djjoe wrote:zardoz said:First of all, I'm nothing like you. I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have. I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that). However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness. If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content. No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc. And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me. Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority. Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they? I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.
zardoz said:
First of all, I'm nothing like you. I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have. I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.
I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.
Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that). However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness. If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content. No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc. And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.
If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me. Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.
Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they? I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.
And this sermon about settling for mediocrity relates to the topic how?
People, we can speculate all we want, it won't bring the person back or find out if any
fault can be blamed on anyone. Enough is enough.
The person gambled and he lost. Lets give this one a rest.
Thoughts and prayers to all family & friends.
Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!!
I think if for some reason you don't agree with a thread, just skip it.Nobody is forcnig you to read them.
Chico
outback76 wrote: SHAME ON YOU - you helpless soul. Do you know the absolute facts about what happened? Did you even stop to think that family and close friends of Nate's might be reading this?!!! SHAME ON YOU. Maybe you should read the facts before you go mouthing off about someone's loved one. No where is it written that alcohol or drugs played a part. It was also an extremely dark that night as it was overcast with no moon. Growing up in that area - I've almost hit the trains myself - when there are no markings on the trains, they're not that easy to see. I know for a solid fact that you are not from the rural Oshkosh area, because if you were, you would know how unbelievably annoying the trains are that sit on the tracks that block MILES of crossings to main roads. Getting from one side of a country block to the other can take an unbelievably long amount of time to cross - it's annoying, and quite frankly a hazard. It blocks access for rescue vehicles. Dealing with the issue of parked trains is long overdue. Its too bad that it took the death of a fine human being to get things rolling.
SHAME ON YOU - you helpless soul. Do you know the absolute facts about what happened? Did you even stop to think that family and close friends of Nate's might be reading this?!!! SHAME ON YOU. Maybe you should read the facts before you go mouthing off about someone's loved one. No where is it written that alcohol or drugs played a part. It was also an extremely dark that night as it was overcast with no moon. Growing up in that area - I've almost hit the trains myself - when there are no markings on the trains, they're not that easy to see. I know for a solid fact that you are not from the rural Oshkosh area, because if you were, you would know how unbelievably annoying the trains are that sit on the tracks that block MILES of crossings to main roads. Getting from one side of a country block to the other can take an unbelievably long amount of time to cross - it's annoying, and quite frankly a hazard. It blocks access for rescue vehicles. Dealing with the issue of parked trains is long overdue. Its too bad that it took the death of a fine human being to get things rolling.
Maybe he got so sick of waiting he thought if he got up enough speed the tardis effect would take place and he would pass right though unscathed?.
If this man was a local to the area he should have known the risks more than a stranger to that area, If hes a local he should have known the road maybe thus adjusted his driving to suit the road conditions.
He may not have been drunk, but the whole thing stinks a drunk driver.
Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer. You said:"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill." By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation. You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand. The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case. When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened. OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101. You say this:I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..."You are correct that the news reporter does not say, "This reporter alleges..." The reason for that is that they, as reporters, don't allege anything. When they refer to something being alleged, it is being alleged by someone else, such as the police, witnesses, the victim or a combination of them, and the allegation usually flows from some kind of evidence even though there is no proof. Here you say this:There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either.You established the existence of first and second hand allegations earlier when you said this:BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.Here you said this:The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I agree, but I have not accused the police or the news reports of editorializing. All they said is that the guy ran a stop sign, collided with a tank car and under-ran it, and that there were no skid marks.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer. You said:"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill." By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation. You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand. The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case. When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened. OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101.
Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer. You said:"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill." By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation. You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it. This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand. The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.
Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.
Poppa_Zit wrote:[ The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.
The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.
I understand. I just wanted to know who asserted without proof that the victim attempted to jump the crossing. From your third person allegation, I could not tell if it was only your personal opinion, or if it was made by others who actually had some evidence.
If there is any other evidence, the police have not been forthcoming. BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.
I am not referring to first, second, or third-hand, which indicates the number of parties in the chain of information transfer.
You said:
"He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."
By third-person, I mean your structure indicating that there is an allegation that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill without revealing that the only allegation is your personal allegation. You make it seem as if the allegation stands separate from your own opinion, and thus lends credence to it.
This would be in contrast to what I would call a first-person allegation such as, "I allege that the victim was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill."
