| Revision as of 20:40, 30 September 2005 edit155.91.19.73 (talk) What opinions?← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:01, 1 October 2005 edit undoJoeconsumer (talk | contribs)168 edits Response to "What Opinions"Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| == What opinions? == | == What opinions? == | ||
| Thanks for the description. I think it was all pretty true -- what were the opinionated lines? I can't take an East Bay survey but my family certainly didn't know about Key Systems and I've endured endless griping about lack of a convenient urban rail system (bart is a superhighway). | Thanks for the description. I think it was all pretty true -- what were the opinionated lines? I can't take an East Bay survey but my family certainly didn't know about Key Systems and I've endured endless griping about lack of a convenient urban rail system (bart is a superhighway). | ||
| Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
| The streetcar conspiracy page has a lot of details about the various legalities, I guess there was too much here, but a summary is alright as long as its relevant to key, no? | The streetcar conspiracy page has a lot of details about the various legalities, I guess there was too much here, but a summary is alright as long as its relevant to key, no? | ||
| --] 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | --] 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Hi: I'm an East Bay resident myself. I think it's a foregone conclusion that 99% of everyone here has no clue that this system ever existed - so I left that line in. However, I think the waters are a bit muddier as to whether or not there is significant "envy" of SF's light rail systems - maybe (you and I do) - but I don't think anyone knows this to a high degree of certainty so I left this part out. Your thought on the GMSC are great, but they're more appropriate for that article (your right by the way, that article does bog down in the technical analyses.) I agree that a brief summary is appropriate so I wrote in a brief NPOV edit in the "Dismantlement" Section. Joeconsumer 10/01/05 | |||
Revision as of 19:01, 1 October 2005
I've never heard it called "Key Rail System." Usually it is called the "Key System." Should the name be changed? Aaronrp 00:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I decided that it should. Aaronrp 20:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Shipped to?
What South American country were the cars shipped to? - Leonard G. 03:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
09/30/05 Edits
Hi Everyone. As this article is getting longer I took the liberty adding dividers. I also modified/removed some edits by 155.91.19.73. There's an extensive article on the GM National Street Car Conspiracy so any discussion on this page should be minized. Some of these edits were a bit editorial (e.g. some valid opinions but not neccesarily fact) so I removed these to streamline the article.
What opinions?
Thanks for the description. I think it was all pretty true -- what were the opinionated lines? I can't take an East Bay survey but my family certainly didn't know about Key Systems and I've endured endless griping about lack of a convenient urban rail system (bart is a superhighway).
The streetcar conspiracy page has a lot of details about the various legalities, I guess there was too much here, but a summary is alright as long as its relevant to key, no? --155.91.19.73 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi: I'm an East Bay resident myself. I think it's a foregone conclusion that 99% of everyone here has no clue that this system ever existed - so I left that line in. However, I think the waters are a bit muddier as to whether or not there is significant "envy" of SF's light rail systems - maybe (you and I do) - but I don't think anyone knows this to a high degree of certainty so I left this part out. Your thought on the GMSC are great, but they're more appropriate for that article (your right by the way, that article does bog down in the technical analyses.) I agree that a brief summary is appropriate so I wrote in a brief NPOV edit in the "Dismantlement" Section. Joeconsumer 10/01/05