Deleted, duplicate post
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod SD60MAC9500 greyhounds charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did? Well, I didn't complain. But I didn't like it that Sol was allowed back on here. To my understanding he was thrown off some years ago for his frequent personal attacks. And I was one subject to them. He researched me and used my involvement in Greyhound racing, which I am proud of, to viciously and falsely attack me. He similarly attacked others. Ok that's going way too far... No need to search someone's personal life. That's pretty low... Forum member miningman quit and deleted his Kalmbach accounts because another member went so far as to contact the university at which he taught to try to get him dismissed. That is disturbingly low.
SD60MAC9500 greyhounds charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did? Well, I didn't complain. But I didn't like it that Sol was allowed back on here. To my understanding he was thrown off some years ago for his frequent personal attacks. And I was one subject to them. He researched me and used my involvement in Greyhound racing, which I am proud of, to viciously and falsely attack me. He similarly attacked others. Ok that's going way too far... No need to search someone's personal life. That's pretty low...
greyhounds charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did? Well, I didn't complain. But I didn't like it that Sol was allowed back on here. To my understanding he was thrown off some years ago for his frequent personal attacks. And I was one subject to them. He researched me and used my involvement in Greyhound racing, which I am proud of, to viciously and falsely attack me. He similarly attacked others.
charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did?
Well, I didn't complain. But I didn't like it that Sol was allowed back on here.
To my understanding he was thrown off some years ago for his frequent personal attacks. And I was one subject to them. He researched me and used my involvement in Greyhound racing, which I am proud of, to viciously and falsely attack me. He similarly attacked others.
Ok that's going way too far... No need to search someone's personal life. That's pretty low...
Forum member miningman quit and deleted his Kalmbach accounts because another member went so far as to contact the university at which he taught to try to get him dismissed. That is disturbingly low.
Wow, I never knew that part of the story.
Idiots like that prove the value of online anonymity.
OvermodForum member miningman quit and deleted his Kalmbach accounts because another member went so far as to contact the university at which he taught to try to get him dismissed. That is disturbingly low.
Yup, seen that before as former Moderator. Very sad. I have enough faith in my employer to know that my job would never be at risk though they would want to know more about the party attempting to intimidate via a larger investigation probably to see if it was a targeted campaign.
I read that in 1977 everything west of Miles City MT was relinquished or abandoned by the MILW. In simple terms, how much, if any, of that trackage ever saw trains again?
Still in training.
Lithonia Operator CMStPnP Moderators monitor the Forums regardless if someone hits the report button. I too believe that's the case. I personally don't think it's fruitful to be looking for some culprit. It's entirely possible that the mods just looked in on the thread and made their decisions for their own reasons.
CMStPnP Moderators monitor the Forums regardless if someone hits the report button.
I too believe that's the case. I personally don't think it's fruitful to be looking for some culprit. It's entirely possible that the mods just looked in on the thread and made their decisions for their own reasons.
CMStPnPModerators monitor the Forums regardless if someone hits the report button.
greyhounds charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did? His language was appropriate, no personal attacks, i.e., AFAIK, he did not call or imply that anyone was stupid. He only asked s certain poster for facts. So you are saying if someone feels hurt, that is grounds for s bizarre moderator intervention? I wonder who complained? Well, I didn't complain. But I didn't like it that Sol was allowed back on here. To my understanding he was thrown off some years ago for his frequent personal attacks. And I was one subject to them. He researched me and used my involvement in Greyhound racing, which I am proud of, to viciously and falsely attack me. He similarly attacked others. You were not here when he was. Myself, and some others, were here.
charlie hebdo Again please specify what Sol did? His language was appropriate, no personal attacks, i.e., AFAIK, he did not call or imply that anyone was stupid. He only asked s certain poster for facts. So you are saying if someone feels hurt, that is grounds for s bizarre moderator intervention? I wonder who complained?
You were not here when he was. Myself, and some others, were here.
Ok that's going way to far.. No need to search someone's personal life. That's pretty low..
charlie hebdoGiven the forum procedures, somebody did report him to the moderators who then would have been the only persons able to delete all of Sol's posts. You and CMStPnP deny being the reporters, but someone or several did. Too bad a civil difference of opinion is not tolerated by the club, who apparently cannot and will not tolerate contrarian opinions.
Unless someone has some information from the site moderators, this discussion is limited.
Two years ago, on the model side of the forum, a poster asked to have his account deleted. It was. He and his posts were gone.
