On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip shop 
>was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the District 
>line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to Earl's 
>Court to switch lines.

You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a chance and
move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>> All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip shop 
>> was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the District 
>> line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to Earl's 
>> Court to switch lines.
> 
> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a chance and
> move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.

Geniuses. I should have expected to find someone playing this most 
venerated of strategy games on this server. It's only a shame that the 
winning move has recently reopened...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:03:40 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip shop 
>>> was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the District 
>>> line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to Earl's 
>>> Court to switch lines.
>> 
>> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a chance and
>> move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.
>
>Geniuses. 

You wouldn't say that if you heard us sing one song to the tune of another. :-)

>I should have expected to find someone playing this most 
>venerated of strategy games on this server. It's only a shame that the 
>winning move has recently reopened...

Yes, the endgame has begun. Within a hundred moves it will be over.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:03:40 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>> Geniuses. 
> 
> You wouldn't say that if you heard us sing one song to the tune of another. :-)

Especially if you did it via newsposts.

> Yes, the endgame has begun. Within a hundred moves it will be over.

Ah, a nice quick game then. Your inner metropolitan line judges had 
better keep their eyes peeled.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:31:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip
>>shop was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the
>>District line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to
>>Earl's Court to switch lines.
> 
> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a
> chance and move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.

In order to substantiate that move, it's going to be necessary for you to 
declare where you performed your Johnson switchback manoeuvre - and how 
you accomplished that without a U-turn (since those are disallowed).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16 Feb 2009 23:32:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:31:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip
>>>shop was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the
>>>District line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to
>>>Earl's Court to switch lines.
>> 
>> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a
>> chance and move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.
>
>In order to substantiate that move, it's going to be necessary for you to 
>declare where you performed your Johnson switchback manoeuvre - and how 
>you accomplished that without a U-turn (since those are disallowed).
>

But *you* performed the Johnson switchback manoeuvre going from Fulham to Earls
Court.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:44:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 16 Feb 2009 23:32:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:31:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Feb 2009 13:07:12 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip
>>>>shop was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the
>>>>District line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to
>>>>Earl's Court to switch lines.
>>> 
>>> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a
>>> chance and move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.
>>
>>In order to substantiate that move, it's going to be necessary for you
>>to declare where you performed your Johnson switchback manoeuvre - and
>>how you accomplished that without a U-turn (since those are disallowed).
>>
> But *you* performed the Johnson switchback manoeuvre going from Fulham
> to Earls Court.

Well, sure, I did, but you needed to do so as well before your move to 
Aldwych.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2009 12:03:06 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>>>>>All the talk about fish & chips means now I'm hungry; our local chip
>>>>>shop was called "Picadilly Fish & Chips", so I think heading up the
>>>>>District line to the Picadilly line is a good option, so let's head to
>>>>>Earl's Court to switch lines.
>>>> 
>>>> You have put me in Spoon so I'm limited in my choices. I'll take a
>>>> chance and move to Aldwych which is always a dangerous move.
>>>
>>>In order to substantiate that move, it's going to be necessary for you
>>>to declare where you performed your Johnson switchback manoeuvre - and
>>>how you accomplished that without a U-turn (since those are disallowed).
>>>
>> But *you* performed the Johnson switchback manoeuvre going from Fulham
>> to Earls Court.
>
>Well, sure, I did, but you needed to do so as well before your move to 
>Aldwych.
>

No, no it is the preceding player that has to perform the Johnson switchback
manoeuvre before you can proceed to Aldwych.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:17:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>Well, sure, I did, but you needed to do so as well before your move to
>>Aldwych.
>>
>>
> No, no it is the preceding player that has to perform the Johnson
> switchback manoeuvre before you can proceed to Aldwych.

Is it?  Stovold doesn't say much about that, so I will admit that it's at 
best unclear.

<shrug>  OK, I'll accept the move then, but only because Samantha said it 
was OK.

