wallyworld wrote:This thread is a good example of what was the subject of the original topic which has long since gone south and has vanished over the horizon. What replaced it is the atypical set of predictable puffery that frankly I could care less about I could swear this exchange of ballooned affrontry to ones fragile ego was a manufactured farce. Is the forum dead? No. Is this worth one's time reading? No.
jeaton wrote: vsmith wrote: I notice that the smiley on the left gets in the last blow.
vsmith wrote:
I notice that the smiley on the left gets in the last blow.
Now that is funny.
Gabe
wctransfer wrote:As much as people complain about the flame wars, you ALL know its fun to watch! And thats a fact! ;^) Alec
I disagree. It is the incidental learning that happens to take place during some of the wars that is the fun thing. There have been so many times I have learned valuable things about freight pricing from such exchanges, that make them worth the trouble for me.
Limitedclear wrote: zardoz wrote: edblysard wrote: If fact, with the exception of arfbe, who is also nameless, I can’t think of a single railroader on the forum they haven’t insulted. I feel so neglected.....I haven't been insulted......yet. Maybe I'm not controversial enough. You are still a god of railroading and a shining example to us all... Besides, anyone who wants to insult you has to come through me first...lol... LC
zardoz wrote: edblysard wrote: If fact, with the exception of arfbe, who is also nameless, I can’t think of a single railroader on the forum they haven’t insulted. I feel so neglected.....I haven't been insulted......yet. Maybe I'm not controversial enough.
edblysard wrote: If fact, with the exception of arfbe, who is also nameless, I can’t think of a single railroader on the forum they haven’t insulted.
If fact, with the exception of arfbe, who is also nameless, I can’t think of a single railroader on the forum they haven’t insulted.
I feel so neglected.....I haven't been insulted......yet.
Maybe I'm not controversial enough.
You are still a god of railroading and a shining example to us all...
Besides, anyone who wants to insult you has to come through me first...lol...
LC
Have fun with your trains
Better yet, if the priest presents himself as a expert on astrophysics, then his background and education would matter, yes?…or do you routinely hand over a running reactor to someone who only tells you they know what to do in a loss of coolant accident?
And, in case one hasn’t noticed, Mickey and Dave both attempt to censor who can and can not post on any thread they are involved with…note Mikes constant remark that I am not contributing…as if he has some say so in what is or is not relevant to any conversation, or who should or should not “be allowed” to post.
Which runs right back to AntiGates comment about the “thread herders” and the self appointed forum police.
selector wrote: edblysard wrote: Corn Maze… . If someone is going to come on board and debate operations, then wouldn’t it make sense to know their qualifications?.... No. A priest could state that the Sun is a gravitationally balanced sphere of primarily atomic hydrogen which converts billions of tons of hydrogen to helium every second using that same force of gravity. The astrophysicist who challenges his assertion on the basis of credentials is guilty of a classic ad-hominem argument. The priest's assertion is either right or wrong. His priestliness is neither. Insisting that a person reveal his/her formal training in the field does little to settle one's differences over their assertions. What counts is the veracity and the verifiabilility of them.
edblysard wrote: Corn Maze… . If someone is going to come on board and debate operations, then wouldn’t it make sense to know their qualifications?....
Corn Maze…
.
If someone is going to come on board and debate operations, then wouldn’t it make sense to know their qualifications?....
No. A priest could state that the Sun is a gravitationally balanced sphere of primarily atomic hydrogen which converts billions of tons of hydrogen to helium every second using that same force of gravity. The astrophysicist who challenges his assertion on the basis of credentials is guilty of a classic ad-hominem argument.
The priest's assertion is either right or wrong. His priestliness is neither. Insisting that a person reveal his/her formal training in the field does little to settle one's differences over their assertions. What counts is the veracity and the verifiabilility of them.
23 17 46 11
gabe wrote: wctransfer wrote:As much as people complain about the flame wars, you ALL know its fun to watch! And thats a fact! ;^) Alec I disagree. It is the incidental learning that happens to take place during some of the wars that is the fun thing. There have been so many times I have learned valuable things about freight pricing from such exchanges, that make them worth the trouble for me. Gabe
Indeed. Just a darn shame that FM and his buddy never seem to learn anything at all...
