You brought up the whole PNW issue with:
"I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas"
Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation. Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation? Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker?
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: You brought up the whole PNW issue with: "I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas" Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation. Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation? Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker? Bert
See, you completely missed the earlier comment: "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom."
You had no objection then.
That was fine.
Lot's of information about "England's operation"? Right?
Right?
Now, in response to your comment about England, I posted some actual numbers, ahhh, now it's irrelevant if the PNW looks like England.
Remember: "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot."
Seems like you pretended you knew a lot.
MichaelSol wrote: n012944 wrote: You brought up the whole PNW issue with: "I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas" Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation. Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation? Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker? Bert See, you completely missed the earlier comment: "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom." You had no objection then. That was fine. Lot's of information about "England's operation"? Right? Right? Now, in response to your comment about England, I posted some actual numbers, ahhh, now it's irrelevant if the PNW looks like England.
Again apples to oranges. Anything about Englands railroad operation yet? How about open access? Nothing as usual, spell check away.
n012944: Again apples to oranges. Anything about Englands railroad operation yet? How about open access? Nothing as usual, spell check away. Bert
"Funny" as you would say, it wasn't "apples and oranges" when you tried to make it the issue contending that by way of comparison there was "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.".
So, how does "downtown Seattle" compare with "England" with its statistically lower population density? How does the PNW urban corridor compare to "England" with England's lower population density? What was your point?
I am sure many readers are curious as to your position on this. I am since I don't know anything about England except the statistical data. You have suggested you do -- "nothing even close to England". Well, what is that? You obviously pretend to know what that is. Please, what is "close to England"? Why isn't the PNW urban corridor "close to England" due to its similar or greater population density ?
After all, it is your specifically stated contention, not mine or anyone else's. Take credit. You said it.
And be specific.
Actually, it seems to be questionable whether FM has any experience with how things work on this side of the Atlantic, either. He has held that his model of "Open Access" will solve all sorts of economic problems beyond grain rates. He also believes that his model can be imposed on American railroading simply by regulatory order, ignoring the roles of the legislature and the judiciary in any such procedure. Those who have pointed out the existence of various legal processes and the Constitution of the United States as barriers to his theories have been subjected to various forms of abuse just short of character assassination.
FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process.
Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread!
MichaelSol wrote: n012944: Again apples to oranges. Anything about Englands railroad operation yet? How about open access? Nothing as usual, spell check away. Bert "Funny" as you would say, it wasn't "apples and oranges" when you tried to make it the issue contending that by way of comparison there was "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.". So, how does "downtown Seattle" compare with "England" with its statistically lower population density? How does the PNW urban corridor compare to "England" with England's lower population density? What was your point? I am sure many readers are curious as to your position on this. I am since I don't know anything about England except the statistical data. You have suggested you do -- "nothing even close to England". Well, what is that? You obviously pretend to know what that is. Please, what is "close to England"? Why isn't the PNW urban corridor "close to England" due to its similar or greater population density ? After all, it is your specifically stated contention, not mine or anyone else's. Take credit. You said it. And be specific.
Again apples to oranges. That was my point. You implyied that since FM lives in Washington state, instead of Idaho as stated, and since there is an urban corridor in Washington state, he would know what he was talking about with Englands open access issues. My point is that it doesn't matter what state he lives in, it is apples to oranges. He could live in the midwest, the south or even the northeast and it would still not matter. Is the price of fuel around six dollars a gallon in the PNW as it is in England? No. Does the city of Seattle charge you to drive you car into town as does London? No. So regardless of were in the PNW he lives, the point is moot as it is different than England. Do you need me to draw you a picture? What else can I do for you Michael? Do you yet have any information to add on the British open access model, or will you continue to waste everyones time on this thread?
beaulieu wrote:Dave, I am going to break this up to simply things. futuremodal wrote: For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding. Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?
futuremodal wrote: For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.
Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?
