British Rail should it be brought back?

[crookedspire]

Politics comes first the people second always has always will and all the while the fat cats make vast profits . If its state owned its bad because the government say so and the idea of private ownership seems god sent to the countries ills. Train fares are far too high became Brandson and the rest of that crew want to top up thier already vast wealth so let's enjoy our overcrowded skips on rails after all private ownership is good for us.

[I1L2T3]

The context was already stated.

 

I said that 'The East Coast Line actually made a £41million loss in the last year of operation..' and then provided a link to the article where that was. What is your problem with that exactly?

 

EDIT: I have just refreshed my memory of the rules and read through them again. I cannot find anything about saying one has to provide context or an opinion when providing a link.

 

I agree that providing context is important (which is why I did), but I can't actually see that anywhere in the rules. Perhaps you would care to point it out for me..

 

You said the company made a loss and didn't make it clear why you thought that was. My conclusion was that you were using the link to somehow prove that ECT was failing while it was in the public sector. Was that your argument? If so your link explained precisely why a loss was made and that it was due to costs of transition from public ownership to a private franchise. If not what was your argument? I shouldn't have to guess.

[Robin-H]

You said the company made a loss and didn't make it clear why you thought that was. My conclusion was that you were using the link to somehow prove that ECT was failing while it was in the public sector. Was that your argument? If so your link explained precisely why a loss was made and that it was due to costs of transition from public ownership to a private franchise. If not what was your argument? I shouldn't have to guess.

 

Now you're just being silly. Point me to the rule that says I cannot post links that people have to read to come to their own conclusions about..

[I1L2T3]

Now you're just being silly. Point me to the rule that says I cannot post links that people have to read to come to their own conclusions about..

 

Moderators have pulled people up for it many times in the past.

 

Answer the question. What was your argument when you posted the link? I still have no idea.

[Robin-H]

Moderators have pulled people up for it many times in the past.

 

Answer the question. What was your argument when you posted the link? I still have no idea.

 

You said that you would report me to the mods because, and I quote..

 

'Forum rules are that when you provide a link you should provide some context or opinion that explains why you are posting it.'

 

I have read the rules again and I fail to see any such rule. In any case, as I have already explained, I did provide context.

 

Again, as I have already said, I was not presenting an argument when I posted the link. I was contributing to the discussion by providing a link that broke down the profit/loss of the East Coast Line, which is what was being discussed.

 

If there is a rule that you need have an argument when you post a link, please point it out to me.

 

I was however drawn to Rule 14: You must only post contributions to the Website which are factually accurate or which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts.

 

Now, can we please get back to talking about the issue at hand.

[I1L2T3]

You said that you would report me to the mods because, and I quote..

 

'Forum rules are that when you provide a link you should provide some context or opinion that explains why you are posting it.'

 

I have read the rules again and I fail to see any such rule. In any case, as I have already explained, I did provide context.

 

Again, as I have already said, I was not presenting an argument when I posted the link. I was contributing to the discussion by providing a link that broke down the profit/loss of the East Coast Line, which is what was being discussed.

 

If there is a rule that you need have an argument when you post a link, please point it out to me.

 

I was however drawn to Rule 14: You must only post contributions to the Website which are factually accurate or which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts.

 

Now, can we please get back to talking about the issue at hand.

 

I've been a member of this board for a decade. Trust me you can get pulled up for just posting links with no context.

 

If you want to get back to the discussion simply explain why you posted the link.

 

I honestly still don't know. Obviously it was great for my argument because it showed that the franchise model can take a profitable company and turn it into an unprofitable one in just one year through nothing more than the costs of transition. So thanks for that.

[Robin-H]

I've been a member of this board for a decade. Trust me you can get pulled up for just posting links with no context.

 

If you want to get back to the discussion simply explain why you posted the link.

 

I honestly still don't know. Obviously it was great for my argument because it showed that the franchise model can take a profitable company and turn it into an unprofitable one in just one year through nothing more than the costs of transition. So thanks for that.

 

I sure you can for posting links with no context (even tho technically you said it was in the rules, when it is not, careful now - you don't want to break rule 14). It is a good job I posted with context then

 

I have already explained that now a couple of times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I haven't explained it.

 

If it was great for your argument then great, well done.

[I1L2T3]

I sure you can for posting links with no context (even tho technically you said it was in the rules, when it is not, careful now - you don't want to break rule 14). It is a good job I posted with context then

 

I have already explained that now a couple of times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I haven't explained it.

 

If it was great for your argument then great, well done.

 

So what were you trying to prove by posting that the company had made a loss. What was your point? I honestly still do not know. You haven't explained anything. Just answer the question.

[Robin-H]

So what were you trying to prove by posting that the company had made a loss. What was your point? I honestly still do not know. You haven't explained anything. Just answer the question.

 

For Christ's sake.

 

I was not making a point. I repeat, I was not making a point. For the third time, I was not making a point.

 

I was providing a link that contained facts about what was being discussed. Why can you not understand that?

 

I am through with arguing with somebody who clearly has issues with understanding what is written. I will just wait for all these comments to be deleted (they are breaking rule 36 e as they do not contribute at all to the discussion).

 

Cheers, it was fun

[I1L2T3]

For Christ's sake.

 

I was not making a point. I repeat, I was not making a point. For the third time, I was not making a point.

 

I was providing a link that contained facts about what was being discussed. Why can you not understand that?

 

I am through with arguing with somebody who clearly has issues with understanding what is written. I will just wait for all these comments to be deleted (they are breaking rule 36 e as they do not contribute at all to the discussion).

 

Cheers, it was fun

 

If you weren't making a point or at the very least supporting your own or somebody else's point then why post a link.

 

All I'm asking you, and it is entirely pertinent to the discussion, is what what is the relevance of the link you posted. Just answer. It should be easy.