Meep wrote:
This doesnt bother me in that the Crossrail was a waste of money. Stevenson has done the right thing here. Stevenson needs to focus on getting Glasgow a subway system fit for the 22nd century.

The Missing City wrote:
SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!

Would that be the St. Enoch station that was closed as a result of the Beeching cuts approved by a Conservative government?

phil wrote:
How would this Crossrail thing have worked?

colmaclean wrote:
The rationale for Crossrail seemed to be to allow people from Kilmarnock to travel direct to Queen Street (low level) or onwards to Edinburgh. This would avoid them the chore of walking between Central Station and Queen Street. In practice, would this result in at least two different Glasgow-bound train services from Kilmarnock with an increasingly-confusi ng number of destinations? Who knows!

How can a huge motorway justify itself to bring economic benefits to the city, but a rail link can't?

Can anybody answer that?

The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station

Brad wrote:
Crossrail would have brought more disbenefits than benefits.

How can a huge motorway justify itself to bring economic benefits to the city, but a rail link can't? Can anybody answer that?

Yes, roads usually have a better benefit:cost ratio than rail projects, which are used by relatively few people and usually require endless operating subsidies. Only 5-ish% of people commute to work in Glasgow by train.

The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station

You'd have left it standing empty for 50 years during most of which everyone thought that UK railways were in terminal decline? It's easy to be wise in hindsight.

colmaclean wrote:
City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Is there any clear direction here?

Brad wrote:

Is there any clear direction here?

There are several clear directions, not necessarily in the same direction! Economic growth and environmental sustainability are difficult to reconcile at the moment - they may become more amenable in the future. Let's hope so.

There must be another more centralised method of linking Glasgow two rail transport hubs.

Brad wrote:

There must be another more centralised method of linking Glasgow two rail transport hubs.

A big, feck-aff tunnel would be good.

colmaclean wrote:

Brad wrote:

There must be another more centralised method of linking Glasgow two rail transport hubs.

A big, feck-aff tunnel would be good.

Now there's an idea. Add a couple of moving walkways and we have a winner. We could even use carthorses to power the walkways, just for some people's amusement.

colmaclean wrote:
The rationale for Crossrail seemed to be to allow people from Kilmarnock to travel direct to Queen Street (low level) or onwards to Edinburgh. This would avoid them the chore of walking between Central Station and Queen Street. In practice, would this result in at least two different Glasgow-bound train services from Kilmarnock with an increasingly-confusi ng number of destinations? Who knows!

colmaclean wrote:
The rationale for Crossrail seemed to be to allow people from Kilmarnock to travel direct to Queen Street (low level) or onwards to Edinburgh. This would avoid them the chore of walking between Central Station and Queen Street. In practice, would this result in at least two different Glasgow-bound train services from Kilmarnock with an increasingly-confusi ng number of destinations? Who knows!

tell us something to make them look good at
the time. Then cancel at a later date.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!

Would that be the St. Enoch station that was closed as a result of the Beeching cuts approved by a Conservative government?

Err naw, the station lay redundant for the best part of 10 years, the conservatives never dispoed of the infrastructure they only closed the line smart arse, that was up to Glasgow and those in control here did it so well with the crack cocaine addict centre we have on show and is now being extended to cater for more addicts - but even so, it goes to show what Westminster thought of us then and I doubt that has changed very much, but there will be those in their gimp suits asking for more whilst flying their wee Union flag Anything else you want to dig at?

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!

Would that be the St. Enoch station that was closed as a result of the Beeching cuts approved by a Conservative government?

Err naw, the station lay redundant for the best part of 10 years, the conservatives never dispoed of the infrastructure they only closed the line smart arse, that was up to Glasgow and those in control here did it so well with the crack cocaine addict centre we have on show and is now being extended to cater for more addicts - but even so, it goes to show what Westminster thought of us then and I doubt that has changed very much, but there will be those in their gimp suits asking for more whilst flying their wee Union flag Anything else you want to dig at?

Nice to see your restrained reaction to someone pointing out a mere fact - try to refrain from juvenile abuse. As I said, it was closed as a result of Conservative cuts. What would be the point of the station after the line was closed? Doesn't matter who eventually pulled it down, the decision to get rid of the station as a station (which is, after all, the point of this story) was not Labour's, even if that doesn't fit your narrow agenda.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Oh, yeah - let's all use our cars. That would be really good for the environment, wouldn't it? The point of reopening the Bathgate line is to reduce car journeys on the M8 and to take pressure of the overcrowded Glasgow-Falkirk-Edin burgh line. The Shotts line is not a viable alternative for anyone who wants to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Going to either of the other two lines would usually mean dependence on cars, which we should be trying to reduce. Try sticking to the facts and not being so rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Brad wrote:
St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

a throughly discredited SPT

Brad wrote:
St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!