I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on this particular statement. The term "slot bidding" is simply an acknowledgement of ascribing to market forces to determine buyers. Putting aside for the moment the passenger subsidies and British system of taxing roads beyond that needed for road expenditures, if indeed the passenger operators could outbid potential freight operators, then so be it. What's the problem? Freight can just as easily move during the night, and can I assume that's where the open slots would be for the freight operators to make their move? I also reject the notion that only passenger operators can run passenger trains, and only freight operators can operate freight trains. Again, putting aside the legal directives, why from a practical standpoint can't the freight operators also participate in running passenger trains, and vis versa? An OA company should not be limited in what it can haul. Let the market determine what the bidders can haul. In the US of yore, freight cross subsidized the passenger trains, so why can't UK passenger operators add freight to their repetoire? At least freight stands a chance of not having to be cross subsidized by those *profitable* UK passenger trains.
I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures. They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.
I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.
They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.
Exoneration.
I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads. It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable". Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion. Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation. After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes. You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.
I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads. It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable". Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion. Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation. After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.
I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.
It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable". Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion. Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation. After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.
You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.
Then we agree to disagree on a semantic interpretation.
That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition. Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up. They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door. In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model. Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA. Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in.
That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition. Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up. They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door. In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model. Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.
Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in.
From the Wikipedia entry on British Rail privatization: "Freight Train Operators: Despite going to the expense of setting up separate management structures for the three parts of the trainload freight sector, on 24 February 1996 all three units were sold to North & South Railways", a subsidiary of the American Wisconsin Central Railroad, which soon renamed the operation English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. EWS also acquired Rail Express Systems, Railfreight Distribution (the last part of the nationalised railway to be sold, after Labour had been elected) and National Power's railfreight operation. Current freight train operators other than EWS include Freightliner (purchased by a management buyout) and two 'open access' freight operators: Direct Rail Services and GB Railfreight."
From this decription, it makes it appear that EWS and Freightliner are not open access operators, since the online encyclopedia goes to the length of describing the other two freight operators as being "open access". The inference from this and this thread is that EWS and FHH were franchisee's, while DRS and GBR were the OA operators. Since you have deemed this as incorrect, we'll just go
Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho." Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe. My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand. Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal. And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either. Wow...all that self loathing, reaching for a religious context...quick get out the DSM V... We'll be back for a diagnosis shortly with Dr S. Freud... FOFLMAO... FM you just kill me...LOLOLOLOLOL...LC
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho." Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe. My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand. Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal. And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho." Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.
MichaelSol wrote:I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."
Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.
My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand. Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.
And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.
Wow...all that self loathing, reaching for a religious context...quick get out the DSM V...
We'll be back for a diagnosis shortly with Dr S. Freud...
FOFLMAO...
FM you just kill me...LOLOLOLOLOL...LC
And right on cue, the verbal diarrhetic LC provides a perfect example of what I just referenced.
no12944: What else can I do for you Michael? Do you yet have any information to add on the British open access model, or will you continue to waste everyones time on this thread?
You can explain what you know about England that permitted you to make the comparison with the PNW, as I have asked you to do repeatedly. You made the comment, back it up.
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process. Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread!
Getting rid of the political process is a prospect much too frightening for me to consider. The existing political process in the United States may be slow, cumbersome, occasionally illogical and sometimes even corrupt, but it sure beats the alternatives.
If FM considers getting rid of the political process to be advantageous, and his response implies that he does, he is more dangerous in that regard than anything he may spout about OA.
Wow!. Don't waste anytime but grab the next flight for Beijing. You would be a perfect fit for their command economy!
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process. Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread! Getting rid of the political process is a prospect much too frightening for me to consider. The existing political process in the United States may be slow, cumbersome, occasionally illogical and sometimes even corrupt, but it sure beats the alternatives. If FM considers getting rid of the political process to be advantageous, and his response implies that he does, he is more dangerous in that regard than anything he may spout about OA.
Last I checked, China was more up your political alley, e.g. left of center. And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either. And I mean that in the politest possible way I can muster.
Some of you are all a bunch of blow-hard pricks.
5, maybe 6 (7,8,9...) of you think you own the forums and the fodder will folow. You have a right to your opinion but don't try to force it onto others just because you were the dweeb in high school that couldn't get lucky let alone get a passing glance by the lunch lady and grew up to be some malcontented miscreant lepink of the workforce with a dream of something better but in reality only have a basement hobby that you are ashamed to admit.
Instead of thinking you know everything maybe try listening and learning new things.
This forum will never change... there will always be ed's, fm's, bnsf's, and stupid scissor runners.
