The price of our pleasures!

: : I definitely read it!

But have you remembered it correctly?...

If you could, I'm sure you would, like any normal person, instead of continuing your silly games.

Go on then, Jerry, I'm calling your bluff, shows us what you know.

MBQ

If he hasn't, is he still a liar?

MBQ

"Jerry" wrote

I'd say because the information. he was recalling was more important to him than the book title. I would hate to have to cite the titles of all the books that I've used to accumulate something like 50 years of information on railways & railway models.

John.

:> Ask me to cite the book : : Go on then, Jerry, I'm calling your bluff,

Title: Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers

Author: Colonel H.C.B.Rogers

Publisher: Ian Allan - 1979

ISBN:

: If he hasn't, is he still a liar?

As much as you're still a trolling idiot.

Then you will face the same problem should you ever start arguing the toss against the logic of an argument...

For goodness sake Greg, dont worry about it. Never known you to deliberately misquote or give erroneous info just for the sake of it. as is well known, those who have never made mistakes never did anything. I never debate just to show am right (that is a bonus), but to learn or confirm.

Cheers, Simon

I suppose you remember the authors, titles and contents of both the books you've ever read?

John's opinion vs Jerry's opinion ... a tough choice ... or perhaps not ;-) Jerry, old buddy, when you've read three books on any given point, you'll recognise that there are at least two different opinions, sometimes rather more. If there is only one then most likely all the authors are quoting just one source. Fifty years on, any new historical opinions are likely to have come from the author's imagination or logic. The author closest to the source is the best bet.

Regards, Greg.P.

Probably, but possibly not. I can say that the concept of the corridor connections being offset because of the internal arrangement of sorting pigeon holes etc was completely new to me whereas the offset being there to stop through communication with the Railways stock has been in my head for a long time. I have an excellent memory for assorted information, very little for titles and authors.

Greg.P.

There are only "truth-tellers" and "liars". You're not one of those modern woolly-thinkers who believes in the existance of "grey" are you??? =8^O

Don't mind me Simon, I've just got an extra hour free and all my current projects need at least an afternoon :-)

: : Don't mind me Simon, I've just got an extra hour free

So you admit to trolling then?...

: The author closest to the source is the best bet. :

Except when they are wrong...

TPOs with their off-set gangways was due to internal mail sorting equipment layout, any fool can see that just by examining the internal layout of such coaches, some things simply do not change against physical facts how ever you or a miss-guided author wishes, the size of letters (aka the size needed for sorting racks, the average space taken up by a standing or sitting postal worker, the size of a postal sack etc.

Also, you have never explained why a simple key-lock was deemed totally adequate for external door security but not for the corridor connection doors and thus requiring them to be off-set - with all the complications that introduces, even within just the specialised world of TPO stock!

: > : > Care to cite the books you were referring to, if you can cite : > : > (checkable) book(s) I will withdraw my accusations of lying, : > : >

: > : : > : They were books I read 40-50 years ago : >

: > If you can't remember the book(s) title(s) then how are we to : > accept that you have remembered any of the actual facts? : >

: : I suppose you remember the authors, titles and contents of : both the books you've ever read?

No, but then I would not 'quote' as "fact" anything I recall reading in them.

Average letter length - about 8". Sorting clerk's arm - about 2'9" Space to move - say 12" That's a total of around 4'5". Sorting coach width - 8' to 9'

Seems to me they could have put the corridor connection in the middle with very little loss of working space.

The Postal vehicle were for Postal staff only - there is no reason for railway staff to enter or for Postal staff to leave. In fact, non-postal employees were not allowed access. Why would they provide access?

Why was a simple keylock insufficient? This is perhaps revealing my mis-spent youth, but people of a certain persuasion are barely slowed down by a locked door. Locks are to keep honest people out.

Regards, Greg.P.

I certainly remember the bit about denying access to non-Postal people _and_ the lack of comment about the off-set being due to internal layout. That last bit is perhaps the most important.

Regards, Greg.P.

I admit to responding when I should have ignored your stupidity.

Regards, Greg.P.