|
|
| Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd (317282) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Aug 16 14:13:27 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 16 13:14:23 2016. Your initial statements why you didn't want to read the report which you still have not read were not relevant at all.How do you know I haven't read it? Anyhow, no, they were completely relevant. Your track record shows your reports and articles and letters and posts to have little redeeming value. And since my statement was in a post about a new report you posted, it was relevant. They were opinions based on erroneous statements.Wrong. They were educated opinions based on countless prior documents that we have discussed with you. No arguments shoukd have been necessary for you to read the report.No, YOU (or your proxy) argued. If you weren't interested in reading it, no replies were necessary.I never said my reply was necessary. But it sure was relevant. Instead, you chose to argue for 100 or 200 posts why you shouldn't read it.No, YOU (or your proxy) argued for 100 posts. We just made an initial relevant statement. Your disagreement with our initial relevant statement was the source of the "100 post argument." Get your facts straight. It takes two sides to have an argument. If you didn't want to discuss why we didn't need to read your report, then you shouldn't have replied to that post. And when someone finally did read it, rather than having an honest discussion, ridiculous statements were made like passengers have no interest in if fare machine kiosks are working your not in order to disagree with my assertion that the report omitting many relevant topics that needed discussion like fare evasion or fare machine reliability. YOU AND OTHERS HAD NO INTENTION OF AGREEING WITH ANYTHING I WROTE EVEN BEFORE YOU READ WHAT I WROTE IN THE REPORT.Completely wrong. You don't know when anyone first read it. The statements were not ridiculous. And unlike you, we have open minds when we read something. That was my point. That n one wanted an honest discussion.The only people who didn't want to have an honest discussion IIRC were you, your proxy, and Edwards. |
|
|
|