DM&E vs Mayo: Who's side is TRAINS on anyway?

[Bergie]

Ohhhhhkay, boys.... have we all insulted each other enough here?  Take a deep breath and start talking about railroading again, instead of trying to dissect someone else's every thought.

Let's move on.

  Bergie

 

[Anonymous]

Future,

What are you on? I need to get some of that s**t. It is obviously a powerful and mind dulling hallucinogen. You talk about Schiffer having "a my way or the highway" attitude. Go back and check the points I iterate in my FACTS post. It is the Mayo Clinic not the DM&E or Schiffer that exude a "my way or the highway" attitude in there every utterance and legal manuver.

Mark

Apparently, I'm not on what you are on, because it is AG who is dissing Schiffer, not me.  And I totally agree with your last sentence.

[Anonymous]

.  It wasn't me who accused TRAINS of yellow journalism, 

T'was YOU who wrote: "then TRAINS has dropped down to the level of Mother Jones or NOW, at least in this instance.  Whether you will agree or not that the latter two media offerings are of the yellow variety, I'll leave you to decide"

Whether I will agree they are of the yellow variety?  Agree with whom? with you?

So I am exonerated once again, albeit in a backhanded manner.

And I'll bet you have no clue what Mother Jones is or was.  I honestly don't know if the rag even exists anymore.  All I know that is that you could have taken that particular TRAINS news item, stuck into the pages of Mother Jones, and no one would be the wiser (literally).  Or Bill Moyers could have read the piece verbatum on one of his taxpayer supported *news* shows on PBS, and no one would have suspected it had been lifted from TRAINS.

Now do you get it?

[KCSfan]

Future,

What are you on? I need to get some of that s**t. It is obviously a powerful and mind dulling hallucinogen. You talk about Schiffer having "a my way or the highway" attitude. Go back and check the points I iterate in my FACTS post. It is the Mayo Clinic not the DM&E or Schiffer that exude a "my way or the highway" attitude in there every utterance and legal manuver.

Mark

[SALfan]

Mark Twain once said "Figures don't lie, but all liars figure."  That quote comes to mind every time a poll paid for by a particular entity miraculously supports that entity's position.

I believe Twain also stated...."There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Numbers can be manipulated to PROVE any point in an argument.

 

You are correct on both counts.  I really like the Twain quote about statistics.

[solzrules]

You are the one that claimed our previous discussions could hardly be called a dialogue.  Not good.  Don't expect a bright, cheerful response with a comment like that.  If you can dish it out but can't handle a little coming back at you then maybe you shouldn't start such things? 

I said I don't believe we've had a "dialog" on this subject, and I still don't.  You obviously have your mind made up. So be it.

If by 'dialog' you mean me accepting this as Scheiffer and Cedar American Rail Holdings rolling over Rochester and bullying their way through the process than I guess we haven't had a dialog.  Unfortunately the facts don't bear your position  out.  DME has made repeated attempts to work this out with the city but they aren't interested in any agreement.  They are interested in not having any upgrades or trains at all.  That's fine-they certainly are entitled to their position.  But finally it is DME's property, and if they want to make the railroad safer that's DME's business.  Again, this line has been there over one hundred years.  And they aren't trying to double track it or anything.  I don't see how this is even an issue, but you seem to think that DME is trying ram this thing through over the objections of the poor, weak, downtrodden citizens of Rochester. 

As far as me dishing it out, you'll also notice I qualified my comment that I couldn't believe you would be so insulting YET CARE WHAT MY OPINION MIGHT BE.

Given the absence of any real dialog up to this point, my estimate is that you don't.   I'm sure that a majority of minnesotans are heartbroken, but ... OH WELL!

Any part of that which I need to explain further?

No, I guess that'll do 'er. 

[edkowal]

It's called creative writing...

and

If I gotta explain 'em, you're doing a lousy job of cognitatin'.

You'd do a much better job of arguing whatever position you appear to have if you read a text or two on what you claim to be doing: writing.  If you did, you'd find that it's the writer's job to make sure that he's understood, and to understand to whom he's writing.  Neither of these two appear to be strong points with you.

-Ed

[wjstix]

It was interesting to see someone refer to the tiny upstart DM&E as being the big bad industry and long-standing wealthy and powerful Mayo Clinic as the little guy.