Boy, this place is really gonna seem dull after these guys finish firing their volleys.
Although, I must admit, it is difficult to refrain from constantly revisiting this thread to see what happens next in this latest "Clever Contest."
"edblysard" And, in case one hasn’t noticed, Mickey and Dave both attempt to censor who can and can not post on any thread they are involved with…note Mikes constant remark that I am not contributing…as if he has some say so in what is or is not relevant to any conversation, or who should or should not “be allowed” to post. Which runs right back to AntiGates comment about the “thread herders” and the self appointed forum police.
It is the difference between a contributor and being a troll.
The latter believing he has a god-given right to insult people when and where he wants and to continually waste people's time with it.
MichaelSol wrote:"edblysard" And, in case one hasn’t noticed, Mickey and Dave both attempt to censor who can and can not post on any thread they are involved with…note Mikes constant remark that I am not contributing…as if he has some say so in what is or is not relevant to any conversation, or who should or should not “be allowed” to post. Which runs right back to AntiGates comment about the “thread herders” and the self appointed forum police. It is the difference between a contributor and being a troll. The latter believing he has a god-given right to insult people when and where he wants and to continually waste people's time with it.
I'm sure glad you posted this Mikey, it is good to hear that I was right on when I classified you as a troll...FOFLMAO...
Oh, and god didn't need to give me a right to insult you, you have done that all by yourself...
I think the forum is endangered -- and I believe it's because there are more negative posters out there who seem to lay in wait to "ambush" the topic of a poster.
If you doubt me, please read the thread "Another Very Late Amtrak Today" . It's a legitimate topic, but poster Mr Runyon's only contribution was to criticize it.
When I called him on it, he took off after me. Which I found sad, frankly.
If my son, a budding railfan, was to post "What's the difference between a GP-7 and a GP-9?", I suppose some would jump all over him for asking a stupid or basic question. But we need all postings. Even the basic ones. That's how we grow, folks.
How about a moratorium on negative postings? That way, we would encourage others to join in without the danger of being cut apart.
Tharmeni wrote: I think the forum is endangered -- and I believe it's because there are more negative posters out there who seem to lay in wait to "ambush" the topic of a poster. If you doubt me, please read the thread "Another Very Late Amtrak Today" . It's a legitimate topic, but poster Mr Runyon's only contribution was to criticize it. When I called him on it, he took off after me. Which I found sad, frankly. If my son, a budding railfan, was to post "What's the difference between a GP-7 and a GP-9?", I suppose some would jump all over him for asking a stupid or basic question. But we need all postings. Even the basic ones. That's how we grow, folks. How about a moratorium on negative postings? That way, we would encourage others to join in without the danger of being cut apart.
Let me see if I have all this right:
Mr. Runyon criticized a post, which happens all the time here. Then you butted in to criticize Mr. Runyon for butting in and criticizing. He fired back at you, and you felt hurt, so now you decide it's time for a moratorium on negative postings. And you came here looking for some support.
Well, first don't be so ridiculous to compare BNSFrailfan's silly contradictions in that Amtrak thread to your son asking the difference between a GP-7 and GP-9. Puleeze!
I don't think the forum is endangered at all. I just think there are too many people who selfishly want the forum to be what they themselves think it should be, and since it won't go their way, they're upset.
There's an old saying that goes: "If you can't stand dips, stay off the roller coaster."
Tharmeni wrote:I rest my case, your honor!
Sorry, you never had a case.
I find it amusing that YOUR only contribution to that thread, sir, was exactly the same high crime of which you accused Mr. Runyon.
You have absolutely no complaint. Case dismissed.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Tharmeni wrote: I think the forum is endangered -- and I believe it's because there are more negative posters out there who seem to lay in wait to "ambush" the topic of a poster. If you doubt me, please read the thread "Another Very Late Amtrak Today" . It's a legitimate topic, but poster Mr Runyon's only contribution was to criticize it. When I called him on it, he took off after me. Which I found sad, frankly. If my son, a budding railfan, was to post "What's the difference between a GP-7 and a GP-9?", I suppose some would jump all over him for asking a stupid or basic question. But we need all postings. Even the basic ones. That's how we grow, folks. How about a moratorium on negative postings? That way, we would encourage others to join in without the danger of being cut apart. Let me see if I have all this right: Mr. Runyon criticized a post, which happens all the time here. Then you butted in to criticize Mr. Runyon for butting in and criticizing. He fired back at you, and you felt hurt, so now you decide it's time for a moratorium on negative postings. And you came here looking for some support. Well, first don't be so ridiculous to compare BNSFrailfan's silly contradictions in that Amtrak thread to your son asking the difference between a GP-7 and GP-9. Puleeze! I don't think the forum is endangered at all. I just think there are too many people who selfishly want the forum to be what they themselves think it should be, and since it won't go their way, they're upset. There's an old saying that goes: "If you can't stand dips, stay off the roller coaster."
