|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1425588) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 13:33:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 27 10:07:19 2017. You are trying to say that I've taken one position on one situation, and then another position on what you feel is a similar situation. In effect that I am being contradictory, if not hypocritical.AND I FLATLY DIS-AGREE!! I believe that I've made my position on the "N-trains labeled Q-trains" issue well known. Some might say that I have gone over-board in explaining my position, and some might support that positions that I've taken. As part of this discussion there were always two separate issues: 1) Something that was or is done on a regular on-going basis as policy. Whether that policy, practice or idea is a good one, a bad one, and various other aspects. All of the six w's are in play. versus 2) Something that is done to respond to a G.O. or something that is done to respond to an emergency situation. And yes, all of the six w's are in play. What ever your opinion is on the "N-trains labeled Q-trains" we can agree that it is not in response to a G.O. or an emergency situation. What ever your opinion is on the past switching of B and D train lines/terminals in Brooklyn - we can agree that it is not response to a G.O. or an emergency situation. What ever your opinion is on the V-train, the M-train, the G-train or a host of other issues - we here often argue and debate about policies and practices, the who, the what, the when, the where, the how and the why. Do we go over the G.O. and emergency stuff - yes, we sure do. But the whatever is the G.O. and emergency stuff - we know that it is limited, and that there will be a return to the usual policy and practice stuff. So we here - do not confuse the two. Mike |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|