"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:07:37 on Mon, 26 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.

It is what you do to others.

Even if I did (which I dispute - the problems I have with your postings
are they are often vague and ambiguous, leading to misunderstandings)
then two wrongs don't make a right.

Nothing vague or ambiguous about the facts of operating a rail replacement
bus service and the contractual restrictions thereof.

What particular words are you saying I put into mouths in this thread?

And if you will trim posts to the point that all context is lost then I
can't be bothered to trace back through the thread(s) to find what the
devil you are rabbiting on about this time.

The legality of non-buses stopping at bus stops.

But it's been a bit confusing because different people have been giving
different reasons for the non-stopping of rail replacement buses at bus
stops; ranging from competition with local buses, to lack of a safety case
for getting off a bus at a bus stop, to delaying the journey, to delaying
the journey of a service bus right behind, to the contract being A-B (both
of them stations only) for both the bus driver and the passenger, to it
being illegal for them to stop at bus stops at all.

Whacking all those moles (each of them has a good answer) is bound to give
some of us a headache.
--
Roland Perry

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that there is more than one single
reason why you cannot alight from a RSS other than at a place designated by
the contract? Hint: The contract is drawn up in accordance with other rules.

Whack your moles as much as you like. You still are not getting off at the
end of your road!

(Now answer the other post. )