On 4/18/14, 5:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:34:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

That was the excuse they tried with the train that drove up the
escalator last week. Then someone actually looked at the engineer's
schedule and she had worked ZERO overtime.


Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit.

On 4/18/2014 8:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 5:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:34:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

That was the excuse they tried with the train that drove up the
escalator last week. Then someone actually looked at the engineer's
schedule and she had worked ZERO overtime.


Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit.

Your points are blunted by your lies.

On 4/18/14, 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:17:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 5:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:34:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

That was the excuse they tried with the train that drove up the
escalator last week. Then someone actually looked at the engineer's
schedule and she had worked ZERO overtime.


Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit.

This is a fact, compared to your conjecture.


What, an incident?

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:08:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit.

This is a fact, compared to your conjecture.


What, an incident?

===

A series of similar incidents.