Deleted.
Paul,
I hereby nominate your recent post "No true Scotsman" for the Post of the Month award with automatically puts it in the running for Post of the Year.
Even more amusing was the wiki explanation of the term, which I had never heard before, and the separate wiki entry about "True Scotsmen" answered THE one true question about kilts.
Bravo. You have restored a bit of humor to this forum.
Mac McCulloch
"Curiouser and curiouser" "I am not now nor have I ever been [at this point used to follow] a member of the Communist party" but now it's "a passenger train advocate." This is really getting out there. Perhaps "fellow traveler" would be a better, or at least sillier metaphor?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCH Unfortunately, the term "passenger train advocate" has come to imply somebody who subscribes to the agenda of NARP in toto.
Unfortunately, the term "passenger train advocate" has come to imply somebody who subscribes to the agenda of NARP in toto.
This is a reverse of the "no true Scotsman" arguments -- if anyone from Scotland does something bad, you can always find an excuse as to why they are "not a true Scotsman!". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman for a better and more in depth explanation.
Here, there is a person with a connection by birth or heritage to Scotland, that person constantly reminds you of how great Scotland is (It is, isn't it? Faraday, Watt, . . . ), and were I to say something in the qualified and subjective tense "Suppose you as a Scot were to defend the historical heritage and greatness of Scotland" I get an earful "How dare you call me a Scot! Stop labeling me! You are calling me by a negative stereotype!"
What I really said was, "suppose you as a passenger train advocate reason that trains save on fuel, pollution, congestion, land waste, accident deaths, and provide an alternative for those unwilling or unable to drive." Does this really merit coming back at me and saying "How dare you call me a passenger train advocate, I find that term refers to an offensive stereotype!"
Or better yet, "stop calling me a Scottish Nationalist! I have never asked for Scottish independence! All I ever said was that those English (persons of uncertain heritage) should stop their oppression, exploitation, and tyranny over the northern reaches of the United Kingdom!"
I was going to compare this mangling of the usage of words to George Orwell's 1984, but it seems headed beyond that to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
John WR Paul, I looked at the link and did not see your definition of passenger train advocate. Of your points I have never done anything in points one through 6. With regards to point 7 I have stated that as a matter of public policy we need a balanced transportation system. That system includes roads, rails and airlines. There should be a place for all of them. While I have never been a member of NARP or a similar organization I have for many years been a member of the American Automobile Association. The closest relationship I would have to your criteria would have to do with automobiles, not passenger trains. So I am not and have never been a passenger train advocate. I don't want to be untactful but I regard the term an an offensive stereotype and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it. John
I looked at the link and did not see your definition of passenger train advocate.
Of your points I have never done anything in points one through 6. With regards to point 7 I have stated that as a matter of public policy we need a balanced transportation system. That system includes roads, rails and airlines. There should be a place for all of them.
While I have never been a member of NARP or a similar organization I have for many years been a member of the American Automobile Association. The closest relationship I would have to your criteria would have to do with automobiles, not passenger trains.
So I am not and have never been a passenger train advocate. I don't want to be untactful but I regard the term an an offensive stereotype and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it.
John
So you "did not see (my) definition of passenger train advocate" in the link. The link spoke to a grass-roots effort to preserve a rail line in Oklahoma for potential future use in passenger rail. The headline of the article refers to the citizens engaged in that effort as "passenger train advocates." Such real-world examples of usage of a word form a functional definition of a word.
"Balanced transportation system." What does that mean? Does it mean that we should have a balance between public and private (auto) transportation options? Would government support for a bus service with mininum standards of seating space, maybe on double-deck or articulated buses to provide a public ground mode of transportation meet that requirement? Especially since buses have Amtrak beat by at least a factor of 2 in energy efficiency and are much cheaper to operate, meaning the same government subsidy dollar could have twice the benefit?
So "passenger train advocate" is not only a stereotype, but it is an offensive stereotype? What is that stereotype, that a passenger train advocate no longer operates their 20-year-old car but has it up on cement blocks in the front yard with the grass and weeds grown long through the wheel wells, has an obsession with earning money, listens to Rap music with the stereo too loud, would be married to multiple wives if the law didn't forbid it, drinks too much on March 17, eats beans and avocados, doesn't let their wife or daughter out of the house unaccompanied by a male relative, drinks tea and talks endlessly about mindless philosophy, has a brother-in-law who works in "waste management", speaks English entirely too fast and with a vague British accent, and greets visitors by racking a shell into firing position in a pump shotgun?
