Amtrak had a very good performance on the NEC this past Thanksgiving Sunday.
1. Almost all arrivals into NYP were within 5 mintes early or late with most lates 1 - 2 minutes. Of course the LD trains from the south and train 48 did have some issues but not many.
2. Trains from NYP generally arrived early in WASH, ALB, BOS within 5 minutes or a few as late as 15 minutes.
3. The departures and arrivals at NYP seem to indicate that the schedules were adheared to very much. Maybe even trains into NYP were slowed to arrive in their assigned slot ?
4. Of course there were not the large amounts of commuter traffic as compared to a weekday.
5. Departures from NYP were very much on time which indicates that with proper planning trains can get out on time even with over flow traffic.
Thanks for the report!
Amtrak gets it right more often than some of its critics wish to acknowledge.
Amtrak by design or evolution seems to be two or three entities: the NEC, which runs very well; the short-corridor state-sponsored services, some of which are growing; and the legacy, long distance routes, which seem troubled. How was Amtrak's performance on the latter?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The end point and all stations on-time performance for all of Amtrak's trains deteriorated signifcantly in FY14.
In FY14 the end point on-time performance for the long distance trains was 50.4 per cent, down from 71.9 per cent in FY13 and 70.7 per cent in FY12. The all stations on-time performance was 40.0 per cent, down from 54.6 per cent in FY13 and 54.8 per cent in FY12.
The best on-time end performance was chalked up by the City of New Orleans at 88 per cent; the worst was the Empire Builder at 26. 6 per cent. The best all stations on-time performance was turned in by the Palametto at 72.6 per cent; the worst was racked up by the Lake Shore Limited at 44.6 per cent.
In the NEC the Acelas were on time at their end points 74.9 per cent, down from 85.3 per cent in FY13 and 89.7 per cent in FY12. The NEC regional trains were on time at their end points 75.3 per cent in FY14, down from 84.2 per cent in FY13 and 86.5 per cent in FY12.
The State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains were on-time at their end points 73.8 per cent in FY14, down from 82 per cent in FY13 and FY13. The Capitols had the best end point on time performance at 95.3 per cent, which was essentially unchanged from FY13 and FY12. The worst end point on-time performance was turned in by the Wolverines at 33 per cent.
Overall the system on-time end point performance declined by 9.9 per cent from FY13, and the all stations on-time numbers declined by 7.5 per cent.
The on-time performance record for a day or a week or a month is not a good incidator of how the system is performing overall. One should look at a minimum of one year to identify trends, etc.
Sam1 The on-time performance record for a day or a week or a month is not a good incidator of how the system is performing overall. One should look at a minimum of one year to identify trends, etc.
Sam correct as far as it goes. The point is this is the way to run a passenger RR in this country. One day at a time. This is the way the NEC should run all the time.
The freight RRs will not even put them in the equation. Of course the NEC delapidated tracks will have delays but still this is an attainable goal for the NEC. Note: definition -- delipidated is track geometry not up to 160 MPH standards.
This poster has followed the Thanksgiving holiday performance and some observations.
1. Has the parking of the 15 HHP-8s allowed for fewer motor failures ?
2. 25 ACS-64s are delivered with at least 23 in service and for the most part are more reliable that the AEM-7s.
3. Number of AEM-7s parked is unknown but there may be more motors available for standby service.
4. Reported that an ACS-64 was protect motor assigned to NYP station.
5. Some of the ACS-64s may have been asisgned to longer trains since they have better acceleration giving better enroute times.
6. The ongoing upgrades to the 25 HZ power supply may have prevented low voltages that slow trains.
7. Extra effort to manage passengers may have resulted in the originating of trains on time ?
8. On time for early trains allowed for later trains to originate on time. Previous years this was a real problem.
blue streak 1 Sam1 The on-time performance record for a day or a week or a month is not a good incidator of how the system is performing overall. One should look at a minimum of one year to identify trends, etc. Sam correct as far as it goes. The point is this is the way to run a passenger RR in this country. One day at a time. This is the way the NEC should run all the time. The freight RRs will not even put them in the equation. Of course the NEC delapidated tracks will have delays but still this is an attainable goal for the NEC. Note: definition -- delipidated is track geometry not up to 160 MPH standards.
