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 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

On Dec 29, 10:12 am, Boltar wrote:

I already said the train was in service. WTF does it matter if a
couple or people were in it or not?

Quite a lot when you clearly stated ''completely empty''

Not just ''empty'', by adding ''completely'' you infer it was
definite.


Anyway, you appear to have made up your mid, your are right, everyone
else is wrong, no-one can say anything else, no-one can help you, and
you do need help if you rant aout 3 minute delays on a line you said
you infrequrnt.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:12 am, Boltar wrote:

I already said the train was in service. WTF does it matter if a
couple or people were in it or not?

Quite a lot when you clearly stated ''completely empty''

Not just ''empty'', by adding ''completely'' you infer it was
definite.

Just give it up will you. Compared to the train I was on which
probably had 300 odd it was empty.

Anyway, you appear to have made up your mid, your are right, everyone
else is wrong, no-one can say anything else, no-one can help you, and
you do need help if you rant aout 3 minute delays on a line you said
you infrequrnt.

Not really, the staff were just being bloody minded. Besides which I
had to wait about 10 minutes for my train to show up in the first
place. Though thats par for the course at off peak times on the
northern stretch of the picc these days which seems to be run more
like a country branch line than a metro system.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
...


Not really, the staff were just being bloody minded. Besides which I
had to wait about 10 minutes for my train to show up in the first
place. Though thats par for the course at off peak times on the
northern stretch of the picc these days which seems to be run more
like a country branch line than a metro system.


I have a further theory, now that you've mentioned the line had delays. For
the benefit & safety of pax further down the line, where the platforms are
wedged with people whose trains haven't arrived, is it better to send the
'empty' train first, or the full train?

Paul S