Don't Blame the RRs

[TomDiehl]

I would say your hats need the intervention of Protective Services.

     I'm not even sure what that means.  We did inventory at our lumberyard today.  It was unseasonably cold this morning, and the only hat I could find belonged to one of my kids.  I looked like Elmer Fudd.  Maybe my hat needed the intervention?

Note the fifth entry on page 5, Michael's last statement.

[MichaelSol]

    I'd have to question this idea a little.  While I know, that you've said before, that just because I've read things in several different books, doesn't neccesarily lead you to accept them as correct.  Fair enough-everyone has their opinions.  I've read many times that the land grant railroads paid back their *debts to society*(?) many times over, by shipping Government material at a *reduced* rate.  I've read that rate was, in times of war, up to 50% lower than everyone else paid.  I don't know the number, nor have I ever really seen it written down.

Neither have I. The proof seems to be missing. That's my point.

Conventional histories also portrayed regulation as a victory of the Progressive movement. Better analysis showed the opposite.

How much did "everyone else" pay to ship Sherman tanks? The government paid a rate that was 50% of what? Fifty per cent of what farmers paid to ship Sherman tanks? Well, what was that "rate" set at?

 I do believe it to be true, however, based on the following:  During the war years (WWII), freight rates were controlled by the ICC, as they had been for a long time before that.  With all the economic and price control that the Government gave itself during the war,it's quite plausible to believe that Uncle Sam set the rate he was going to pay for material shipment during the war.

My point is, there seems to be a lack of proof to be able to make that conclusion. I can see that railroad profitability went up as the government became the largest user of rail services.

Does that tell me that the government got special rates which reduced the profitability of railroads?

No, it simply does not and cannot.

     Your cause & effect theory about government freight rates and railroad profits is somewhat random, in my opinion.  One could just as easily point out that after the war, profits from passenger trains went down.  Most passenger diners served carrots.  Using your cause & effect theory, there's your proof that carrots caused passenger train profits to go down.

My point is, the only available "evidence" that might suggest that the government received special advantageous rates was if railroad profitability went down when the government was a big user of rail services and, conversely, if profitability went up when the government no longer received such a benefit.

That didn't happen. Other things might well have been involved, and undoubtedly were, but the point is you can't conclude that the government received favorable rates from looking at the profitability of railroads because that would suggest the opposite.

You can't conclude the opposite either, but the fact is, a prima facie case does not exist in the available record -- and there well may be a study out there somewhere -- that supports the notion that the government got a good deal based on land grants offered in 1862 in terms of reduced rates. While using conventional econometric analysis suggests that the government could not possibly have received an appropriate rate of return, I am saying that an absence of data cannot, as Diehl often does, be used to support a contention. Nor can his conventional, ambiguous offer of proof: "something else happened".

If this is all so silly as to invoke carrots per passenger train, and I suspect it is, perhaps we all have something better to do with our time.

[TomDiehl]

    I'd have to question this idea a little.  While I know, that you've said before, that just because I've read things in several different books, doesn't neccesarily lead you to accept them as correct.  Fair enough-everyone has their opinions.  I've read many times that the land grant railroads paid back their *debts to society*(?) many times over, by shipping Government material at a *reduced* rate.  I've read that rate was, in times of war, up to 50% lower than everyone else paid.  I don't know the number, nor have I ever really seen it written down.

Neither have I. The proof seems to be missing. That's my point.

Conventional histories also portrayed regulation as a victory of the Progressive movement. Better analysis showed the opposite.

How much did "everyone else" pay to ship Sherman tanks? The government paid a rate that was 50% of what? Fifty per cent of what farmers paid to ship Sherman tanks? Well, what was that "rate" set at?

 I do believe it to be true, however, based on the following:  During the war years (WWII), freight rates were controlled by the ICC, as they had been for a long time before that.  With all the economic and price control that the Government gave itself during the war,it's quite plausible to believe that Uncle Sam set the rate he was going to pay for material shipment during the war.