With regard to the handedness of your allegation, I would call it first-hand. The police never said anything about the victim trying to go airborne.
This argument is ludicrous as well as pointless. This is how news stories are written. I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..." In fact, the majority of stories never identify who the "alleger" is, do they? As in a story about an "alleged rape". Or "alleged fraud". Or my personal local favorite, "alleged mob connections".
Attribution is done to give credibility to a thought, idea or quotation in a story. The concept that one allegation could have more or less credence than another is ridiculous, as long as both accurately employ known facts in a case.
When we're dealing in "assertations without proof" the "alleger" need not be identified because the statement is not a fact -- it is someone's speculation. Therefore, it needs no attribution.
There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either. In my attempt to form a speculative theory, I used first-hand news reports and the photo of the crossing. That's how it is done.
The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered. I was one of several here who speculated on what might have happened.
OK, that's it. I'm not getting paid here to teach Journalism 101.
You say this:
I have NEVER seen one instance where the author of a well-written news story says something like "this writer alleges ..."
You are correct that the news reporter does not say, "This reporter alleges..." The reason for that is that they, as reporters, don't allege anything. When they refer to something being alleged, it is being alleged by someone else, such as the police, witnesses, the victim or a combination of them, and the allegation usually flows from some kind of evidence even though there is no proof.
Here you say this:
There is no such thing as "chain of information transfer" when dealing with speculation. There are no such things as "first-hand allegations", "second-hand allegations" or "third person allegations", either.
You established the existence of first and second hand allegations earlier when you said this:
BTW, what is a "third person allegation"? I believe it would be a second-hand allegation, based on first person [police] observations.
Here you said this:
The news reports I read did their job properly -- presenting the facts without editorializing. So did the police. They did not offer theories or make any announcements until all of the evidence has been examined and considered.
I agree, but I have not accused the police or the news reports of editorializing. All they said is that the guy ran a stop sign, collided with a tank car and under-ran it, and that there were no skid marks.
djjoe wrote: Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority. Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they? I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.
Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority.
in response to the highlighted part of your post:
Actually, I think I AM qualified to 'pass judgement' (as you call it). I put in 20 years of railroading as an Engineer. I worked on call for most of those 20 years: never knowing when I would have to go to work, never knowing when I would be home, never getting good meals, never getting enough rest. Those are the reasons why I left railraoding...I learned my lesson, and was fortunate (or determined) enough to start a new life.
And anyway, what the heck does any of this have to do with this dolt smashing into a train at high speed?
Poppa_Zit wrote: djjoe wrote:zardoz said:First of all, I'm nothing like you. I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have. I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that). However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness. If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content. No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc. And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me. Zardoz, you're exactly like me, I think. I didn't work over 40 hours a week the last ten years of my working life. And if i took a pill for some sniffles I stayed home 'cuz I could afford to do so. I wouldn't have made a pimple on a rail crewman's arss. I guess you wouldn't either if "getting sleep" is your priority. Do you really think they could work all those 12 hour+ days and be FIT TO WORK every one of those hours? Do you think they had any more choice in that decision than those equally driven, just as distracted souls on the highways? They can't after all, "step off" after 8 hours or "work 'til noon" can they? I'd think if one's going to sit on his keister passing judgement from a keyboard they ought to have some appreciation for what these folks are enduring in their working days. And be less quick to judge when we haven't been there and haven't done that.And this sermon about settling for mediocrity relates to the topic how?
Well, there was this posting, made on the 22nd:
No, your "willingly" implies an omniscience that's pretty widespread in this forum but goes suddenly absent when it's rail employees doing head-ons or playing on the tracks. Your very self-serving in your witlessness if you can exercise your know it all only on non RR types. Better that some RR should hire you to tell why, despite, the millions spent on safety campaigns, RR workers insist on being victimized. Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?
To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.
I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.
And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".
zardoz wrote:...And anyway, what the heck does any of this have to do with this dolt smashing into a train at high speed?
AMEN!
Dan
I think it's amazing that this topic has generated 99 replies that are full of characterizations, allegations, irritations, aggravations, obfuscations, speculations as to possible intoxication, mental deprivation and even attempted levitation, which will likely be followed by litigation and even legislation. That's 5 pages full of "ations" when all that is known is that for reasons unknown a man ran at high speed into the side of a stopped train at a rural grade crossing in the dark of night and was killed. That is most unfortunate and hopefuly the recent requiement for reflectors on the sides of rail cars will minimize the possibility of similar accidents in the future. My thoughts and prayers go out to the deceased's family and friends which I think is far more appropriate than to suggest that he was a moron!