I did not understand you to mean that the NEC or the system should run every day as it did on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. You just mentioned the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
No business entity should run on a one day at a time basis. It should have a long term strategic plan. One of the arguments made by Amtrak's supporters is that it needs to have a long term financial plan so that it can think beyond the end of the fiscal year, i.e. get the Congress to fund it for multiple years.
As the numbers show, Amtrak's on-time performance records for each service line, i.e NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains, and Long Distance Trains is getting worse. Not better!
To be able to have every train run on time every day probably would require an investment in property, plant, and equipment that would not be justified by the benefits. What is desired is an on-time performance record where the incremental increase in the cost to achieve it is equal to the incremental benefits.
The point is that with proper planning, adequate personel, fairly good equipment, decent ROW, and other items the Amtrak can run a mostly on time operation on weeekends. Of course weather, no tresspasing incidents, other impediments must also be absent.
So the one day should be a template for operating on all weekend trains on time. It appears that on time is more important to passengers instead of reducing timetable times and being occassionally late. Then it is one day at a time getting a high percentage of trains on time. Until we can see October and November stats the effect on the NEC of the new ACS-64s will not be known.
Once the weekend trains are on time then an effort to get weekdaays on time. Did not get to check Wedensday before Thanksgiving.
We are critics but when Amtrak begins to get it right then acknowledge.
schlimm Amtrak by design or evolution seems to be two or three entities: the NEC, which runs very well; the short-corridor state-sponsored services, some of which are growing; and the legacy, long distance routes, which seem troubled. How was Amtrak's performance on the latter?
Here in Va there are a number of long distance Amtraks. I cant speak the numbers, but in riding them, they usually are 75% full or better. Hopefully thats good.
One train in particular I can vouch for.... The "Auto-Train". If it is any indication how this train is doing, having on average 20 auto-racks at the end of the train, and about 10 cars ahead of them.... Id say this one is doing real good!
I asked a good friend of mine (locomotive service forman for CSX, Amtrak, and NS) about a year ago if that train actually did good business. He replied "it is the best train Amtrak has". I cant verify that with numbers, but I have no reason to doubt him.
I get caught at one of our crossings now and then, plus see it go thru town. From outward appearnces, yeah.... they gotta be making money on this one.
PM RailfanOne train in particular I can vouch for.... The "Auto-Train". If it is any indication how this train is doing, having on average 20 auto-racks at the end of the train, and about 10 cars ahead of them.... Id say this one is doing real good! I asked a good friend of mine (locomotive service forman for CSX, Amtrak, and NS) about a year ago if that train actually did good business. He replied "it is the best train Amtrak has". I cant verify that with numbers, but I have no reason to doubt him. I get caught at one of our crossings now and then, plus see it go thru town. From outward appearnces, yeah.... they gotta be making money on this one.
And that is the problem with relying on the impression or the comment of a loco service person to draw a conclusion. It's false because it's not factual.
According to the Amtrak official numbers in their montly report in Oct. 2013 in C-1 (they are slow to give the revenue and cost reports) ALL Amtrak LD trains lose money, lots of it. Auto-Train was the best, however, losing 5.8 cents per seat mile and 8.9 cents per passenger mile. Compare that with all LD train averages of losing 11.7 and 20.5 cents, respectively. By comparison, the NEC trains make a profit of 29 cents per passenger mile. The Short-Distance Corridor trains lose only 4.3 cents per passenger mile.
Thought would check this last weekend sat & sun. Arrivals NYP from Bos Sat & Sun had only 2 rains more than 13 minutes late. Remember that number. From Albany latest was only 10 minutes late with more 10 - 20 early. From PHL only 3 more than 1 hour late 2 being Keystones. All others 13 or less late.