It's just possible that this happened in this case.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
I didn't report him, I wish I had thought of it. The guy was kicked once, he should not have been permitted back.
An "expensive model collector"
A "forum constitution" has a particular name: it is called the 'Terms of Service', commonly referred to by its initials as the TOS. A properly run Internet presence usually has one, carefully written and maintained because, well, it serves as the Constitution for what is permissible for people using the site.
The TOS for Kalmbach Media was last revised in 2018, and I think it can be found from the mystery-icon menu bar in at least some of the magazine pages but that used to be like pulling teeth to find. For the record, it is here:
https://www.kalmbach.com/termsofuse/
During some of the unannounced power wars, some of the forums acquired their own little power-trip sticky posts containing more stringent requirements to use particular forums. You might remember how dictatorial a hand came to be used here about a decade ago, then how it was relaxed under new moderation style, then emended to the current list (with its blanket ban on graffiti and hoboes, but without the blanket prohibition on criticizing modac or other policy decisions).
At some point a ukase was internally issued not to advise the forum participants of discipline applied to particular members... they just disappeared down the memory hole as far as postings were concerned, sometimes with all their direct posts vanishing but references to them, including their handles, remaining where quoted in other posts. In other cases, posts became orphaned as that amazingly prolific user 'Anonymous', but again with their name crystallized in the amber of quoted post text.
I have said before, and I'll say again, that I think there should be a formal grievance process that can be followed when essentially arbitrary moderation discipline has been imposed. That should be laid out, including delegates contact addresses, in the overall Kalmbach Media TOS, even if that is only to state 'it's our site and it's free so we can do whatever we like'. Since language regarding forum participants' tracking data has been more than once announced as a Kalmbach Media competitive marketing asset, I think that those data, too, should be open to discussion by forum participants -- oerhaos when the latter is taken up for discussion in 'stage three' the issue of forum user's rights in a broader context can be formalized.
I note that the TRR posts vanished before any from VerMontanan2 joined the chat. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any posts from Mark Meyer that recently. In my opinion both he and Mr. Sol have contributed remarkably, if contentiously, toward an understanding of the actual 'rise, decline, promise and fall' of the PCE/Louisville extension as a high-speed bridge-line alternative.
charlie hebdoGiven the forum procedures, somebody did report him to the moderators
False assumption. Moderators monitor the Forums regardless if someone hits the report button. I don't know how Kalmbach does it but Military.com was moderated 24 by 7. They had three levels of moderation. Unpaid volunteers, employees of MONSTER dot com and various interested third parties (Pentagon SOCOM). From what has been told me offline and online, Kalmbach moderates only during their working hours but they check all the forums regardless of the REPORT button. I would venture to gather that like Military dot com each users account has notes by the Moderator attached specifing past offenses and suspension periods with links to the old posts located in a Forum not visible to the public. The notes attached to your account are perm until they are modified or erased. So if you disappear and reappear sometime later the notes are still there unless you have a new account.
On Military dot com we did not have to respond to someone hitting the ALERT button but it was left to us to decide what to do after reading their notes. In some cases you have posters that hit the REPORT button a ridiculous amount of times and the Mods note that in the notes attached to their account as well as past research done on their past complaints. So it is another false assumption that hitting the REPORT button always results in punitive action. Depends on the history of the poster that hit the button. Likewise if you have someone that rarely if ever contributes anything of substance to the discussion and they are always making nasty remarks to the mods about others posts......obviously they probably have notes as well.
Anyhow.....more insight into how discussion forum software works. They usually never DELETE a post for legal reasons, they move posts to a forum not visible to the public and retain. To the public it looks like the post has been removed or deleted. The Mods can still read it and see it though in another Forum.
When you post something not public about a public figure with little or no evidence there might be some legal ramifications via lawyers that also like to troll public forums like this for defamitory material in which they can sue. Most past Milwaukee Trustees were well known lawyers based in or around Chicago. Personally, I avoid that subject area like I do the various rumors of railroad employee ghosts inhabiting business cars. Not a smart thing to post publicly in a Milwaukee area based publication.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid .... take the place of the Forum Constitution.... Forum Constitution? I knew that word would be challenged, and I expected the challenge would come from you. All it means is the forum rules. I used the word constitution to give the rules the sense of importance that they deserve. I also expected that someone would say that there is no freedom of speech on the forum, so members must tolerate anything the moderators decide. Was that going to be your next comment?