Mark
zardoz wrote: To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".
zardoz, whoa! I agree with you. My comment referred to the irrelevant sermon written by the other guy who began his diatribe by quoting you. I just copied his whole post in its entirety. Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.
edbenton wrote: BOTH OF YOU KEEP THE LEAGLEASE SPEAK IN THE COURTROOM WERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGES WERE WE AT LEAST GET PAID TO HEAR IT AS JURORS. YOU ARGUE MORE THAN MY 2 TODDLERS AND THEY ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND THEY CAN BARELY TALK. Get off you high horses and agree this is a tragic accident for all involed and MOVE THE HECK ON. Futuremodal and me do not agrue this MUCH OVER OPEN ACCESS.
BOTH OF YOU KEEP THE LEAGLEASE SPEAK IN THE COURTROOM WERE IT BELONGS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGES WERE WE AT LEAST GET PAID TO HEAR IT AS JURORS. YOU ARGUE MORE THAN MY 2 TODDLERS AND THEY ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND THEY CAN BARELY TALK. Get off you high horses and agree this is a tragic accident for all involed and MOVE THE HECK ON. Futuremodal and me do not agrue this MUCH OVER OPEN ACCESS.
With all due respect, Ed, why don't you do what I and the others do when you and FM get involved like that? We ignore you and the thread. We respect your right to free speech.
But I do not butt in, yelling in large, obnoxious boldface type, telling you the intellectual level of your discussion is way over my head and therefore it should stop.
Poppa_Zit wrote: ... Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.
...
Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.
So.... uh... whut's da difference?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Poppa_Zit wrote: zardoz wrote: To which I replied regarding how living a life like that is usually a choice, which by it's very nature indicates something about the priorities an individual has.I took exception to the blaming the incident on fatigue, rather than stupdity, thus defending my original title of the thread.And if you are refering to my description of lifestyle as "mediocrity", I can live with that (although I prefer to call it "contentment".zardoz, whoa! I agree with you. My comment referred to the irrelevant sermon written by the other guy who began his diatribe by quoting you. I just copied his whole post in its entirety. Your concept of lifestyle isn't mediocrity to me. It's normal.
My apologies, poppa!
Posted, without comment:
Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern
Posted October 29, 2007Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing
I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.
As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!
Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!
I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.
Sheila Miller, Van Dyne
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189
Poppa_Zit wrote: Posted, without comment:Oshkosh, Wis.: The NorthwesternPosted October 29, 2007Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad. As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road! Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train! I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.Sheila Miller, Van Dyne http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189
Speechless, absolutely speechless.....
I could say something, but I can't find the words.
Unbelievable.......
But still, wasn't there a stop sign that he ran? Or was that alright to run the stop sign, even when drunk, speeding or not paying attention. Eventually (and unfortunately) all 3 could end in tragedy. It's all in the odds. Sometimes the odds are 1-in-1 or 1-in-35,000,000, one never knows.
Just getting out of the bed in the morning, tripping over your cat and ramming your head on something could kill ya. Who's to blame on that? I'm going to put 99% of the blame on my landlord for not noticing that I have a cat in which is against the rules.....IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
I don't know what to say.....WOW....
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Posted, without comment:Oshkosh, Wis.: The NorthwesternPosted October 29, 2007Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad. As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road! Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train! I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.Sheila Miller, Van Dyne http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189I don't know what to say.....WOW....
There certainly was commentary on this letter. If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.
http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234
That's pretty sad......
^BULL **** ^
she got an e-mail i belive we should all tell her how ignorant she realy is, she is basicly saying that becuse dude was so dumb that he does not know how to stop that its the railroad's fault!
people are so stuped around trains. my uncle wached a kid on a bike, who was so stuped that he picked up his bike, while the train was moveing, and walked over a flat car becuse he dident want to wait! WTF!?!?!?!?!
i wish all thoes people who feel the need to race the train, jump the train and other stuff, should get a heavy fine and jail time. then people might stop.
i have said this once and i will say again:
im so tired of hearing all this BULL about pepole just being stuped around trains and paying the consequences. THEY DID SOME THING DUMB, THEY DIED, ARE WE TO FEEL PITY?!?!?! NO, WERE NOT! we would not do this if someone was walking the edge of a skyscraper and triped. (splat) as far as im conserened if people continue to do this, let them more stupid people rid from the world!!
