Re: Personal opinions (was: Railway Digest (again))

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@sd5.mailbank.com>]

Tony Gatt wrote in message <38576F62.D2E5D82A@tig.com.au>...
>Firstly, an apology to those who want to read more than attacks between ng
>members..
>Sorry, but somethings just need to be aired publically..

No apology necessary, Tony, however, I feel it necessary to point out to
other readers of aus.rail that you do have a personal gripe against me and
other members of the #ausrail channel on the OzOrg IRC network, which
culminated in you banning me because I was "idling" )when I forgot to remove
my "away" when I got back from the gym.

>Hoges wrote:
>
>> I almost wonder if it's actually worth responding to this, but someone
needs
>> to provide some balance to these pedantic and petty attacks.
>>
>
>Paul, at the risk of being attacked, flamed, hoisted up a flagpole, and
even
>deported south.. I will agree with you.
>
><opinion>
>
>Yes, I have (more than once) been responsible for 'attacks' to ng
contributors,
>stating my own beliefs and disecting theirs. But enuff is enuff..

So, although "enuff is enuff" you are persisting? All right then.

>David P: Your remarks in this newsgroup on "every" thread displays to
readers of
>this newsgroup your unabounding knowledge of all things rail.

I do NOT respond to EVERY thread - only the threads in which I have some
knowledge about.

<Therefore, in the
>name of "Correct reporting" (both politically and grammatically), may I
suggest
>a private email to Derek to point out the faux-pa of a recent editions
caption
>and / or story, and the correct information so that a retraction can be
made,

Has been done on at least 4 occasions that I can recall - none of which has
had any effect. The occasions that I have done so have all been for minor
errors. I regard this error as a major error.

>thus sparing the world of your biased opinion towards the content of RD.

It is not biased. The train arrives on Wednesdays. The report said it
arrived on Thursday 28/10. Either the train was 23 hours late, or the report
was wrong. Either way, the report in Digest was WRONG. Why is that biased?

>Surely, there are more important things in life..

There is - so why don't you try and pursue them?

>Meanwhile Derek, keep churning out the next edition so we have something
>substantial to read, rather than this mindless dribble on petty mistakes
that
>David keeps bringing to our attention.

Perhaps Derek should devote some of his *paid* time to ensuring that what he
prints is factual, rather than made up or blatantly lying, such as the
Broken Hill report in the latest edition?

>(preparing a shelter to save himself from the attack that WILL ensue)

Not an attack - just a commentary - I still remember the time that you and I
caught ST4 from Melboring to Sydney, and both of us (or at least me) got
pretty drunk - as you would be aware, I call things as I see them, and I do
not call a spade a shovel.

I call things as I see them. The December RD contained an error that should
have been picked up. People that pay money for the mag (mag, not rag) are
entitled to a little bit of editorial checking. This was not done in the
current edition.

I would be interested to hear from Derek on this. And I promise, NO FLAMES
if he does respond.

Dave