Bucyrus, the main premise of this thread seems pretty simple and straightforward.
Aside from the DHS bashing, you guys seem annoyed because you may not be able to take photos of trains anywhere and whenever you want.
I am not sure what I am "doing again". I ask a question and no one answers it.
It is just a bunch of monologues.
Rich
Alton Junction
Phoebe Vet When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
"Paralyzed by fear" or exercising caution?
I don't think that too many of us live our lives in fear.
Your comment seems to be just one more gross overreaction on this thread to security precautions.
richhotrain Bucyrus, the main premise of this thread seems pretty simple and straightforward. Aside from the DHS bashing, you guys seem annoyed because you may not be able to take photos of trains anywhere and whenever you want. I am not sure what I am "doing again". I ask a question and no one answers it.
Rich,
When I say you are "doing it again," I am referring to you making up positions that you feel are easily refutable, and then assigning them to those posters you disagree with about this topic.
Some people posting here believe that the national mission of investigating suspicious activity is getting out of hand because of the ever-widening definition of what is considered to be suspicious. This may not seem like any big deal yet, but that is only because the mission has not yet caught up with task that has been defined.
When some people object to this ramp-up of the list of suspicious behavior, you accuse them of not wanting any security that interferes with railran activity, or even not wanting any security at all.
Yet nobody has said that. It is a straw man that you have created to argue against.
Another example is your statement above that people here are objecting because they might not be able to take photos of trains anywhere they want.
Nobody is objecting to that. Obviously you can’t trespass to take photos. Nobody is complaining about that. Any there is no prohibition against taking photos from public property. The only issue is being confronted and questioned by the police while “monitoring” trains from public property. Some people find that a little unnerving and would prefer it not happen to them.
richhotrain Phoebe Vet: When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause. "Paralyzed by fear" or exercising caution? I don't think that too many of us live our lives in fear. Your comment seems to be just one more gross overreaction on this thread to security precautions. Rich
Phoebe Vet: When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
3 things.
1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding.
2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response.
3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
If you are afraid to get on an airplane until all the passengers have been thoughly searched by government agents, you are not being cautious, you are being controlled by fear.
If you think anyone photographing anything that is in plain sight from a place that they have every right to be, you are not being cautious, you are being controlled by fear.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
A perhaps not very good example of being controlled by fear was the English pub that had the area around it evacuated because someone left a copy of "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" in a cloakroom. Don't know if the owner was expecting killer rabbits.... Since there has been a lot of bombings in the UK over the last 4 decades, some caution may have been in order.
Another example of "controlled by fear" (probably more like pandering to fear) was California's legislature passing a law banning private ownership of 50 BMG ammo and rifles capable of firing said ammo. The "fear" was that some "terrorist" could walk into a gunstore in the morning and by the afternoon be plinking at critical infrastructure from a mile or more away. Only problem is that 50 BMG rifles do take a LOT of practice to use effectively, and that practice is very noticeable.
For railroads, there's more of a threat from vandals and copper thieves than terrorists.
- Erik
SUX V R40 Rider Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
Over 40, but I wondered the same about you. You must be a kid. Otherwise, your views on law enforcement and your suggested demeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers is worrisome.
What part of "enable security measures" did you not understand? It was intended as a general comment.
Bucyrus Rich, When I say you are "doing it again," I am referring to you making up positions that you feel are easily refutable, and then assigning them to those posters you disagree with about this topic. Some people posting here believe that the national mission of investigating suspicious activity is getting out of hand because of the ever-widening definition of what is considered to be suspicious. This may not seem like any big deal yet, but that is only because the mission has not yet caught up with task that has been defined. When some people object to this ramp-up of the list of suspicious behavior, you accuse them of not wanting any security that interferes with railran activity, or even not wanting any security at all. Yet nobody has said that. It is a straw man that you have created to argue against. Another example is your statement above that people here are objecting because they might not be able to take photos of trains anywhere they want. Nobody is objecting to that. Obviously you can’t trespass to take photos. Nobody is complaining about that. Any there is no prohibition against taking photos from public property. The only issue is being confronted and questioned by the police while “monitoring” trains from public property. Some people find that a little unnerving and would prefer it not happen to them.
This is the problem with a discussion like this. There is no room for honest debate. Since the bulk of the comment on this thread has a real issue with security measures imposed as a result of 9/11 and its aftermath, and since I do not have the same level of concern, I am accused of making up positions and creating straw men.