My point is, there seems to be a lack of proof to be able to make that conclusion. I can see that railroad profitability went up as the government became the largest user of rail services.

Does that tell me that the government got special rates which reduced the profitability of railroads?

No, it simply does not and cannot.

     Your cause & effect theory about government freight rates and railroad profits is somewhat random, in my opinion.  One could just as easily point out that after the war, profits from passenger trains went down.  Most passenger diners served carrots.  Using your cause & effect theory, there's your proof that carrots caused passenger train profits to go down.

My point is, the only available "evidence" that might suggest that the government received special advantageous rates was if railroad profitability went down when the government was a big user of rail services and, conversely, if profitability went up when the government no longer received such a benefit.

That didn't happen. Other things might well have been involved, and undoubtedly were,

I'm glad you finally admit this. my point has been made.

[TomDiehl]

   
You can't conclude the opposite either, but the fact is, a prima facie case does not exist in the available record -- and there well may be a study out there somewhere -- that supports the notion that the government got a good deal based on land grants offered in 1862 in terms of reduced rates. While using conventional econometric analysis suggests that the government could not possibly have received an appropriate rate of return, I am saying that an absence of data cannot, as Diehl often does, be used to support a contention. Nor can his conventional, ambiguous offer of proof: "something else happened".

If this is all so silly as to invoke carrots per passenger train, and I suspect it is, perhaps we all have something better to do with our time.

The only thing "Diehl often does" is point out the obvious error in your statements, then redirects your attempt to spin the meaning of the original statement.

[Anonymous]

.....wriggle, wriggle, wriggle...........GULP!

[MichaelSol]

That didn't happen. Other things might well have been involved, and undoubtedly were,

I'm glad you finally admit this. my point has been made.

Actually, I pointed this out some time ago:

"In that instance, the burden of proof that something else affects the outcome is on you. And there may very well be an alternative case, but the prima facie case is the one supported by the available evidence."

You were apparently too busy making things up to notice.

The "evidence" is that profitability went up as the government became the largest shipper.

And you found nothing, absolutely nothing, except your penchant for contradicting yourself, to show why that might be a misleading artifact.

[MichaelSol]

The only thing "Diehl often does" is point out the obvious error in your statements, then redirects your attempt to spin the meaning of the original statement.

"Obvious errors" eh?

The only thing Diehl does is state:

"Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business" during a period when it became the largest single shipper on American railroads. Obvious error.

That " I never made any statement about the government's special rates .... And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment" even though he specifically did. Obvious deception.

That "I never said Homesteaders got land grants" when in fact he had said just that. Completely false.

That "... the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?" because he never heard of the land grant railroad scandals and had no idea they went bankrupt. Obvious error.

That "You tried to state that government rates being cancelled in the late 1940's caused the railroads substantial decline in profitability" when in fact I had said no such thing. Patent deception.

What you have so far demonstrated on this thread is:

1) You contradict yourself and misrepresent your own statements.

2) You know nothing about the Homestead Acts or the Land Grant railroads.

3) You know zero about the settlement of the West.

4) You put words in other people's statements so you can have something to argue about.

5) You haven't cited a single verifiable fact about anything.

6) You like to argue.

 

[solzrules]

 

Futuremodal:

How many farmers received massive land grants? 

TomDiehl:

To mention one, the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889.

TomDiehl:

More misquoting.

I never said Homesteaders got land grants.

For someone so quick to accuse others of misquoting, your record of misquoting yourself is simply astonishing.

These conversations are positively surreal.

 

 

That is an understatement.  This went from an interesting discussion about CURRENT rate practices to an argument about the semantics of homesteading. 

I can only imagine what 20 page monster debate would ensue over a discussion on the color of the sky. 

Good night, gentlemen.

[Poppa_Zit]

 

Futuremodal:

How many farmers received massive land grants? 

TomDiehl:

To mention one, the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889.

TomDiehl:

More misquoting.