Look for my movie coming soon to theaters near you!
Runswithscissors...try knives, they cut better and deeper....
You kin to Footinmouth?
Ed
23 17 46 11
I figured that was one of yer kins. You Texans have a way with them there funky sayin's.
Course you-all are kinda strange down there anyway- queers an steers and all.
RunsWithScissors wrote: Some of you are all a bunch of blow-hard pricks. 5, maybe 6 (7,8,9...) of you think you own the forums and the fodder will folow. You have a right to your opinion but don't try to force it onto others just because you were the dweeb in high school that couldn't get lucky let alone get a passing glance by the lunch lady and grew up to be some malcontented miscreant lepink of the workforce with a dream of something better but in reality only have a basement hobby that you are ashamed to admit. Instead of thinking you know everything maybe try listening and learning new things. This forum will never change... there will always be ed's, fm's, bnsf's, and stupid scissor runners. Look for my movie coming soon to theaters near you!
I am trying to understand how this contributed anything useful to the discussion.
It realy didn't.
It's mostly a shameless plug for the movie but also a viewpoint of the threads past and present.
Some things never change...
futuremodal wrote: And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either.
Dave - You do not seem to understand that these types of personal attacks make you about as welcome as a social disease.
MichaelSol wrote: no12944: What else can I do for you Michael? Do you yet have any information to add on the British open access model, or will you continue to waste everyones time on this thread? You can explain what you know about England that permitted you to make the comparison with the PNW, as I have asked you to do repeatedly. You made the comment, back it up.
Why should I? You have been asked many times to explain what you did at the MILW road, but you never seem to answer that. Very ignorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. As for the comparison, I read books, and I watch TV all of which tells me that the PNW and any other part of America, is very different from England. Common sensce would tell most people that they are very different, but I guess that is too much for you to understand. Once again my point was, it doesn't matter if FM lives in Idaho or Washington, it still does not matter when it comes to Englands operation.
n012944: Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you.
Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you.
Yes, very ingnorant.
MichaelSol wrote: n012944: Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. Yes, very ingnorant.
Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself. If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time.
n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: n012944: Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. Yes, very ingnorant. Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself. If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time. Bert
Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials.
Particularly from what appears to me from other threads to be your own astonishing ignorance of "facts" even as you pretend knowledge on the subjects:
Originally posted by n012944... The only reason the PCE was built was because when the Hill lines bought the Burlington, the MILW lost a lot of interchange traffic at the Twin Cites. Yeah, expert. Absolutely false. Remember the answer to that one, from none other than James J. Hill himself? The irony was just too good to pass up, but especially in the context of your post on another thread today, just "wasting everyone's time".
Yeah, expert. Absolutely false. Remember the answer to that one, from none other than James J. Hill himself?
The irony was just too good to pass up, but especially in the context of your post on another thread today, just "wasting everyone's time".
edblysard wrote: Its the government's job and responsibility to make your life better, not yours, right? Ed That seems to be his position in life. Bert
edblysard wrote: Its the government's job and responsibility to make your life better, not yours, right? Ed
Its the government's job and responsibility to make your life better, not yours, right?
That seems to be his position in life.
Yeah, you don't mind wasting people's time at all.
bobwilcox wrote: futuremodal wrote: And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either. Dave - You do not seem to understand that these types of personal attacks make you about as welcome as a social disease.
Bob, you do not seem to comprehend the extent of your own hypocrasy. You guys are like Hezebollah, you initiate the attack, then when the victim of the attack strikes back in a calculated, almost polite manner, you all whine and scream about how you are the victims.
I tried to inject a little humor into the debate by acknowledging the *compliment* put forth by Chessiewitch, e.g. being called a "technocrat". Chessiewitch then proceeds to call me a pro-China communist for all intents and purposes.
Nah, no personal attacks there, huh Bob?
So I give Chessiewitch the benefit of the doubt that he didn't understand that the initial reply was sarcastic, and call that to his attention. The alternative would be to acknowledge that Chessiewitch knowingly used the reply in a false manner for the purposes of slander, and I for one am not going to call him out on that just yet.
MichaelSol wrote: n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: n012944: Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. Yes, very ingnorant. Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself. If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time. Bert Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials.