John WR PS. Paul, I am not a "passenger train advocate." Absolutely not. Please, please do not label me. I am an individual human being with a variety of views on a variety of things just as you are. I hope we may respect each other's humanity. John
PS. Paul,
I am not a "passenger train advocate." Absolutely not. Please, please do not label me. I am an individual human being with a variety of views on a variety of things just as you are. I hope we may respect each other's humanity.
See http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/21801020/passenger-train-advocates-urge-odot-to-keep-sand-springs-track-to-okc for a working definition of a "passenger train advocate."
So I take that you have never, ever 1) written an op-ed piece or letter-to-the-editor in support of passenger trains, 2) testified or spoken at a public hearing or forum in support of passenger trains or a specific passenger train, 3) written to a public official or member of Congress in support of passenger trains, 4) been a dues paying member of an organization with the mission of influencing public opinion in favor of passenger trains (such as NARP, URPA, or its local chapters), 5) given a public talk outlining the advantages of passenger trains or a specific mode or type of passenger train, 6) built and operated an exhibit or model train layout in promotion of an actual passenger train service, 7) posted on a Web forum in support of passenger trains or passenger train service or offered reasons to support passenger trains or supported funding for passenger trains on such a Forum?
At one time or another over the past 45 years I have done every last one of those seven items, and I have done them under my own name. If someone wants to call me a "passenger train advocate", I will not take offense at such a label as I have committed "acts of passenger train advocacy." If someone wants to call me a "research engineer", I will take no offense at that label as I have recent and in-review scholarly publications on advancing the science and methods of engineering practice.
Some here may ask, "Paul, how can you even call yourself a passenger train advocate when you have been so critical of passenger trains and of others advocating for trains"? If someone wants to call me an "iconoclastic" passenger train advocate, or even call me a "heretical" passenger train advocate, I will take those two terms to be figures-of-speech in common usage and not having anything to do on my religion or with anyone else's religion.
From my "research engineer" label, the standards of scholarship are such that one cannot simply expect to claim things that confirm one's beliefs. If trains are advanced as a way of reducing pollution or reducing the demand for imported oil, a reasoned case based on numerical evidence ought to be made or one should retreat from that claim. If trains are meritorious of some "equal share" of public subsidy, a reasoned case should be made for what an equal share means and if the work product of the subsidy has social benefit co-measurate with the dollars contributed. If trains relieve congestion, some numbers should be presented on how many people ride the train in relation to the capacity of a highway.
So in respect for a person's humanity and individuality, I will not refer to anyone who has not done any of the seven listed things as a "passenger train advocate." Ever.
You raise many issues, Paul, and to answer all of them would, I think, make any reader weary. But let me try to address one.
I agree that we subsidize Amtrak and that every person who rides Amtrak (except, perhaps, Acela passengers who seem to pay their own way) benefits from that subsidy.
And I do not see people who oppose Amtrak as necessarily being in bad faith. In government I see them as the loyal opposition. In the United States people have differing views about everything I can think of; I don't see that Amtrak is any exception to this. However, as I type this post the majority opinion is that we should continue to fund Amtrak. That is where the majority has been since 1970 and that's where it is today but I am not sure that majority will continue. If the majority opinion on the issue changes we will loose Amtrak; if that happened I could live with it but I would prefer not to.
I would never question the good faith of those who oppose Amtrak unless there were a substantial reason to. However, I do think Congressman Mica's "Holy Jihad" statement is a substantial reason.
John WR Perhaps we should provide for conscientious objector status when it comes to paying taxes. People could provide that they do not want their tax money to be used for programs they oppose. It would not change the total amount due; only how the money could be used. I personally wish I could object to my money being used for space research which I regard as welfare for highly educated people. But I can't do that. Nor can Amtrak objectors.
Perhaps we should provide for conscientious objector status when it comes to paying taxes. People could provide that they do not want their tax money to be used for programs they oppose. It would not change the total amount due; only how the money could be used.
I personally wish I could object to my money being used for space research which I regard as welfare for highly educated people. But I can't do that. Nor can Amtrak objectors.