I never said Homesteaders got land grants.

For someone so quick to accuse others of misquoting, your record of misquoting yourself is simply astonishing.

These conversations are positively surreal.

 

 

That is an understatement.  This went from an interesting discussion about CURRENT rate practices to an argument about the semantics of homesteading. 

I can only imagine what 20 page monster debate would ensue over a discussion on the color of the sky. 

Good night, gentlemen.

I agree with Solzrules. I read the original post by LC, and then suddenly this topic has exploded in just a few short days to five pages. So, methinks, better check it out and see what's on the hot stove.

I didn't realize it had morphed so quickly into a hissy epidemic not even remotely associated with trains anymore. I doubt LC would recognize his original thought.

Toodles. 

[TomDiehl]

That didn't happen. Other things might well have been involved, and undoubtedly were,

I'm glad you finally admit this. my point has been made.

Actually, I pointed this out some time ago:

"In that instance, the burden of proof that something else affects the outcome is on you. And there may very well be an alternative case, but the prima facie case is the one supported by the available evidence."

You were apparently too busy making things up to notice.

The "evidence" is that profitability went up as the government became the largest shipper.

And you found nothing, absolutely nothing, except your penchant for contradicting yourself, to show why that might be a misleading artifact.

As usual, the only one making things up is you. First you make the statement that the railroads no longer charged a special government rate starting in the late 1940's, and tried to lead us to the conclusion that this caused the railroads to lose profitability. (page 4, first post) I pointed out the error of your "logic." (page 4, fourth post)

This was followed by you continually trying to twist this around to change the subject, then trying to accuse me of changing the subject. Somehow trying to twist it into a discussion on, among other things, government rates during WWII. Again, I called you on your selective editing. On page 5 post 7 you actually requote the same remark. Obviously, it's not only other peoples posts you have trouble reading, you have problems with your own.

Then, finally, you pull out the statement that there might have been "other factors" that caused this. (page 5 post 16 quoted above)  So exactly who is contradicting themselves?

The sequence of the entries in this thread will prove my point.

You can edit this all you want in your quotes, the original statements will still stand.

[TomDiehl]

The only thing "Diehl often does" is point out the obvious error in your statements, then redirects your attempt to spin the meaning of the original statement.

"Obvious errors" eh?

The only thing Diehl does is state:

"Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business" during a period when it became the largest single shipper on American railroads. Obvious error.

That " I never made any statement about the government's special rates .... And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment" even though he specifically did. Obvious deception.

First my ACTUAL statement in its entirety:

"Because you're trying to show a cause and effect by connect two remotely related facts. Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because they were trying to find their new niche in the market with the developing highway and personal vehicle being thrown into the equation."

The irony of this statement is it shows you don't read something before you attack it. What is the fourth and fifth words in the quote above from me? I'll give you a hint, they're "regular" and "or" which shows no differentiation between whether the government did or did not receive a special rate.

But then note what follows the underlined portion. Part of a statement originally posted by Michael. I'm glad to see you finally posted your error, even though you tried to "credit" the statement to me. More misquoting by Michael.

And since you keep trying to tell everyone here that I mentioned shipping tanks or other military equipment, why don't you show us where? Page and post number so we can actually go back and look at my original statement. Or maybe it doesn't exist.

That might be what some people would call an "obvious error."

[TomDiehl]

.....wriggle, wriggle, wriggle...........GULP!

And Mr Nothingtosay again says it so well.

[TomDiehl]

That "I never said Homesteaders got land grants" when in fact he had said just that. Completely false.

The statement was correct, I never did. Your attempt to "quote" what I said again "conviently" left off the link. More selective editing.

[TomDiehl]

That "... the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?" because he never heard of the land grant railroad scandals and had no idea they went bankrupt. Obvious error.

from page 4, post 2, the ENTIRE statement (since Michael seems to be alergic to actually quoting someone):

The railroads only "got free land" if they developed a transportation system on it. Ever heard of a "common carrier" and heard of the obligations of such a classification? They needed to invest in immediate improvements which required buying materials and hiring labor to do these improvements. Since the government got a transportation system built, and the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?"

