On 28/01/2024 22:24, Clive Page wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> If only someone had invented search engines.
>
> If only someone had invented search engines where the results weren't
> polluted by paid-for advertising, like Google used to be 15 years ago.

DuckDuckGo is less bad than most, though you may still need an ad
blocker to remove the "shopping" section from the top.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <plotN.55135$5Hnd.5045@fx03.iad>, at 08:35:33 on Sun, 28 Jan
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <aQdtN.131213$q3F7.67026@fx45.iad>, at 20:37:26 on Sat, 27
>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <Uv5tN.356660$p%Mb.353663@fx15.iad>, at 11:09:40 on Sat, 27
>>>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. The map specifically does not include the DART to Luton Airport. I
>>>>>>> gather that this now does allow travel using contactless bank cards, so
>>>>>>> that also seems a very odd omission. Especially as Gatwick is on the map
>>>>>>> (but that area has pink cross-hatching, which isn't explained anywhere).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it may be that Gatwick is a curious (literal) edge case. You can
>>>>>> use contactless on any service to London, but Oyster is only usable on
>>>>>> GatEx, with a high fare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't you be resigned to paying this alleged higher fare and use any
>>>>> service?
>>>>
>>>> No, that would like trying to use Oyster to Stansted.
>>>
>>> Stansted doesn't have Oyster pads, but for example City Thameslink does.
>>
>> City Thameslink is within the Oyster zones.
>
> Another aphorism. Gets us no closer to understanding if you think
> Gatwick-City_Thameslink is allowed on Oyster. And if not, why.
>
> Last time I looked, City Thameslink wasn't served by Gatwick Express
> (which is why I chose it, the name "Thameslink" being a clue).
>
>>>> It's not a legal way of paying the fare, so you'd be penalised.
>>>
>>> Opinion seems to vary on this, so please provide a useful cite, not
>>> aphorisms.
>>
>> It's fact, not opinion, that Gatwick is outside the Oyster zones, just like
>> Luton and Reading. So why would you expect Oyster to work in one of those,
>> but not the other two?
>>
>> https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/7wGQdIQpJhexRBkxz1qLK4/e4
>> 3cd0a5440959f31b4aada32aa17d0c/London_Rail_Tube_Map_May_2023.pdf
>>
>> As the map says, Gatwick is outside the fare zones, so Oyster is not valid.
>
> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.

By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?

It's why Gatwick is a curious edge case that requires pink cross-hatching.

>
> Please please, please please, explain this conundrum.

Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
to you.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <plotN.55135$5Hnd.5045@fx03.iad>, at 08:35:33 on Sun, 28 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <aQdtN.131213$q3F7.67026@fx45.iad>, at 20:37:26 on Sat, 27
>>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <Uv5tN.356660$p%Mb.353663@fx15.iad>, at 11:09:40 on Sat, 27
>>>>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6. The map specifically does not include the DART to Luton Airport. I
>>>>>>>> gather that this now does allow travel using contactless bank cards, so
>>>>>>>> that also seems a very odd omission. Especially as Gatwick is on the map
>>>>>>>> (but that area has pink cross-hatching, which isn't explained anywhere).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it may be that Gatwick is a curious (literal) edge case. You can
>>>>>>> use contactless on any service to London, but Oyster is only usable on
>>>>>>> GatEx, with a high fare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Couldn't you be resigned to paying this alleged higher fare and use any
>>>>>> service?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that would like trying to use Oyster to Stansted.
>>>>
>>>> Stansted doesn't have Oyster pads, but for example City Thameslink does.
>>>
>>> City Thameslink is within the Oyster zones.
>>
>> Another aphorism. Gets us no closer to understanding if you think
>> Gatwick-City_Thameslink is allowed on Oyster. And if not, why.
>>
>> Last time I looked, City Thameslink wasn't served by Gatwick Express
>> (which is why I chose it, the name "Thameslink" being a clue).
>>
>>>>> It's not a legal way of paying the fare, so you'd be penalised.
>>>>
>>>> Opinion seems to vary on this, so please provide a useful cite, not
>>>> aphorisms.
>>>
>>> It's fact, not opinion, that Gatwick is outside the Oyster zones, just like
>>> Luton and Reading. So why would you expect Oyster to work in one of those,
>>> but not the other two?
>>>
>>> https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/7wGQdIQpJhexRBkxz1qLK4/e4
>>> 3cd0a5440959f31b4aada32aa17d0c/London_Rail_Tube_Map_May_2023.pdf
>>>
>>> As the map says, Gatwick is outside the fare zones, so Oyster is not valid.
>>
>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>
> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>
> It's why Gatwick is a curious edge case that requires pink cross-hatching.
>
>>
>> Please please, please please, explain this conundrum.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
> to you.
>
>

