On Dec 29, 5:08*am, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:39:25 -0800 (PST), Boltar





wrote:
On 28 Dec, 09:02, James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:40:06 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Dec 27, 3:40 am, Boltar wrote:

I ask again, if it were empty as you earlier said, and not indicated,
as you are now saying, how do you know it was in service ? Its not
indication may well have been the correct indication!

Well if it wasn't in service then the sole passenger I saw in the last
car

Now you are changing your story.

If you care to scroll back and look, you wrote ''completely empty''.

In other words, he lied.

Oh FFS , does it matter if it was completely empty or had a couple of
passengers in?

Yes, it does


If you have an objection to the ranting abuse of LU staff in general
(and such an objection might or might not be justified) then it would
be reasonable to make it here.

If you have an objection to the bizarre politics of the poster, it is
probably better to make it elsewhere (although I've been drawn into it
in the past, so I can't criticise).

Objecting purely to the accuracy of irrelevant detail is the sort of
obsessiveness that gives enthusiasts a bad name, and shouldn't really
have any place at all.

A minor inaccuracy in the telling of the story doesn't justify
unhelpfulness by staff. In this case, the presence of a couple of
passengers strengthens the accusation that the staff were unhelpful,
becuase it provides evidence that the train was in service.