Then in a later statement Michael attempts to "disprove" this by Bringing up the Montana Land Improvement or the better known Credit Mobilier scandals.

I had to point out the obvious again (page 4 post 15):

"Pretty lame attempt Michael. You can easily find abuses in any branch of business. Take the more recent Tyco and Enron scandals. They hardly convict an entire industry like you're trying to do here. And I am quite aware of history."

[TomDiehl]

That "You tried to state that government rates being cancelled in the late 1940's caused the railroads substantial decline in profitability" when in fact I had said no such thing. Patent deception.

From page 4, the first post (and I will show you the respect of reprinting the entire statement by you, more than you've done for anyone with the audacity to disagree with you):

"When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability.

Why is it that "proofs" on these things always seem backwards from what actually happened even while they are offered as proof of something that didn't actually happen?" (end of Michael's statement)

Note the second sentence of the first paragraph.

Who's deceiving (or trying to deceive) who?

[TomDiehl]

What you have so far demonstrated on this thread is:

1) You contradict yourself and misrepresent your own statements.

2) You know nothing about the Homestead Acts or the Land Grant railroads.

3) You know zero about the settlement of the West.

4) You put words in other people's statements so you can have something to argue about.

5) You haven't cited a single verifiable fact about anything.

6) You like to argue.

Actually, all of these statements are easily be applied to you.

However, unlike you:

 I DO include a persons entire statement, and don't edit them to change the meaning.

I have started posting where the original statement can be found so the rest of the forum can easily find and read the actual statement. This way they can make their own determination about #1, 4, and 5.

Sorry, but your attempts don't stand up to the light.

[MichaelSol]

You are one bizarre individual. You quote yourself, denying that you said what you quote yourself as saying.

"You can easily find abuses in any branch of business. Take the more recent Tyco and Enron scandals. They hardly convict an entire industry like you're trying to do here."

What do Tyco and Enron have to do with government funding of private railroad companies through land grants? What did the government give to Tyco? Did the government guarantee the interest on Tyco's bonds? Did the government give Tyco anything? What does Enron have to do with Homesteaders? Or land grants? Or government railroad rates? Or the price of tea ...

Who is trying to "convict an entire industry" by pointing out that, contrary to your specific assertion, the historical fact was that your "successful" railroads went bankrupt on their investors and left them high and dry?

How does any of this baloney support your unfounded contention that Homesteaders got "land grants"?

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

[TomDiehl]

You are one bizarre individual. You quote yourself, denying that you said what you quote yourself as saying.

"You can easily find abuses in any branch of business. Take the more recent Tyco and Enron scandals. They hardly convict an entire industry like you're trying to do here."

What do Tyco and Enron have to do with government funding of private railroad companies through land grants? What did the government give to Tyco? Did the government guarantee the interest on Tyco's bonds? Did the government give Tyco anything? What does Enron have to do with Homesteaders? Or land grants? Or government railroad rates? Or the price of tea ...

Who is trying to "convict an entire industry" by pointing out that, contrary to your specific assertion, the historical fact was that your "successful" railroads went bankrupt on their investors and left them high and dry?

How does any of this baloney support your unfounded contention that Homesteaders got "land grants"?

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Thank you. A typical TomDiehl thread is aimed at showing off your misstatements and obvious spin.

And your replies have become the typical unable-to-read Michael misquote.

The reply of mine that Michael quoted above is to Michael's assertion (and was originally posted directly below it. from page 4 post 15, reply to post 7) I asked the question "who was bilked?":

Per the great and omnipotent Michael (pay no attention to the man behind the screen) if you don't know where that's from, you've been living in a cave for the last 50 years:

"Is this for real?

You never heard of the Montana Improvement Company scandal (NP) or the Credit Mobilier (UP)?" (end of Michael's statement)

Michael, if that's the best you can do, you're REALLY slipping.

Also, note that I went so far as to tell the readers of this forum where to see the actual quote IN CONTEXT. Something we have yet to see from Michael. Just bits and pieces of statements, and out of context in a lame attempt to change the meaning.

Makes you wonder if he actually HAS an argument, or is just exercising his spinning skills. (PS Michael, they need more work, LOTS of it)

[Anonymous]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Which means Bergie will soon lock it up.  Tom has discovered a way to get rid of threads of whose content he is uncomfortable - just keep on obfuscating until no one knows or cares what the original topic was, and pretty soon the moderator locks it up as a sort of "mercy killing".  You all notice how Tom purposefully responds to a single post with 5 or 6 of his own?  It's all part of this strategy to get certain threads locked up.  It is unfortunate that one forum member is indirectly granted so much power, but I guess there's not much else the moderator can do about it.

[MichaelSol]

TomDiehl:

Quoting me:
"Is this for real?

You never heard of the Montana Improvement Company scandal (NP) or the Credit Mobilier (UP)?" (end of Michael's statement)

For someone suddenly so interested in accuracy, that wasn't the "end of Michael's statement." You haven't been on your high horse for ten seconds before you fell off your own horse.

The rest of the statement bears repeating:

MichaelSol:
By that, I mean that I am entirely convinced that you haven't, but why are you commenting on a subject where you transparently have no background? This is pretty basic history here, and you seem to be completely unaware of any of it, notwithstanding an apparently irresistable desire to prove it publicly.

You are also not aware that both of the land grant transcontinentals went broke in 1893. The "investors" lost everything.

Your measures of "success" and mine are different.

Let's have some more fun with Tom's idea of "accuracy."

TomDiehl, 10/14/2006, 2:06 p.m.
"...my statement was NOT a discussion on government rates, special or otherwise, during any point in history. It was YOUR statement that the rates ended in the late 1940's that even came close to any discussion on this topic."

bobwilcox wrote on 10/13/06, 4:12 p.m.:
The so called land grant rates lasted until the late 1940s.

Oops, blamed the wrong guy.

TomDiehl, 10/14/06, 1:46 p.m.:
 Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business.

bobwilcox, 10/13/2006, 4:12 p.m.:
In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer.

Oops, wrong premise.

TomDiehl, 10/14/06, 2:06 p.m.
I see your reading ability hasn't improved.

LOL.

[n012944]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

[Limitedclear]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

 

 

[MichaelSol]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Which means Bergie will soon lock it up.  Tom has discovered a way to get rid of threads of whose content he is uncomfortable - just keep on obfuscating until no one knows or cares what the original topic was, and pretty soon the moderator locks it up as a sort of "mercy killing".  You all notice how Tom purposefully responds to a single post with 5 or 6 of his own?  It's all part of this strategy to get certain threads locked up.  It is unfortunate that one forum member is indirectly granted so much power, but I guess there's not much else the moderator can do about it.

You are absolutely right. He spends most of his time on the HO modelling threads, but comes over here just to throw elbows. It's like a moth to a lightbulb. This thread is typical. He offered nothing. No research. Nothing thoughtful. He obviously has no background in the subject area. Plenty of unsubstantiated opinions, but then he starts contradicting himself. And if anyone points that out, well, then the fuse is always lit at that point.

Settlement of the West and the railroads' role in it is a particular interest of mine, dating back to my History Thesis which covered a good deal of railroad building, homesteading, and government land policy, 1837-1920, which was the effective Settlement Era. I did my Thesis under the direct supervision of Dr. K. Ross Toole, Hammond Professor of Western History, one of the best known and most widely respected of Western Historians and himself a recognized Settlement Era expert.

My resource materials cover 120 linear feet of shelf space. At 1,000 pp., 8,000 footnotes, and 30 pages of single spaced 10 pt Bibliography, I can suggest that I have done my research on Western Settlement and Homesteading, or at a minimum, I have at least made an effort to educate myself on the topic.