Oyster and Gatwick could possibly be a module in a degree course. See here

https://oysterfares.com/oyster-at-gatwick/

In message <feMtN.73792$c1y8.21054@fx15.ams1>, at 11:46:19 on Mon, 29
Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <plotN.55135$5Hnd.5045@fx03.iad>, at 08:35:33 on Sun, 28 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <aQdtN.131213$q3F7.67026@fx45.iad>, at 20:37:26 on Sat, 27
>>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <Uv5tN.356660$p%Mb.353663@fx15.iad>, at 11:09:40 on Sat, 27
>>>>>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6. The map specifically does not include the DART to Luton Airport. I
>>>>>>>> gather that this now does allow travel using contactless bank cards, so
>>>>>>>> that also seems a very odd omission. Especially as Gatwick is
>>>>>>>>on the map
>>>>>>>> (but that area has pink cross-hatching, which isn't explained
>>>>>>>>anywhere).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it may be that Gatwick is a curious (literal) edge case. You can
>>>>>>> use contactless on any service to London, but Oyster is only usable on
>>>>>>> GatEx, with a high fare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Couldn't you be resigned to paying this alleged higher fare and use any
>>>>>> service?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that would like trying to use Oyster to Stansted.
>>>>
>>>> Stansted doesn't have Oyster pads, but for example City Thameslink does.
>>>
>>> City Thameslink is within the Oyster zones.
>>
>> Another aphorism. Gets us no closer to understanding if you think
>> Gatwick-City_Thameslink is allowed on Oyster. And if not, why.
>>
>> Last time I looked, City Thameslink wasn't served by Gatwick Express
>> (which is why I chose it, the name "Thameslink" being a clue).
>>
>>>>> It's not a legal way of paying the fare, so you'd be penalised.
>>>>
>>>> Opinion seems to vary on this, so please provide a useful cite, not
>>>> aphorisms.
>>>
>>> It's fact, not opinion, that Gatwick is outside the Oyster zones, just like
>>> Luton and Reading. So why would you expect Oyster to work in one of those,
>>> but not the other two?
>>>
>>> https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/7wGQdIQpJhexRBkxz1qLK4/e4
>>> 3cd0a5440959f31b4aada32aa17d0c/London_Rail_Tube_Map_May_2023.pdf
>>>
>>> As the map says, Gatwick is outside the fare zones, so Oyster is not valid.
>>
>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>
>By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?

Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??

>It's why Gatwick is a curious edge case that requires pink cross-hatching.
>
>> Please please, please please, explain this conundrum.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
>to you.

I'll add it to the list of things you are clearly not equipped to
explain, but nevertheless feel the need to pontificate about in public.
--
Roland Perry

On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:

Learn to snip.

>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>
>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>
> Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??

Wrong. Again.
<https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>

>> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
>> to you.
>
> I'll add it to the list of things you are clearly not equipped to
> explain, but nevertheless feel the need to pontificate about in public.

Google three words, 'Oyster gatwick express' to show you are wrong.
Why do you continue to argue that you are right, when in 20 seconds it
can be proven you are wrong. Its a continuing theme, you state as fact,
your opinion, when it can clearly be shown it is not a fact. I see
you've been handed your arse on a plate in ULM, again, but you havent
followed up saying 'sorry, I must have got mixed up', which normal
people would do.

--

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:15:20 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
>> to you.
>>
>>
>
>Oyster and Gatwick could possibly be a module in a degree course. See here
>
>https://oysterfares.com/oyster-at-gatwick/

Uncapped unsurprisingly but then it is a long way out of town. No excuse
for the excess fare price on the Liz line to heathrow however. Whats the
point of having zones if TfL just tosses them out the window when it suits
them.

In message <upa9u5$tb0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:40 on Tue, 30 Jan
2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>Learn to snip.

I used to get criticised for snipping too much. Really hard to find the
right balance,= when there are so many armchair net-police around.

>>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>>
>>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?

>> Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??
>
>Wrong. Again.
><https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>

Hmm, they've gated the platforms at Victoria now, have they?

And of course that doesn't say Gatex is the *ONLY* service you can use
Oyster from London to Gatwick. So go get a cite (not from a random
blogger) for that, there's a dear.

>>> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many mysteries
>>> to you.

>> I'll add it to the list of things you are clearly not equipped to
>>explain, but nevertheless feel the need to pontificate about in public.
>
>Google three words, 'Oyster gatwick express' to show you are wrong.

Wrong about what: that you are recliner's sock-puppet, or she refuses to
spend those same 20 seconds to back up their pontifications?

>Why do you continue to argue that you are right, when in 20 seconds it
>can be proven you are wrong. Its a continuing theme, you state as fact,
>your opinion, when it can clearly be shown it is not a fact. I see
>you've been handed your arse on a plate in ULM, again, but you havent
>followed up saying 'sorry, I must have got mixed up', which normal
>people would do.