As for the polls and the arguments, I suspect if an unbiased poll were taken here in Minnesota, the result would be 10% pro-DME, 10% pro-Mayo, and 80% "Huh??". It's not exactly front page news in the Gopher state.

As far as any bias, I have to admit I did let my subscription to Trains lapse back in the eighties or early nineties because it seemed like they only had several pro-business Republican columnists and no one on the other side, kinda got annoying how they'd stick up for Reagan or Bush. Now, since both Mayo and DME are industries (and Rochester is a very Republican area) I'm not sure where Kalmbach's bias would be, if there is one at all?? Sometimes if you have an opinion on something, someone else's reporting can seem biased to you if they're not supporting your side.

[Anonymous]

You are the one that claimed our previous discussions could hardly be called a dialogue.  Not good.  Don't expect a bright, cheerful response with a comment like that.  If you can dish it out but can't handle a little coming back at you then maybe you shouldn't start such things? 

I said I don't believe we've had a "dialog" on this subject, and I still don't.  You obviously have your mind made up. So be it.

As far as me dishing it out, you'll also notice I qualified my comment that I couldn't believe you would be so insulting YET CARE WHAT MY OPINION MIGHT BE.

Given the absence of any real dialog up to this point, my estimate is that you don't.   I'm sure that a majority of minnesotans are heartbroken, but ... OH WELL!

Any part of that which I need to explain further?

[Anonymous]

.  It wasn't me who accused TRAINS of yellow journalism, 

T'was YOU who wrote: "then TRAINS has dropped down to the level of Mother Jones or NOW, at least in this instance.  Whether you will agree or not that the latter two media offerings are of the yellow variety, I'll leave you to decide"

Whether I will agree they are of the yellow variety?  Agree with whom? with you?

[Anonymous]

It's called creative writing, meant to differentiate an emphasis from the faceless metaphors of the masses. 

Pedanticism refers to an overabundance of droning repetition, as in AG's long winded but short sighted retorts.

And #1 is a reference to "nickel and diming", aka throwing spare change at a problem deserving of some major greenbacks.  It has nothing to do with mom and pop retail establishments.

Put 'em all together ("nickel and dime straw herring"), and you have a brand new metaphor describing the act of throwing out feckless minutia supporting the temporarily erected diversion from the gist of the topic.

Geez, it's not rocket brain fission!

Gee, all that, brand new metaphors, and creative dictionary work, too.  We ARE fortunate to have you here to uplift all of us sub-ordinary mortals.

On the other hand:

If ya' gotta explain 'em, you're doing a lousy job of communicatin'

-Ed

If I gotta explain 'em, you're doing a lousy job of cognitatin'.

[Anonymous]

A simple request to find out what AG would term as yellow journalism, and he turns yellow of a different shade!  What is that, Canary?  Saphron? 

No Dave, stating that you will leave something up to me to decide is not one in the same with asking  me to define my position. "Your writting style" notwithstanding, if you are not getting the answers you desire, perhaps you should refine your questions a little better, for effect.

You've accused the magazine of Yellow journalism, not I, and the simple fact is that I cannot answer for them. so you can perch out on that branch until they give you the answer you deserve.

It's you pointing the finger, so don't blame me for your frustration. You made your bed...

If you wanted to know what I consider yellow journalism, you should have asked without all the histrionics.

Nice backpeddeling, btw,guess sitting alone on that branch has given you time to think?

1.  No.  It wasn't me who accused TRAINS of yellow journalism, it was you who introduced that term, and for the sake of placating your familiarity with the term I ran with it.  What I said was that TRAINS introduced a bias that was both anti-rail and pro-nonsense, par for the course for the yellow rags to which Ed B prostrates himself, but unusual for TRAINS, especially considering they are a railfan mag.

2.  Since you still have no answer for what you term yellow journalism, perhaps you yourself are fuzzy on the subject.

3.  To be completely honest, I don't care what your definition of yellow journalism is.  I don't usually use the term, prefering instead the word "bias" when describing journalistic shortcomings.

The facts remain:  TRAINS ran a newswire item in which they gave credibility (whether purposeful or inadverdent, I do not profess to know) to a faction undeserving of credibility in their response to DM&E's proposal.  You can sit out there on that branch and deny it all you want, but it is there for all to see. 

