243129 EEEKKK!!! The 'mob' assembles.
EEEKKK!!! The 'mob' assembles.
As I said above, not good with rationality. Awfully good at self-importance, though.
Ed
"He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life."
- Homer Simpson
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
1:05 :)
I used to be a stickler that it should be I could not care less or I couldn't care less. I could care less is not logical. But then I learned that it is an idiom, so it does not have to be logical. It is a group of words that mean I could not care less, even though it is not logical as a properly constructed phrase.
I have come to see I could care less as somehow having a lot more punch than I could not care less. I could care less has that brevity that gives it its power, and besides, everyone knows what it means. It has snap. I could not care less suffers from its negative, "couldn't." It is stuffy and too logical. It would be much better to say, "I don't care." Say it plain.
n012944 https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less "Wrong slang. It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less" - because I have no interest. "I could care less" means there is some interest." "an expression that idiots use when they don't care about something or have no interest in something. what they really mean is "i couldn't care less"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less
"Wrong slang. It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less" - because I have no interest. "I could care less" means there is some interest."
"an expression that idiots use when they don't care about something or have no interest in something. what they really mean is "i couldn't care less"
This seems relevant:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
But we are living in an age where truth isn't truth, so perhaps none of this matters...
Am I worthy of this Nixonian 'ignore list' yet?
7j43k He is challenged by statistics. Rationality is not his strong point. Ed
He is challenged by statistics. Rationality is not his strong point.
I doubt he has a strong point.
An "expensive model collector"
243129 This is my last response in this pi$$ing match. My idiom is accepted. Your spelling of "comfirmed" and your punctuation error, "posters grammar" should read posters' grammar are not acceptable.
This is my last response in this pi$$ing match.
My idiom is accepted. Your spelling of "comfirmed" and your punctuation error, "posters grammar" should read posters' grammar are not acceptable.
So I am still not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said? Imagine that, you talking out of your rear, I am shocked!
Here is the thing, jellybean. I have never said I have perfect grammar, I really don't care. I don't go around correcting ones grammar on the internet, as it is the battle of the weak and used when they run out of anything of substance to say. But when the grammar police come in, and make a mistake in grammar, I will point it out.
Euclid n012944 BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care. "I could care less" is an idiom that means "I couldn’t care less." So either one is okay.
n012944 BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.
"I could care less" is an idiom that means "I couldn’t care less." So either one is okay.
Stick to the yea but...
http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quandaries/grammar/i-could-care-less-or-i-couldnt-care-less
"When taken literally, the two phrases have opposite meanings. “I couldn’t care less” means that it’s impossible for me to care any less about the subject at hand than I already do. If I say, “I couldn’t care less about hockey,” I mean that on a scale of one to 10—with 10 suggesting that I’m the most enthusiastic hockey fan this side of Canada, and one meaning I don’t give a flip about the sport—I’m a one. I don’t care about hockey at all.
On the other hand, “I could care less” literally means “I care more than I might seem to.” If you could care less, you’re saying that you care some, which is the opposite of not caring at all."
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/could-care-less/
"But here’s the entry in The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:
This expression originated about 1940 in Britain and for a time invariably used couldn’t. About 1960 could was occasionally substituted, and today both versions are used with approximately equal frequency, despite their being antonyms.
“I could care less” just isn’t logically ironic. The people speaking feel irony, but their words don’t convey it. “I’d buy those jeans” could be ironic if you really meant the opposite: you wouldn’t buy those jeans if they were the last pair in the world. But “I could care less” isn’t used to imply its opposite: that you care more. Thus it is not ironic.
“Couldn’t care less” is a strong statement because it says you don’t care at all, zero!
“Could care less,” whatever meaning you take it to have, does not have that crucial message of zero interest which gives the original saying its sting."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-tribu-words-work-care-less-20130313-story.html
"Could care less" is the Taylor Swift of idioms.
