BTW, why should we take advice from somebody who voted for Street twice? Ack!

Uhh yeah, whatever you say pal. Albert was there too, sitting right next to me, and will tell you the opposite.
This comment is more than a few days late by the way, and if this is some sort of “i got the last word” effort, well I gotta call bullshit.

PP, I want you to know that I believe ALL of the candidates should address the SEPTA issue, and if Fattah, Brady and the rest of the yet-undeclared candidates were there, i would have proposed the question to all of them as well.

“Also, I wonder how many of them ride SEPTA?”

I do not believe anyone in City Council takes SEPTA on a regular basis if at all. I could be wrong about that.

“Ever see Chaka Fattah on the El? I haven’t.”

Well,, considering most his work is in DC, that doesn’t surprise me that much.

And again, it’s not so much about SEPTA, but with the way he answered my question. Saidel’s response was equally evasive, but he didn’t treat the question as if it was stupid.

My objection was his condescending attitude toward me and my question, which I clearly pointed out from the very beginning of my piece and referred back to several times over the course of the post. If “riding the subway” was a litmus test, I wouldn’t have given Saidel half the pass I gave him for his refusal to respond.

I wasn’t “picking on” anyone: the candidates appeared to answer voters’ questions. I was not satisfied with the candidates’ responses.

even though you spent a chunk of your post writing about it.

Well yes: if I didn’t provide the context of the question, the post would make no sense. It would be like reading in the newspaper “A deadly explosion happened” but without providing the where, when, who, why and how. These are basic concepts of writing. You’re confusing context with subject.