[solzrules]

What is really funny is that this started off as a typical Dave rant about the Trains newswire article being biased, which he presented as something shameful, then in later posts made it clear he didn’t mind “yellow journalism” at all, as long as the bias was slanted in favor of his position or opinion.

“Yellow journalism” of course being Dave’s stock in trade.

Well, the yellow part at least.

As for the journalism part, see Mr. Kowal’s remarks.

The instant he saw the opportunity to turn it into an argument about DM&E vs. Mayo, which seems to have been his intent all along, he tossed out his line, and you guys snapped up the bait quick.

Now he has you guys arguing on an entirely different subject that the original post, and all seem to have forgotten his original accusation.

He jumps in with a nudge here, a prod there, and gets all of you worked up over a debate that has been hashed over to the point is was stale…all the while sitting back and enjoying the chaos he created.

You seem to be hell bent on amusing him to no end.

He isn’t here to learn, participate or even offer a real opinion of his own, but is here only to argue, or to encourage other to argue for his personal enjoyment and pleasure.

Good job at feeding the troll, guys.

Ed

Ed - I am not being led like a lamb to the slaughter here.  I do actually enjoy debates like this, as long as they are civil and a not a name-calling sandbox war.  Was the original post troll-ish?  Maybe, but there are some points worth noting about the article and the implications it gives the reader.  And after reading the thread called "." by bnsf-whatever his name is there is a whole lot more substance here than in that thread.  Trollish or not it is a good, constructive discussion. 

[solzrules]

AG:  I've had a good night of rest and am feeling quite a bit more chipper this morning, as this cold I am having is begining to break loose. 

How can you be so insulting one moment and then expect me to believe that you would care what my opinion even is the next?

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

You are the one that claimed our previous discussions could hardly be called a dialogue.  Not good.  Don't expect a bright, cheerful response with a comment like that.  If you can dish it out but can't handle a little coming back at you then maybe you shouldn't start such things?  Other than that, I do actually take time to read your responses....whether I agree with them or not. 

FWIW, I could really give a rats which way it ends up going, since it won't be in my back yard anyway.

Fair enough.  My only concern is that the railroad needs the business to survive.  Keep in mind the CNW wanted to pull the plug on this track in the 80's.  If the DME wants to build their business to keep the track as a feasible business than more power to them. 

I just get amused at the way the  goodoldeboyz.net  "play to the massa" on such  subjects here.

In this case a railroad wants to upgrade an existing track and make it safer.  The Mayo doesn't want the railroad to upgrade and become safer because of the railroad's safety record.  One makes sense, the other doesn't.  Hardly playing to the 'massa'. 

A city wants to create a no horn zone, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

A city wants a railroad to do work on it's infastructure within their boundries, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

A city wants a railroad to not do work within it's boundries, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

 There's a lot to be said for consistency,... it grows amusing after a while.

And that is a good example of why city government should not be running business.  There is no consistency.  As long as the railroad is not violating laws (and painting a bridge that is safe a different color is not a violation of any law) why should there even be such an uproar?  Not only that, it seems that these cities are more than likely to tell the railroad to go to he11 (nice end run on the word, btw).  Your bridge painting incident is a perfect example.  The mayor pretty much said that they'll just keep raising the fines until the railroad complies.  Who is screwing who? 

Like I said long ago (although you probably ignored it) Originally I was all for the DM&E/ ICE expansion and grander plan to tie it all together into a new entry to the PRB. I thought it showed a lot of moxie. I was all for it.

But the reports  I've read of the "my way or the highway" dealings this Schiffer character has sought to impose upon any opposition, forces me to reconsider.

Does he really want to recruit the enthusiastic support of the communities his venture will affect (be a good suitor, in my earlier analogy)

Or, are his motives more focused on serving his immediate and pressing need, IN SPITE OF any needs that might conflict with his own? (wham bam, thank you mam, in other words)

His refusal to even entertain any alternatives aimed at mediating the impact upon the town tells me much about his desire to give the city a good......well you should get the analogy by now.

Contrary  to what he claims, he's not looking for cooperation, because he has no willingness to compromise. What he is looking for is accomodation,  big diff.

And maybe guys like that deserve a little non aligned exposure from time to time, Kudos to the Trains editorial staff for their objectivity.