Murphy Siding Euclid .... take the place of the Forum Constitution.... Forum Constitution?
Euclid .... take the place of the Forum Constitution....
Forum Constitution?
I knew that word would be challenged, and I expected the challenge would come from you. All it means is the forum rules. I used the word constitution to give the rules the sense of importance that they deserve.
I also expected that someone would say that there is no freedom of speech on the forum, so members must tolerate anything the moderators decide. Was that going to be your next comment?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
You totally miss the point. He was allowed back on the forum. He did not violate any forum rules this time, as far as I have seen given that all his posts were deleted. Given the forum procedures, somebody did report him to the moderators who then would have been the only persons able to delete all of Sol's posts. You and CMStPnP deny being the reporters, but someone or several did. Too bad a civil difference of opinion is not tolerated by the club, who apparently cannot and will not tolerate contrarian opinions.
Backshop Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid .... take the place of the Forum Constitution.... Forum Constitution? I knew that word would be challenged, and I expected the challenge would come from you. All it means is the forum rules. I used the word constitution to give the rules the sense of importance that they deserve. I also expected that someone would say that there is no freedom of speech on the forum, so members must tolerate anything the moderators decide. Was that going to be your next comment? There you go, being confrontational again. Somehow, I don't think you'd act that way if all of us "regulars" were sitting around a table, having a few beers and talking about railroads.
There you go, being confrontational again. Somehow, I don't think you'd act that way if all of us "regulars" were sitting around a table, having a few beers and talking about railroads.
Well, not to be confrontational, but I think you are taking this too seriously. Maybe I should use some happy emoticons.
EuclidThat is a good observation, and I agree that putting this into perspective would be helpful. My understanding is that leading up to the abandonment of the Pacific Extension, a widespread popular belief developed that building it was a colossal blunder by the company. This idea seems to have gained massive traction by repeating it over and over. Certainly not everyone agrees, and since abandonment of the Pacific Extension was a big event, a relatively large controversy surrounds the whole matter.
My two cents, hindsight is 20-20. I see nothing wrong with the building or intent to build the PCE per se. Where it started to go downhill fast was the costs of the extension (bad forecasts? mismanagement of construction?). I would like to know the consensus on the massive overrun on construction costs. Thats where really things started to head South.
Error made by first bankruptcy trustee was keeping PCE debt on the books in tact and setting railroad up for future failure.
Errors made by Milwaukee Road management, trying to keep the whole empire in tact without early rationalization of lines. For example, pick your poison. Sell something in the East to pay down debt on PCE or improve it's grades / curves OR dump the PCE. Milwaukee did rationalize lines throughout it's history but not enough and it could have sold some less promising routes in the East to pay down debt from the West and improve the PCE or expand traffic haulage in the West. Milwaukee management also should have pleaded with the first trustee to dump some of the debt or deeper haircut to bond holders.
Disagree that the PCE could not have survived, it failed primarily due to steep construction cost #1 (which jumps off the balance sheet as very visible), secondly due to lack of investment to improve the line, third due to lack of traffic and haulage (which I think they could have fixed even with competing with the Northern lines). I do agree with others that initially traffic projections were not met after failing to meet the construction budget and both were unaddressed and combined to seal the fate of the PCE.
Concessions made by BN, etc in the late 1960's early 1970's. Will never know if they had a positive impact because as you can tell by the employee stories by 1970 the railroad was cash strapped and it was showing on the PCE via operational decisions being made and managers pleading with union employees not to flag locomotives for low safety related items like non-functioning horns because they needed every single one to run the PCE part of the railroad. The Milwaukee's SD40-2 order should have been a lot higher in quantity in the early 1970's as a start. Not to mention the years of deferred maintenence which they started to address by 1975-1977 in the East.
They bet the farm on the PCE in retrospect but it was not intentional. The PCE looked like a good financial decision and a good risk prior to construction start. Once all the costs were in though, Milwaukee management should have sobered up to the fact they had a serious long-term financial issue on their hands they needed to fix. Yet they never really attacked the item on their balance sheet, they instead kicked the can down the road through more than one bankruptcy. Hoping that someday traffic would fill the rail line and they would be able to fix everything. The reverse started to happen with the increasing use of trucking and improving roads. BN might have played a small role but primarily the issue was the debt carried forwards and lack of investment in PCE after it was built. In contrast BN paid down construction debt and consolidated lines via merger so much that by 1970's BN was able to finance a very large line build out into PRB, Milwaukee was scraping by still.