Would that be the St. Enoch station that was closed as a result of the Beeching cuts approved by a Conservative government?

Err naw, the station lay redundant for the best part of 10 years, the conservatives never dispoed of the infrastructure they only closed the line smart arse, that was up to Glasgow and those in control here did it so well with the crack cocaine addict centre we have on show and is now being extended to cater for more addicts - but even so, it goes to show what Westminster thought of us then and I doubt that has changed very much, but there will be those in their gimp suits asking for more whilst flying their wee Union flag Anything else you want to dig at?

Nice to see your restrained reaction to someone pointing out a mere fact - try to refrain from juvenile abuse. As I said, it was closed as a result of Conservative cuts. What would be the point of the station after the line was closed? Doesn't matter who eventually pulled it down, the decision to get rid of the station as a station (which is, after all, the point of this story) was not Labour's, even if that doesn't fit your narrow agenda.

My narrow agenda?? hey, you were the one being cocky - they are the one's who are stuck with a problem which you don't seem to see. SPT chair Alistair Watson said: "The proposal to build a third station in central Glasgow would almost certainly have to be underground, is hugely ambitious and would cost billions. What would be the point of the station after the line was closed? The line is still there, just no station or associated lines from the actual main line itself after it was wiped in the late 70's - We as people living in a joke of a city just have to live with it! That was my point - they were good enough at wanting to dispose of the thing and now after 30 years after it was demolished, they are now squealing for a train station in Glasgow to feed the regeneration malarkey as well as the incoming boom of trade and the shoppers - so they are only there to be laughed at.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Oh, yeah - let's all use our cars. That would be really good for the environment, wouldn't it? The point of reopening the Bathgate line is to reduce car journeys on the M8 and to take pressure of the overcrowded Glasgow-Falkirk-Edin burgh line. The Shotts line is not a viable alternative for anyone who wants to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Going to either of the other two lines would usually mean dependence on cars, which we should be trying to reduce. Try sticking to the facts and not being so rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

If you cared to read properly - I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree that public transport was good for moving people about the country! You'll need to try harder Scott

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Oh, yeah - let's all use our cars. That would be really good for the environment, wouldn't it? The point of reopening the Bathgate line is to reduce car journeys on the M8 and to take pressure of the overcrowded Glasgow-Falkirk-Edin burgh line. The Shotts line is not a viable alternative for anyone who wants to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Going to either of the other two lines would usually mean dependence on cars, which we should be trying to reduce. Try sticking to the facts and not being so rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

If you cared to read properly - I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree that public transport was good for moving people about the country! You'll need to try harder Scott

It's difficult from your post to know when the abuse and sarcasm ends and the real point starts. Maybe you should try harder.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future. And what you going to do about it if I don't? Not my fault other people's imagination was **** poor - but people are still living in the past as we have people getting excited about glass boxes that are on a par with crap built in the 60's, so there. If you bothered to scan the hotel story, you will have noticed that I am in favour of new buildings (Not being forced or bullied into having my own opinion) you may have other thoughts as well as some **** posters on here, who believe otherwise.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

And maybe it was a car park because some muppets thought the car was the daddy - now people are being screwed because they use a car - HOW IRONIC!

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

And maybe it was a car park because some muppets thought the car was the daddy - now people are being screwed because they use a car - HOW IRONIC!

Yeah - times, circumstances, facts and opinions change. Some people move with the times, some continue to jark back to the past.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future. And what you going to do about it if I don't? Not my fault other people's imagination was **** poor - but people are still living in the past as we have people getting excited about glass boxes that are on a par with crap built in the 60's, so there. If you bothered to scan the hotel story, you will have noticed that I am in favour of new buildings (Not being forced or bullied into having my own opinion) you may have other thoughts as well as some **** posters on here, who believe otherwise.

I'm not going to do anything about it - it was merely a suggestion. I will continue to focus on facts and leave the sarcasm, abuse and disrespect to you. And before you react to what you think my views on new buildings might be, you're wrong AGAIN.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Oh, yeah - let's all use our cars. That would be really good for the environment, wouldn't it? The point of reopening the Bathgate line is to reduce car journeys on the M8 and to take pressure of the overcrowded Glasgow-Falkirk-Edin burgh line. The Shotts line is not a viable alternative for anyone who wants to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Going to either of the other two lines would usually mean dependence on cars, which we should be trying to reduce. Try sticking to the facts and not being so rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

If you cared to read properly - I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree that public transport was good for moving people about the country! You'll need to try harder Scott

It's difficult from your post to know when the abuse and sarcasm ends and the real point starts. Maybe you should try harder.

some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart. Nothing abusive there Scott - checked it twice, compared to your posts, I would say it was a valid point - have to repeat myself because you refuse to read or again, you're trying to be cocky - but this guy has an inferiority to railways or public transport in general, so I thought I would comment sarcastically to his claims as I said previously. Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future. And what you going to do about it if I don't? Not my fault other people's imagination was **** poor - but people are still living in the past as we have people getting excited about glass boxes that are on a par with crap built in the 60's, so there. If you bothered to scan the hotel story, you will have noticed that I am in favour of new buildings (Not being forced or bullied into having my own opinion) you may have other thoughts as well as some **** posters on here, who believe otherwise.