I don't understand why I am being singled out by "Tharmeni". There is absolutely nothing offensive in the post that I placed here. It seems to me that "Tharmeni" is the individual who is deliberately stirring up trouble and causing animosity here.
Any decisions on posts rests with the moderators...not you "Tharmeni".
Harry_Runyon wrote:I appreciate your support Poppa_Zit. Thank you.
I just like to see a level playing field, that's all.
MichaelSol wrote: ...and BNSF, which I follow as an investor.
Michael, do you own any BNSF stock currently ?
The old lawyers proverb...
Arguing Your Case
When you have the law, pound on the law...
When you have the facts, pound on the facts...
When you have neither the law nor the facts, pound on the table...
Mikey, your table is looking pretty beat up...LOL...
MP173 wrote:Question:What is the difference between a GP9 and GP7?Some would answer 2 (9-7=2). Others would say 250 horsepower. Others would say that neither is a valid locomotive because __________(fill in the blank). Others would say that neither filled it's potential as a locomotive because they were not used on Open Access lines. Still others would simply say..."it doesnt matter because I enjoyed watching the train too much to care."We are a nerdy group (self included). But, we love trains....some of us more than people it seems (not me).ed
Sadly, the difference nowadays is set by when Gillette got the steel. It is either a 3 or 4 blade device for scraping your face in the morning...
Tharmani appears to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Case in point: Refer to how he jumped on a posted on 23 July at 4:31 AM:
"Re: RE: RE: Breaking, Breaking News about Amtrak Cuts on Monday July 3, 2006.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm really sick of this post.
Conrailman, if you are so fact-based, how did you post, way ,way back that these cuts were "coming on July 3" and then base it on an article you adamantly say was published on July 17th? I'm really tired of this. Others have said it before, but get the facts before you open your mouth."
Hmmmm.... I don't know about you guys, but it appears that Tharmani was criticizing a fellow poster.
Just thought I'd point that out.
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: ...and BNSF, which I follow as an investor. Michael, do you own any BNSF stock currently ?
MichaelSol wrote:It's an internet phenomenon of the tyranny permitted by fake names brandishing fake credentials when they can't hold their own in a straightforward argument. It's the ad hominem attack allowed to a coward hiding behind a keyboard when he can't articulate an argument or express a reasonable thought. and can get away with anything in cyberspace, hiding behind his fake name. Not a thing fake about my name, location, or the railroad I work for. You met them on the playground. Now they have computers and some allege that they work for railroads although they could work anywhere ....As I have mentioned, in my experience, "real" railroaders are of a different quality than the people who speak loudly to their own credentials here. I've never seen such a smug bunch of self-congratulatory people as this bunch. I am fortunate to have known and worked with the ones that I have -- maybe the quality is declining, who knows? I sure hope these guys aren't the standard. Cant judge, you refuse to tell us what position you held, with what railroad. In any case, judge them by their ideas, their arguments, and their ability to get through a post with their integrity intact. Doesn't happen often with these guys. I am sure knowledgeable people, railroader and non-railroader alike, will post less and less if the penalty is always a barrage of derogatory remarks from a small group of self-appointed "railroaders" who believe it is their god-given right to troll from thread to thread, just to insult people: witness Blysard's comments above, and several other threads I neither posted to nor cared to read. They disagree with some things people say. Most honest people are content to say they disagree. Not that bunch. I think I am probably the only person here who actually stated I didn't know enough about Open Access to have much of an opinion either way on it. Check back if you're curious on Blysard's torrent of abuse to that thought, and his self-righteous and bizarre accusation that the State of Montana wasn't officially doing enough to help Hurricane Katrina victims, and how that was relevant to my "credibility" at the time. I mean, serious screw-loose stuff. Where do you get this nonsense from? You routinly twist what people write to fit your needs, sad.Blysard's obsessed, but I never seem to see him actually argue a proposition, or present a cogent position on any of the few things I ever post about -- primarily Milwaukee, which I know something about, and BNSF, which I follow as an investor. Indeed, none of the gentlemen ever seem to know much at all about my relatively limited range of interests in railroading. But, not knowing something doesn't seem to limit their seemingly endless diatribes -- this thread now standing for their proposition that unverifiable credentials offered under a fake name should be a substitute for knowing something about the topic at hand. Again, where you get this stuff from? Never said that at all, you twist what was said to present yourself as a aggreived party...instead of answering the question asked...LC is right, your table is pretty beat up looking.Many wasted threads from this bunch. Tharmeni, you are absolutely correct, this has become an "ambush" internet forum for these guys. If there were a moratorium on negative postings, they wouldn't have anything to say.