TrainManTy wrote: n012944 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Posted, without comment:Oshkosh, Wis.: The NorthwesternPosted October 29, 2007Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad. As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road! Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train! I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.Sheila Miller, Van Dyne http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189I don't know what to say.....WOW....That's pretty sad......
An open responce to the writer of above letter...
Sheila Miller, your a retard!
"...The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. ..."
That is the STUPIDEST thing I've read in one hellova long time, yeah, its the RAILROADS fault this idiot blew a stop sign and killed himself. OK let say your right? if the train wasnt their he would have sailed thru the crossing at a high rate of speed, now given some past cases of stupid driving...would it be the churches fault if he slammed into a busload of Nuns? or Farmer Johns fault if he hit a cattle truck? or McDonalds fault becuase he drove thru the wall of the restaraunt making his own personal drive thru window? Would it be the States fault when he drove off the first curve and into a tree killing himself ?????
"...This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad..."
Jezzuzz Christmascookies!
THE ONLY PERSON WHO KILLED THIS GUY WAS HIMSELF! HE WAS SPEEDING AND BLEW A STOP SIGN!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT THAT OUT!
IF HE HAD ENOUGH CAPACITY TO CONTROL HIS ACTIONS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRAVELING AT A SAFER RATE OF SPEED, SEEN THE STOP, SLOWED DOWN AND STOPPED AT THAT STOP SIGN, AVOIDING THE TRAIN ENTIRELY...HE DIDNT, HE BLEW THRU IT AND HE DEAD!
GET IT?
This is simply another sad case of someone doing something stupid and getting themselves killed. Its not the railroads fault, their was no fog bank hiding the train, the train didnt leap out from behind a tree and ambush the driver. The driver, who was a local and in all likelyhood knew dam well there was a stop sign at that crossing, knowingly disregarded the stop sign, and went to his maker with a little explaining to do.
Denial, its not just a river in Egypt!
To the rest here, Sorry for the rant but I'm getting a little sick and tired of the inability of people to accept any personal responsibility for thier own or other people actions. If Ms Miller is a relative then she HAS to accept that simple fact, and stop denying the fact that the only entity that placed the driver 6 feet under were the decisions of the driver himself! If he was drinking, he chose to drink, and he chose to drive, he could have called a cab, or had a friend drive him home, called to have someone pick him up or even slept it off in the parking lot. If he hadnt been drinking, he chose to drive at high rate of speed, he chose to drive thru a crossing at a hign rate of speed, he chose to drive thru a clearly placed stop sign, and how he missed seeing something in his headlights as big as a freight car directly in front of him, which is like failing to see something the size of a house in front of you, is beyond me!
Have fun with your trains
CNW 6000 wrote:If you read the link that I posted...I was saying just that! It's funny how some folks felt that I was an idiot immediately once they found out I was a railfan.
It would seem by the comments you linked to above that there is a severe shortage of "common" sense in that part of Cheeseland. That person that calls himself "investigator" sure seems to like to hear himself speak (even if it's in written form). I can scarcely believe that a person with his alleged credentials could be so UNBELIEVABLY STUPID! Perhaps he should get out of the office and away from dictating letters and see the real world, a world where no one is holding your hand as you cross the street (or tracks), and each person absolutely MUST take responsibility for their actions (I'd be willing to bet that "investigator" finds someone to blame for every screw-up he does).
To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:
The woman wrote a letter and sent it to a newspaper for publication. She signed her name, which is probably one of the newspaper's conditions for acceptance. Her act of submitting this signed letter for public publication vacates any claim to a right to privacy regarding the letter.
what i get at school: ahh he "plays" with trains, he is stuped!
amazing how that stays with people.
Poppa_Zit wrote: To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:The woman wrote a letter and sent it to a newspaper for publication. She signed her name, which is probably one of the newspaper's conditions for acceptance. Her act of submitting this signed letter for public publication vacates any claim to a right to privacy regarding the letter.
I agree, (aint that sumthun') What about all the people that replied to the letter on the newspaper website? Are they all guilty of voilating this person privacy as P-Zit? Its on a public forum, there is a link to the original source and it is directly related to the topic on this forum. So fair game as far as I'm concerned.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.