I'm not going to do anything about it - it was merely a suggestion. I will continue to focus on facts and leave the sarcasm, abuse and disrespect to you. And before you react to what you think my views on new buildings might be, you're wrong AGAIN.

And before you react to what you think my views on new buildings might be, you're wrong AGAIN. Well don't encourage those to come out with such opinion and you won't hear any views according to such, clearly there is a squabble with political parties and their predecessors were quick to dispose of it - much like has been the case across Glasgow - do I tell lies or offer misguidance - all those books and photographs must be telling me lies. As for the claim you made I will continue to focus on facts and leave the sarcasm, abuse and disrespect to you. You're obviusly doing the same thing yourself.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. It could have been Glasgow's Liverpool St - a Train Station and lots of shopping in one go - no vision. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so. I can understand yur point as there is not much of Glasgow left as that attitude to the city has been the norm for many decades now - I'm surprised the whole place hasn't been flattened!

Here we go again - "they've flattened Glasgow ", but with the benefit of hindsight you knew better, eh? What point would there have been in having a station when there was no demand for it, and no lines running into it? It stood for 11 years after closure and the only use anyone could think of for it was a car park -ironic, eh? Still, if it hadn't been demolished we wouldn't have the SECC. Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future.

Maybe you should stop wishing the past was different and deal with the present and future. And what you going to do about it if I don't? Not my fault other people's imagination was **** poor - but people are still living in the past as we have people getting excited about glass boxes that are on a par with crap built in the 60's, so there. If you bothered to scan the hotel story, you will have noticed that I am in favour of new buildings (Not being forced or bullied into having my own opinion) you may have other thoughts as well as some **** posters on here, who believe otherwise.

I'm not going to do anything about it - it was merely a suggestion. I will continue to focus on facts and leave the sarcasm, abuse and disrespect to you. And before you react to what you think my views on new buildings might be, you're wrong AGAIN.

And before you react to what you think my views on new buildings might be, you're wrong AGAIN. Well don't encourage those to come out with such opinion and you won't hear any views according to such, clearly there is a squabble with political parties and their predecessors were quick to dispose of it - much like has been the case across Glasgow - do I tell lies or offer misguidance - all those books and photographs must be telling me lies. As for the claim you made I will continue to focus on facts and leave the sarcasm, abuse and disrespect to you. You're obviusly doing the same thing yourself.

Brad Hater wrote:

Brad wrote: St Enoch was closed and much later demolished in an era of decades of declining rail use. No-one foresaw the recent resurgence of the railways, and it is not clear that it could have been the solution to the problem anyway. The cost of maintaining a redundant asset for decades, and for foregoing the benefits that have otherwise accrued, would likely far exceed £3bn. Demolition was the right thing to do at the time, and even with the benefit of hindsight, may still be so.

Aye, so demolishing a magnificent piece of the city's industrial and architectural heritage and replacing it with an over-sized greenhouse full of shops retailing tat was the right thing to do? Compare St Enoch Square prior to the demolition of the hotel and station to today - I know which I prefer.

The Missing City wrote:
According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

The Missing City wrote:
According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: City wrote: Nothing for people from the North of Scotland with people being able to commute with the South West and the super duper Glasgow Airport then? Why does everybody act like they live in a goldfish bowl and not think of the bigger picture? - this is a good thing, I think people are allergic to Crossrail. We've known for a few years that the GARL will run to Central Station. Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? It all sounds very impractical.

Are you proposing trains direct from Aberdeen/Inverness to Central Station via Crossrail or would a change be required at Queens Street onto the low-level line and then a journey on Crossrail to Glasgow Central? Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up Why anybody would want to re-open a train line to do that? If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors, those trains can be scary running on rails and not knowing where you're going to end up. There's been enough material published about this project over the years, obviously some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart.