Not a thing fake about my name, location, or the railroad I work for.
You met them on the playground. Now they have computers and some allege that they work for railroads although they could work anywhere ....As I have mentioned, in my experience, "real" railroaders are of a different quality than the people who speak loudly to their own credentials here. I've never seen such a smug bunch of self-congratulatory people as this bunch. I am fortunate to have known and worked with the ones that I have -- maybe the quality is declining, who knows? I sure hope these guys aren't the standard.
Cant judge, you refuse to tell us what position you held, with what railroad.
In any case, judge them by their ideas, their arguments, and their ability to get through a post with their integrity intact. Doesn't happen often with these guys. I am sure knowledgeable people, railroader and non-railroader alike, will post less and less if the penalty is always a barrage of derogatory remarks from a small group of self-appointed "railroaders" who believe it is their god-given right to troll from thread to thread, just to insult people: witness Blysard's comments above, and several other threads I neither posted to nor cared to read. They disagree with some things people say. Most honest people are content to say they disagree. Not that bunch. I think I am probably the only person here who actually stated I didn't know enough about Open Access to have much of an opinion either way on it. Check back if you're curious on Blysard's torrent of abuse to that thought, and his self-righteous and bizarre accusation that the State of Montana wasn't officially doing enough to help Hurricane Katrina victims, and how that was relevant to my "credibility" at the time. I mean, serious screw-loose stuff.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
You routinly twist what people write to fit your needs, sad.Blysard's obsessed, but I never seem to see him actually argue a proposition, or present a cogent position on any of the few things I ever post about -- primarily Milwaukee, which I know something about, and BNSF, which I follow as an investor. Indeed, none of the gentlemen ever seem to know much at all about my relatively limited range of interests in railroading. But, not knowing something doesn't seem to limit their seemingly endless diatribes -- this thread now standing for their proposition that unverifiable credentials offered under a fake name should be a substitute for knowing something about the topic at hand.
Again, where you get this stuff from?
Never said that at all, you twist what was said to present yourself as a aggreived party...instead of answering the question asked...LC is right, your table is pretty beat up looking.Many wasted threads from this bunch. Tharmeni, you are absolutely correct, this has become an "ambush" internet forum for these guys. If there were a moratorium on negative postings, they wouldn't have anything to say.
Pathfinder wrote: Randy Stahl wrote: Great ... another thread gone to waste , yet another waste of time about forum members and personalitys, not much useful info here for sure . I'm new here, does this happen a lot?
Randy Stahl wrote: Great ... another thread gone to waste , yet another waste of time about forum members and personalitys, not much useful info here for sure .
Great ... another thread gone to waste , yet another waste of time about forum members and personalitys, not much useful info here for sure .
Yes. However, its nice to see people so passionate about something they enjoy.
vsmith wrote: Just another flamefest, got any hot dogs, someone hide the popcorn machine, Oh Chad?
Figgured were gunna need a few buckets for this thread.
edblysard wrote:Better yet, if the priest presents himself as a expert on astrophysics, then his background and education would matter, yes?…or do you routinely hand over a running reactor to someone who only tells you they know what to do in a loss of coolant accident?
Not to mention the terror that would accompany turning over a reactor to an operator who's "solution" for problem solving begins with a recital of the lords prayer
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.