TomDiehl's background?

From this thread, I think the answer is clear.

Because of my background, and my own family's homesteading experiences, a thread like this is ordinarily a very interesting discussion for me. A fascinating era. But, it also shows how poor some people's historical perspective is as well -- the idea that Homesteaders got "land grants." People like LC spout that stuff off pretending they know something and even though its prettly clearly spelled out by statute -- an area he claims expertise -- he was wrong. He has no expertise in that area, he didn't do his homework, and he simply spouted off.

What does TomDiehl get out of it?

I think that answer is clear as well. LC's undying gratitude.

[TomDiehl]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Which means Bergie will soon lock it up.  Tom has discovered a way to get rid of threads of whose content he is uncomfortable - just keep on obfuscating until no one knows or cares what the original topic was, and pretty soon the moderator locks it up as a sort of "mercy killing".  You all notice how Tom purposefully responds to a single post with 5 or 6 of his own?  It's all part of this strategy to get certain threads locked up.  It is unfortunate that one forum member is indirectly granted so much power, but I guess there's not much else the moderator can do about it.

Actually, by breaking it up into separate replies, it makes it easier to read. But that would make it harder for you to confuse the rest of the forum readers.

And Dave, as usual, has nothing to say.

[TomDiehl]

TomDiehl:

Quoting me:
"Is this for real?

You never heard of the Montana Improvement Company scandal (NP) or the Credit Mobilier (UP)?" (end of Michael's statement)

For someone suddenly so interested in accuracy, that wasn't the "end of Michael's statement." You haven't been on your high horse for ten seconds before you fell off your own horse.

The rest of the statement bears repeating:

MichaelSol:
By that, I mean that I am entirely convinced that you haven't, but why are you commenting on a subject where you transparently have no background? This is pretty basic history here, and you seem to be completely unaware of any of it, notwithstanding an apparently irresistable desire to prove it publicly.

You are also not aware that both of the land grant transcontinentals went broke in 1893. The "investors" lost everything.

Actually, I don't consider a blanket insult as part of a statement, just your lame attempt to cloud an issue. Since it was off the subject, I dropped it. Your repeating it here shows your typical pattern of trying in vain to obscure an issue with insults instead of facts.

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history, and a couple bad examples don't convict an entire industry or profession. If it did, imagine how lawyers would appear.

[TomDiehl]

Let's have some more fun with Tom's idea of "accuracy."

TomDiehl, 10/14/2006, 2:06 p.m.
"...my statement was NOT a discussion on government rates, special or otherwise, during any point in history. It was YOUR statement that the rates ended in the late 1940's that even came close to any discussion on this topic."

bobwilcox wrote on 10/13/06, 4:12 p.m.:
The so called land grant rates lasted until the late 1940s.

Oops, blamed the wrong guy.

TomDiehl, 10/14/06, 1:46 p.m.:
 Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business.

bobwilcox, 10/13/2006, 4:12 p.m.:
In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer.

Oops, wrong premise.

TomDiehl, 10/14/06, 2:06 p.m.
I see your reading ability hasn't improved.

LOL.

Even more fragmented sentences that Michael tries to pass off as someone's statements. Notice that he has finally referenced where these pieces of sentences came from. That might make it easy for the rest of the forum to read what was said IN ITS ENTIRETY.

But then if they do, Michael would "have no case" for his lame accusations, and would be further proof that his reading ability hasn't improved.

[TomDiehl]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

[MichaelSol]

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history ...

You have provided no evidence of it to date.

[TomDiehl]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

Don't forget Michael claims to also have "managed a farm for 40 years" whatever that means.

[MichaelSol]

TomDiehl:
Notice that he has finally referenced where these pieces of sentences came from. That might make it easy for the rest of the forum to read what was said IN ITS ENTIRETY.

This is hilarious. You first typed that I had once again failed to identify the location. Then you had to grudgingly change it ...