On 9 May, 17:10, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
MIG wrote

On May 8, 6:39*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" *wrote:
MIG wrote
solution, it is sheer bloody-mindedness that makes TfL and its
defenders refuse to contemplate addressing it.
And Tfl's attackers redefine the question as they go.
I haven't quite followed your point. *You seem to be identifying a

number of potential problems.

If some or even one of them had a simple solution, shouldn't it be

applied?

"Every problem has an answer which is obvious, simple and wrong"

Are you saying "there's lots of problems, so we can't start solving

any of them in case people ask us to solve the others"?

What we mostly see on this NG is the Frank Sinarta questioner, "I want
to do it my way" and no solution is acceptable that requires any change
in the questioner's *behavior still less any enhancement in know.

I really think that that attitude applies more to TfL's dogged
insistence that all Oyster rules are correct and fair and will not be
changed, without reference to Oyster's incomplete availability or any
attempt to point out any problems to which there are solutions.