Oh, yeah - let's all use our cars. That would be really good for the environment, wouldn't it? The point of reopening the Bathgate line is to reduce car journeys on the M8 and to take pressure of the overcrowded Glasgow-Falkirk-Edin burgh line. The Shotts line is not a viable alternative for anyone who wants to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Going to either of the other two lines would usually mean dependence on cars, which we should be trying to reduce. Try sticking to the facts and not being so rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

If you cared to read properly - I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree that public transport was good for moving people about the country! You'll need to try harder Scott

It's difficult from your post to know when the abuse and sarcasm ends and the real point starts. Maybe you should try harder.

some people just make up their own assessments without having looked at the possible opportunities and therefore have nothing valid to offer comment-wise as a result. I find it puzzling as to why they can open up a line from Larkhall to Hamilton - can these people not use a bus or get a lift? People living around the North Lanarkshire/West Lothian area between Airdrie and Bathgate - why can these people not use a bus or use the other two lines that are available between Edinburgh or Glasgow, does nobody in this area have cars? Maybe we should all go back to using horse and cart. Nothing abusive there Scott - checked it twice, compared to your posts, I would say it was a valid point - have to repeat myself because you refuse to read or again, you're trying to be cocky - but this guy has an inferiority to railways or public transport in general, so I thought I would comment sarcastically to his claims as I said previously. Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to.

"the impracticalities you made up"...."if that's the best your head can offer you might as well stay indoors"....not exactly respectful, is it? How can someone "have an inferiority" to railways or public transport? Sorry if the opinions on this forum don't match yours, but that's what discussion and debate are about. Maybe you could make your points a bit more clearly. If you can't cope with someone disagreeing with you, or pointing out relevant facts, without stooping so low as to make suggestions about mental handicap, then maybe this grown-up environment is not for you.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Inaccuracies, misrepresentations, ignoring the facts and failing to respond to request for clarification - seemingly typical of you, unfortunately. Nice to see you admit the sacrcasm, though....

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Inaccuracies, misrepresentations, ignoring the facts and failing to respond to request for clarification - seemingly typical of you, unfortunately. Nice to see you admit the sacrcasm, though....

Nothing is typical of me either - don't assume you know me when clearly you don't. I told you yesterday I was being sarcastic in response to another poster - this is like educating Retard - I'm losing count of how many times I've said this to you.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Another example of going out your way to be a deliberate tit. Only responding to your numpty statements

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Another example of going out your way to be a deliberate tit. Only responding to your numpty statements

Oh "deliberate tit" - still not getting abusive, are you? See the forum rules below - "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory."

Scott wrote:
What the f*** is a pedastool!! Anyway, prior to that, you couldn't deal with me pointing out a fact to you without thrwoing your toys out and getting het up about it, so don't make out you're perfect. If you can't deal with differing opinions and stick to facts without getting abusive, that's your problem. And who's the one making the rules when you accuse me of joining the debate half way through, even though I was only 30 minutes after you - is there a time limit that you impose? Sorry, I hadn't appreciated that you'd rather be left to spout your inaccurate delusions unhindered, but your attitude when challenged stinks.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Another example of going out your way to be a deliberate tit. Only responding to your numpty statements

Oh "deliberate tit" - still not getting abusive, are you? See the forum rules below - "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory."

Same applies to you

The Missing City wrote:
What the f*** is a pedastool!! Nothing abusive there? Hmmmm Not only have you tried to nmply I am dyslexic you are also being abusive Oh how the mighty have fallen Ok then - the actual word is Pedestal. Don;t wind me up, or be cocky towards me and I won't do it in return - is it really that difficult? Nobody else really does, so what make you the exception?

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Another example of going out your way to be a deliberate tit. Only responding to your numpty statements

Oh "deliberate tit" - still not getting abusive, are you? See the forum rules below - "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory."

Same applies to you

I have invited you to show how I have contravened these rules, and you failed to respond. Struggling for facts to back up your statements again?

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: What the f*** is a pedastool!! Nothing abusive there? Hmmmm Not only have you tried to nmply I am dyslexic you are also being abusive Oh how the mighty have fallen Ok then - the actual word is Pedestal. Don;t wind me up, or be cocky towards me and I won't do it in return - is it really that difficult? Nobody else really does, so what make you the exception?

That did not abuse you, merely asked a question with a word asterisked out (a technique I learned from you). Where did I mention dyslexia - you're making things up again, aren't you? The point is that other people can take a difference of opinion and having their factual errors pointed out to them in a mature, controlled way...you can't. Thanks you for the advice anyway, and your valuable contributions to this debate: “The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!” (despite it being a Conservative decision) “smart arse” “so how come you've missed it all?” in response to a reasonable question. “Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up” “If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors” “I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree” “this guy has an inferiority to railways” “hopefully you are not mentally handicapped” “join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread” (joined in less than an hour after the thread started and to correct a misrepresentation) “this is like educating Retard” “deliberate tit” “Do you wear a skirt?” You clearly are the superior intellect.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: According to Scott from Airdie - clearly he claims that mistakes were never made - St Enoch's is more viable for it to be a glasshouse which does nothing except to cater for shoppers whilst streets around it remain dire. THis will also apply to other city centre shopping centres. Scott from Airdrie also believes that the transport system is fine, when in fact it is the complete opposite as he seems to believe my sarcasm to another poster was my own personal view - strnge. Then when he likes to attack and can't seem to bully people with his opinion, he spits the dummy and claims the other poster is being disrepectful and abusive when he's no better himself. There was enough facts on here in the first place as well as observations from me and others until you decided to join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread as well as that Colmaclean twit who is either a NIMBY or he drives a car. Either or, his comments or yours do little to justify anything positive for public transport - people in London are even laughing at our draconian ways - so go have a go at them (And Me) in the Oyster story - go on then ;-)

Still proud of the "mental handicap" comment? Classy!

