From: Jim Ley on
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:49:01 +0100, The Reid
<dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:

>Following up to Carole Allen
>
>>But he has that watch he can program to the nano-second.
>
>lots of Londoners have fancy watches, total waste of money IMHO.

They do? It's getting near impossible to find anyone with a watch
these days, it's another thing the mobile phone has killed.

Jim.
From: Mxsmanic on
Jim Ley writes:

> It's getting near impossible to find anyone with a watch
> these days, it's another thing the mobile phone has killed.

I'm not sure I see the connection. How have mobile phones killed
watches?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: des small on
[froups trimmed]

"Sarah Banick" <sbanick(a)mindspring.com> writes:

> No, but this is the comment I was responding to:
>
> "Your question is nonsensical. The fact that Europe is Balkanized means
> that a trip in Europe that is "abroad" and requires a passport would be
> a domestic trip in the US.
>
> Instead try asking how many people in the US travel away from home and
> how far the typical trip is and compare with Europe. You'll find that
> Americans travel more.
>
> A trip from Amsterdam to Brussels means, what, a 2 hour train ride?

And, of course, requires no passport. I just drove from Groningen in
the Netherlands through Germany to Danmark - a trip of several hours -
without ever showing my passport.

> And you can call it "travelling abroad" while a trip from California
> to New York by train takes several days and is equivalent to and
> Ireland to Greece trip.)"

This is an equivalence other than in terms of the convenience of doing
it by train, for sure. You could do Portugal to Norway by train without
leaving the Schengen area, if you happened to be a loony.

Des
From: barney2 on
In article <vo7ud25icnsimr6v0ntoj7g5gs2blfunis(a)4ax.com>,
mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote:

> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> *Date:* Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:46:43 +0200
>
> Jim Ley writes:
>
> > It's getting near impossible to find anyone with a watch
> > these days, it's another thing the mobile phone has killed.
>
> I'm not sure I see the connection. How have mobile phones killed
> watches?

Because mobile phones mostly display the time, so if one is carrying a
mobile phone it is not necessary to wear a watch.
From: Jim Ley on
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:46:43 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>Jim Ley writes:
>
>> It's getting near impossible to find anyone with a watch
>> these days, it's another thing the mobile phone has killed.
>
>I'm not sure I see the connection. How have mobile phones killed
>watches?

because it's a device you carry with you that tells you the time,
exactly the function of a watch, so you could carry 2 devices, or you
could just carry one, most people choose to just carry 1 IME.

Jim.