These numbers do not include LD trains which are not on regular status report.
A check from Richmond and Charlottesville did show every LD train shaving 1/2 - 1hour off time from those locations except the poor Cardinal which lost an additional hour.
In FY14 the Auto Train lost $4.3 million or 1.8 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. It had an average load factor of 72.2 per cent.
The long distance trains lost an average of 19.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interst, and miscellaneous charges. Amtrak does not disclose the allocation of depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. However, it is probably fair to say that the loss incurred by the Auto Train, as well is the other long distance trains, is five to ten per cent higher after inclusion of the capital charges.
The NEC had an opeating profit of $482.2 million or 25 cents per passenger mile in FY14. The Acelas, which carried 30.4 per cent of the NEC passengers, accounted for 63.9 per cent of the NEC operating profit. The higher fares charged by the Acela is the major reason.
If one assumes that the NEC wears 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, etc., the NEC had a fully allocated loss of $96.9 million or approximately 5 cents per passenger mile. This is an educated guess; unfortunately, Amtrak does not allocate depreciaton, interest, etc. by service lines, although it says that it is working on an accounting model to do so. It has been working on the model for years.
Don't want to get to pickey about losses per mile, but would like to question how much each state looses on their highways say per passenger mile, or vehicle mile, (probably pretty close to the same, from my observation of vehicle passenger loads). Wouldn't federal road funds be considered a loss, also, as the monies contribute to the national debt?
agdocsouter Don't want to get to pickey about losses per mile, but would like to question how much each state looses on their highways say per passenger mile, or vehicle mile, (probably pretty close to the same, from my observation of vehicle passenger loads). Wouldn't federal road funds be considered a loss, also, as the monies contribute to the national debt?
Highways are infrastructure. They are not intended to turn a profit, with the possible exception of some toll roads. The users are expected to pay for them. And they do.
Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc.
To the extent that the fuel taxes and direct fees, as well as tolls, don't cover the cost of the roadways, they are paid for by property taxes (city streets and county roads) and/or transfers from the state and general tax funds. So who pays into the general funds. Motorists for the most part.
As of FY12 there were 211,814,830 licensed motorists in the United States. Or approximately 88 to 92 per cent of the adult population! Most of them pay state and federal income taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, etc. They pay directly or indirectly most of the monies that flow into the general funds, as well as the property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc., and it is from these funds that the monies to cover the difference between the cost of the roadways paid for by direct user fees and the total cost is drawn.
The monies in the general fund don't come from little green men from Mars bearing sacks of money to cover the deficiencies in the highway trust fund. Or from France! Or anywhere else!
Of those people who are not motorists, a significant portion of them are too poor to have a car. In Dallas, for example, 45 per cent of the people who ride DART's buses, as well as 23 per cent of the people who use the light rail system, don't have a car. Public transit is their only option. In many instances they are not tax payers; they are tax consumers.
There is a relatively small percentage of the population that does not drive, for a variety of reasons, that pays state and federal taxes (directly and indirectly) that are part of the monies transferred to the highway trust fund. But they probably are a very small part of the population.
The notion that motorists don't pay for the cost of the nation's roadways is wrong. Given the large number of motorists, they are the ones that pay for the roadways, but they don't see the total cost at the pump or other price points.
There is a subsidy for motorists. But it is not what many people think. Upper income people, because they pay more in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc., as well as federal income taxes, ares subsidizing lower income motorists. It has been that way since the get go, and it is likely to remain so.
but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive.
But subisidization of long distance trains happens to be popular.
Why? "I may may use that train but I want it just in case I need it." or "I never use it but Grandma uses it once a year to visit us." or "I would have to close my business if it were not for the people who arrive by train."
daveklepper but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive. But subisidization of long distance trains happens to be popular. Why? "I may may use that train but I want it just in case I need it." or "I never use it but Grandma uses it once a year to visit us." or "I would have to close my business if it were not for the people who arrive by train."