Which thread was that?
--
Roland Perry

On 30/01/2024 13:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <upa9u5$tb0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:40 on Tue, 30 Jan
> 2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>> On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:

>>>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>>>
>>>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>
>>>  Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??
>>
>> Wrong. Again.
>> <https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>
>
> Hmm, they've gated the platforms at Victoria now, have they?

WTF has that got to be with there being an Oyster tap in point at Victoria?

> And of course that doesn't say Gatex is the *ONLY* service you can use
> Oyster from London to Gatwick. So go get a cite (not from a random
> blogger) for that, there's a dear.

The link above is not some 'random blogger', it is the official Gatwick
Express site, which specifically says Oyster is valid at Gatwick, which
you have now said multpile times, it isnt valid.
Are you being deliberately thick? Who mentioned any other service?
Gatwick Express is the service you said did not take Oyster, but you
still wont admit you are wrong, you're trying to say its another service
you were referring too, yet, it isnt.
And to confirm, here is the GX webpage about paying with Oyster:
<https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless/oyster>

I'd say that was pretty conclusive that you are wrong about GX not
accpeting Oyster. Though no doubt, you'll try to twist it again.

>
>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many
>>>> mysteries
>>>> to you.
>
>>>  I'll add it to the list of things you are clearly not equipped to
>>> explain, but nevertheless feel the need to pontificate about in public.
>>
>> Google three words, 'Oyster gatwick express' to show you are wrong.
>
> Wrong about what: that you are recliner's sock-puppet, or she refuses to
> spend those same 20 seconds to back up their pontifications?

It is clearly pointed out to you, in the link above, and a quick google
shows that you are wrong, yet you still insist you are right. It's time
for you to say, yes, actually, I didnt know that was valid, thanks for
pointing it out.

>> see you've been handed your arse on a plate in ULM, again, but you
>> havent followed up saying 'sorry, I must have got mixed up', which
>> normal people would do.
>
> Which thread was that?

Quoted below.

> On 29/01/2024 09:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:45:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong wrong wrong, again again again. A big part of the problem is that
>>> if people have called 999 to get an ambulance and it's eventually turned
>>> up (figures of 11hrs were quoted over New Year) many (most?) trusts have
>>> a policy that if the patient doesn't rescind the so-called emergency
>>> when they arrive, they MUST take them to hospital.
>>
>> You seem remarkably certain of something of which you are, in fact,
>> incorrect. It is absolutely not true that an ambulance *must* take a patient
>> to hospital. Far from it. A significant proportion of callouts result in
>> treatment at the scene without being taken to hospital. You will recall I
>> mentioned an FOI request for my local ambulance service's call log, which
>> included a column for "treatment type". This is the statistical summary of
>> different treatment types from the data I was given:

snipped figures to back up the reply.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:34:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <upa9u5$tb0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:40 on Tue, 30 Jan
>2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>>On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>Learn to snip.
>
>I used to get criticised for snipping too much. Really hard to find the
>right balance,= when there are so many armchair net-police around.
>
>>>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>>>
>>>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>
>>> Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??
>>
>>Wrong. Again.
>><https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>
>
>Hmm, they've gated the platforms at Victoria now, have they?
>
>And of course that doesn't say Gatex is the *ONLY* service you can use
>Oyster from London to Gatwick. So go get a cite (not from a random
>blogger) for that, there's a dear.
>

We're in danger of going round in circles but Southern seem to think
you can travel to Gatwick on Oyster on their trains.

https://www.southernrailway.com/tickets-and-payment-methods/ways-to-pay/oyster

TfL give an Oyster AYG fare to Gatwick (£9.50/£17.50) which is not
valid on Gatwick Express.

Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:34:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <upa9u5$tb0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:40 on Tue, 30 Jan
>> 2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>>> On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Learn to snip.
>>
>> I used to get criticised for snipping too much. Really hard to find the
>> right balance,= when there are so many armchair net-police around.
>>
>>>>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>>>>
>>>>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>>
>>>> Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??
>>>
>>> Wrong. Again.
>>> <https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>
>>
>> Hmm, they've gated the platforms at Victoria now, have they?
>>
>> And of course that doesn't say Gatex is the *ONLY* service you can use
>> Oyster from London to Gatwick. So go get a cite (not from a random
>> blogger) for that, there's a dear.
>>
>
> We're in danger of going round in circles but Southern seem to think
> you can travel to Gatwick on Oyster on their trains.
>
>
> https://www.southernrailway.com/tickets-and-payment-methods/ways-to-pay/oyster
>
> TfL give an Oyster AYG fare to Gatwick (£9.50/£17.50) which is not
> valid on Gatwick Express.
>

As best I can tell, what opened is:

1. GatEx did a deal with TfL for its fares to be chargeable to Oyster at a
slight discount. At this stage. Oyster wasn't available on SN or TL at
Gatwick.

