopkeeper, I'd
>> like to kill myself by installments at £4.50 a day please!"
>
> *shrug*
>
> As far as I'm concerned, people can do exactly whatever the hell they
> like with their body, be it smoke it, pickle it or slice it up and serve
> it with fine white wine.
Absolutely.
> (FTR, I don't smoke, though I do drink)
>
> I disagree with the smoking ban on the principle that if no-smoking pubs
> are such a good idea, why aren't there more no-smoking pubs already,
> since that's what the 'market economy' is all about.
I can't see why each pub landlord can't make the choice themselves as to
whether or not their pub will allow smoking. The patrons and the staff would
soon sort themselves out into the appropriate pubs, and everybody would be
happy.
> I fully agree with
> the "No smoking at the bar" policy, because bar staff don't get paid
> enough to work in a high health risk environment, and object strongly to
> being told what I should and shouldn't do.
But if the bar staff themselves smoke, it's not going to bother them; indeed
their shifts will be much more pleasant for them if they can smoke while
working. It seems to be another example of forcibly doing good to people
whether they want it or not.
Alec Cawley
brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> But if the bar staff themselves smoke, it's not going to bother them; indeed
> their shifts will be much more pleasant for them if they can smoke while
> working. It seems to be another example of forcibly doing good to people
> whether they want it or not.
That is the case in my preferred pub. It is far from the nearest pub to
me, but I go there because I like they way they run it (six real ales,
and what I consider decent behaviour enforced by asking offenders to
leave sharpish). But both landlord and landlady are heavy smokers, and
have said that they will leave the pub trade when the ban comes in. I
don't know whether they are going to carry out that threat.
Matthew Seaman
> in article 1hc7pg6.3hacwsz12l1pN%aqus...@mailinator.com, Aquarion at
> aqus...@mailinator.com wrote on 14/03/2006 3:40 PM:
> I can't see why each pub landlord can't make the choice themselves as to
> whether or not their pub will allow smoking. The patrons and the staff would
> soon sort themselves out into the appropriate pubs, and everybody would be
> happy.
You might think that, but there's a big problem of implementation. At
the moment, in the UK you are at a huge disadvantage if you try and
make a pub non-smoking. All of your smoking patrons disappear almost
instantaneously to the pub next door that still does allow smoking,
whereas it will take months, if not years, to build up a non-smoking
clientelle. In the mean time, you've gone bust.
The experience in Ireland (and those other places that have had
non-smoking pubs and bars for long enough) is that a blanket ban on
smoking does cause a drop in trade initially, but because everyone is
in the same basket the misery is shared out evenly. Then over time
they've been attracting a whole new class of clients -- such as
families with children -- who before would never have been seen dead
in a smokey pub. It has taken a few years, but the emerging consensus
is that overall the smoking ban has been long-term beneficial for
trade.
> > I fully agree with
> > the "No smoking at the bar" policy, because bar staff don't get paid
> > enough to work in a high health risk environment, and object strongly to
> > being told what I should and shouldn't do.
>
> But if the bar staff themselves smoke, it's not going to bother them; indeed
> their shifts will be much more pleasant for them if they can smoke while
> working. It seems to be another example of forcibly doing good to people
> whether they want it or not.
How many bar staff smoke nowadays? Most of the ones I encounter
nowadays seem to be jolly nice antipodeans doing their wanderjahr
thing. I'd predict that, like the general population, the majority of
them are non-smokers nowadays. Unless smoking is limited to only a
minoority of premises, it would be discriminatory and probably illegal
to only employ people that smoke.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW