solzrules wrote:Don't worry AG, I hope it is a strong branch. I agree with FM 100 percent.
Don't worry AG, I hope it is a strong branch. I agree with FM 100 percent.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: 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
futuremodal wrote: 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.
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.
futuremodal wrote: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.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal 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. Squirm squirm squirm, If you're going to go around making accusations, you should at least be big enough about it to stand behind them.You weren't leaving to me to decide when you made your earlier assessment, why the back peddling now?I'll tell you what I think. You are letting your personal preferences cloud your objectivity.You want the RR to succeed, therefore you predetermine that all arguments against it, are by their own nature, wrong.
futuremodal 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.
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.
Spin, spin, spin.
Hmmmmmmmm.......
You may not see it or want to admit it, but there are plenty of times where conflicts of issues are simply a matter of a clear right vs a clear wrong. This stuff about increased noise and traffic from expanded DM&E operations near Mayo is nothing more than a nickel and dime straw herring. It's as if Mayo suddenly decided it needs a mile wide buffer zone made up of massive amounts of egg cartons and foam rubber between it and the real world. The reality of the DM&E vs Mayo conflict is really about Mayo vs the real world. Therefore, if Mayo suddenly decides that noise of any kind, whether from a passing train or the local garbage truck, or from the sounds of the construction crew as they build yet another new addition to the Mayo compound, if such is no longer tolerable, then Mayo itself needs a new location where such real world normalcies will be mitigated to the fullest extent. In that case, I'd suggest Mayo move to a place like Tuscarora Nevada, where they'll have all the silence they can handle.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: gabe wrote: Something that I do not understand is why does Mayo care about DM&E funding? How is that relevant to Mayo and its polsters? Why should such a clarification matter in the first place?The possibility of more noise pollution and increased threat of derailment are certainly relevant to Mayo but the dynamics of funding?Now when DM&E defaults and this whole project becomes the Tepot Dome scandal of our time and the tax payers take a bath via the power industry . . . . Gabe Gabe, your second paragraph pretty much sums up the Mayo's opposition to this project. They're opposed to more rail traffic through Rochester on this line. The opposition to the loan guarantee is an attempt by them to derail the upgrades and new line in hopes this will achieve their ends. There goes Tom again, always banging on about the Evil DM&E!
TomDiehl wrote: gabe wrote: Something that I do not understand is why does Mayo care about DM&E funding? How is that relevant to Mayo and its polsters? Why should such a clarification matter in the first place?The possibility of more noise pollution and increased threat of derailment are certainly relevant to Mayo but the dynamics of funding?Now when DM&E defaults and this whole project becomes the Tepot Dome scandal of our time and the tax payers take a bath via the power industry . . . . Gabe Gabe, your second paragraph pretty much sums up the Mayo's opposition to this project. They're opposed to more rail traffic through Rochester on this line. The opposition to the loan guarantee is an attempt by them to derail the upgrades and new line in hopes this will achieve their ends.
gabe wrote: Something that I do not understand is why does Mayo care about DM&E funding? How is that relevant to Mayo and its polsters? Why should such a clarification matter in the first place?The possibility of more noise pollution and increased threat of derailment are certainly relevant to Mayo but the dynamics of funding?Now when DM&E defaults and this whole project becomes the Tepot Dome scandal of our time and the tax payers take a bath via the power industry . . . . Gabe
Something that I do not understand is why does Mayo care about DM&E funding? How is that relevant to Mayo and its polsters? Why should such a clarification matter in the first place?The possibility of more noise pollution and increased threat of derailment are certainly relevant to Mayo but the dynamics of funding?Now when DM&E defaults and this whole project becomes the Tepot Dome scandal of our time and the tax payers take a bath via the power industry . . . .
Gabe
Gabe, your second paragraph pretty much sums up the Mayo's opposition to this project. They're opposed to more rail traffic through Rochester on this line. The opposition to the loan guarantee is an attempt by them to derail the upgrades and new line in hopes this will achieve their ends.
There goes Tom again, always banging on about the Evil DM&E!
OMG, with this lame statement, Dave must think EVERYBODY on this forum reads the "Forums for Dummies" manual he works from. This has to be the shabbiest attempt to twist something around that I've EVER seen.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: [ No, we're accusing Futuremodal of "selective editing." Note my post from yesterday with the WHOLE statement from the Trains Newswire. Tom, it is evident that we need to start a new forum just for you. We'll call it the TRAINS Mag Forum For Dummies. Because only YOU of all people would take the quotation I originally gave and obfuscate the fact that the quote is from Mayo. Everyone with a brain already knew the quote was from Mayo. Who else did you think would make that type of ridiculous statement? What is evident from the newswire item is that TRAINS did not allow DM&E reps to comment on the Mayo claims, which I consider unusual for an ostensible railfan mag. If a railfan mag gives equal time to anyone, it should at least be the railroad in question. ProgressiveRailroading.com has been consistent in their newswire in giving both sides' stories in this ongoing debate. Why can't TRAINS?
TomDiehl wrote: [ No, we're accusing Futuremodal of "selective editing." Note my post from yesterday with the WHOLE statement from the Trains Newswire.
No, we're accusing Futuremodal of "selective editing." Note my post from yesterday with the WHOLE statement from the Trains Newswire.
Tom, it is evident that we need to start a new forum just for you. We'll call it the TRAINS Mag Forum For Dummies. Because only YOU of all people would take the quotation I originally gave and obfuscate the fact that the quote is from Mayo. Everyone with a brain already knew the quote was from Mayo. Who else did you think would make that type of ridiculous statement?
What is evident from the newswire item is that TRAINS did not allow DM&E reps to comment on the Mayo claims, which I consider unusual for an ostensible railfan mag. If a railfan mag gives equal time to anyone, it should at least be the railroad in question.
ProgressiveRailroading.com has been consistent in their newswire in giving both sides' stories in this ongoing debate. Why can't TRAINS?
The only lame attempt as "obfusication" is by you. The place where you put the dots in your original "quotation" is where the actual entry in the Trains Newswire colum has the words that state, by the reporter for Trains, that he is reporting what the spokesman/woman for the Mayo Clinic told them. By removing them, you changed the tone of the statement to imply, incorrectly, that it came from Trains staffers, not a spokesman/woman for the Mayo Clinic. Maybe if I had read the "Dummies" manual you seem to work from, I would have been stupid enough to fall for your lame attempt. If "everyone with a brain" already knows that the quote is from the Mayo, why did you leave out that part of the statement? It didn't fit your agenda? "Who else" would make such a statement? With the selective editing, you did.
Trains Newswire has been running a series of articles on this fight, and has reported from both sides in the different reports. If you take one report without considering the others, it can sound biased to either side, depending on which one you look at.
futuremodal wrote:Besides, Fergus Falls is just a tad out of the way.............
Besides, Fergus Falls is just a tad out of the way.............
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: No, what I'm saying is that it appears Kalmbach did lower itself to a variation of the infamous art, aka a politically correct version of yellow journalism with the aim of blurring the distinction between right and wrong, in this case one where there is a clear right side (DM&E) and a clear wrong side (Mayo). You're accusing the mag of yellow journalism?Man, I'm out of this one. Let Mr Wrinn deal with your accusations.
futuremodal wrote: No, what I'm saying is that it appears Kalmbach did lower itself to a variation of the infamous art, aka a politically correct version of yellow journalism with the aim of blurring the distinction between right and wrong, in this case one where there is a clear right side (DM&E) and a clear wrong side (Mayo).
No, what I'm saying is that it appears Kalmbach did lower itself to a variation of the infamous art, aka a politically correct version of yellow journalism with the aim of blurring the distinction between right and wrong, in this case one where there is a clear right side (DM&E) and a clear wrong side (Mayo).
Man, you're almost as pedantic as Mayo.
I am saying that when a normally credible magazine like TRAINS stoops to giving the ridiculous claims of Mayo an equivalency of righteousness in their unjustified attacks against DM&E, and without allowing DM&E the right to refute the smear tactics of Mayo in the same piece, or without at least framing the item to reflect the inherent idiocy of the Mayo *cause*, 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.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: I'm sure the folks in Fergus Falls or anywhere else in Minnesota would welcome the DM&E in with open arms, just as long as Mayo/Roachester foot the bill for the reroute. Why not let the people in Fergus Falls pay for it? They'd be the one getting the railroad.
futuremodal wrote: I'm sure the folks in Fergus Falls or anywhere else in Minnesota would welcome the DM&E in with open arms, just as long as Mayo/Roachester foot the bill for the reroute.
I'm sure the folks in Fergus Falls or anywhere else in Minnesota would welcome the DM&E in with open arms, just as long as Mayo/Roachester foot the bill for the reroute.
I think you're missing the point. DM&E already exists via Roachester. To reroute the line will cost extra. It is Mayo that is going around with it's metaphorical but succinctly apt panties in a bunch, ergo if Mayo wants it rerouted then let Mayo pay for the reroute. It's as simple as that.
futuremodal wrote:No, what I'm saying is that it appears Kalmbach did lower itself to a variation of the infamous art, aka a politically correct version of yellow journalism with the aim of blurring the distinction between right and wrong, in this case one where there is a clear right side (DM&E) and a clear wrong side (Mayo).
futuremodal wrote:I'm sure the folks in Fergus Falls or anywhere else in Minnesota would welcome the DM&E in with open arms, just as long as Mayo/Roachester foot the bill for the reroute.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: The point is, the med trade mags will stick up for their own despite the incredulousness of the Mayo moanings, but for some backhanded reason Kalmbach won't stick up for DM&E. So, what you are saying is that you are distraught because Kalmbach will not lower itself to yellow journalism? Seems more like a virtue than a fault to me
futuremodal wrote: The point is, the med trade mags will stick up for their own despite the incredulousness of the Mayo moanings, but for some backhanded reason Kalmbach won't stick up for DM&E.
The point is, the med trade mags will stick up for their own despite the incredulousness of the Mayo moanings, but for some backhanded reason Kalmbach won't stick up for DM&E.
So, what you are saying is that you are distraught because Kalmbach will not lower itself to yellow journalism? Seems more like a virtue than a fault to me
How a majority of Rochies do feel vs how they should feel is the diametric twist. And let me guess? YOU feel qualified to dictate how the Rochies are supposed to want to feel? Or at least you feel you know how they SHOULD feel, if not for the evil brainwashing campaign they've been subjected to?
How a majority of Rochies do feel vs how they should feel is the diametric twist.
And let me guess? YOU feel qualified to dictate how the Rochies are supposed to want to feel? Or at least you feel you know how they SHOULD feel, if not for the evil brainwashing campaign they've been subjected to?
Keep reading......
If not for the preposterous scare tactics of the Mayo malcontents, most Rochies probably would give benign approval of the DM&E project.
AKA, if not for the Mayo smear campaign, it is a safe bet that most Rochies wouldn't be so ostensibly objectional to the evil DM&E
It predictably takes some low brow bottom of the barrel scare tactics devoid of logic and reason to get usually normal folks stirred into a frenzy. U'mmm, you mean such as yellow journalism?
It predictably takes some low brow bottom of the barrel scare tactics devoid of logic and reason to get usually normal folks stirred into a frenzy.
U'mmm, you mean such as yellow journalism?
I would not put Kalmbach's PCYJ in the same category as Mayo's orchestrated smear campaign.
Question for AG and all other Mayo fanatics: If it had been UP or BNSF who was proposing this project, do you really think for a moment that Mayo would be putting up such a hissy-fit as it is with DM&E? I've still a deep down suspicion that UP and/or BNSF is somehow behind, or at least supporting the Mayo crusade.
Question for AG and all other Mayo fanatics: If it had been UP or BNSF who was proposing this project, do you really think for a moment that Mayo would be putting up such a hissy-fit as it is with DM&E?
Well, that's one thing we might agree on to some extent. If indeed BNSF is behind the scam then they are only shooting themselves in the foot, since the DM&E PRB line represents a chance for BNSF to buy into the western most part of the project and provide a secondary outlet for BNSF coal shipments. UP probably has nothing to gain unless they see the entire DM&E as a takeover target.
If not for the preposterous scare tactics of the Mayo malcontents, most Rochies probably would give benign approval of the DM&E project. It predictably takes some low brow bottom of the barrel scare tactics devoid of logic and reason to get usually normal folks stirred into a frenzy.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: I also don't see any medical trade mags giving the benefit of doubt to the outsider same as Kalmbach. You're REALLY serious with that? I am amazed.
futuremodal wrote: I also don't see any medical trade mags giving the benefit of doubt to the outsider same as Kalmbach.
I also don't see any medical trade mags giving the benefit of doubt to the outsider same as Kalmbach.
Hey, Ive heard about this latest so called "poll" supposedly indicating that "a majority of minnesotans" prefer the route through Rochester.Duh!! Is it any surprise that folks from Duluth to Fergus Falls see no problem with a route thru Rochester?I'd imagine that a majority of folks from Minneapolis/ St Paul see no problem with a route thru Rochester either? Wouldn't you? ANYWHERE so long as it's not in their own back yard.How do a majority of Rochester (and immediate surroundings) residents feel about it?
How a majority of Rochies do feel vs how they should feel is the diametric twist. If not for the preposterous scare tactics of the Mayo malcontents, most Rochies probably would give benign approval of the DM&E project. It predictably takes some low brow bottom of the barrel scare tactics devoid of logic and reason to get usually normal folks stirred into a frenzy.