2. TfL's contactless PaYGo was subsequently extended to Gatwick at nirmal
prices, and became available on all services, but with the charge on GatEx
being the same as the existing, higher Oyster fare on GatEx. This higher
fare is charged if gates 13/14 are used at Victoria.

3. As Oyster was already available, and worked the gates, at both Victoria
and GatEx, there needed to be an Oyster fare between the two for SN
services, so it's the same as the PaYGo contactless fare. But it's a
special, beyond-the-zones fare that demands a higher balance on the card,
and isn't included in caps.

In message <upb0bi$10vi3$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:16:18 on Tue, 30 Jan
2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>On 30/01/2024 13:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <upa9u5$tb0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:40 on Tue, 30 Jan
>>2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>>> On 30/01/2024 04:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>>>> And yet you have claimed Oyster is valid on Gatwick Express.
>>>>>
>>>>> By 'claimed', you mean I pointed out the fact?
>>
>>>>  Yes, but based on what evidence. Voices in your head??
>>>
>>> Wrong. Again.

>>> <https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactless>
>> Hmm, they've gated the platforms at Victoria now, have they?
>
>WTF has that got to be with there being an Oyster tap in point at Victoria?
>
>> And of course that doesn't say Gatex is the *ONLY* service you can
>>use Oyster from London to Gatwick. So go get a cite (not from a
>>random blogger) for that, there's a dear.
>
>The link above is not some 'random blogger',

Other cites have been.

>it is the official Gatwick Express site, which specifically says Oyster
>is valid at Gatwick, which you have now said multpile times, it isnt
>valid.

Absolute complete opposite. What I've been asking for is evidence it's
***THE ONLY*** service Oyster is valid on.

>Are you being deliberately thick? Who mentioned any other service?

I did.

>Gatwick Express is the service you said did not take Oyster, but you
>still wont admit you are wrong, you're trying to say its another
>service you were referring too, yet, it isnt.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

>And to confirm, here is the GX webpage about paying with Oyster:
><https://www.gatwickexpress.com/tickets/buy-tickets/oyster-and-contactle
>ss/oyster>
>
>I'd say that was pretty conclusive that you are wrong about GX not
>accpeting Oyster. Though no doubt, you'll try to twist it again.

Bloody Hell. You are at least persistent.

>>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain all the world's many
>>>>>mysteries
>>>>> to you.
>>
>>>>  I'll add it to the list of things you are clearly not equipped to
>>>>explain, but nevertheless feel the need to pontificate about in public.
>>>
>>> Google three words, 'Oyster gatwick express' to show you are wrong.

>> Wrong about what: that you are recliner's sock-puppet, or she
>>refuses to spend those same 20 seconds to back up their pontifications?
>
>It is clearly pointed out to you, in the link above, and a quick google
>shows that you are wrong, yet you still insist you are right. It's time
>for you to say, yes, actually, I didnt know that was valid, thanks for
>pointing it out.

See above.

>>> see you've been handed your arse on a plate in ULM, again, but you
>>>havent followed up saying 'sorry, I must have got mixed up', which
>>>normal people would do.

>> Which thread was that?
>
>Quoted below.
>
>> On 29/01/2024 09:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:45:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wrong wrong wrong, again again again. A big part of the problem is
>>>>that if people have called 999 to get an ambulance and it's
>>>>eventually turned up (figures of 11hrs were quoted over New Year)
>>>>many (most?) trusts have a policy that if the patient doesn't
>>>>rescind the so-called emergency when they arrive, they MUST take them to hospital.

Apart from the fact that's the official policy in most places?

>>> You seem remarkably certain of something of which you are, in fact,
>>> incorrect. It is absolutely not true that an ambulance *must* take a patient
>>> to hospital. Far from it. A significant proportion of callouts result in
>>> treatment at the scene without being taken to hospital.

Which bit of "if the patient doesn't rescind the so-called emergency"
don't you understand?

>>>You will recall I mentioned an FOI request for my local ambulance
>>>service's call log, which included a column for "treatment type".
>>>This is the statistical summary of different treatment types from
>>>the data I was given:
>
>snipped figures to back up the reply.

You've become incoherent now.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:24:09 +0000, Clive Page wrote:

> On 28/01/2024 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> If only someone had invented search engines.
>
> If only someone had invented search engines where the results weren't
> polluted by paid-for advertising, like Google used to be 15 years ago.

I use a search engine which I pay for (crazy but true!) https://kagi.com

Whether their business model is sustainable in the face of advertising-
funded competition I'm not really sure, but in the meantime I am pretty
happy with it.