I didn't know my opinions were taken so seriously, and find it interesting that I'm held to such a high standard of truth, with no room for exaggeration, irony, satire, humor, or error, while some folks don't care that certain persons in Washington and Mira Lago have a demonstrated aversion to the truth. The difference is that I'm not in a position of power, so it doesn't much matter what I say. But, to paraphrase Will Rogers, when the president tells a whopper, it's policy.
I believe that lack of a sense of humor can be a serious, maybe fatal, physical and mental condition, and it may lead to an early death. Even at 71, I reserve the right to be a bit immature now and then. Steve Goodman died young, but he had Leukemia, so he had an excuse. In fact, he beat the odds much longer than the doctors predicted, and I believe his sense of humor was a major contributing factor in keeping him alive for those bonus years. He was known to call himself "Cool Hand Leuk". We are all richer for his having lived among us and making us smile in spite of life's travails.
Aging is mandatory. Learning and growing and developing a sense of humor are highly recommended. Maturity is optional. Sometimes taking things too seriously and too literally is just a real depressing drag.
Tom
RME Firelock76 I never heard anyone sing "CMW" sober! I was never quite sure you could listen to CMW all the way through sober.
Firelock76 I never heard anyone sing "CMW" sober!
I was never quite sure you could listen to CMW all the way through sober.
You can, but it ain't easy.
Roger that Miningman, I thought Wanswheel was tweaking me a bit, otherwise he'd have found Chicago's "CMW." Guess he's not a Chicago fan?
Hey, here's some railroad content! Did you know Chicago's original name was "Chicago Transit Authority?" No kidding! You'd have to go way back like I do to remember that!
"Going to Chicago" was good though! Real "Two O'Clock in the morning in the cocktail bar" stuff! Full-blooded and slightly sleazy. Didn't know Pet Clark had it in her.
Firelock76I never heard anyone sing "CMW" sober!
"A good all around scholar but not brilliant"...quite the comment from the teacher...worse yet, citing and quoting this by the narrator in the film clip...AND,,,this is grade school! Wow, there would be lawsuits today, destruction of self esteem and all that rot.
Also...how about that zoo...just walk right up to the lions, tigers and bears and stick your hand in between the , what? 3-4 inch separation between the bars? More lawsuits, lots of them.
My how things have changed. Pendulum way over to the other side with our bubble wrapped snowflakes and safe places, with crayons and lego and that's not grade school, that's university!
I did not know Petula Clark was a child star and wartime at that. Thought she was Mod, circa DC5 and the Beatles.
Firelock76- Think Wanswheel "gotcha" on the "Going to Chicago". He's a very clever prankster and never misses an opportunity!
Gee, I loved Petula Clark, but that's not the "Color My World" I was thinking of.
Try Chicago's (the group) "Color My World."
Petula's best? "Downtown", of course! Never cared for "Don't Sleep In The Subway", but I liked "I Know A Place".
Getting back to long-distance trains, somewhat...
Schlimm, you roomed with Steve Goodman? Wow.
You must have had some good parties back in those days!
We had good parties when I was in school in the 70's, but the music was all on LP's, not live. None of us were as talented as Steve was. Not by a long shot.
Our droning of "Color My World" when we were three sheets to the wind at midnight or one or two in the morning just can't compare to "City of New Orleans."
By the way, I never heard anyone sing "CMW" sober!
RME It's pretty snarky to suggest ACY needs to develop maturity, as well as quite demeaning and contemptuous But, in this very specific instance, accurate. As you know, or ought to know, I have very high regard for both Tom and his experience. "Maturity" in the quote in question refers only to posts in the present thread, and both his subject post and certain others there show a remarkable lack of a number of qualities, among them something that surely qualifies as 'maturity' in our normal social definitions of that word. (In passing, I would note that I did not observe any comparable objection to 'snarkiness' when this was posted a few replies back: I'm writing my Congressman to suggest that they build a new golf course at Leavenworth, to make Mr. Trump's retirement more enjoyable. After all, he loves walls and looks great in orange! This is not precisely the stuff of which reasoned discourse on long-distance Amtrak service is made.)
It's pretty snarky to suggest ACY needs to develop maturity, as well as quite demeaning and contemptuous
But, in this very specific instance, accurate.
As you know, or ought to know, I have very high regard for both Tom and his experience. "Maturity" in the quote in question refers only to posts in the present thread, and both his subject post and certain others there show a remarkable lack of a number of qualities, among them something that surely qualifies as 'maturity' in our normal social definitions of that word.
