Re: Does not commute: CityRail's shame file

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