I'll go with the replacement for Aldwych, then - Temple.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2009 12:42:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:17:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Well, sure, I did, but you needed to do so as well before your move to
>>>Aldwych.
>>>
>>>
>> No, no it is the preceding player that has to perform the Johnson
>> switchback manoeuvre before you can proceed to Aldwych.
>
>Is it?  Stovold doesn't say much about that, so I will admit that it's at 
>best unclear.
>
><shrug>  OK, I'll accept the move then, but only because Samantha said it 
>was OK.
>

The only time that Samantha doesn't say it's OK is when she has her mouth full
:)

>I'll go with the replacement for Aldwych, then - Temple.
>

Actually Samantha has just reminded me that The Monument has reopened. She said
that she has always wanted to climb a large fluted column to expand her vistas.


What? 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:48:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009 12:42:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:17:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, sure, I did, but you needed to do so as well before your move to
>>>>Aldwych.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, no it is the preceding player that has to perform the Johnson
>>> switchback manoeuvre before you can proceed to Aldwych.
>>
>>Is it?  Stovold doesn't say much about that, so I will admit that it's
>>at best unclear.
>>
>><shrug>  OK, I'll accept the move then, but only because Samantha said
>>it was OK.
>>
> The only time that Samantha doesn't say it's OK is when she has her
> mouth full :)

Clearly not, she's having that Neopolitan with nuts right now....

>>I'll go with the replacement for Aldwych, then - Temple.
>>
> Actually Samantha has just reminded me that The Monument has reopened.
> She said that she has always wanted to climb a large fluted column to
> expand her vistas.
> 
> What?

LOL....so you want to be there?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2009 14:39:06 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>>><shrug>  OK, I'll accept the move then, but only because Samantha said
>>>it was OK.
>>>
>> The only time that Samantha doesn't say it's OK is when she has her
>> mouth full :)
>
>Clearly not, she's having that Neopolitan with nuts right now....
>

Crushed nuts is a terrible affliction :) 
Alas poor Doric! I knew him, Sven: a fellow of infinite length.

>>>I'll go with the replacement for Aldwych, then - Temple.
>>>
>> Actually Samantha has just reminded me that The Monument has reopened.
>> She said that she has always wanted to climb a large fluted column to
>> expand her vistas.
>> 
>> What?
>
>LOL....so you want to be there?
>
Nowhere near, so we best move on.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:50:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009 14:39:06 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>><shrug>  OK, I'll accept the move then, but only because Samantha said
>>>>it was OK.
>>>>
>>> The only time that Samantha doesn't say it's OK is when she has her
>>> mouth full :)
>>
>>Clearly not, she's having that Neopolitan with nuts right now....
>>
>>
> Crushed nuts is a terrible affliction :) Alas poor Doric! I knew him,
> Sven: a fellow of infinite length.

Indeed, infinite length, but unfortunately that's about it.

>>>>I'll go with the replacement for Aldwych, then - Temple.
>>>>
>>> Actually Samantha has just reminded me that The Monument has reopened.
>>> She said that she has always wanted to climb a large fluted column to
>>> expand her vistas.
>>> 
>>> What?
>>
>>LOL....so you want to be there?
>>
> Nowhere near, so we best move on.

OK, so then it's still your move.... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2009 16:26:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>OK, so then it's still your move.... :-)

BUZZ!  Stupidity!

Monument <blush>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:43:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009 16:26:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>OK, so then it's still your move.... :-)
> 
> BUZZ!  Stupidity!

You don't get to call that....because....
 
> Monument <blush>

....You said you didn't want to be near this! ;-)

So now that you've decided you do want to be near it, lessee.....

I shall have to move to Totteridge & Whetstone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2009 16:51:00 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:43:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2009 16:26:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>OK, so then it's still your move.... :-)
>> 
>> BUZZ!  Stupidity!
>
>You don't get to call that....because....
> 
>> Monument <blush>
>
>....You said you didn't want to be near this! ;-)
>
>So now that you've decided you do want to be near it, lessee.....
>
>I shall have to move to Totteridge & Whetstone.
>

I aught to leave you there to your own devices for a week :)
But I'll take pity and use a Reverse Knip to move to Tottenham Court Road.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:34:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009 16:51:00 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:43:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2009 16:26:10 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>OK, so then it's still your move.... :-)
>>> 
>>> BUZZ!  Stupidity!
>>
>>You don't get to call that....because....
>> 
>>> Monument <blush>
>>
>>....You said you didn't want to be near this! ;-)
>>
>>So now that you've decided you do want to be near it, lessee.....
>>
>>I shall have to move to Totteridge & Whetstone.
>>
>>
> I aught to leave you there to your own devices for a week :) But I'll
> take pity and use a Reverse Knip to move to Tottenham Court Road.