Is it perfect? Hardly. Is it elegant? Not especially. Is it grammatically correct? Well, no."
n012944 243129 Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation. I see you have added a comment to your post after I have quoted you, cute. I have comfirmed that I am not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said. 243129 243129 Present my ideas on social media so that others, possibly Amtrak, can claim as their own? This will not happen. Suffice it to say that I have a comprehensive and less expensive training regimen and should Amtrak or any other railroad be willing to listen, again in Amtrak's case, they may contact me. n012944 So in other words, you have no "ideas". BTW, no response from you is required. Please add me to your ingore list. 243129 I could care less if you think I have no ideas. There is no need to add you to list you are already on it. BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.
243129 Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation.
Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation.
I see you have added a comment to your post after I have quoted you, cute. I have comfirmed that I am not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said.
243129 243129 Present my ideas on social media so that others, possibly Amtrak, can claim as their own? This will not happen. Suffice it to say that I have a comprehensive and less expensive training regimen and should Amtrak or any other railroad be willing to listen, again in Amtrak's case, they may contact me. n012944 So in other words, you have no "ideas". BTW, no response from you is required. Please add me to your ingore list. 243129 I could care less if you think I have no ideas. There is no need to add you to list you are already on it.
Present my ideas on social media so that others, possibly Amtrak, can claim as their own? This will not happen. Suffice it to say that I have a comprehensive and less expensive training regimen and should Amtrak or any other railroad be willing to listen, again in Amtrak's case, they may contact me.
n012944
So in other words, you have no "ideas".
BTW, no response from you is required. Please add me to your ingore list.
243129
I could care less if you think I have no ideas. There is no need to add you to list you are already on it.
BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.
n012944BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.
243129 n012944 243129 I am reactive not proactive. Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night. BTW I thought I was on your ignore list? You don't have to be. I don't really pay much attention to your posts.
n012944 243129 I am reactive not proactive. Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night. BTW I thought I was on your ignore list?
243129 I am reactive not proactive.
I am reactive not proactive.
Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
BTW
I thought I was on your ignore list?
You don't have to be. I don't really pay much attention to your posts.
You pay enough attention to them to reply to them....
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply. And I thought I replied over 6 lines. Perhaps you have overlooked it? And there was no question! I haven't seen one argument from you how the accident statistic and your observations fit. Such an argument I would have expected other than appealing to emotions instead.Regards, Volker
243129 Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.
And I thought I replied over 6 lines. Perhaps you have overlooked it? And there was no question!
I haven't seen one argument from you how the accident statistic and your observations fit. Such an argument I would have expected other than appealing to emotions instead.Regards, Volker
The observations I made about the 501 disaster are there for you to dispute. Your reliance on statistics is laughable. I have worked with the results of Amtrak's hiring and training procedures and that is how I arrived at the conclusion that Amtrak is another accident waiting to happen. Statistics be damned.
So Herr Landwehr dispute my observations as to the cause(s) of the 501 disaster and tell me how electronic aids are the be all to end all. I'll wait.
You don't have to be. I don't really pay much attention to your posts, there is nothing of substance in them.
243129I am reactive not proactive.
And that is your problem! Actions take place in the future.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
n012944 243129 I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.
243129 I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.
I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.
charlie hebdo He can't because he hasn't a clue what statistics mean so in his "big boy" manner he tries to avoid facing his ignorance by insults and changing the topic. Typical behavior of a narcissist. 243129 Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise. I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY. Running out of arguments again? May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy. To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development. Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.Regards, Volker
He can't because he hasn't a clue what statistics mean so in his "big boy" manner he tries to avoid facing his ignorance by insults and changing the topic. Typical behavior of a narcissist.
243129 Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise. I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.
Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.
I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.
Running out of arguments again?
May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.
To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.
Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.Regards, Volker
[/quote] I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.
[/quote]
243129 7j43k Euclid The 501 wreck alone looks like it will be a huge indicator of a worsening trend. One wreck (or not) does not indicate anything about a "trend". Ed "One wreck"? Where have you been?
7j43k Euclid The 501 wreck alone looks like it will be a huge indicator of a worsening trend. One wreck (or not) does not indicate anything about a "trend". Ed
Euclid The 501 wreck alone looks like it will be a huge indicator of a worsening trend.