But he has worked out agreements with 55 of the 56 affected communities.  Guess which one can't even come to the bargaining table?  Guess which one has refused to even meet with the DME?  Guess which one uses faulty reasoning and mis-information?  Guess which one is screaming bloody murder when it is obvious they don't want any trains in the city at all?  If Scheiffer was able to work out agreements with 98 % of the communities what makes you think that all of the sudden he is being an over-bearing fascist when it comes to Rochester?  If anything, it seems like Rochester is the one that is trying to steamroll the railroad. 

The trains article is not objective.  It tells only one side of the story.  Some of our current mass media outlets take that as a basic tennant of objectivity, but it is anything but.  Again, it seems like they reprinted the artcile from a newspaper without giving proper credit to the source.  I don't think this was done intentionally, but the result is an article that doesn't tell both sides of the story. 

[Anonymous]

What is really funny is that this started off as a typical Dave rant about the Trains newswire article being biased, which he presented as something shameful, then in later posts made it clear he didn’t mind “yellow journalism” at all, as long as the bias was slanted in favor of his position or opinion
.

Yes, I thought it was rather amusing, thanks for exposing my motives for me, its always so much more fun when someone else takes the fun part.

Now he has you guys arguing on an entirely different subject that the original post, and all seem to have forgotten his original accusation.

 

Ed

It's called "multitasking"...

[Anonymous]

A simple request to find out what AG would term as yellow journalism, and he turns yellow of a different shade!  What is that, Canary?  Saphron? 

No Dave, stating that you will leave something up to me to decide is not one in the same with asking  me to define my position. "Your writting style" notwithstanding, if you are not getting the answers you desire, perhaps you should refine your questions a little better, for effect.

You've accused the magazine of Yellow journalism, not I, and the simple fact is that I cannot answer for them. so you can perch out on that branch until they give you the answer you deserve.

It's you pointing the finger, so don't blame me for your frustration. You made your bed...

If you wanted to know what I consider yellow journalism, you should have asked without all the histrionics.

Nice backpeddeling, btw,guess sitting alone on that branch has given you time to think?

[edblysard]

What is really funny is that this started off as a typical Dave rant about the Trains newswire article being biased, which he presented as something shameful, then in later posts made it clear he didn’t mind “yellow journalism” at all, as long as the bias was slanted in favor of his position or opinion.

“Yellow journalism” of course being Dave’s stock in trade.

Well, the yellow part at least.

As for the journalism part, see Mr. Kowal’s remarks.

 

The instant he saw the opportunity to turn it into an argument about DM&E vs. Mayo, which seems to have been his intent all along, he tossed out his line, and you guys snapped up the bait quick.

 

Now he has you guys arguing on an entirely different subject that the original post, and all seem to have forgotten his original accusation.

 

He jumps in with a nudge here, a prod there, and gets all of you worked up over a debate that has been hashed over to the point is was stale…all the while sitting back and enjoying the chaos he created.

 

You seem to be hell bent on amusing him to no end.

 

He isn’t here to learn, participate or even offer a real opinion of his own, but is here only to argue, or to encourage other to argue for his personal enjoyment and pleasure.

 

Good job at feeding the troll, guys.

 

Ed

[edkowal]

It's called creative writing, meant to differentiate an emphasis from the faceless metaphors of the masses. 

Pedanticism refers to an overabundance of droning repetition, as in AG's long winded but short sighted retorts.

And #1 is a reference to "nickel and diming", aka throwing spare change at a problem deserving of some major greenbacks.  It has nothing to do with mom and pop retail establishments.

Put 'em all together ("nickel and dime straw herring"), and you have a brand new metaphor describing the act of throwing out feckless minutia supporting the temporarily erected diversion from the gist of the topic.

Geez, it's not rocket brain fission!

Gee, all that, brand new metaphors, and creative dictionary work, too.  We ARE fortunate to have you here to uplift all of us sub-ordinary mortals.

On the other hand:

If ya' gotta explain 'em, you're doing a lousy job of communicatin'

-Ed

[Anonymous]

Spin, spin, spin. 

Hmmmmmmmm.......

Let me explain something to you about a particular writing style...  

... This stuff about increased noise and traffic from expanded DM&E operations near Mayo is nothing more than a nickel and dime straw herring...  

