On 28 Dec, 12:45, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
The following are all the details that were missed out in your earlier
posts on the subject

Which bit of the following from a previous post confused you:

"Not once did the *FOUR* staff at the end of the
platform including the bloke in the cabin say a damn thing to anyone
even though the train had been sitting there with its doors open
longer than us and they must've known since I saw them chatting to its
driver. "

?

Note the last 4 words in case you still don't get it.

Anyway , this is getting nowhere. All I see is people picking me up on
details , no one explaining why the staff were so bloody unhelpful.
Probably because there was no good reason - they just couldn't be
arsed.

B2003

On Dec 28, 5:48 pm, Boltar wrote:
On 28 Dec, 12:45, "www.waspies.net" wrote:

The following are all the details that were missed out in your earlier
posts on the subject

Which bit of the following from a previous post confused you:

"Not once did the *FOUR* staff at the end of the
platform including the bloke in the cabin say a damn thing to anyone
even though the train had been sitting there with its doors open
longer than us and they must've known since I saw them chatting to its
driver. "

?

Note the last 4 words in case you still don't get it.

Anyway , this is getting nowhere. All I see is people picking me up on
details , no one explaining why the staff were so bloody unhelpful.
Probably because there was no good reason - they just couldn't be
arsed.

B2003

I have already asked you (but don't think you had answered). Did the
train that you were on have an Operator on? Was the cab live (ie, if
you could see were the orange lights on on the side of the train).

The Train Op on the train that you were on should have really made a
PA. If there wasn't one then another could have made the PA, however
some are reluctant to "touch" someone else's train in case they get
blamed for breaking it, such is the politics involved in something so
simple. Where I used to work was a bit like Arnos Grove, but as it was
more localised the information flow was much better.

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.

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.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:29:58 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

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.

Right. Hence it's neither an irrelevant detail nor a minor inaccuracy.

On 28 Dec, 18:01, chunky munky wrote:
I have already asked you (but don't think you had answered). Did the
train that you were on have an Operator on? Was the cab live (ie, if
you could see were the orange lights on on the side of the train).

Yup. He drove us there. Maybe he legged it when we arrived, I didn't
see.

B2003

On 29 Dec, 14:02, James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:29:58 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
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.

Right. Hence it's neither an irrelevant detail nor a minor inaccuracy.

I already said the train was in service. WTF does it matter if a
couple or people were in it or not? Stop pretending you're making any
valid contribution to the argument by nit picking. Anyway the fact
that so many people seem willing to defend the lack of info to the
public on what purports to be a public service just reinforces my
rather negative view of a certain section of LU staff.

B2003

No Bolt me old china, it's all personal, it's just YOU that staff don't
like....do you happen to use Osterley station?


Anyway , this is getting nowhere. All I see is people picking me up on
details , no one explaining why the staff were so bloody unhelpful.
Probably because there was no good reason - they just couldn't be
arsed.

B2003

On 29 Dec, 19:18, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
No Bolt me old china, it's all personal, it's just YOU that staff don't
like....do you happen to use Osterley station?

No , why? You and your comrades managed to **** off someone there too?

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On 29 Dec, 19:18, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
No Bolt me old china, it's all personal, it's just YOU that staff don't
like....do you happen to use Osterley station?

No , why? You and your comrades managed to **** off someone there too?

B2003

No just hoping you are my brother in law that's all! and yes he is
****ed off but that's the Scottish condition, that and heart failure.