Re: Does not commute: CityRail's shame file

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a9e1193$0$25511$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a9e1193$0$25511$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Chris Downs"
> | Tezza
> | > "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:

"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).  Of course
this is not to say CityRail didn't release them, something on which I made no
comment (there's that pesky context issue again).

How do you interpret the last 5 words quoted in the 2nd paragraph (above) to
conclude that I was wrong?

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!

Chris