"There is a relatively small percentage of the population that does not drive, for a variety of reasons, that pays state and federal taxes (directly and indirectly) that are part of the monies transferred to the highway trust fund. But they probably are a very small part of the population."
As noted a small percentage of the population that does not drive pays a variety of taxes, just like motorists, and some of these taxes find their way into highways. But they probably represent a very small percentage of the total population. They are a marginal factor.
Many of the people who don't drive are too poor to afford a car. In many instances they are net tax consumers as opposed to tax payers.
What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes? Here is a hint, at least with respect to federal personal income taxes, although they are not the only tax stream for highway support. In FY11, according to the IRS, 46 per cent of U.S. citizens filing a federal income tax return had Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of less than $30,000 a year, and 56 per cent had adjusted gross income of less than $40,000 per year. Their average tax liability was $933. On the other hand, 13.4 per cent of filers had AGI of $100,000 or more, and they paid 74.6 per cent of federal personal income taxes. This is the reason for the argument that when the total income stream is taken into consideration upper income motorists are subsidizing lower income motorists.
My main point is that motorists, for the most part, pay for the highways that they use. They are not subsidized in any significant way, contrary to popular belief. The monies that are transferred from the general fund or generated from a variety of other sources, i.e. property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc. don't come from external sources. For the most part they come from motorists, thanks in part to their large base.
Many if not most people, when talking about highway funding, only take into consideration fuel taxes, motorist fees and tolls. But the funding stream is far broader than these sources. One should look at the macro picture as well as the micro picture to understand the total funds flow.
I think both sam and daveklepper are missing a key difference between taxpayers subsidizing highways vs subsidizing Amtrak, particularly long distance. For sake of discussion, let's say I pay a typical amoun of federal and state income taxes, state sales tax and local property taxes. But let us assume I do not drive an automobile. Dave implies that I therefore do not derive any benefit: "but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive" But that is not true. Everyone of us benefits directly from highways and local roads every day in terms of the transportation of goods and the ability of service personnel to acess our dwellings for repairs and indirectly through the benefit of living in a viable economy. However, if Amtrak long distance disappeared overnight, very, very few would notice its absence. Unlike some, I am not a proponent of making everything paid for by user fees. Infrastructure is a traditional and valuable government task. But running a heavily-subsidized long distance train service that so few use or could even potentially use (unlike local commuter and mass transit) seems to me to be a poor allocation of funding.
Sam1 said
"Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc."
Let's rephrase this to be correct. It should read "Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, AND SUBSIDIZED by property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc." That subsidy includes property tax paid by the railroads, thus forced in a small way to support their competitor.
And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax. They pay indirectly since the landlord must use a portion of their rental payment towards the property tax. Naturally they also pay the various consumption taxes and in many cases probably some income tax.
Motorists who continue to drive also reap the benefit of mass transit. Add another 1,000 cars to a congested road and you can easily end up with virtual gridlock. A transit option, although it may seem superficially expensive, can be a very cheap way to relieve pressure and keep traffic moving.
For decades North America has focussed on a road-based system of moving people within cities. We have a long way to go to catch up and create transit networks that provide a significant percentage of commuters with a truly viable alternative. I believe New York City is probably one of the best exceptions. In the meantime raw statistics can be cited to imply new transit starts elsewhere are a failure.
Sam1 What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes?
What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes?
Whoa Sam1:
Do not know what other states do but here in Georgia 1% of the State sales tax goes to roads and 2% of our local sales taxes (local any where from 4 - 7% ) go to roads and bridges. Now since sales taxes burden to lower income persons disproportinally they are supporting the roads with more of their total income.
Note: Sales taxes are also placed onto gasoline not a per gallon tax ( state -- 7cents per gallon ) but on total amount of gasoline retail costs per last quarter. That retail cost is including the sales tax so a tax on a tax.
blue streak 1 Sam1 What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes? Whoa Sam1: Do not know what other states do but here in Georgia 1% of the State sales tax goes to roads and 2% of our local sales taxes (local any where from 4 - 7% ) go to roads and bridges. Now since sales taxes burden to lower income persons disproportinally they are supporting the roads with more of their total income. Note: Sales taxes are also placed onto gasoline not a per gallon tax ( state -- 7cents per gallon ) but on total amount of gasoline retail costs per last quarter. That retail cost is including the sales tax so a tax on a tax.
Sales taxes have a greater impact on poor people than middle class or wealthy people. But the notion that the poor, most of whom don’t drive, are underwriting the cost of the nation’s roadways is wrong. Most of the monies for the nation’s highways come directly or indirectly from motorists, although the revenue stream is not always clear and easy to follow.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2013 14.5 per cent or 45.8 million U.S. residents lived in poverty. Approximately 33.9 million were adults. Most of them don’t have a car because they cannot afford one. They make up a substantial portion of the population that does not drive. A high portion of their income, which in many instances is supplemented with a variety of federal support programs, i.e. food stamps, public housing, rent vouchers, Medicaid, etc., goes for food, clothing, housing, transportation, and medical care. Most food does not attract sales tax. This is especially true if it is bought with food stamps. In many states essential clothing items are at least periodically exempted from sales tax. Most of the poor use public transportation, if they are mobile at all, which does not attract sales tax. Neither does housing and medical care!
Most of the sales taxes, as well as property taxes, excise taxes, income taxes, etc. are paid by the two top quintiles of income earners in America. Most of them drive or at least own a car.
The IRS Sales Tax Tables give a good indication of the spread between sales taxes paid by lower income people and those paid by people in the top two brackets. In Georgia a couple filing a joint return with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $20,000 in 2012 could deduct $163 in sales taxes; those with an AGI of $60,000 to $70,000 could deduct $485, and those with an AGI of $90,000 to $100,000 could deduct $551. In Texas the deductions would be $273, $816, and $1,019.
In 2011, the latest year for validated IRS statistics, persons with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $100,000 to $500,000 paid 74.6 per cent of the federal personal income taxes. The top 2/10s of one per cent paid 21.1 per cent of the personal income taxes. These are the folks who supply most of the monies to the general fund that are subsequently used for a variety of purposes, including transfers from the general fund to the highway trust fund. The same thing happens at state, county, and local governments.
For anyone who takes the time to study taxation in the U.S., it should be clear that upper income people in effect are subsidizing lower income people. And this is true for motorists.
Poor people, as well as many low income (working poor) pay few if any taxes, especially after the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is factored into the equation. In effect they get back whatever sales, excise, etc. taxes that they might have paid. Who covers the EITC? The top brackets, most of whom drive.
There are a few people in the top brackets who don’t drive, i.e. the person who lives in Manhattan and never learns to drive, but they are few and far between. They pay a variety of taxes that find their way into the general fund(s). Some of these monies flow back to highway funds. But they are a very small percentage of the whole. To claim that they are a significant factor in subdizing motorists is nibbling at the edges. They don't even move the needle.
Sam1Sales taxes have a greater impact on poor people than middle class or wealthy people.
Sales tax is a consumption tax. So if I am dirt poor or fabulously wealthy I pay the same amount of tax for each amount consumed. As a percent of income of course it will have a larger impact on the poor because the poor person is paying the exact same tax as the wealthy person but with less income. As an issue of fairness, however, both the wealthy and the poor person is paying the exact same tax on the same item. The government is not stepping in to subsidize either class. Which in my view is how taxes should be assessed.
Where we end up getting into trouble, national debt wise is with the income redistribution models trying to make the impact of a consumptioin tax the same across different income levels. Which is self defeating economically and makes us all poor vs lifting any lower income class higher.
Below is a good comparison among the states of tax systems.
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
Sales taxes, property taxes, etc. fall more heavily on lower income people as a per cent of disposable income than middle and upper income people.