Edgware Road, then, because it's the first move that came to mind and I 
had a long couple of days. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20 Feb 2009 01:08:37 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Edgware Road, then, because it's the first move that came to mind and I 
>had a long couple of days. :-)

So I see by your posting time. 

Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:14:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2009 01:08:37 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Edgware Road, then, because it's the first move that came to mind and I
>>had a long couple of days. :-)
> 
> So I see by your posting time.

And that was actually an early night for me.  :-)  But when the boss is 
in town, it makes sense to "be seen", which means 90 minutes driving 
(round-trip).  At least I don't have to do it in NYC traffic. :-)

> Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.

Ah, well, very clearly then my next move should be Hounslow West.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20 Feb 2009 12:03:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:14:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2009 01:08:37 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Edgware Road, then, because it's the first move that came to mind and I
>>>had a long couple of days. :-)
>> 
>> So I see by your posting time.
>
>And that was actually an early night for me.  :-)  But when the boss is 
>in town, it makes sense to "be seen", which means 90 minutes driving 
>(round-trip).  At least I don't have to do it in NYC traffic. :-)
>

Too true, or 90 minutes in central London.

>> Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.
>
>Ah, well, very clearly then my next move should be Hounslow West.
>

Your obviously either lost or want to go home :)

Heathrow Terminal 5
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:09:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2009 12:03:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:14:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Feb 2009 01:08:37 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>Edgware Road, then, because it's the first move that came to mind and
>>>>I had a long couple of days. :-)
>>> 
>>> So I see by your posting time.
>>
>>And that was actually an early night for me.  :-)  But when the boss is
>>in town, it makes sense to "be seen", which means 90 minutes driving
>>(round-trip).  At least I don't have to do it in NYC traffic. :-)
>>
>>
> Too true, or 90 minutes in central London.

Yeah, based on my experience walking in central London, that's what, 
about 3 blocks? ;-)

>>> Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.
>>
>>Ah, well, very clearly then my next move should be Hounslow West.
>>
> Your obviously either lost or want to go home :)
> 
> Heathrow Terminal 5

Well, if there's a place where both could be done, LHR Terminal 5 would 
be it.  But I want to keep my bags!

Gatwick is the next logical stop, then.  Or possibly Stansted.  I'll take 
the latter. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20 Feb 2009 17:41:46 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Too true, or 90 minutes in central London.
>
>Yeah, based on my experience walking in central London, that's what, 
>about 3 blocks? ;-)
>

:) Walking in central London can be quicker than using overground transport. If you
stay off the main roads. Our blocks are smaller than your about 150 yards or less. 
When I was last in the states I could not believe the size of the blocks, but
then land is cheap. ;)

>>>> Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.
>>>
>>>Ah, well, very clearly then my next move should be Hounslow West.
>>>
>> Your obviously either lost or want to go home :)
>> 
>> Heathrow Terminal 5
>
>Well, if there's a place where both could be done, LHR Terminal 5 would 
>be it.  But I want to keep my bags!
>
>Gatwick is the next logical stop, then.  Or possibly Stansted.  I'll take 
>the latter. :-)

Since it is the weekend let's divert and go to the "The Lost Gardens of Heligan"

http://www.mevagissey.net/heligan.htm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> :) Walking in central London can be quicker than using overground transport. If you
stay off the main roads. Our blocks are smaller than your about 150 yards or less. 
> When I was last in the states I could not believe the size of the blocks, but
> then land is cheap. ;)

