Re: Does not commute: CityRail's shame file

["Chris Downs" <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au>]

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a9e2cd7$0$25505$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a9e2cd7$0$25505$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Chris Downs"
> | Tezza <
> | > "Chris Downs"
>
> | > | > | > | > | > | These were CityRail's worst services not the average.
> Strange how
> | > | > | > | > | > | CityRail didn't give figures for the best!
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > They did according to that article. "As State Rail
> bosses prepare to lobby
> | > | > | > | > | > to increase fares by an average 3.3 per cent from July,
> they have released
> | > | > | > | > | > data which shows the 20 worst and 20 best services, and
> the strategy they
> | > | > | > | > | > hope will fix the problem."
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | "The best services were, in the morning, the 6.05 from
> North Sydney and the
> | > | > | > | > | 6.21 and 7.04 from Hornsby and, in the evening, the train
> due at Turrella by
> | > | > | > | > | 5.33.  Otime percentages were not given" - 5 paras later
> from the SMH article.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > You complained they didn't provide figures for the best, the
> article says
> | > | > | > | > they did. You didn't say anything about on-time percentages.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | For one who preaches a need for improved comprehension in your
> aus.rail
> | > | > | > | postings your ability to bastardise context is laudable (do I
> need to
> | > | > | > | elucidate on the context of laudable?).
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > You complained they didn't provide figures for the best
> services. When I
> | > | > | > pointed out that they did you then specified a different
> requirement not
> | > | > | > first mentioned.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | If you'd addressed context I may have believed you were being
> other than
> | > | > | disingenuous.
> | > | >
> | > | > I took nothing out of context and left your original statement as
> is.
> | > |
> | > | Did you actually consider context?  If you did why only refer to only
> 1 of 3
> | > | possible sets of figures, that is 20 best services (provided), their
> departure
> | > | times (some provided) and their on-time performance (not provided at
> all)?
> | >
> | > I refered only to your comment. You said they didn't provide figures for
> the
> | > best when the article quite clearly and plainly says they did.
> | >
> | >
> | > | You were disingenuous (and deliberately took my response out of
> context)
> | > | because you predictably chose the obviously wrong figures and failed
> to
> | > | acknowledge the others.
> | >
> | > I didn't choose *any* figures. You said they didn't provide figures for
> the
> | > best when the article quite clearly and plainly says they did.
> | >
> | >
> | > | By what logic would you choose 20 best services
> | >
> | > I wasn't choosing anything, you said they didn't provide figures for the
> | > best when the article quite clearly and plainly says they did.
> | >
> | > | (or were you playing the fool
> | > | and referring to the totally irrelevant 3.3% fare increase)?
> | >
> | > I referred only to your comment. You said they didn't provide figures
> for
> | > the best when the article quite clearly and plainly says they did.
> Hopefully
> | > I've said it enough times now that it'll finally sink in. You said
> something
> | > that was wrong. I corrected you. End of story.
> |
> | To quote the 2 relevant (to this thread) paragraphs from the article
> again:
>
> You didn't need to, they're still at the top.
>
>
> | "As State Rail bosses prepare to lobby to increase fares by an average 3.3
> per
> | cent from July, they have released data which shows the 20 worst and 20
> best
> | services, and the strategy they hope will fix the problem."
> |
> | "The best services were, in the morning, the 6.05 from North Sydney and
> the
> | 6.21 and 7.04 from Hornsby and, in the evening, the train due at Turrella
> by
> | 5.33.  Ontime percentages were not given".
> |
> | My comment was "Strange how CityRail didn't give figures for the best!".
> The
> | SMH said they weren't given (please indicate where I've misread).
>
> Were it says that they were given. "they have released data which shows the
> 20 worst and 20 best
> services".
>
>
> | Of course this is not to say CityRail didn't release them,
>
> When of course they did, "they have released data which shows the 20 worst
> and 20 best
> services".
>
>
> | something on which I made no comment (there's that pesky context issue
> again).
>
> Except that you did.  "Strange how CityRail didn't give figures for the
> best!".
>
>
> | How do you interpret the last 5 words quoted in the 2nd paragraph (above)
> to
> | conclude that I was wrong?
>
> I've made no interpretation nor comment on that sentence.
>
>
> | To unambiguously quote you back: "You said something that was wrong.",
> "End of
> | story.".  If you can't add to the issue with a straight and reasoned
> answer (a
> | challenge!) do the right thing and kill the thread!
>
> I've given a straight and reasoned answer right from the start. The only
> thing keeping the thread going is that you refuse to admit you made a
> mistake - possibly because it was me that corrected you.

On a slightly different tack, who did CityRail give the figures to?

Chris