Games Lanes

On 30/07/2012 20:13, NM wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:16 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

He does it because he thinks its clever. Cwispie is a total ****.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 4:04*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:52:40 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:53:47 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

China now has some $2tn of foreign reserves. I am sure they can do
without the 180,000 profit I have made ( 60,000 investment now worth
between 200,000 and 300,000).

Instead I will invest it to support the UK property market, and
provide much needed rental accommodation, in Inner London, to give
those people too poor to buy their own homes, a place to live.

So I was right you are a capitalist planning to become bloodsucking
landlord scum, not very left wing right on is it?

Wrong. I am not planning on changing my status at all. I will simply
be extending to the work I already do proving affordable high quality
accommodation for those who prefer to rent rather than buy.

So you are already a capitalist bloodsucker, exhorting rent from the
poor. Do you select tenants who are able to claim housing benefit? The
rent we are all contributing is that going towards your pension fund?

No. The state should provides for DHSS tenants, so they have no need
for my affordable high quality accommodation.

I try to target DINKYs.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 4:16*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.

And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.

Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?

And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall Tunnel
Approach Road.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall Tunnel
Approach Road.

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable definition.

My "chums" in Greenwich Cyclists, who I was supposing NM was referring
to, live all over the Royal Borough.

Now I know that he was only referring to the area you defined.

On 30/07/2012 21:47, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall Tunnel
Approach Road.

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable definition.

My "chums" in Greenwich Cyclists, who I was supposing NM was referring
to, live all over the Royal Borough.

Now I know that he was only referring to the area you defined.


Is it not the case that only true "royal" bit in that area is Eltham
which, with its royal palace often graces itself with the title of
"Royal Eltham"?

--
Moving things in still pictures

On Jul 30, 9:22*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 4:16*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.

And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.

Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?

And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

My old postal address was SE8, 200 yards up the road was SE10
(Greenwich) had my house been in SE10 it's value would have been
approaching double.

On 30/07/2012 21:53, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 30/07/2012 21:47, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall Tunnel
Approach Road.

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable definition.

My "chums" in Greenwich Cyclists, who I was supposing NM was referring
to, live all over the Royal Borough.

Now I know that he was only referring to the area you defined.


Is it not the case that only true "royal" bit in that area is Eltham which,
with its royal palace often graces itself with the title of "Royal Eltham"?

There was a palace at Greenwich itself (where the Royal Naval College now is)
in Tudor times. It was a principal residence of Elizabeth I.

Interestingly, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Placentia
refers to it as the "Palace of Placentia" ("Pleasure").

I had *wondered* where the city of Placentia (Orange County, California) got
its name. And now I know.

On 30/07/2012 22:03, JNugent wrote:
On 30/07/2012 21:53, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 30/07/2012 21:47, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been
since 2
February
2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire
borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I
accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal
district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know
that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between
modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of
the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or
that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if
you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must
mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or
Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north
of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall
Tunnel
Approach Road.

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable definition.

My "chums" in Greenwich Cyclists, who I was supposing NM was referring
to, live all over the Royal Borough.

Now I know that he was only referring to the area you defined.


Is it not the case that only true "royal" bit in that area is Eltham
which,
with its royal palace often graces itself with the title of "Royal
Eltham"?

There was a palace at Greenwich itself (where the Royal Naval College
now is) in Tudor times. It was a principal residence of Elizabeth I.

Interestingly, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Placentia refers to it as the
"Palace of Placentia" ("Pleasure").

I had *wondered* where the city of Placentia (Orange County, California)
got its name. And now I know.

Thanks for that snippet.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:53:07 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:47, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/07/2012 21:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
NM wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059
Do keep up!

[ ... ]

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.
I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

Just trying to be clear.
And for the record, most of my "chums" who live in the Royal Borough,
live outside the SE10 postal district, including a "chum" who lives in
the Deptford postal district but within the Royal Borough.
Would you count that as Greenwich, Lewisham or Deptford?
And Lee, my postal district, is in Lewisham, Royal Greenwich and
Bromley.

It's just a confusing aspect of the unintended interface between modern (or
perhaps "current") local government and the internal operations of the Post
Office.

The PO is autonomous in how it sets postal districts and this or that London
postal district has no necessary meaning in terms of local government
boundaries. Don't expect it to make sense.

Separately, if you ask the average Londoner what you (must) mean if you say
that you live in Greenwich, you are unlikely to be told that it must mean you
live in Woolwich, Eltham, (the north side of) Blackheath or Charlton. They'll
probably assume you mean Greenwich. That is, the area roughly north of the
A2, south of the river, east of the creek and west of the Blackwall Tunnel
Approach Road.

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable definition.

My "chums" in Greenwich Cyclists, who I was supposing NM was referring
to, live all over the Royal Borough.

Now I know that he was only referring to the area you defined.


Is it not the case that only true "royal" bit in that area is Eltham
which, with its royal palace often graces itself with the title of
"Royal Eltham"?

Eltham is outside the area Nugent defined; the palace has a celebrated
its septcentenary and has been a home for many kings and queens.