It would figure that the one day that my monthly Metrolink pass wasn’t in my wallet (I’m 99.8% sure I left it in the pocket of the trousers I wore Tuesday, after I used it on the bus to save myself the uphill walk between the Grand station and Lindell) would be the day that I lucked into bumping into a fare inspector between CWE and Grand. I am now officially annoyed.
Now the only question is whether the time and hassle canceling class on my court date so I can go plead my case to a judge turns out to be worth avoiding the fine.
10 comments:
So…were you on a bus? If so, do they let you ride on good faith (“he must have a pass because he didn’t attempt to pay a fare.”)
Not being familiar with the system, I am not sure whether to commiserate or castigate.
You do realize you just used the word “trousers?”
Alfie:
You’re putting those Ole Miss degrees to work aren’t you, boy!
;)
On the bus, you have to run it through the fare reader… what I did is pull it out of my wallet to run it through, then put it back in my pocket instead of my wallet (since I didn’t want to open my wallet on the bus), and I must have forgotten to put it back in my wallet later in the day.
I took the train today, where they don’t use a fare gate (on pretty much any other rapid transit system, you’d have to use a token or fare card just to get on the platform, but not in St. Louis)... they sometimes check to see if you have a ticket when you enter the platform, but today at Brentwood the security guard didn’t ask so I didn’t know I didn’t have it until it was too late.
And what’s wrong with the word “trousers?”
Well, I searched and searched and haven’t found the stupid thing, so I must have lost it. At least it’s the end of the month and I don’t need it any more (except if I decide to go to court).
Scott—I do my best; what can I say?
Chris—I guess, in the big picture, trousers is OK if you’re 94. Are you coming down this weekend? There is a PoliSci alumni reception from 3–5. I’m one of those two times over, do I get two plates?
Alfie:
See, I attributed it to Chris’ time growing up in Britain. The terms “pants” means underwear over there (GEEZ, the need to learn ‘em some A-mer-can speak!). So I gave him a pass on the “old man speak.”
Last year when we were over visiting some of Robin’s relatives a couple of them were cracking up about the “Nice Pants” ad campaign (can’t remember for whom) going on in the US.
PS you missed a prime opportunity to mock those who instructed you at Ole Miss!
Scott—
Great, now I’ll be thinking for the next 2 days about who did the “Nice Pants” ad campaign. My first guess is Lee, but I don’t think that’s right.
I didn’t know Chris spent any time across the pond, but my ignorance as to Chris’ world travels is no excuse for a 30ish year old man using the word “trousers” in commonspeak.
Ehh, I posted at 6:31am, way too early to even remember that you instructed me (and very well, I might add) at Ole Miss.
…Which begs the final question of why in the hell was I looking at Chris’ blog at 6:31am???
I think it was Docker’s, but I could be wrong.
My options were pants, trousers, or slacks. Trousers sounded best to my ear… so that’s what I used.
Yeah, it sure was Dockers. Somehow I was confusing those ads with the “Buddy Lee tested, Buddy Lee approved” ads from Lee.
Notice the ad didn’t say “Nice Trousers.”
Now if you were talking about a “trouser snake,” trousers would be the appropriate word.
Ahh, just giving you crap. See you this afternoon.