"Bolwerk" wrote in message
news:46f7bd11$0$16468$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> tim..... wrote:
>> "Jack May" wrote in message
>> news:quidnWm82LeiPWvbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:gl4316-2309070015220001@69-30-10-52.pxd.easystreet.com...
>>>> In article <9LudneENRJJ29mjbnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
> Oh, for .'s sake. It's not even expandable to other cities. It's
> probably not even expandable to other parts of San Francisco (Muni?). It's
> about commuting on BART. For the case at hand (BART) and similarly
> designed systems, it was probably a very effective model.
You have exactly zero evidence for your conclusion and you are just wildly
lying with no basis for what you are saying. The theory is being used
world wide and the Nobel guy has stated that even he has been surprised how
accurate it has been in many different applications.
>
> It just doesn't tell you anything about the T, the NY Subway, the L, the
> Tube, the (DC/Paris/etc.) Metro, or the U-Bahn.
Give us a cite for your statement because it is extremely obvious that
everything you are saying is a totally fabricated lie with not basis.
Typical transit retard that will say anything to protect their large
collection of lies.
|