Most of the east coast cities have city blocks 1/10th of a mile on the long 
side, and (IIRC) 1/5th of 1/10th of a mile on the short side. It makes it 
convenient for knowing how far you have to go - it's 2 miles from 13th 
street to 33rd street.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:37:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2009 17:41:46 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Too true, or 90 minutes in central London.
>>
>>Yeah, based on my experience walking in central London, that's what,
>>about 3 blocks? ;-)
>>
>>
> :) Walking in central London can be quicker than using overground
> transport. If you stay off the main roads. Our blocks are smaller than
> your about 150 yards or less. When I was last in the states I could not
> believe the size of the blocks, but then land is cheap. ;)

Heh, you should see the size of the blocks here in Salt Lake City - much 
larger than in most cities, especially in the central part of the city.

>>>>> Widdershins on the circle to South Kensington.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, well, very clearly then my next move should be Hounslow West.
>>>>
>>> Your obviously either lost or want to go home :)
>>> 
>>> Heathrow Terminal 5
>>
>>Well, if there's a place where both could be done, LHR Terminal 5 would
>>be it.  But I want to keep my bags!
>>
>>Gatwick is the next logical stop, then.  Or possibly Stansted.  I'll
>>take the latter. :-)
> 
> Since it is the weekend let's divert and go to the "The Lost Gardens of
> Heligan"
> 
> http://www.mevagissey.net/heligan.htm

Nice; it looks vaguely like the David Austin gardens we visited (but 
obviously very different), might have to add that to our itinerary on our 
next trip.

Along with Kew Gardens, which will be my next move.  My wife and stepson 
tried to take the train there last time we were there, but there was a 
problem that kept the train from Amersham from getting into town.

I think the best we saw, though, were the gardens at Hill House.  It was 
a nice, slightly rainy day when we were there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:23:39 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Most of the east coast cities have city blocks 1/10th of a mile on the long 
>side, and (IIRC) 1/5th of 1/10th of a mile on the short side. It makes it 
>convenient for knowing how far you have to go - it's 2 miles from 13th 
>street to 33rd street.

Thanks, I did not know that. My vague memories of Miami and Pittsburgh were of
much larger blocks. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:23:39 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Most of the east coast cities have city blocks 1/10th of a mile on the long 
>> side, and (IIRC) 1/5th of 1/10th of a mile on the short side. It makes it 
>> convenient for knowing how far you have to go - it's 2 miles from 13th 
>> street to 33rd street.
> 
> Thanks, I did not know that. My vague memories of Miami and Pittsburgh were of
> much larger blocks. 

Well, I'm speaking of the ones where most of the layout was before 
automobiles - NYC, Philadelphia, etc.  Obviously it's not going to hold 
across the board, but in the "old" cities, it's not too uncommon. (Assuming 
they were planned at all, of course. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On 21 Feb 2009 12:40:49 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Heh, you should see the size of the blocks here in Salt Lake City - much 
>larger than in most cities, especially in the central part of the city.
>

My blocks are bigger than your blocks or even Darren's :)

>Nice; it looks vaguely like the David Austin gardens we visited (but 
>obviously very different), might have to add that to our itinerary on our 
>next trip.
>
>Along with Kew Gardens, which will be my next move.  My wife and stepson 
>tried to take the train there last time we were there, but there was a 
>problem that kept the train from Amersham from getting into town.
>
>I think the best we saw, though, were the gardens at Hill House.  It was 
>a nice, slightly rainy day when we were there.


Hampton Court Palace
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:37:07 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:23:39 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Most of the east coast cities have city blocks 1/10th of a mile on the long 
>>> side, and (IIRC) 1/5th of 1/10th of a mile on the short side. It makes it 
>>> convenient for knowing how far you have to go - it's 2 miles from 13th 
>>> street to 33rd street.
>> 
>> Thanks, I did not know that. My vague memories of Miami and Pittsburgh were of
>> much larger blocks. 
>
>Well, I'm speaking of the ones where most of the layout was before 
>automobiles - NYC, Philadelphia, etc.  Obviously it's not going to hold 
>across the board, but in the "old" cities, it's not too uncommon. (Assuming 
>they were planned at all, of course. :-)