Another example of going out your way to be a deliberate tit. Only responding to your numpty statements

Oh "deliberate tit" - still not getting abusive, are you? See the forum rules below - "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory."

Same applies to you

I have invited you to show how I have contravened these rules, and you failed to respond. Struggling for facts to back up your statements again?

You were the one claiming I had a narrow agenda I have invited you to show how I have contravened these rules, and you failed to respond. This was you earlier statement I invite you to point out any sarcasm, abuse or disrespect that was not actually a factual response that you couldn't deal with. Two conflicting statements! There has been quite a few incidents where you broke the rules yourself today BY BEING ABUSIVE, never mind the the abusive comments you made directly to me from yesterday. Nothing short of harassment - but you have to try harder, you will never beat me!

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: What the f*** is a pedastool!! Nothing abusive there? Hmmmm Not only have you tried to nmply I am dyslexic you are also being abusive Oh how the mighty have fallen Ok then - the actual word is Pedestal. Don;t wind me up, or be cocky towards me and I won't do it in return - is it really that difficult? Nobody else really does, so what make you the exception?

That did not abuse you, merely asked a question with a word asterisked out (a technique I learned from you). Where did I mention dyslexia - you're making things up again, aren't you? The point is that other people can take a difference of opinion and having their factual errors pointed out to them in a mature, controlled way...you can't. Thanks you for the advice anyway, and your valuable contributions to this debate: “The delights of short sighted vision and the sh1theads who got rid of St Enoch's Station. Well done Labour!” (despite it being a Conservative decision) “smart arse” “so how come you've missed it all?” in response to a reasonable question. “Naa that's just the impracticalities you made up” “If thats about the best your head can offer, you may as well stay indoors” “I was replying sarcastically to another poster who didn't agree” “this guy has an inferiority to railways” “hopefully you are not mentally handicapped” “join halfway in and add crap to a decent thread” (joined in less than an hour after the thread started and to correct a misrepresentation) “this is like educating Retard” “deliberate tit” “Do you wear a skirt?” You clearly are the superior intellect.

Yip and so are the others who post similar or worse comments - I'd love to see you tackle them - do you see me as some sort of easy target? Like I am supposed to just take it up the backside whenever I see my city getting shafted and people like you from outside Glasgow are quite happy to let that happen because its not on your doorstep? MP's and the like get easy money and you want to lick their **** as you see they do no wrong? I think what I like, obviously you are a twit because according to you my thoughts should be suppressed by twits. Never will I allow that to happen Are you a dictating wife beater?

The Missing City wrote:
"You were the one claiming I had a narrow agenda " - where? Nice to see your restrained reaction to someone pointing out a mere fact - try to refrain from juvenile abuse. As I said, it was closed as a result of Conservative cuts. What would be the point of the station after the line was closed? Doesn't matter who eventually pulled it down, the decision to get rid of the station as a station (which is, after all, the point of this story) was not Labour's, even if that doesn't fit your narrow agenda. Oh and the abuse was hardly anything that was noticed by anybody else, only you - wonder how that was? Have you a wee bee in your bonnet because I made the point they were wrong to make a mockery of the city and its fragmented transport system? And when I make a bit of sarcasm which wasn't terribly abusive, you decide otherwise Like I say what you going to do about it? You acnnot beat me here. You or nobody will.

The Missing City wrote:
So what was my factual errors - the tories were responsible for letting the train station rot and then subsequently demolishing it? Incorrect - said that yesterday. I will not climb down from what I said either, you obviously love Labour Muppets who have done us no good (certainly not me anyway). Easy Money - you seem like a supporter so you're obviously as corrupt in the head as them.

The Missing City wrote:
Nothing short of harassment " - awww, poor you....you don't know the meaning of the word, and that is an insult to people who ARE subject to harassment, but then when you can use accusations of mental handicap to try and win a debate....... If you are so far up your own anus, then it means that being called an arsehole will not bother you either.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: So what was my factual errors - the tories were responsible for letting the train station rot and then subsequently demolishing it? Incorrect - said that yesterday. I will not climb down from what I said either, you obviously love Labour Muppets who have done us no good (certainly not me anyway). Easy Money - you seem like a supporter so you're obviously as corrupt in the head as them.

