Note to moderators: this is not a post about passenger rail, it is a post about the way the magazine is written.
Finally got around to reading November's feature article, and while I really enjoyed the bounty of information it offered, there just seemed something really odd about the way some things were written. In a handful of instances I had to re-read a sentence or two, just to make sure I understood what he was trying to say....peculiar word choice....misplaced modifiers.......out of sequence thought processes...stuff like that.
Without beating the horse to death, I'll recount one example. In the article's last paragraph on page 33 he writes: "....the value of good customer service for a transportation organization facing so many constraints cannot be understated ".
Now, to me, if you say 'the value of something cannot be understated'....that means that the value is pretty low.
That coupled with some of the other peculiarities in the body of this article made me wonder if there might be more to the story than meets the eye?
1. Is Bob "okay"? Perhaps he may have been under the weather when doing the final assembly of this article?
2. Could this article have been ghost written by somebody from Quebec, and suffered in the translation?
3. Did the article suffer at the hands of an overworked editor rushing to make a deadline?
4. Or maybe it's just me? Perhaps I had a stroke? I don't think this is the case because I went back and read Frailey's article, and it still seemed to make sense.
Just curious how others might have read this?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.