I was trying to write a letter to the Age complaining about... well...
'In his interesting article on Melbourne’s future rail transport options, * * manages to get the details of the city’s defunct rail lines so hopelessly wrong he creates an even greater mess than the truth (no small feat). Three suburban rail lines are conflated in his discussion of the ‘Outer circle lines’, and within the text itself he contradicts himself as to where these ‘lines’ might have run.
'Of course, where these rail lines did and didn’t run is fairly unimportant. Anyone who wants to analyse public transport development in 19th century Melbourne can do so at her or his leisure, though valuable space was wasted that might have been used in discussion why some rail lines do and don’t ‘work’. But once again I am left wondering: if a journalist – and then editors and subeditors – can get a series of facts so wrong, how can I believe The Age when it comes to other subjects outside my field of knowledge?'
...blah blah. How can I prevent myself from wasting my own time on these futile exercises. Ridiculous. Hope you liked it.