|
|
| Re: Air Train question (578765) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Mar 1 07:29:56 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 29 19:43:24 2008. Yes, and so is the $2 for the subway. It's a neutral term.Okay, then I can totally agree with that. Mne of my biggest oppositions to my "opposition" on this topic is the use of the phrase "Pedestrian toll". Getting past the use of that phrase, which I find ludicrous, is something that would go a long way in trying to understand their position. I still find the $5 "fee" justified, however, not calling it a "Pedestrian Toll" makes leeway. Very well then, but it still doesn't justify such a high fare for such a short trip. Okay then, perhaps progress was made on this matter. I don't really think it's that much in the scheme of things, but just phrasing it that was "but it still doesn't justify such a hig fare for such a short trip" makes the opposition's argument much less ludicrous, thus making it a more realistic argument in my eyes. I can easier understand a point where someone thinks the "fare or fee" may be a little high for such a short trip before I would even begin to acknowledge an argument based on some ludicrous notion of a "pedestrian toll", a term that was only used by the opposition on this matter, to make AirTrain's fare structure look even more ridiculous than it really is. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|