 |
Re: Mr. Bruce: Re: Metrolink Safety Panel report
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 01-11-2009 - 18:38
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I'm still puzzled that you
> keep wanting to defend what as far as I can see is
> indefinsible.
Yes, I understand that you're puzzled. That's why I (and others) have made so many attempts to explain things to you.
> Your extended meditation on the law firm simply
> says what I've already said, the long way round.
No, I don't think it does. What you're staking your faith on is nothing more than heresay, and should be given consideration accordingly.
> It's up to a jury to decide the facts. At this
> point, the guy who's alleged this won't identify
> himself. If it goes to trial and he testifies,
> that will be different. On the other hand, the
> Connex operation has to be small enough that these
> clowns pretty much know who the supervisor(s) is
> or are, and it should be simple enough to find out
> who heard what.
If it actually happened the way you allege, and yet the supervisors failed to act as you allege, then it raises the question of whether you have the facts correct, or if it even happened in the first place.
> Same with the "bust" over the
> cell phone.
As I mentioned previously, your report is the first I've heard of it. That being the case, I can't offer any specific comments. However, I gave you some general information in a previous post to this thread.
> The quote, by the way, refers to supervisors in
> the plural, which strongly suggests the report of
> rule violation was made more than once, no?
Again, I don't know the facts, so I can't say for certain. Taken a face value, if it were me, I'd carefully consider its source before I took it as gospel.
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I'm still puzzled that you
> keep wanting to defend what as far as I can see is
> indefinsible.
Yes, I understand that you're puzzled. That's why I (and others) have made so many attempts to explain things to you.
> Your extended meditation on the law firm simply
> says what I've already said, the long way round.
No, I don't think it does. What you're staking your faith on is nothing more than heresay, and should be given consideration accordingly.
> It's up to a jury to decide the facts. At this
> point, the guy who's alleged this won't identify
> himself. If it goes to trial and he testifies,
> that will be different. On the other hand, the
> Connex operation has to be small enough that these
> clowns pretty much know who the supervisor(s) is
> or are, and it should be simple enough to find out
> who heard what.
If it actually happened the way you allege, and yet the supervisors failed to act as you allege, then it raises the question of whether you have the facts correct, or if it even happened in the first place.
> Same with the "bust" over the
> cell phone.
As I mentioned previously, your report is the first I've heard of it. That being the case, I can't offer any specific comments. However, I gave you some general information in a previous post to this thread.
> The quote, by the way, refers to supervisors in
> the plural, which strongly suggests the report of
> rule violation was made more than once, no?
Again, I don't know the facts, so I can't say for certain. Taken a face value, if it were me, I'd carefully consider its source before I took it as gospel.