And let me explain something to you about old chestnuts of writing.  If you're going to be pedantic, (and YOU'RE the one who seems most guilty of that, from my reading of these posts) at least get your figures of speech right.  "Nickel and dime straw herring" mixes up three (count 'em, three) classic bits of writing:

1) Nickel and dime store
2) straw man
3) red herring

If you're going to do it, get it right.

-Ed

It's called creative writing, meant to differentiate an emphasis from the faceless metaphors of the masses. 

Pedanticism refers to an overabundance of droning repetition, as in AG's long winded but short sighted retorts.

And #1 is a reference to "nickel and diming", aka throwing spare change at a problem deserving of some major greenbacks.  It has nothing to do with mom and pop retail establishments.

Put 'em all together ("nickel and dime straw herring"), and you have a brand new metaphor describing the act of throwing out feckless minutia supporting the temporarily erected diversion from the gist of the topic.

Geez, it's not rocket brain fission!

[Anonymous]

Let me explain something to you about a particular writing style.  The sentence from my quote above -"Whether you will agree or not that the latter two media offerings are of the yellow variety, I'll leave you to decide" - is a way of trying to determine where YOU stand on the issue of yellow journalism.  For all I know, you may not consider Mother Jones or NOW (the Bill Moyers PBS show) as being of the yellow variety.  In that case, you'd have to define your view of what you consider to be yellow.  The point is, if you don't consider MJ or NOW as the epitomes of yellow, then that would explain in part why you can't see the yellowishness of the TRAINS Newswire item in question. 

I'll be perfectly honest with you and say that  I never could have deduced ALL of that from what little you offer(ed).

Sounds to me as though you realize what a thin branch you're on, and now you expect company?

No thanks

Hmmmmmm......

A simple request to find out what AG would term as yellow journalism, and he turns yellow of a different shade!  What is that, Canary?  Saphron? 

Just a reminder, you're the one who introduced the term "yellow journalism" on this particular thread.  By the definition I use, I believe the term is applicable to the way TRAINS presented this particular news item.  That doesn't necessarily mean TRAINS itself is guilty of yellow journalism, provided they simply lifted the news item straight from NYT or Al Jazeer without proofing it for a railfan audience.  If that's what happened, then TRAINS is guilty of nothing more than sloppy editing.

[Anonymous]

the Mayo clinic lost?  The little man lost in his battle against the industrial machine?  Somehow I think you would write it off to being another case of big industry trumping the rights of normal Americans.  Another lost battle in class warfare.  Would you be willing to allow the DME to run 50 trains through Rochester if a majority of Minnesotans affected by the rail line supported it? 

How can you be so insulting one moment and then expect me to believe that you would care what my opinion even is the next?

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

FWIW, I could really give a rats which way it ends up going, since it won't be in my back yard anyway.


I just get amused at the way the  goodoldeboyz.net  "play to the massa" on such  subjects here.

A city wants to create a no horn zone, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

A city wants a railroad to do work on it's infastructure within their boundries, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

A city wants a railroad to not do work within it's boundries, the mutual concensus here is always something along the lines of "tell the city to go to he11!!"

 There's a lot to be said for consistency,... it grows amusing after a while.

Like I said long ago (although you probably ignored it) Originally I was all for the DM&E/ ICE expansion and grander plan to tie it all together into a new entry to the PRB. I thought it showed a lot of moxie. I was all for it.

But the reports  I've read of the "my way or the highway" dealings this Schiffer character has sought to impose upon any opposition, forces me to reconsider.

Does he really want to recruit the enthusiastic support of the communities his venture will affect (be a good suitor, in my earlier analogy)

Or, are his motives more focused on serving his immediate and pressing need, IN SPITE OF any needs that might conflict with his own? (wham bam, thank you mam, in other words)

His refusal to even entertain any alternatives aimed at mediating the impact upon the town tells me much about his desire to give the city a good......well you should get the analogy by now.

Contrary  to what he claims, he's not looking for cooperation, because he has no willingness to compromise. What he is looking for is accomodation,  big diff.

And maybe guys like that deserve a little non aligned exposure from time to time, Kudos to the Trains editorial staff for their objectivity.

[solzrules]

Sometimes I think you only understand what you are willing to allow,  but there's not much i can do to change that. So I'll just reply with "SO?"

 

So?  So they don't make any sense and the analogy is lost on me.  You'll have to dumb this way down so us plebians can understand it, being the intellectual powerhouse that you are. 

