Is this really true?
 

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Strange given that it didn't exist until after WW2. ;-)

_ON_ British Rail, not _AS_ British Rail.

That would be British *rail*, not British Rail, oh one of the slow mind
but quick finger.

So when it was nationalised BR didn't inherit any of the rolling stock
etc oh ye of innaccurate pedantry?

Trying - and failing - to understand your tortured 'reasoning' what does
rolling stock have to do with a sign requesting you 'shew' tickets?

If I had used rail in the tense you suggest I would have used
'railways'.

No, I'd just suggest you learn how to use capital letters. It's not
difficult - they should only be used with proper nouns. Like kurt hamster.

BTW, what would

Ahh, but remember that nothing as British Rail had changed for more
^^
than a century.................... :-)

actually mean in English?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Is this really true?
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:46:00 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be
shewn...'?"

That would have been Nineteen-fifty-something.

Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed for more
than a century.................... :-)

Strange given that it didn't exist until after WW2. ;-)

Oh well, you know what I mean, God's Wonderful Railway wasn't even the
same gauge in the good old days!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is this really true?
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:46:00 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be
shewn...'?"

That would have been Nineteen-fifty-something.

Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed for more
than a century.................... :-)

Strange given that it didn't exist until after WW2. ;-)

Oh well, you know what I mean, God's Wonderful Railway wasn't even the
same gauge in the good old days!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is this really true?
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:23:28 +0000, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Kurt Hamster wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:57:33 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman used
to say...

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Strange given that it didn't exist until after WW2. ;-)

_ON_ British Rail, not _AS_ British Rail.

That would be British *rail*, not British Rail, oh one of the slow mind
but quick finger.

So when it was nationalised BR didn't inherit any of the rolling stock
etc oh ye of innaccurate pedantry?

Rolling stock has nothing to do with it. That whooshing noise you can
hear isn't a passing ghost train, it's the sound of Dave's point flying
past miles above your pointy head.

British Rail did not last for a century.

Therefore you cannot say that nothing on British Rail had changed for a
century.

One may however suggest that the 'shewn' sign had been there for some
time....................

One might also combine that with a joke regarding the parlous state of
both track and rolling stock, but some people do seem to be
humour-impaired.

You then went on to state " _ON_ British Rail, not _AS_ British Rail"

The rails that trains run on may have been British rail, but they are
not British Rail. The issue of rolling stock is a red herring since the
rail is not rolling stock. Trains may well have run on British rail for
over a century but no train ran on British Rail for that long. Even if
we accept that your ignorance about the difference between a noun and
proper noun is to be excused then we are left with your original
statement: "Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed
for more than a century.................... :-)"

You might want to check with whom you're arguing here! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is this really true?
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:23:28 +0000, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Kurt Hamster wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:57:33 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman used
to say...

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Strange given that it didn't exist until after WW2. ;-)

_ON_ British Rail, not _AS_ British Rail.

That would be British *rail*, not British Rail, oh one of the slow mind
but quick finger.

So when it was nationalised BR didn't inherit any of the rolling stock
etc oh ye of innaccurate pedantry?

Rolling stock has nothing to do with it. That whooshing noise you can
hear isn't a passing ghost train, it's the sound of Dave's point flying
past miles above your pointy head.

British Rail did not last for a century.

Therefore you cannot say that nothing on British Rail had changed for a
century.

One may however suggest that the 'shewn' sign had been there for some
time....................

One might also combine that with a joke regarding the parlous state of
both track and rolling stock, but some people do seem to be
humour-impaired.

You then went on to state " _ON_ British Rail, not _AS_ British Rail"

The rails that trains run on may have been British rail, but they are
not British Rail. The issue of rolling stock is a red herring since the
rail is not rolling stock. Trains may well have run on British rail for
over a century but no train ran on British Rail for that long. Even if
we accept that your ignorance about the difference between a noun and
proper noun is to be excused then we are left with your original
statement: "Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed
for more than a century.................... :-)"

You might want to check with whom you're arguing here! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is this really true?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:06:35 +0000, "Nick H (UK)"
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:53:04 -0000, "Fleetie"
wrote:



"Roderick Stewart" wrote


The OED lists "shew" as a variation of "show", so I guess that's how it used
to be spelt.

Thanks. I wondered if it was something like that. Good to hear it confirmed
by someone else.

But let's be fair, it wasn't spelt 'shews' when Queen Victoria was
alive, never mind Peter Walker!

Probably was.

Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be shewn...'?"

That would have been Nineteen-fifty-something.


Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed for more
than a century.................... :-)

You are right: trespassing cost 40/- for all that time and so on... ...



--
Nick H (UK)

Is this really true?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:06:35 +0000, "Nick H (UK)"
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:53:04 -0000, "Fleetie"
wrote:



"Roderick Stewart" wrote


The OED lists "shew" as a variation of "show", so I guess that's how it used
to be spelt.

Thanks. I wondered if it was something like that. Good to hear it confirmed
by someone else.

But let's be fair, it wasn't spelt 'shews' when Queen Victoria was
alive, never mind Peter Walker!

Probably was.

Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be shewn...'?"

That would have been Nineteen-fifty-something.


Ahh, but remember that nothing on British Rail had changed for more
than a century.................... :-)

You are right: trespassing cost 40/- for all that time and so on... ...



--
Nick H (UK)

Is this really true?
 

Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:06:35 +0000, Nick H (UK) used
to say...



Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be shewn...'?"


Bloody typical. Some people only give half the story :)



:-)

--
Nick H (UK)

Is this really true?
 

Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:06:35 +0000, Nick H (UK) used
to say...



Me, as a child, "Daddy, why does that sign say 'tickets must be shewn...'?"


Bloody typical. Some people only give half the story :)



:-)

--
Nick H (UK)