Thursday, 28 September 2006

One fine day

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.


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

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.

[Permalink] 2. Alfie Sumrall wrote @ Thu, 28 Sep 2006, 1:57 pm CDT:

You do realize you just used the word “trousers?”



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).

[Permalink] 6. Alfie Sumrall wrote @ Fri, 29 Sep 2006, 6:31 am CDT:

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?



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!

[Permalink] 8. Alfie Sumrall wrote @ Fri, 29 Sep 2006, 11:09 pm CDT:


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.

[Permalink] 10. Alfie Sumrall wrote @ Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:43 am CDT:

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.

Comments are now closed on this post.