(In passing, I would note that I did not observe any comparable objection to 'snarkiness' when this was posted a few replies back:
I'm writing my Congressman to suggest that they build a new golf course at Leavenworth, to make Mr. Trump's retirement more enjoyable. After all, he loves walls and looks great in orange!
This is not precisely the stuff of which reasoned discourse on long-distance Amtrak service is made.)
Apples and oranges. The posters' comments are emotional venting directed at public political figures; your post is a snarky comment on a poster's supposed lack of maturity, i.e., not a public figure. There is a difference. Also, this is not a seminar in academia. This is a public forum where feelings get aired. It is not at the pinnacle of erudition, more like a contentious faculty meeting.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As you know, or ought to know, I have very high regard for both Tom and his experience. "Maturity" in the quote in question refers only to posts in the present thread, and both his subject post and certain others there show a remarkable and needless lack of a number of qualities, among them something that surely qualifies as 'maturity' in our normal social definitions of that word. He is better than that.
wanswheel Close enough. Drinan.
Close enough. Drinan.
Thats the guy.....lol. Sensenbrenner hated that guy and his wearing of the Roman Colar in Congress.......I suspect it made attacking him more difficult. He was called to testify as a witness on various issues past the Vatican pulling the plug on priests running for Congress.
RMEyou should follow your own advice, 'move on', and develop the maturity to refrain from using them again.
CMStPnP Father Dornan
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/07/drinan-obit.html
schlimmPositive political remarks sounds like a contradiction in terms, or like Pollyanna.
Thats a rather dark outlook on the issue. There are good politicians we have have several very good Democratic Mayors in Dallas.....the last good one, Laura Miller was afraid to tell folks she was a Democrat and instead would avoid the term. She would have been a great Governor or President but they could not get her to run for either office. Likewise as much as I disagree with Republican Congressman Sensenbrenner on some social issues. He is a nice man and highly intelligent. I have argued with him one on one via several town hall meetings in support of Amtrak. I respect him because his argument is consistent and well supported in most places........he is not making or parroting a special interest position. It is his own position.
Plus the guy used to rip on Father Dornan (D-MA??) big time at some of his town halls. Having a Roman Catholic Priest on the Democratic Congress side that was in favor of abortion.......irritated him to no end, it was kind of funny to watch and listen to.
I wasn't going to make vain shoveling gestures toward draining the swamp, but
ACYNo, the Moderator mentioned "negative political commentary". No mention was made of any ad hominem attacks about hair.
Why should she? Ad hominems are forbidden in the TOS, so you should follow your own advice, 'move on', and develop the maturity to refrain from using them again.
Frankly, I think Mr. Mica invited insults with every one of his oft-repeated implications that Amtrak and its employees are so bad.
And you, of all the people on this forum, have the greatest right to resent those insults and their implications ... but, on the other hand, you also know firsthand just how ridiculous those implications are, for the most part, in reality. An old piece of wisdom says that an insult is only an insult if there is some truth to the allegations -- in this case, simple rejoinder with the facts is infinitely superior to demonstrating a common level of immaturity with the original fool.
I repeat, if we can't engage in negative political commentary in the context of Amtrak and politics, there's no point in having the conversation.
Oh, yes there is. There very much is.
But stick to the facts and opinions, and lose the snarky comments about comb-overs and faces of incarnate evil. They spoil what might have been very good, and acceptable (in the context of an Amtrak discussion) political discussions. Why be nattering nabobs of negativism or violators of Kalmbach TOS if sticking to the facts gets the job done better?
CMStPnP ACY It's pretty hard to carry on this discussion. Amtrak funding, and its very existence, are inextricably intertwined with politics. I just deleted a comment because I knew it wouldn't pass muster, but it's highly relevant to the discussion. If the political aspects of this are not to be discussed, we might as well forget the discussion altogether and let them win. I guess I'll discuss it elsewhere. Tom Your making a guess here. Would recommend you PM the Moderator and ask specifically what posts she thought went over the line and then ask the question you pose in your post about what the boundries are. In my view she wrote fairly clearly. Discussing politics was not the issue, it was "negative politics"........I think the part referring to Rep Mica and his hair was over the line specifically or attacking others for their political views. Thats just my take on it, you should ask instead of assumming it was all directed at you and your last post......because location of the moderators comments has to be chronological..........they can't insert near the problem sections of the thread. So in a lot of cases the posters adjacent to the admonishment think the admonishment is directed at them......when it was intended for a larger crowd.