That makes sense of course. It's just that I grew up in a place that the only
planning was to go up when there was a hill and down in a valley ;)
There are lots of strange shaped intersections and areas called "the new town"
because they were built only 200 years ago. :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:04:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2009 12:40:49 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Heh, you should see the size of the blocks here in Salt Lake City - much
>>larger than in most cities, especially in the central part of the city.
>>
>>
> My blocks are bigger than your blocks or even Darren's :)

How big are your blocks? ;-)

>>Nice; it looks vaguely like the David Austin gardens we visited (but
>>obviously very different), might have to add that to our itinerary on
>>our next trip.
>>
>>Along with Kew Gardens, which will be my next move.  My wife and stepson
>>tried to take the train there last time we were there, but there was a
>>problem that kept the train from Amersham from getting into town.
>>
>>I think the best we saw, though, were the gardens at Hill House.  It was
>>a nice, slightly rainy day when we were there.
> 
> 
> Hampton Court Palace

Really?

Hounslow Central, then.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22 Feb 2009 18:06:46 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>>>Heh, you should see the size of the blocks here in Salt Lake City - much
>>>larger than in most cities, especially in the central part of the city.
>>>
>>>
>> My blocks are bigger than your blocks or even Darren's :)
>
>How big are your blocks? ;-)
>

No, I was speaking for you. :)
Our blocks are too irregular to say. Just looking on a local map they range from
60 ft to 350 yards


>> 
>> Hampton Court Palace
>
>Really?
>
>Hounslow Central, then.

Yes

Brentford, then.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:37:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 22 Feb 2009 18:06:46 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>Heh, you should see the size of the blocks here in Salt Lake City -
>>>>much larger than in most cities, especially in the central part of the
>>>>city.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My blocks are bigger than your blocks or even Darren's :)
>>
>>How big are your blocks? ;-)
>>
> No, I was speaking for you. :)
> Our blocks are too irregular to say. Just looking on a local map they
> range from 60 ft to 350 yards

Ah, see, you confused me. :-)

>>> Hampton Court Palace
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>Hounslow Central, then.
> 
> Yes
> 
> Brentford, then.

Putney Bridge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Feb 2009 11:04:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Ah, see, you confused me. :-)
>

I'm good at that :)

>>>> Hampton Court Palace
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>
>>>Hounslow Central, then.
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>> Brentford, then.
>
>Putney Bridge.

Oh! We can see if Tom Melly is around :)

Dulwich for the art gallery.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:23:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2009 11:04:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Ah, see, you confused me. :-)
>>
> I'm good at that :)

LOL

>>Putney Bridge.
> 
> Oh! We can see if Tom Melly is around :)
> 
> Dulwich for the art gallery.

Peckham Rye, then - I'm getting hungry again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Feb 2009 12:12:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Dulwich for the art gallery.
>
>Peckham Rye, then - I'm getting hungry again.

<groan>

Brixton then, for some brown stew chicken.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:12:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2009 12:12:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Dulwich for the art gallery.
>>
>>Peckham Rye, then - I'm getting hungry again.
> 
> <groan>

You're welcome. :-)

> Brixton then, for some brown stew chicken.

Then I should do the traditional move of Albemarle Street next. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25 Feb 2009 11:00:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Then I should do the traditional move of Albemarle Street next. :-)

There is a chance of falling foul of the "no revisits on high days and holidays"
rule, this being Ash Wednesday. 
So I'll go to the site of the infamous Tyburn Tree, Marble Arch.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:23:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2009 11:00:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Then I should do the traditional move of Albemarle Street next. :-)
> 
> There is a chance of falling foul of the "no revisits on high days and
> holidays" rule, this being Ash Wednesday.

You're playing it awfully carefully.....

> So I'll go to the site of the infamous Tyburn Tree, Marble Arch.