Why would anyone want to keep a station that had already been closed and the lines removed - by the Tories. The closure was THEIR responsibility. "you obviously love Labour Muppets" - YET ANOTHER incorrect assumption. You're really not very good at this, are you?

The Missing City wrote:
Nothing short of harassment " - awww, poor you....you don't know the meaning of the word, and that is an insult to people who ARE subject to harassment, but then when you can use accusations of mental handicap to try and win a debate....... AS I said earlier - you don't know me, to make judgments is rather hasty and perhaps very immature. I also never accused you of being mentally handicapped either... My earlier comment Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to. Suggesting that you may be something that I have accused you of being is a major difference to me actually stating that I hoped you weren't what you are accusing me of saying. In fact I did nothing of the sort as the text insertion above clearly shows! You need to try harder Scott

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: Nothing short of harassment " - awww, poor you....you don't know the meaning of the word, and that is an insult to people who ARE subject to harassment, but then when you can use accusations of mental handicap to try and win a debate....... AS I said earlier - you don't know me, to make judgments is rather hasty and perhaps very immature. I also never accused you of being mentally handicapped either... My earlier comment Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to. Suggesting that you may be something that I have accused you of being is a major difference to me actually stating that I hoped you weren't what you are accusing me of saying. In fact I did nothing of the sort as the text insertion above clearly shows! You need to try harder Scott

OK, fair enough - if you think that the difference between "suggesting" someone is mentally handicapped and "accusing" them of being mentally handicapped is a source of pride for you, I'll let you have that one. But then, you wrote the book on making hasty and immature judgements, and there are no judgements of you in that first statement, merely a fact.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: So what was my factual errors - the tories were responsible for letting the train station rot and then subsequently demolishing it? Incorrect - said that yesterday. I will not climb down from what I said either, you obviously love Labour Muppets who have done us no good (certainly not me anyway). Easy Money - you seem like a supporter so you're obviously as corrupt in the head as them.

Why would anyone want to keep a station that had already been closed and the lines removed - by the Tories. The closure was THEIR responsibility. "you obviously love Labour Muppets" - YET ANOTHER incorrect assumption. You're really not very good at this, are you?

No? Why stick up for them when they have contributed to the damage? I take it everybody else in this forum talks crap, and anyway who made you boss and ruler of this forum? Why has nobody ever been informed of this?

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: Nothing short of harassment " - awww, poor you....you don't know the meaning of the word, and that is an insult to people who ARE subject to harassment, but then when you can use accusations of mental handicap to try and win a debate....... AS I said earlier - you don't know me, to make judgments is rather hasty and perhaps very immature. I also never accused you of being mentally handicapped either... My earlier comment Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to. Suggesting that you may be something that I have accused you of being is a major difference to me actually stating that I hoped you weren't what you are accusing me of saying. In fact I did nothing of the sort as the text insertion above clearly shows! You need to try harder Scott

OK, fair enough - if you think that the difference between "suggesting" someone is mentally handicapped and "accusing" them of being mentally handicapped is a source of pride for you, I'll let you have that one. But then, you wrote the book on making hasty and immature judgements, and there are no judgements of you in that first statement, merely a fact.

Whos perfect - even you? I would certainly be the first to call you a liar!

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: Nothing short of harassment " - awww, poor you....you don't know the meaning of the word, and that is an insult to people who ARE subject to harassment, but then when you can use accusations of mental handicap to try and win a debate....... AS I said earlier - you don't know me, to make judgments is rather hasty and perhaps very immature. I also never accused you of being mentally handicapped either... My earlier comment Do I have to keep repeating myself, hopefully you are not mentally handicapped and you can finally see what I was referring to. Suggesting that you may be something that I have accused you of being is a major difference to me actually stating that I hoped you weren't what you are accusing me of saying. In fact I did nothing of the sort as the text insertion above clearly shows! You need to try harder Scott

OK, fair enough - if you think that the difference between "suggesting" someone is mentally handicapped and "accusing" them of being mentally handicapped is a source of pride for you, I'll let you have that one. But then, you wrote the book on making hasty and immature judgements, and there are no judgements of you in that first statement, merely a fact.

Whos perfect - even you? I would certainly be the first to call you a liar!

Good for you.

