PS. Paul,
I am not a "passenger train advocate." Absolutely not. Please, please do not label me. I am an individual human being with a variety of views on a variety of things just as you are. I hope we may respect each other's humanity.
John
John WR PS. Paul, I am not a "passenger train advocate." Absolutely not. Please, please do not label me. I am an individual human being with a variety of views on a variety of things just as you are. I hope we may respect each other's humanity. John
See http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/21801020/passenger-train-advocates-urge-odot-to-keep-sand-springs-track-to-okc for a working definition of a "passenger train advocate."
So I take that you have never, ever 1) written an op-ed piece or letter-to-the-editor in support of passenger trains, 2) testified or spoken at a public hearing or forum in support of passenger trains or a specific passenger train, 3) written to a public official or member of Congress in support of passenger trains, 4) been a dues paying member of an organization with the mission of influencing public opinion in favor of passenger trains (such as NARP, URPA, or its local chapters), 5) given a public talk outlining the advantages of passenger trains or a specific mode or type of passenger train, 6) built and operated an exhibit or model train layout in promotion of an actual passenger train service, 7) posted on a Web forum in support of passenger trains or passenger train service or offered reasons to support passenger trains or supported funding for passenger trains on such a Forum?
At one time or another over the past 45 years I have done every last one of those seven items, and I have done them under my own name. If someone wants to call me a "passenger train advocate", I will not take offense at such a label as I have committed "acts of passenger train advocacy." If someone wants to call me a "research engineer", I will take no offense at that label as I have recent and in-review scholarly publications on advancing the science and methods of engineering practice.
Some here may ask, "Paul, how can you even call yourself a passenger train advocate when you have been so critical of passenger trains and of others advocating for trains"? If someone wants to call me an "iconoclastic" passenger train advocate, or even call me a "heretical" passenger train advocate, I will take those two terms to be figures-of-speech in common usage and not having anything to do on my religion or with anyone else's religion.
From my "research engineer" label, the standards of scholarship are such that one cannot simply expect to claim things that confirm one's beliefs. If trains are advanced as a way of reducing pollution or reducing the demand for imported oil, a reasoned case based on numerical evidence ought to be made or one should retreat from that claim. If trains are meritorious of some "equal share" of public subsidy, a reasoned case should be made for what an equal share means and if the work product of the subsidy has social benefit co-measurate with the dollars contributed. If trains relieve congestion, some numbers should be presented on how many people ride the train in relation to the capacity of a highway.
So in respect for a person's humanity and individuality, I will not refer to anyone who has not done any of the seven listed things as a "passenger train advocate." Ever.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul,
I looked at the link and did not see your definition of passenger train advocate.
Of your points I have never done anything in points one through 6. With regards to point 7 I have stated that as a matter of public policy we need a balanced transportation system. That system includes roads, rails and airlines. There should be a place for all of them.
While I have never been a member of NARP or a similar organization I have for many years been a member of the American Automobile Association. The closest relationship I would have to your criteria would have to do with automobiles, not passenger trains.
So I am not and have never been a passenger train advocate. I don't want to be untactful but I regard the term an an offensive stereotype and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it.
John WR Paul, I looked at the link and did not see your definition of passenger train advocate. Of your points I have never done anything in points one through 6. With regards to point 7 I have stated that as a matter of public policy we need a balanced transportation system. That system includes roads, rails and airlines. There should be a place for all of them. While I have never been a member of NARP or a similar organization I have for many years been a member of the American Automobile Association. The closest relationship I would have to your criteria would have to do with automobiles, not passenger trains. So I am not and have never been a passenger train advocate. I don't want to be untactful but I regard the term an an offensive stereotype and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it. John
So you "did not see (my) definition of passenger train advocate" in the link. The link spoke to a grass-roots effort to preserve a rail line in Oklahoma for potential future use in passenger rail. The headline of the article refers to the citizens engaged in that effort as "passenger train advocates." Such real-world examples of usage of a word form a functional definition of a word.
"Balanced transportation system." What does that mean? Does it mean that we should have a balance between public and private (auto) transportation options? Would government support for a bus service with mininum standards of seating space, maybe on double-deck or articulated buses to provide a public ground mode of transportation meet that requirement? Especially since buses have Amtrak beat by at least a factor of 2 in energy efficiency and are much cheaper to operate, meaning the same government subsidy dollar could have twice the benefit?
So "passenger train advocate" is not only a stereotype, but it is an offensive stereotype? What is that stereotype, that a passenger train advocate no longer operates their 20-year-old car but has it up on cement blocks in the front yard with the grass and weeds grown long through the wheel wells, has an obsession with earning money, listens to Rap music with the stereo too loud, would be married to multiple wives if the law didn't forbid it, drinks too much on March 17, eats beans and avocados, doesn't let their wife or daughter out of the house unaccompanied by a male relative, drinks tea and talks endlessly about mindless philosophy, has a brother-in-law who works in "waste management", speaks English entirely too fast and with a vague British accent, and greets visitors by racking a shell into firing position in a pump shotgun?
Unfortunately, the term "passenger train advocate" has come to imply somebody who subscribes to the agenda of NARP in toto.
CSSHEGEWISCH Unfortunately, the term "passenger train advocate" has come to imply somebody who subscribes to the agenda of NARP in toto.
This is a reverse of the "no true Scotsman" arguments -- if anyone from Scotland does something bad, you can always find an excuse as to why they are "not a true Scotsman!". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman for a better and more in depth explanation.
Here, there is a person with a connection by birth or heritage to Scotland, that person constantly reminds you of how great Scotland is (It is, isn't it? Faraday, Watt, . . . ), and were I to say something in the qualified and subjective tense "Suppose you as a Scot were to defend the historical heritage and greatness of Scotland" I get an earful "How dare you call me a Scot! Stop labeling me! You are calling me by a negative stereotype!"
What I really said was, "suppose you as a passenger train advocate reason that trains save on fuel, pollution, congestion, land waste, accident deaths, and provide an alternative for those unwilling or unable to drive." Does this really merit coming back at me and saying "How dare you call me a passenger train advocate, I find that term refers to an offensive stereotype!"
Or better yet, "stop calling me a Scottish Nationalist! I have never asked for Scottish independence! All I ever said was that those English (persons of uncertain heritage) should stop their oppression, exploitation, and tyranny over the northern reaches of the United Kingdom!"
I was going to compare this mangling of the usage of words to George Orwell's 1984, but it seems headed beyond that to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."
"Curiouser and curiouser" "I am not now nor have I ever been [at this point used to follow] a member of the Communist party" but now it's "a passenger train advocate." This is really getting out there. Perhaps "fellow traveler" would be a better, or at least sillier metaphor?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I hereby nominate your recent post "No true Scotsman" for the Post of the Month award with automatically puts it in the running for Post of the Year.
Even more amusing was the wiki explanation of the term, which I had never heard before, and the separate wiki entry about "True Scotsmen" answered THE one true question about kilts.
Bravo. You have restored a bit of humor to this forum.
Mac McCulloch
Deleted.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.