And awfully safe. :-)

I would be remiss if I didn't make a stop at Covent Garden - that is the 
first of London we saw, after all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25 Feb 2009 13:17:38 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:23:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2009 11:00:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Then I should do the traditional move of Albemarle Street next. :-)
>> 
>> There is a chance of falling foul of the "no revisits on high days and
>> holidays" rule, this being Ash Wednesday.
>
>You're playing it awfully carefully.....
>

Am I? ;)

>> So I'll go to the site of the infamous Tyburn Tree, Marble Arch.
>
>And awfully safe. :-)

Only for some. :)

>I would be remiss if I didn't make a stop at Covent Garden - that is the 
>first of London we saw, after all.
>

Ah! Ha!

You fell foul of the "no revisits on high days and holidays" rule, yesterday
being Ash Wednesday, and all. We were there on 20 Jan 2009. You are now in spoon
and must miss your turn.

We move to the Barbican.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:01:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2009 13:17:38 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:23:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2009 11:00:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>Then I should do the traditional move of Albemarle Street next. :-)
>>> 
>>> There is a chance of falling foul of the "no revisits on high days and
>>> holidays" rule, this being Ash Wednesday.
>>
>>You're playing it awfully carefully.....
>>
>>
> Am I? ;)
> 
>>> So I'll go to the site of the infamous Tyburn Tree, Marble Arch.
>>
>>And awfully safe. :-)
> 
> Only for some. :)

LOL

>>I would be remiss if I didn't make a stop at Covent Garden - that is the
>>first of London we saw, after all.
>>
> Ah! Ha!
> 
> You fell foul of the "no revisits on high days and holidays" rule,
> yesterday being Ash Wednesday, and all. We were there on 20 Jan 2009.
> You are now in spoon and must miss your turn.

Damn!

> We move to the Barbican.

And NOW we can move to Covent Garden. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2009 10:23:39 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:01:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 
>> You fell foul of the "no revisits on high days and holidays" rule,
>> yesterday being Ash Wednesday, and all. We were there on 20 Jan 2009.
>> You are now in spoon and must miss your turn.
>
>Damn!
>
>> We move to the Barbican.
>
>And NOW we can move to Covent Garden. :-)
>

I can't stand those people who paint themselves silver and stand still for aeons
so quickly to Holborn.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:39:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2009 10:23:39 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:01:19 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You fell foul of the "no revisits on high days and holidays" rule,
>>> yesterday being Ash Wednesday, and all. We were there on 20 Jan 2009.
>>> You are now in spoon and must miss your turn.
>>
>>Damn!
>>
>>> We move to the Barbican.
>>
>>And NOW we can move to Covent Garden. :-)
>>
>>
> I can't stand those people who paint themselves silver and stand still
> for aeons so quickly to Holborn.

LOL

You have to admit the juggler who was there when I was there was pretty 
good.  Then again, you probably don't have to admit anything of the sort 
since you weren't there. ;-)

King's Cross, just because it provides so many options.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2009 15:35:16 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> I can't stand those people who paint themselves silver and stand still
>> for aeons so quickly to Holborn.
>
>LOL
>
>You have to admit the juggler who was there when I was there was pretty 
>good.  Then again, you probably don't have to admit anything of the sort 
>since you weren't there. ;-)
>

They are Andrew to me. Opps! I mean invisible :)

>King's Cross, just because it provides so many options.

I see your trap

Fleet Street.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:59:56 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2009 15:35:16 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> I can't stand those people who paint themselves silver and stand still
>>> for aeons so quickly to Holborn.
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>You have to admit the juggler who was there when I was there was pretty
>>good.  Then again, you probably don't have to admit anything of the sort
>>since you weren't there. ;-)
>>
> They are Andrew to me. Opps! I mean invisible :)

LOL

I'm kinda wondering if he'll jump in at some point and ask what the heck 
we're doing. :-)

>>King's Cross, just because it provides so many options.
> 
> I see your trap
> 
> Fleet Street.

I'm tempted to go to Seville and we can have the "two barbers", but as 
that's in Spain and we've already done a continental journey this 
round.....Notting Hill Gate.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2009 18:27:48 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:59:56 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2009 15:35:16 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I can't stand those people who paint themselves silver and stand still
>>>> for aeons so quickly to Holborn.
>>>
>>>LOL
>>>
>>>You have to admit the juggler who was there when I was there was pretty
>>>good.  Then again, you probably don't have to admit anything of the sort
>>>since you weren't there. ;-)
>>>
>> They are Andrew to me. Opps! I mean invisible :)
>
>LOL
>
>I'm kinda wondering if he'll jump in at some point and ask what the heck 
>we're doing. :-)
>

Even Andrew must have heard of ISIHSC.