Brilliant! I love your remark about conscientious objector status. We have such a thing, it is called a market economy or "the free market." If you don't want a thing, don't pay for it.
Some while back, I suggested to a colleague in the local bricks-and-morter advocacy group that NASA is "Amtrak in space" and that to advance our cause, we would do well to learn how their advocacy and lobbying operations functions. I got an earful that "NASA is nothing like Amtrak" and that NASA got 13 times as much money as Amtrak because right-wing Congressman Tom DeLay was against the gummint except when the money came to his district.
Well guess what, people, that's how things how the gummint gets 'er done.
But just as you as a reasoning person think the NASA budget is corporate and aerospace engineer welfare, do you suppose that a reasoning person who does not have the connection to trains you have living in the Northeast thinks the same way about Amtrak? That is, you know yourself, that you are not a bad person and that you are not evil for disrespecting NASA, do you think for a minute or even for a second that a reasoning well meaning person who does not have cloven hoofed feet like, say, Representative Mica, might have reasoned objections to Amtrak?
Let's turn this around. Suppose as a passenger train advocate, you happen to know all of the reasons why we should fund Amtrak that other people "simply don't get" -- pollution and peak oil and congestion and auto highway deaths and accomodating people whose religion, old or young age or health don't allow them to drive or ride airplanes. Suppose that you as not a space exploration enthusiast "don't get" what NASA is all about, corporate welfare for aerospace, but maybe a way of keeping a technical aerospace capability in the civilian sector so it isn't spent on the military? That is insurance in case we need to rearm for an "existential threat" as what happened before WW-II?
Let's take this further. Maybe your remark about "conscientious objector status" was a way of reminding us that we collectively seek certain aims through government, that you favor Amtrak but not NASA and someone else favors NASA and not Amtrak, but we vote on our government and accept the outcome of elections, of legislation, and of court decisions and have some NASA funding, more than you want but less than some space advocates, some Amtrak funding, less than what you want, but more than some anti-train people want, but as a people we accept this outcome?
Or are you saying that you are smart and the pro-NASA people are stupid, and that the government should fund Amtrak but there is no reason on Earth to fund NASA, and why are people so dense as to not see things my way?
What I am saying, and I have been saying this over and over again around here that I am getting to be annoying, "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword." If passenger rail is something that requires government assistance, it becomes part of the political process and not simply a player in the broader market economy. As such, it competes not in the free market but in the "political market" with, yes, the gobnormous money spent on Defense, the even more gobnormous money spent on old-age pensions and health care, and yes, with NASA.
dmikee I tried to follow this thread and got thoroughly confused. On the west coast we suffer severely from such a total lack of Amtrak services, both statewide and interstate. The Coast Starlite has only two trainsets and takes forever at its limp along speed and long delays. Since there is only one northbound and one southbound train each day, it is too infrequent to connect major metropolitan areas conveniently. It also passes through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of night. And to have to board a train at 2:30 am in a dark and unstaffed station is just asking for trouble. The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
I tried to follow this thread and got thoroughly confused. On the west coast we suffer severely from such a total lack of Amtrak services, both statewide and interstate. The Coast Starlite has only two trainsets and takes forever at its limp along speed and long delays. Since there is only one northbound and one southbound train each day, it is too infrequent to connect major metropolitan areas conveniently. It also passes through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of night. And to have to board a train at 2:30 am in a dark and unstaffed station is just asking for trouble. The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
I agree that boarding in the early hours of the morning (3:00 am when I go east; the station is staffed) is inconvenient.
On my last trip, riding only two trains each way, we arrived a few minutes early at each station where we detrained--amazing!
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCH The schedule of the "Coast Starlight" north of the Bay Area covers the schedule of the "Cascade", which I believe was the only schedule on the line just prior to May 1, 1971. Amtrak cobbled together a through Seattle-San Diego schedule on Day One based primarily on the "Cascade" and "Coast Daylight" with add-ons north of Portland and south of Los Angeles.
The schedule of the "Coast Starlight" north of the Bay Area covers the schedule of the "Cascade", which I believe was the only schedule on the line just prior to May 1, 1971. Amtrak cobbled together a through Seattle-San Diego schedule on Day One based primarily on the "Cascade" and "Coast Daylight" with add-ons north of Portland and south of Los Angeles.
