Re: Does not commute: CityRail's shame file

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.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.