I joined the discussion almost inadvertently since the title of the thread was about an Illinois security video and i live in Illinois so I took a look. Some of the discussion seemed a bit over the top, so I tried to add a little moderation.
When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
Like everyone else, I don't like the "loss of liberty" associated with heightened security, but no one has responded to my questions concerning what to do, if anything, about not only the threat of terrorism as it relates to air travel, railroads, and infrastructure. All I hear is moaning about the loss of liberty, the inability to photograph trains, etc.
I am going back to model railroading. It is more interesting than this.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have? Over 40, but I wondered the same about you. You must be a kid. Otherwise, your views on law enforcement and your suggested demeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers is worrisome. What part of "enable security measures" did you not understand? It was intended as a general comment. Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
I am 40, I stated that on the MRR forum, so no, I'm not a kid. Unless you're 70, then I can possibly see how you think anyone 20 to 30 years younger than you is a kid, even though they are a legal adult.
How is my demeanor toward law enforcement worrisome? Is it because I have no problem with assertivley standing up for my rights, when I know they are being trampled on by someone who thinks they can get away with it? Would it suprise you to know I am a volunteer with my local police department and county emergency services department?
I understand what enableed security measures means. I asked you to provide an example outside of having anything to do with railroads. If you cannot then do not bring it up or attempt to talk about it.
Why do you seem to be so passive and wanting to let or think it is ok for law enforcment get away with violating people's civil rights? Please do not give the answer that it is for the greater good. I have seen that used way too many times. Come up with something better and more logical. The greater good answer is the default, B.S. cop-out answer.
There is one other thing railroads, law enforcement and department of homeland security need to be aware of as well. The public relations nightmare that can be caused for them if they continue down the path of attempting to ban something like photography from a public place of railroad facilities.
I know railroads and local law enforcement departments, city police, county sheriff, etc., have PR officials. I am not sure about DHS. I have seen the name of BNSF's PR person on their web site.
There are some people, I am one of them, who, if told that I cannot photograph a rail yard, a train, etc. from a public place and I know I am not breaking any laws and I am questioned as to why I am doing so, harrassed or accosted in anyway I will post about it on the internet and I will not be nice about it. I have done this before to companies who were in the wrong involving a situation that affected me. I tell the truth and do not use foul language, but get the point across. When I have had to do this in the past it did mpact the company in a bad way.
Then there is the potential involvment with the ACLU. There are those, and again I am one of these people, who, if something happens like mentioned above would not hesitate to file a complaint, report, etc. with the ACLU and ask they investigate the matter. This too can affect a railroads, law enforcement departments reputation, even if nothing else happens with the case beyond investigating the matter.
Paranoia does seem to abound!
On the one hand, those that are fearful of terrorism will give up personal freedom in the name of security...
On the other hand, those that are JUST AS "fearful" of government will give up personal security in the name of freedom.
"Beligerance" seems to be the only defense offered... Defy the terrorist by going overboard with security searchs or go just as overboard defying those charged with providing security.
Either the terrorist is out to get you or the government is out to get you.
I guess I'm right in the middle... EVERYBODY is out to get me! No wonder I'm so paranoid!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
richhotrainThis is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
Why is it hard to take that seriously?
Every word of what I said it true. It is right there in the Illinois video. Any person on public property who is conducting surveillance or monitoring key transportation facilities will be detained and questioned by the police if that activity is brought to their attention.
Furthermore, the police and authorities are asking to public to be on the watch for any of the abovementioned activity and to report it if they see it.
Why exactly do you feel that I am overstating anything about this?
Bucyrus richhotrain: This is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view. Rich, Why is it hard to take that seriously? Every word of what I said it true. It is right there in the Illinois video. Any person on public property who is conducting surveillance or monitoring key transportation facilities will be detained and questioned by the police if that activity is brought to their attention. Furthermore, the police and authorities are asking to public to be on the watch for any of the abovementioned activity and to report it if they see it. Why exactly do you feel that I am overstating anything about this?
richhotrain: This is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
"the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior"
Isn't that just a little too dramatic?
When I said that, I stipulated that the human behavior I was referring to was the human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism. You left that part out, and so it seems a little too dramatic to you without that part.
Rich, you have yet to cite an example of enabled security measures outside of those involved with railroads and railroad facilities. I take your silence on the matter to mean none exist. So why did you mention it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.