The 501 wreck alone looks like it will be a huge indicator of a worsening trend.
One wreck (or not) does not indicate anything about a "trend".
"One wreck"? Where have you been?
If you read what I said with care, you will note that the "one wreck" is in reference to Euclid's quoted statement "The 501 wreck alone...".
Could you please do that?
243129Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise. I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY. Running out of arguments again? May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy. To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development. Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.Regards, Volker
Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.
EuclidI refer to Amtrak’s new lapse in safety training as a “turnaround” or “U”-turn because it is a diametrical change in direction that is apparently quite recent. Thus there has not been enough time for many accidents resulting from the turnaround.
Why do you always need to explain what you meant?
The two most referred accidents that fit into you turnaround picture are include in the posted statistics for 2017. And there is no turnaround to be seen. And it doesn't seem a recent change in management direction. Joe sent his letters since 2012, IIRC.
EuclidBut because the turnaround seems to head in a new direction that is prone to causing accidents, I would call that new direction a “trend” even though the number of accidents so far may be only a few, and thus not seem to be a trend on a statistical basis.
To start a new trend were are those accidents in 2018?
And with commissioning of PTC the number of those high fatalities accidents caused by human error will decrease. At least that is what PTC was developed for.
EuclidAnd that is the problem with statistics. In the case of 501, the statistics show only the fatal consequences of one wreck directly caused by human error. At the same time, those statistics utterly fail to show the institutional incompetence and wrongheaded safety culture of Amtrak that will be found to have played a far greater role in the cause of the accident than the engineer’s human error.
Is there institutional incompetence and wrongheaded safety culture? Where is the proof? I don't exclude it but I wait for the judgement of those with more insight, NTSB.
EuclidI don’t have the full picture, but from widespread reporting, we have learned that Amtrak and perhaps other politicians rushed the startup of the new train in the face of inadequate crew training.
What I understood is that WSDOT scheduled the first revenue run and Amtrak didn't intervene.
EuclidIncredibly, at the start of the first run, the engineer seems to allude to an issue of being unfamiliar with the route.
Please re-read the forward looking camera's read-out. He talk about the north end: 6:17:22 ENG they’ve been changing so much, I still get lost sometimes downhere if they send me down, like, main three down in, like, kelsoor something [laughing]
Kelso: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cowlitz_County_Washington_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Kelso_Highlighted.svg
EuclidIt appears that this Amtrak institutional failure leading to potential accidents may be developing much faster than the statistical record of accidents. Amtrak’s internal problem is a leading indicator. The statistical record is a lagging indicator. So the news today may not be the twenty years of statistics showing everything is okay, but rather, a sudden and abrupt reversal of that trend.
Well, the statistic ends on December 31st, 2017 without reversal of the trend, it lags 8 month. But which are the Amtrak accidents in 2018 that show the reversal of the trend?
As said before, that doesn't mean everything is OK at Amtrak, but it doesn't proof otherwise.
With bad will one could read from the statistics that the safety record got better with veteran engineers retiring but that is a forbidden linking.Regards, Volker
243129 Here is a little more reading material for you Herr Landwehr. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amtrak-crash-workers-say-they-warned-of-inadequate-training/ar-BBIlAbk?ocid=se
Here is a little more reading material for you Herr Landwehr.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amtrak-crash-workers-say-they-warned-of-inadequate-training/ar-BBIlAbk?ocid=se
So what?
You don't get it that the positiv statistic over last 30 years doesn't mean that everything is OK at Amtrak.
It might have given Amtrak's management the feeling their safety approach is good enough not needing coaching from a rude employee/ex-employee.
Looks like the last accidents proofed them wrong.Regards, Volker
CNNNTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt concluded: "Amtrak's safety culture is failing, and is primed to fail again, until and unless Amtrak changes the way it practices safety management." He added, "investigators found a labor-management relationship so adversarial that safety programs became contentious at the bargaining table, with the unions ultimately refusing to participate."
When you can't get management and unions to talk about safety issues, you have NO safety culture. The S word has to mean something in the culture of the railroad.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.