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.

So CityRail did give figures for the best but we also know from the SMH that
CityRail didn't give figures for the best.  What a conundrum, both statements
are true.  So how am I wrong and you right?

Chris