Now you are being preposterous, not only are you writing checks no one would be willing to cash, but somehow I  suspect  even YOU would not be willing to go along with the outcome if it turned out other than you hoped.

Actually, I stated that if the project is voted down than they should rip out the tracks and make it a bike trail.  This is something that has happened quite a few times in Wisconsin and I have somehow managed to accept it.  DME has said that in order for the railroad to remain viable they aren't going to be able to make it hauling corn, although that is a big part of their business.  Coal is a commodity that is expected to grow and grow for the next couple of decades and they need to be able to compete with BNSF in order to survive.  Or BNSF could buy them out and tear up the tracks. 

Would you be able to accept the outcome if it meant the Mayo clinic lost?  The little man lost in his battle against the industrial machine?  Somehow I think you would write it off to being another case of big industry trumping the rights of normal Americans.  Another lost battle in class warfare.  Would you be willing to allow the DME to run 50 trains through Rochester if a majority of Minnesotans affected by the rail line supported it? 

[solzrules]

solzrules and KCSfan

You're missing the jist of the topic.  It isn't about the merits of the DME case, it's about the objectivity of the Trains News Wire article on the subject.  Futuremodal is having a hissy fit because Trains did not suggest that Mayo Clinic Group should shut up and go home.  He argues that Trains is biased, but then in his world anyone who does not agree with and heap high praise on his views is biased and probably stupid.  The Anti Gates seems to have issues with neighbors and is sort a NIMBY type i.e., you have property rights only to the extent that it suits me.

I'd guess that most on this forum are probably OK with the DME plan, especially if the numbers indicate a strong chance that the government loan gets paid back.  You are correct that all the involved regulators have OK'd the project, but the FRA is still taking comments on the proposal.  Unless someone comes up with proof that false evidence was presented to the regulators their findings will stand.  However, just like any other entity in the Administrative Branch, the FRA is subject to political pressures.  Congress is not likely to change the authorizing law, but a "We just don't like it!" coming from the right direction could kill the whole deal.

I see your point about missing the jist of the topic.  Not my intent to do that, but it seems every one of these discussions comes down to an argument between those who agree with Mayo and those who agree with DME.  As for the article, I've said in an earlier post that it reads an awfully lot like a newspaper article.  It makes me wonder if there wasn't some cutting and pasting going on.  Nothing wrong with that but they should credit their source (no source was listed).  As for the objectivity of the article, well, I do not believe any news article at face value.  I usually try to make a descision based on a couple of articles from different sources and media.  I wouldn't go so far as to say the article is 'yellow', but certainly it doesn't tell both sides of the story.  As for your last paragraph, you probably hit the nail right on the head with this whole thing, I can't argue with you there.  All it is going to take is the right person (or entity) and this whole thing will shut down.   

[Anonymous]

And sometimes I think you toss out analogies like that just to give eveyone the impression that you on a superior plane of intelligence when they don't make any sense at all. 

Sometimes I think you only understand what you are willing to allow,  but there's not much i can do to change that. So I'll just reply with "SO?"

Let's poll all 56 communities that will be affected by the rail line and see if all the citizens affected by this want the project to proceed or not.  If they vote it down - fine.  Rip out the existing track

Now you are being preposterous, not only are you writing checks no one would be willing to cash, but somehow I  suspect  even YOU would not be willing to go along with the outcome if it turned out other than you hoped.

[BaltACD]

Mark Twain once said "Figures don't lie, but all liars figure."  That quote comes to mind every time a poll paid for by a particular entity miraculously supports that entity's position.

I believe Twain also stated...."There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Numbers can be manipulated to PROVE any point in an argument.

[edkowal]

Spin, spin, spin. 

Hmmmmmmmm.......

Let me explain something to you about a particular writing style...  

... This stuff about increased noise and traffic from expanded DM&E operations near Mayo is nothing more than a nickel and dime straw herring...  

And let me explain something to you about old chestnuts of writing.  If you're going to be pedantic, (and YOU'RE the one who seems most guilty of that, from my reading of these posts) at least get your figures of speech right.  "Nickel and dime straw herring" mixes up three (count 'em, three) classic bits of writing:

1) Nickel and dime store
2) straw man
3) red herring

If you're going to do it, get it right.