My key point, however, is that middle income and upper income people pay substantially more in taxes than low income people. They are paying for the nation's roadways. Not the poor or working poor!
American motorists are not being subsidized. They pay for the roads that they use, although the revenue trail is difficult to follow. One thing is certain. The nation's roadways are not being funded by little green men from Mars that deliver bags of cash to a secret desert location where they can be picked up for the general fund.
cx500 Let's rephrase this to be correct. It should read "Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, AND SUBSIDIZED by property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc." That subsidy includes property tax paid by the railroads, thus forced in a small way to support their competitor. And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax.
And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax.
I don't disagree with your tax analysis, Sam. Yes, the roads are paid for out of all types of taxes, some of which come directly from the operation of motor vehicles. But a significant amount comes from more general taxes. I have no difficulty with that, and the North American economy is based on that model.
Where we differ is that I also have no problem with the same pool of general taxes that help fund the road network also being tapped for passenger rail and transit projects. The difference is one of perception and nomenclature. Because passenger rail is identified as a subsidy it gets perceived as "bad". The equivalent support for roads is called "investment" and therefore "good". The capital cost of building rail transit lines is an investment, just as a new interchange or widened highway is. Those latter also have become mighty expensive. Often transit is the more cost-effective investment due to its smaller land footprint and higher capacity for moving people.
It is easy to pick out the costs associated with a single LRT line because it stands alone. We never see the annualized cost of operating an equivalent piece of roadway, or potential roadway. Only a very small percentage of a population regularly uses most specific stretches of road. Many road expansions get justified including soft costs, such as putting a value on people's time and wear&tear to cars stuck in traffic jams, as part of the cost-benefit study. In reality, a new road often does little more than create more traffic and congestion, so a subsequent audit using the same criteria might tell an ugly story. But nobody ever does one.
Each of the four C-Train (LRT) lines leading into downtown Calgary has proved very popular, and in rush hour are jam-packed. But they still only carry a minority of commuters and off-peak travellers. That does not mean they are an expensive failure, merely that the network is still skeletal. Cross-town traffic in particular remains ill served and driving is, realistically, the most viable option. If and when more lines are built, the percentage using the system will grow accordingly. A "small" percentage of users may well show an urgent need for expansion rather than a misuse of tax dollars.
John
Will try to stop thread drift.
1. Last weekend NEC very good on time except for one broken down train.2. A ripley's beliieve it or not all LD trains arriving Chicago December 25 early. Yes that was all.
3. today some up to 39 minutes late but many early.
blue streak 1Will try to stop thread drift.
Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread.
schlimm blue streak 1 Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread.
blue streak 1
Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for saying he's trying to stop thread drift... ?
Overmod schlimm blue streak 1 Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread. Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for saying he's trying to stop thread drift... ?
schlimmOr a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it?
Yes, but...
Seriously, there's a difference between someone saying he's trying to bring a thread back on topic by posting something on topic, and someone complaining that a thread is drifting and people should stop it. IMHO the former is nonreprehensible speech. Far be it from me to complain about evolutionary thread drifting*
-- A former music lover... (and, come to mention it, root beer aficionado)
*(And that even though the first-listed official Kalmbach rule for Forum use is "Please keep discussions on topic"... ;-})
Overmod schlimm Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it? Yes, but... Seriously, there's a difference between someone saying he's trying to bring a thread back on topic by posting something on topic, and someone complaining that a thread is drifting and people should stop it. IMHO the former is nonreprehensible speech. Far be it from me to complain about evolutionary thread drifting* -- A former music lover... (and, come to mention it, root beer aficionado) *(And that even though the first-listed official Kalmbach rule for Forum use is "Please keep discussions on topic"... ;-})
schlimm Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it?
A internet forum is like any other forum of human communications among multiple parties - it goes where it goes as each party states his own ideas about what he has 'understood' from all the prior converstaion. No multiple party conversation has 'stayed on topic' in the history of mankind. Humans aren't built that way.
Have fun and quit the female dog act. The emphasis is on FUN!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.