From: JNugent on 24 May 2010 09:23 ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>>> but that defeats the object if 11.30 represents leaving a pub. >>>> Does it? >>> yes. >> I don't understand. I often leave pubs and drive home at that time or later. > I think you do. Please be clear. What rule prevents one from driving after leaving a pub at 23:30? There's certainly a "rule" which prevents me taking a train home at that time of night. Still less a bus at the other end.
From: JNugent on 24 May 2010 10:17 ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> I don't understand. I often leave pubs and drive home at that time or later. >>> I think you do. >> Please be clear. >> What rule prevents one from driving after leaving a pub at 23:30? > there is no rule unless you do what most people do in pubs. It's to do > with them being licensed premises. Is drinking (to excess) compulsory?
From: JNugent on 24 May 2010 11:13 ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:17:28 +0100, JNugent > <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >>> there is no rule unless you do what most people do in pubs. It's to do >>> with them being licensed premises. >> Is drinking (to excess) compulsory? > > drinking beyond the driving limit is very common when you stay in a > pub till closing time. But certainly not inevitable. And what if you only go in at 22:35? The pub isn't the only source of public entertainment, is it?
From: JNugent on 25 May 2010 10:03
mileburner wrote: > "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3gmkv5ph90c6nagheusfpieptdrqn5ktah(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:45:30 +0100, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> SWMBO has turned down plenty of temp work where she would "have" >>>>>> to drive, >>>> So you accept to do those jobs you have to drive. Progress! >>>> -- >>> Not true. It depends on where the person doing the job lives. They might >>> live within walking distance. >> this was a specific instance, his wife would "have" to drive. > > Yes "have" to because... > > She does not do PT. What's wrong with that? > Will only walk short distances. Who - on a journey to daily work - can walk more than a "short" distance (a few miles at most)? > Does not cycle. > She is too mean to pay for taxis. How much is a typical taxi fare for (say) five miles? How much is that, when multiplied by ten? > Therefore she would "have" to drive. Given certain reasonably-inferred a priori conditions, what's wrong with the logic of that? |