-Ed

[jeaton]

solzrules and KCSfan

You're missing the jist of the topic.  It isn't about the merits of the DME case, it's about the objectivity of the Trains News Wire article on the subject.  Futuremodal is having a hissy fit because Trains did not suggest that Mayo Clinic Group should shut up and go home.  He argues that Trains is biased, but then in his world anyone who does not agree with and heap high praise on his views is biased and probably stupid.  The Anti Gates seems to have issues with neighbors and is sort a NIMBY type i.e., you have property rights only to the extent that it suits me.

I'd guess that most on this forum are probably OK with the DME plan, especially if the numbers indicate a strong chance that the government loan gets paid back.  You are correct that all the involved regulators have OK'd the project, but the FRA is still taking comments on the proposal.  Unless someone comes up with proof that false evidence was presented to the regulators their findings will stand.  However, just like any other entity in the Administrative Branch, the FRA is subject to political pressures.  Congress is not likely to change the authorizing law, but a "We just don't like it!" coming from the right direction could kill the whole deal.

[KCSfan]

FACT: All but one, Rochester being the exception, of the 50 odd cities and towns served by the DM&E support the railroad's palns for rehabilitation and expansion into the Powder River Basin.

FACT: The DM&E has offered mitigation to ovecome any of the concerns of the communities it serves, including Rochester and its Mayo Clinic. Again with the exception of Rochester, each of these has approved the mitigations jointly agreed to by the communities and the railroad.

FACT: The agricultural interests of the states served by the DM&E are all supportive of the DM&E's plans citing a 10 to 20 cent per bushel reduced cost of grain haulage and the enhanced possibility of ethanol production in the region.

FACT: After a thorough review of the DM&E's plans including any environmental impact, the STB has given its unqualified approval of the railroads rehabilitation and expansion.

FACT: Only the city of Rochester which is dominated by the self serving interests of the Mayo Clinic remain opposed to the DM&E's plans for rehabilitation and expansion.

Consider the facts and decide for yourself! 

 

 

[solzrules]

Don't worry AG, I hope it is a strong branch.  I agree with FM 100 percent. 

Given our previous dialog (and I'm being generous in calling it a dialog) on the matter, that doesn't surprise me in the least.

The fact of the matter (from my perspective) seems to be that DM&Es pretense as a suitor is a farce and a ruse...all DM&E is looking for is a cheap date.

And sometimes I think you toss out analogies like that just to give eveyone the impression that you on a superior plane of intelligence when they don't make any sense at all. 

Look, if the DME wanted to build a new line through Rochester maybe your arguments would make sense.  I suppose if this was a new railroad proposing to move 30 trains a day throught the city the residents should have a say as to wether or not they want this.  None of your rationale (or others for that matter) can explain away the fact that the rail line has been there for over 100 years (the Mayo clinic hasn't).  IF the Mayo clinic actually cared about the safety record of the railroad (they don't-they are using the safety record as a weapon in a PR battle) they would support the upgrade - new welded rail and GPS train control is far safer than the worn out track that is there now. 

The fact is that the Mayo clinic continues to lose in court, and depending on what poll you're into, the court of public opinion as well.  The tracks have been there since before any of us were here, and to argue that they should not be updated because the safety record on the current bad track is not stellar is an exercise in sheer stupidity.  Maybe you and all the other populists that think this is a case of Rochester fighting 'the man' should think of it like this - If the tracks were upgraded the safety record of the railroad will improve.  I don't see how that doesn't make sense to all of these people blathering on about railroad safety and why the DME shouldn't be allowed to upgrade the track because of a poor safety record.  IF they had good track, they would have a good safety record. 

Since you seem to write all that off as being an apologist for the railroad (just because I like trains and therefore am biased -did you come to that conclusion all by yourself?) how 'bout this:  Let's poll all 56 communities that will be affected by the rail line and see if all the citizens affected by this want the project to proceed or not.  If they vote it down - fine.  Rip out the existing track (DME has said publicly they need this expansion to survive as a railroad so it wouldn't pay to keep any existing track anyway) and turn the right of way into another bike trail.  If the citizens overwhelmingly support the proposal (in other words, they don't mind it in their backyard), then I think we could safely say the tracks should be upgraded.  Why should the economies of all the other communities suffer just because of Rochester and the Mayo clinic?