Dang. Picked the wrong one. Try this one...
The questions still stand!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
dmikeeThe Coast Starlite
dmikeepasses through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of nigh
Why do you think this is? (hint: go here and compare to today) Who rode the train in 1950? Who rides now? Why has nothing changed?
dmikee (snip) The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
(snip)
The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
That is not true of the Zephyr. Right now (early in the morning) there is a westbound and an eastbound trainset In Nebraska and two more sets in the Utah/Nevada area. In addition, because the next westbound will leave Chicago before the eastbound arrives, a 5th set may be overnighting in Chicago.
Whether one believes that the long distance trains, or Amtrak for that matter, are in the national interest or are a waste of money, the long distance trains, as well as Amtrak, probably will be with us for a long time.
In FY10 Amtrak's comprehensive losses averaged $15.50 per federal income tax payer - a person who filed a federal income tax return and paid some federal income tax. The losses on the long distance trains were $7.64 per taxpayer. This analysis assumes that all federal revenues are derived from income taxes, which of course is not correct.
Advocates for special interests - those of us who love trains are special interests - figured out a long time ago that the way to raid the federal treasury is to take just a little from everyone. Thus, although Amtrak loses more than a billion dollars per year, for the typical American median family income taxpayer, whose average federal income tax bill in 2010 was $4,828, the Amtrak subsidies don't even register on their tax radar scope.
Murphy Siding oltmannd schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior. Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?) But how can you be sure we're talking trolls, and not ogres? I mean, as has been pointed out on other threads (and in poems) there is a difference. Maybe the difference is that ogres aren't given as much free reign on the forum?
oltmannd schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior. Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?)
schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior.
ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value.
More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior.
Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?)
Funny, Murphy, I was thinking some ogres are given much more free rein [the origin of the term relates to horses] or even carte blanche!!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I was talking about the "dual focus" part of the post rather than the "quantum leap" part.
John WR ontheBNSFIn my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support. It looks to me like Amtrak shares your view. Historically Amtrak has maintained both corridor trains and long distance trains. Today, of course, current legislation burdens states with the obligation to maintain there own corridor trains. I suspect some states will shoulder the burden and other states will not. We'll have to see how it works out.
ontheBNSFIn my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.
It looks to me like Amtrak shares your view. Historically Amtrak has maintained both corridor trains and long distance trains. Today, of course, current legislation burdens states with the obligation to maintain there own corridor trains. I suspect some states will shoulder the burden and other states will not. We'll have to see how it works out.
Can you how Amtrak supports the assertion that a "quantum leap" for LD routes is needed? I hear Amtrak say "The western LD routes are staying. Now, lets talk about the NEC!" That's support for a status quo for LD trains. Not a call for new investment.
What did I miss?
oltmannd just doesn't like me. I was simply pointing out that the Acela doesn't make money and that the costs of LD trains are exaggerated. The Acela really doesn't make money contrary to the talking points. Can you blame me for using that Info it did come from trains magazine so I thought it was reliable.
Railroad to Freedom
Overmod You'll get no objection from me regarding much of his previous 'body of work', even before we get into the definition of borderline trolling. But it is possible that he has in fact learned something, or at least thought about some of what has been discussed. I am sure he will cheerfully come in and 'rebut' my interpretation if it is wrong. And that, if his explanation is wack, you can then deliver the April Fool's comment directly to the point(s) he makes, or fails in. I think the issue for me, in this particular circumstance, is that a pre-emptive attack, regardless of how often BNSF may have tried to cause issues, is not a particularly good approach itself. (Or, in other words, wait for the actual sin before castigating the sinner... ;-} )
You'll get no objection from me regarding much of his previous 'body of work', even before we get into the definition of borderline trolling.
But it is possible that he has in fact learned something, or at least thought about some of what has been discussed.
I am sure he will cheerfully come in and 'rebut' my interpretation if it is wrong. And that, if his explanation is wack, you can then deliver the April Fool's comment directly to the point(s) he makes, or fails in. I think the issue for me, in this particular circumstance, is that a pre-emptive attack, regardless of how often BNSF may have tried to cause issues, is not a particularly good approach itself. (Or, in other words, wait for the actual sin before castigating the sinner... ;-} )
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.