No it just shows that my typing skills are not the best, but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, so I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to point out other peoples mistakes. Now that we are past that, what is your purpose here Michael? It seems in many threads you start posting about stuff that has no meanings to the thread at hand to try to make a person look bad. I recall reading a MILW thread, where you posted a link about the killing of greyhound puppies, now in a open access thread you bring up a post about the PCE. Seems to be some people would label you a troll for doing such things.
n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: n012944: Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. Yes, very ingnorant. Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself. If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time. Bert Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials. No it just shows that my typing skills are not the best, but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, so I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to point out other peoples mistakes. Now that we are past that, what is your purpose here Michael? It seems in many threads you start posting about stuff that has no meanings to the thread at hand to try to make a person look bad. I recall reading a MILW thread, where you posted a link about the killing of greyhound puppies, now in a open access thread you bring up a post about the PCE. Seems to be some people would label you a troll for doing such things. Bert
Wow, wrong again. Quite a record. But you do underscore the record of another troll, who justifies that killing, 10,000 greyhounds in the most recent headline, but no, I did not post the original link attaching an alleged railroader to a horrendous industry of butchery and deceit, it's your usual "careful" attention to detail and fact.
So, since you're wrong on your facts once again, what's your purpose here? Just "ingnorant"? Or careless?
Or as you demonstrated on the Milwaukee threads. A troll arguing contrary to established and documented facts because you think you know more than everyone else?
And that was the question here: what makes you think you know the difference between "England" and the PNW?
After all, you lectured someone else that there was a difference, but you seem mysteriously unable to articulate what that difference is.
Who do you think you are?
n012944 wrote: but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, ...
Where?
When?
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ... First time anyone's used it. It's spelled wrong.
greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ...
What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ...
First time anyone's used it. It's spelled wrong.
Posted on 7/23/2006 on this thread, page 2 if you would like to look for yourself. Now could we please get back to the open access discussion?
n012944 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ... First time anyone's used it. It's spelled wrong. Posted on 7/23/2006 on this thread, page 2 if you would like to look for yourself. Now could we please get back to the open access discussion? Bert
At the risk of sounding *smarmy*, just let me say ()!!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
"Wow, wrong again. Quite a record. But you do underscore the record of another troll, who justifies that killing, 10,000 greyhounds in the most recent headline, but no, I did not post the original link attaching an alleged railroader to a horrendous industry of butchery and deceit, it's your usual "careful" attention to detail and fact."
You might not have posted the original link, but you found a follow up
Posted by Mr Sol in a different thread
"Interesting. A letter just two and one-half years ago ... Strawbridge accused of "spreading industry propaganda" ... can't imagine ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/19/HO113090.DTL "Greyhound lovers need no help from racing spokesman Editor -- Regarding Eileen Mitchell's articles describing her rescued greyhound's lovely antics ("How do I love thee?" Dog's Life, Nov. 8), it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that the racing industry spokesperson, Ken Strawbridge, will go to in order to spread industry propaganda at the expense of hardworking greyhound advocates; advocates who have been instrumental in uncovering greyhound abuses and deaths for the last two decades. As I read proclamations from Mr. Strawbridge of how humane the greyhound racing industry is, one question comes to mind: Mr. Strawbridge, why are you, and your industry, completely out of touch with the abuses and deaths uncovered by the Greyhound Protection League if your industry is effectively self-policing? And at what point do the number of greyhound deaths no longer fit your definition of "isolated," a popular industry term so often quoted by you and your like in the media? If your industry was truly humane, Mr. Strawbridge, then it would be your industry uncovering all these abuses and not the mother of two with a full- time job that lives in a nonracing state, and other such hardworking volunteers. The industry will do itself a favor by acknowledging and encouraging the hard work of outsiders who have for years exposed greyhound cruelty and fought to bring the perpetrators to justice, instead of attempting to publicly humiliate them. But that would require a sense of humanity. " Sounds like the rail industry comments as well. Maybe arbfbe deserves the apology ... "
This is talking about greyhound deaths in a MILW thread. Now I admit that I am not the expert that you claim to be on the MILW, but I have never heard anything about that railroad being involved with anything to do with greyhound racing, so I don't understand the point of it being brought up. It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM. Now please stop the attacks and get back to the open access talk, if you haven't driven everyone off this thread.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.