>>>King's Cross, just because it provides so many options.
>> 
>> I see your trap
>> 
>> Fleet Street.
>
>I'm tempted to go to Seville and we can have the "two barbers", but as 
>that's in Spain and we've already done a continental journey this 
>round.....Notting Hill Gate.
>

Good choice as Portobello Road is the Spanish/Portuguese area of London.

Russell Square.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:00:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>I'm kinda wondering if he'll jump in at some point and ask what the heck
>>we're doing. :-)
>>
> Even Andrew must have heard of ISIHSC.

I haven't heard of *that* one, but I have heard of ISIHAC. ;-)

(See, Andy, we don't just kid you about poor spelling! ;-) )

>>>>King's Cross, just because it provides so many options.
>>> 
>>> I see your trap
>>> 
>>> Fleet Street.
>>
>>I'm tempted to go to Seville and we can have the "two barbers", but as
>>that's in Spain and we've already done a continental journey this
>>round.....Notting Hill Gate.
>>
> Good choice as Portobello Road is the Spanish/Portuguese area of London.

I thought you'd like it. :-)

> Russell Square.

Interesting move.

Fulham Broadway.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27 Feb 2009 11:11:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Even Andrew must have heard of ISIHSC.
>
>I haven't heard of *that* one, but I have heard of ISIHAC. ;-)
>

Feck!

>(See, Andy, we don't just kid you about poor spelling! ;-) )
>
>
>> Russell Square.
>
>Interesting move.
>
>Fulham Broadway.

Wimbledon
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:41:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 27 Feb 2009 11:11:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Even Andrew must have heard of ISIHSC.
>>
>>I haven't heard of *that* one, but I have heard of ISIHAC. ;-)
>>
> Feck!

Now wait a minute, you're related to Father Jack Hackett?

>>(See, Andy, we don't just kid you about poor spelling! ;-) )
>>
>>> Russell Square.
>>
>>Interesting move.
>>
>>Fulham Broadway.
> 
> Wimbledon

Great Portland Street.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Mar 2009 12:15:07 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:41:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 27 Feb 2009 11:11:29 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Even Andrew must have heard of ISIHSC.
>>>
>>>I haven't heard of *that* one, but I have heard of ISIHAC. ;-)
>>>
>> Feck!
>
>Now wait a minute, you're related to Father Jack Hackett?
>

Drink! Feck! Girls! Feck!

Peace plan for Craggy Island row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6297367.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6392811.stm

>>>(See, Andy, we don't just kid you about poor spelling! ;-) )
>>>
>>>> Russell Square.
>>>
>>>Interesting move.
>>>
>>>Fulham Broadway.
>> 
>> Wimbledon
>
>Great Portland Street.
>

Regents Park, sidestepping the parallel junction rule. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:39:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> Feck!
>>
>>Now wait a minute, you're related to Father Jack Hackett?
>>
> Drink! Feck! Girls! Feck!

:-)

> Peace plan for Craggy Island row
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6297367.stm
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6392811.stm

LOL, that's pretty neat. :-)

>>>>(See, Andy, we don't just kid you about poor spelling! ;-) )
>>>>
>>>>> Russell Square.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting move.
>>>>
>>>>Fulham Broadway.
>>> 
>>> Wimbledon
>>
>>Great Portland Street.
>>
> Regents Park, sidestepping the parallel junction rule. :)

Nice move there.....

Russell Square.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Mar 2009 14:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>>>>>
>>>>>> Russell Square.
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting move.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fulham Broadway.
>>>> 
>>>> Wimbledon
>>>
>>>Great Portland Street.
>>>
>> Regents Park, sidestepping the parallel junction rule. :)
>
>Nice move there.....
>
>Russell Square.
>

You can't return to Russell Square when it is still in the list. You miss a
turn.

Shooters hill
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message