Scott wrote:
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me - in fact, knowing your views and the way you choose to express them, I'm glad you do. You had the problem in the first place and resorted to abuse, insults and "suggestions" to hide behind. If that makes you proud, then so be it. Debating is about exchanging opinions based on facts, whch you seem incapable of. It must be so easy for you to consign anyone who dares to disagree with you to the "arrogant", "mentally handicapped" category - avoids you facing the truth, eh? You should learn the true meaning of some of the big words you obviously have difficulty with, and stop making so many obviously incorrect assumptions because you're overtaken by the red mist of your own delusions.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me - in fact, knowing your views and the way you choose to express them, I'm glad you do. You had the problem in the first place and resorted to abuse, insults and "suggestions" to hide behind. If that makes you proud, then so be it. Debating is about exchanging opinions based on facts, whch you seem incapable of. It must be so easy for you to consign anyone who dares to disagree with you to the "arrogant", "mentally handicapped" category - avoids you facing the truth, eh? You should learn the true meaning of some of the big words you obviously have difficulty with, and stop making so many obviously incorrect assumptions because you're overtaken by the red mist of your own delusions.

And my response is - Up Yours!

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me - in fact, knowing your views and the way you choose to express them, I'm glad you do. You had the problem in the first place and resorted to abuse, insults and "suggestions" to hide behind. If that makes you proud, then so be it. Debating is about exchanging opinions based on facts, whch you seem incapable of. It must be so easy for you to consign anyone who dares to disagree with you to the "arrogant", "mentally handicapped" category - avoids you facing the truth, eh? You should learn the true meaning of some of the big words you obviously have difficulty with, and stop making so many obviously incorrect assumptions because you're overtaken by the red mist of your own delusions.

And my response is - Up Yours!

Scott wrote:
Not necessarily just one story, but plenty within it to be going on with. Getting more dignified all the time, I see - keep up the good work! As for "scum of the earth", I never suggested such a thing, but if you choose to exaggerate and misrepresent again, don't expect me to be surprised. What was it you said...."If the cap fits mate",

colmaclean wrote:
Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote: Not necessarily just one story, but plenty within it to be going on with. Getting more dignified all the time, I see - keep up the good work! As for "scum of the earth", I never suggested such a thing, but if you choose to exaggerate and misrepresent again, don't expect me to be surprised. What was it you said...."If the cap fits mate",

Oh Yes and make sure you bookmark it for future reference You never know when it will come in handy for your abusive rantings that you claim you do not participate in

The Missing City wrote:
Scott from Aidrie, never done a thing wrong on this story - WRONG Jumps in and abuses me for disagreeing with another poster - WRONG I defend my actions and he reduces me to slanderous comments with his sarky commenting on my comments to him - and thats been the subject of this thread for most of today.

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote: Scott from Aidrie, never done a thing wrong on this story - WRONG Jumps in and abuses me for disagreeing with another poster - WRONG I defend my actions and he reduces me to slanderous comments with his sarky commenting on my comments to him - and thats been the subject of this thread for most of today.

Oh,it's MY fault you're being abusive, snide, inaccurate, generalising, evasive and presumptive, is it? Still can't get your facts right - at least you're consistent. For clarification - I admitted the HUGE distinction between "suggesting" something and "accusing" someone of something - what have you admitted to getting wrong.......? I did NOT abuse you for disagreeing with another poster - you have failed to show the abuse, despite repeated requests. All I did was point out that you had your facts wrong and you couldn't take it, because no-one is allowed to point out that you are wrong, are they? If you choose to defend getting your facts wrong that's up to you, but your slanderous comments are your own responsibility. Deal with it like an adult.

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

Oh there he is, you two working in tandem eh? You started this with your stupid nonsense regarding this trainlink, obviously I have more interest in it than you and that nobhead put together. At least I can say I have a vaild interest in this place - unlike you and that nobhead. Good to se you left at a convenient time when he took over and now he's taken a break - up pops you - how feckin convenient. No downfall for me wide-o - is there something you're going to do about it as well?

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

Oh there he is, you two working in tandem eh? You started this with your stupid nonsense regarding this trainlink, obviously I have more interest in it than you and that nobhead put together. At least I can say I have a vaild interest in this place - unlike you and that nobhead. Good to se you left at a convenient time when he took over and now he's taken a break - up pops you - how feckin convenient. No downfall for me wide-o - is there something you're going to do about it as well?

Oh....nobhead.....an other classic piece of reasoned, logical debate! What's all this crap about you having more interest in "this trainlink" ( do you mean the fictitious third station, or the one they knocked down over 40 years ago?) and "this place" (Glasgow or your little planet). How arrogant are you to decide how much interest other people have in something? I work in Glasgow, use public transport on a daily basis and have done so for years - what are your credentials for having "more interest".....? God, you're brave throwing out your challenges on an Internet forum - the last resort of a losing bully.

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

Oh there he is, you two working in tandem eh? You started this with your stupid nonsense regarding this trainlink, obviously I have more interest in it than you and that nobhead put together. At least I can say I have a vaild interest in this place - unlike you and that nobhead. Good to se you left at a convenient time when he took over and now he's taken a break - up pops you - how feckin convenient. No downfall for me wide-o - is there something you're going to do about it as well?