Imagine if Milwaukee had money to partner with BN on PRB coal haulage and if BN was willing to take Milwaukee on as a partner? Imagine if Milwaukee had money to rebuild parts of the PCE to better operating parameters? Imagine if Milwaukee spun off or sold a large chunk of it's branch lines in the East prior to 1955 and used the money on the PCE.
Euclid.... take the place of the Forum Constitution....
Why don't you ask the moderators, they'd be the ones to know.
Backshop Euclid Does anybody actually know he was thrown off the forum several years ago? I was there and participated in several of his posts. I know that there were a lot of people who probably wished he was thrown off. So if he left on his own decision, there would likely be people asserting that he was thrown off, and that would be the persisting explanation with no evidence needed. The point is that in this thread, he did not violate any forum rules. Although, by using the abuse button, there may have been a popular vote to ban him by those who were offended by someone disagreeing with them. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing or being offended. But I cannot imagine a moderator agreeing to let the popular demand take the place of the Forum Constitution. Please tell me that didn’t happen. You keep implying that he was kicked off without any facts. I didn't report him and I don't know anyone who did. Also, why do YOU feel that you always have to be contrarian and argue with everyone?
Euclid Does anybody actually know he was thrown off the forum several years ago? I was there and participated in several of his posts. I know that there were a lot of people who probably wished he was thrown off. So if he left on his own decision, there would likely be people asserting that he was thrown off, and that would be the persisting explanation with no evidence needed. The point is that in this thread, he did not violate any forum rules. Although, by using the abuse button, there may have been a popular vote to ban him by those who were offended by someone disagreeing with them. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing or being offended. But I cannot imagine a moderator agreeing to let the popular demand take the place of the Forum Constitution. Please tell me that didn’t happen.
You keep implying that he was kicked off without any facts. I didn't report him and I don't know anyone who did. Also, why do YOU feel that you always have to be contrarian and argue with everyone?
What I find ironic is that this is the most active current thread despite the access to it being a realtive 10 miles of bad road.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Again please specify what Sol did? His language was appropriate, no personal attacks, i.e., AFAIK, he did not call or imply that anyone was stupid. He only asked s certain poster for facts. So you are saying if someone feels hurt, that is grounds for s bizarre moderator intervention? I wonder who complained?
Well, it wasn't me. And with all of his posts deleted, it's going to be impossible to find a smoking gun.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD Whoever did what they did totally screwed up the thread. You can't even access the therad by clicking on the last post from the index. Kalmbach IT strikes again.
Whoever did what they did totally screwed up the thread. You can't even access the therad by clicking on the last post from the index.
Kalmbach IT strikes again.
Same here I am getting initial errors until I click on Ascending or Descending order. For the record, I think the tone in the thread is OK, I have thick skin and fully understand that along with weak evidence comes some disparagement in an attempt to throw people off the trail of challenging the weak evidence. Part of the human condition.
BTW, PCE....Operational Employee interviews (various dates of service), note that none of them comment on any surge in traffic or boom business, some do complain about bad track, rather interesting that none of them have a similar perspective to some of what is presented here. I believe their testimony below is honest and do not think they are trying to keep anything quiet from the public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LqU02DAhTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICgAwZ3RNk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiMFjpiuZGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTdJi85aUzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP74818d8ao&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMEBNlh8co0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN1r-Sl50Z8
The last interview by Mr. Pember describes some late Milwaukee Road innovations developed on the PCE.
charlie hebdoAgain please specify what Sol did? His language was appropriate, no personal attacks, i.e., AFAIK, he did not call or imply that anyone was stupid. He only asked s certain poster for facts. So you are saying if someone feels hurt, that is grounds for s bizarre moderator intervention? I wonder who complained?
EuclidConsidering the context of Tree's comment, I assume he is refering to MS as the one with the attitude of being too confrontational about the Milwaukee Road debate.
It's happened before, and not with Mr. Sol.
Again, it's when someone implies that someone is stupid/ignorant/what-have-you for having posted what they posted. Especially if they don't offer a correction as part of their response. In Mr. Sol's defense, he did eventually go on to cite applicable information.
I don't think anyone begrudges him his knowledge. One of the nice parts of this forum is that information is shared.
But don't start off pointing out that (the editorial) you are simply smarter than everyone else. That tends to rub folks the wrong way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.