ACY It's pretty hard to carry on this discussion. Amtrak funding, and its very existence, are inextricably intertwined with politics. I just deleted a comment because I knew it wouldn't pass muster, but it's highly relevant to the discussion. If the political aspects of this are not to be discussed, we might as well forget the discussion altogether and let them win. I guess I'll discuss it elsewhere. Tom
It's pretty hard to carry on this discussion. Amtrak funding, and its very existence, are inextricably intertwined with politics. I just deleted a comment because I knew it wouldn't pass muster, but it's highly relevant to the discussion. If the political aspects of this are not to be discussed, we might as well forget the discussion altogether and let them win.
I guess I'll discuss it elsewhere.
Your making a guess here. Would recommend you PM the Moderator and ask specifically what posts she thought went over the line and then ask the question you pose in your post about what the boundries are.
In my view she wrote fairly clearly. Discussing politics was not the issue, it was "negative politics"........I think the part referring to Rep Mica and his hair was over the line specifically or attacking others for their political views. Thats just my take on it, you should ask instead of assumming it was all directed at you and your last post......because location of the moderators comments has to be chronological..........they can't insert near the problem sections of the thread. So in a lot of cases the posters adjacent to the admonishment think the admonishment is directed at them......when it was intended for a larger crowd.
No, the Moderator mentioned "negative political commentary". No mention was made if any ad hominem attacks about hair. If that were the case, I would admit that I may have croseed the line in a poor attempt at satire, and I would have moved on. Frankly, I think Mr. Mica invited insults with every one of his oft-repeated implications that Amtrak and its employees are so bad. I repeat, if we can't engage in negative political commentary in the context of Amtrak and politics, there's no point in having the conversation.
I have never heard of politics ever get discussed in a positive light. There are two or more sides that don't agree - especially with todays politicians. Changing rules on the fly because your side isn't getting its way. Every day I think it can't get any worse and then it does get worse.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Seems pretty clear the comment was directed at all who criticize the administration. And likely was prompted by a complaint to the moderators.
Paul Milenkovic ACY Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up. This conversation may be trending in a direction we don't want to go. Tom Now, you are saying this? Is there any remark on this thread past the first posting that is not of an outside-the-Forum-rules partisan-political nature? Is anyone moderating the Trains Forums anymore? Are we free to engage in this kind of rule-bending back-and-forth? Until someone complains? And then can we get in a couple more rounds of comments before there is any response?
ACY Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up. This conversation may be trending in a direction we don't want to go. Tom
Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up. This conversation may be trending in a direction we don't want to go.
Now, you are saying this?
Is there any remark on this thread past the first posting that is not of an outside-the-Forum-rules partisan-political nature?
Is anyone moderating the Trains Forums anymore? Are we free to engage in this kind of rule-bending back-and-forth? Until someone complains? And then can we get in a couple more rounds of comments before there is any response?
Please stop the negative political commentary. Or, we will lock the thread. Thank you. Enjoy your day.
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
ACYWhen we have a military budget that exceeds that of any other country in the world by a wide margin,
It's not the military budget that is preventing Amtrak from having a stable year to year funding source. Nor is the military budget crowding out Amtrak spending. It's lack of political support for a National Rail Passenger system which remains weak at best, even today. As I stated in numerous other threads. Only way you end up with a taxpayer subsidized Amtrak Corridor is with #1 Reliable year to year funding source. #2 Comprehensive support including the business community (Republicans will fall into line if you gain the support of business). #3 ongoing political support for the rail service among the broader electorate. If any one of those three items are missing, your rail corridor will not be successful.
Yes our military budget is larger than most other countries, primary reason is we have only one stable border among three at the moment. Two of our borders (Atlantic and Pacific) have opposing Navies that would like nothing more than to attack and conquer the United States. Our Southern border is a country whose loyalty to the United States was an open question in WWI and who even now attempts to openly subvert our border controls using various means to dump illegal immigrants outside their borders. Only Canada, which is in a military aliance with the United States maintains a relatively peaceful border.
have been mulling over answering the question of why i identified myself the way did.
an answer is the moral reason predominates in my trump letter.
and theatres do not show a profit on handicapped access ramps and elevators and listening systems.
ACYSteve wasn't my roommate, but I met him when we both lived in Chicago in the 70's. He didn't need no help from no Goldhirsh fella to write the song. He wasn't a raving railfan either, but he understood the social, economic, practical, and historic value of a vibrant rail passenger system, and he lamented its decline during his short lifetime. Had he lived longer, I think he would have still been supporting a vibrant rail system.
+1
Steve was also a kind, generous guy iwho would give you his last dollar. Also witty (great laugh) and sarcastic.
GrampGramp wrote the following post yesterday: "I knew Jack Kennedy..."
Snide remarks are all guys like you have, since you clearly are poorly informed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.