Oh....nobhead.....an other classic piece of reasoned, logical debate! What's all this crap about you having more interest in "this trainlink" ( do you mean the fictitious third station, or the one they knocked down over 40 years ago?) and "this place" (Glasgow or your little planet). How arrogant are you to decide how much interest other people have in something? I work in Glasgow, use public transport on a daily basis and have done so for years - what are your credentials for having "more interest".....? God, you're brave throwing out your challenges on an Internet forum - the last resort of a losing bully.

Funny you should say that, cos your idea of a debate doesn't appear to be very constructive either - nainly due to the fact that its just a faceless forum full of faceless asumption makers ;-) I only dish out what I receive, always will An eye for an eye in my book! ;-)

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

Oh there he is, you two working in tandem eh? You started this with your stupid nonsense regarding this trainlink, obviously I have more interest in it than you and that nobhead put together. At least I can say I have a vaild interest in this place - unlike you and that nobhead. Good to se you left at a convenient time when he took over and now he's taken a break - up pops you - how feckin convenient. No downfall for me wide-o - is there something you're going to do about it as well?

Oh....nobhead.....an other classic piece of reasoned, logical debate! What's all this crap about you having more interest in "this trainlink" ( do you mean the fictitious third station, or the one they knocked down over 40 years ago?) and "this place" (Glasgow or your little planet). How arrogant are you to decide how much interest other people have in something? I work in Glasgow, use public transport on a daily basis and have done so for years - what are your credentials for having "more interest".....? God, you're brave throwing out your challenges on an Internet forum - the last resort of a losing bully.

Funny you should say that, cos your idea of a debate doesn't appear to be very constructive either - nainly due to the fact that its just a faceless forum full of faceless asumption makers ;-) I only dish out what I receive, always will An eye for an eye in my book! ;-)

"I only dish out what I receive, always will" - except you dish out the aggression, abuse and sarcasm the minute anyone dares to disagree with you, then complain when you think you get the same back. Go on, look at how this all started - you couldn't deal with someone disagreeing with you without lapsing into sarcasm, abuse, generalisations, assumptions and spurious allegations - sorry, suggestions . I dare you to look back and deal with the facts and chronology. It's impossible to have a constructive debate with someone who behaves like you do. You seem to have issues in this area, and I hope, for your own sake, that you manage to address them at some point. "An eye for an eye in my book! ;-)" - at that rate you risk being blinded!

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Missing City wrote:

colmaclean wrote: Last time I saw someone clutching at so many straws, I was watching Downfall.

Oh there he is, you two working in tandem eh? You started this with your stupid nonsense regarding this trainlink, obviously I have more interest in it than you and that nobhead put together. At least I can say I have a vaild interest in this place - unlike you and that nobhead. Good to se you left at a convenient time when he took over and now he's taken a break - up pops you - how feckin convenient. No downfall for me wide-o - is there something you're going to do about it as well?

Oh....nobhead.....an other classic piece of reasoned, logical debate! What's all this crap about you having more interest in "this trainlink" ( do you mean the fictitious third station, or the one they knocked down over 40 years ago?) and "this place" (Glasgow or your little planet). How arrogant are you to decide how much interest other people have in something? I work in Glasgow, use public transport on a daily basis and have done so for years - what are your credentials for having "more interest".....? God, you're brave throwing out your challenges on an Internet forum - the last resort of a losing bully.

Funny you should say that, cos your idea of a debate doesn't appear to be very constructive either - nainly due to the fact that its just a faceless forum full of faceless asumption makers ;-) I only dish out what I receive, always will An eye for an eye in my book! ;-)

"I only dish out what I receive, always will" - except you dish out the aggression, abuse and sarcasm the minute anyone dares to disagree with you, then complain when you think you get the same back. Go on, look at how this all started - you couldn't deal with someone disagreeing with you without lapsing into sarcasm, abuse, generalisations, assumptions and spurious allegations - sorry, suggestions . I dare you to look back and deal with the facts and chronology. It's impossible to have a constructive debate with someone who behaves like you do. You seem to have issues in this area, and I hope, for your own sake, that you manage to address them at some point. "An eye for an eye in my book! ;-)" - at that rate you risk being blinded!

Nobody is perfect on here, this stuff goes on almost every single day! I know what I said without having to continously scroll back and forth. Bit of fabrication going on if you are suggesting this goes on all the time. OK, I shouldn't have called you a smart arse - I realise I may have hurt your feelings by calling you that - yes I maybe have to be more sensitive towards other people's feelings. Its such a shame I'm the only one on here to be told that, yet everybody else seems to be doing no wrong! Very strange.

Scott wrote:
OK - if you can temper the abuse a bit in future can we call a truce and put this behind us?

The Missing City wrote:

Scott wrote: OK - if you can temper the abuse a bit in future can we call a truce and put this behind us?

No problem there