Mayo has shot whatever credibility it might have had to he-doubletoothpicks. Hopefully, after all this is over, DM&E and the associated shippers of that line will turn the tide on Mayo and put pressure on them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Maybe if Fergus Falls is so wild about DM&E, then schiffer ought to consider routing that way? (heh heh, that'd be poetic justice for those "majority of minnesotans")
futuremodal wrote: But, from the TRAINS Newswire perspective....... http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=725 .....it is the DM&E poll that appears misleading, in that "DM&E refused to release the complete survey results or provide media with a complete list of questions asked." (For those of you without a TRAINS subscription, you will not be able to access the TRAINS side of the story. Sorry.) Question: Did TRAINS staff bother to get DM&E's version of this latest poll duel? Wouldn't you think a rail industry mag would first get the railroad side of a story before they extoll the views of the anti-railroad types?
But, from the TRAINS Newswire perspective.......
http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=725
.....it is the DM&E poll that appears misleading, in that "DM&E refused to release the complete survey results or provide media with a complete list of questions asked." (For those of you without a TRAINS subscription, you will not be able to access the TRAINS side of the story. Sorry.)
Question: Did TRAINS staff bother to get DM&E's version of this latest poll duel? Wouldn't you think a rail industry mag would first get the railroad side of a story before they extoll the views of the anti-railroad types?
Since I do have access to the Trains Newswire, the WHOLE statement (where the dots are at the beginning):
"On Aug. 14, DM&E released results from a statewide survey claiming significant support in Minnesota for its rail expansion project and for the federal loan. According to the Mayo Clinic, DM&E refused to release the complete survey results or provide media with a complete list of questions asked. "The fact that DM&E uses a poll to claim public support but refuses to release the details of how they got their results is a clear violation of polling industry ethical standards," said Aase. "We are willing to share our poll results and a complete list of questions asked with journalists who want to validate the methodology. We challenge DM&E to do the same." The telephone survey of registered voters 18 years and older in Minnesota and South Dakota was conducted Aug. 10-14."
Funny he left off the part "According to the Mayo Clinic." (second sentence above) Changes the whole meaning of the statement. With the whole story, it sounds more like responsible, unbiased reporting.
futuremodal wrote:I also don't see any medical trade mags giving the benefit of doubt to the outsider same as Kalmbach.
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: If TRAINS had truly been objective, they'd have reported the alleged errors in both polls. Personally, I detest kalmbach's bent to err on the side of an extremely disingenuous minority. It has grown clear to me that BOTH principals in this ordeal qualify to wear the black hat .Perhaps Kalmbach simply decided to pursue the lesser of two weasels?
futuremodal wrote: If TRAINS had truly been objective, they'd have reported the alleged errors in both polls. Personally, I detest kalmbach's bent to err on the side of an extremely disingenuous minority.
If TRAINS had truly been objective, they'd have reported the alleged errors in both polls. Personally, I detest kalmbach's bent to err on the side of an extremely disingenuous minority.
I see. We have yet another case of engendering moral equivilence in order to appear "fair". Memo to AG - Mayo has no credible standing in this tiff. The railroad preceded Mayo as a matter of apriori standing, but regardless of that, DM&E has every right to pursue expansion to garner more business, same as Mayo. Mayo is trying an end around, using legal obfuscation to make a case for the feds to deny DM&E's loan, a case they know perfectly well they will not win in court, but one in which they hope to drag things out until DM&E's private capital dries up.
I don't see DM&E using any similar tactics to try and deny Mayo it's right to free enterprise.
I also don't see any medical trade mags giving the benefit of doubt to the outsider same as Kalmbach. It begs the question - did the Kalmbach reporter even try to get a response from DM&E? Personally, I'd think a railroad magazine would have a railroad like DM&E on speed dial. Why did PR.com get DM&E's response to the Mayo push poll while TRAINS didn't?
Go Huskies. Forward Together Forward
Fan of - C&NW - Milwaukee Road - CGW -
If DM&E refused to answer questions, or provide a complete list of the questions asked in their poll, then Trains magazine has every right to question their reasons.
Now, if this appeared in the editorial section, under an editor’s byline, and was promoted as that editors opinion, then all assumptions of neutral “reporting of facts” is removed.
23 17 46 11
TheAntiGates wrote:I applaud kalmbach's williingness to err on the side of objectivity, and not sully themselves with the kind of cherrypicked data slashing that has been displayed by many of DM&E proponents. Just because they are an industry organ does not dictate that they have to suck it up and play cheerleader, too.
What's so bloody objective about only telling one side of the story? If TRAINS had truly been objective, they'd have reported the alleged errors in both polls. Personally, I detest kalmbach's bent to err on the side of an extremely disingenuous minority.
The PR.com story is more akin to an objective analysis, in that at least they err on the side of common sense.
There is no virtue in propping up the views of a bunch of wackos, just to appear ostensibly *objective* to certain addlephiles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.