It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:03 am 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3054
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
What stands out about the original link is, for me, the prospect--actually, I would say the reality--that we are in a sort of culture war in that we are in a society with a lot of people who are hostile to railroads. . .

In some ways, that would be like fighting a religious war. How do you fight it? How do you win it?

http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-libera ... ains-68597

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Lo0ie ... e=youtu.be

It shouldn't be a liberal or conservative issue, but we are getting it. . .and as noted in the original piece, from both sides in some cases.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:35 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 5262
Location: southeastern USA
If one is truly a fiscal conservative, rail is more sensible than investing in even more or bigger highways. They use less energy to move more stuff longer distances with fewer paid employees in the process. The imposition of special interests of those who make money building highways and vehicles and fueling them combined with the libertarian ideal of each man being his own island and responsible for taking himself and his stuff without having to share (apart from the rest of the citizens also paying for highways they may never use) has sort of coopted conservatism....... and sort of made it into people who want to manage the country like it was either 1870 or 1950 so long as their campaign donors or personal mythologies are satisfied. Ironically, it's the liberals who want to have us all share everything (including responsibility for each other) who are the most fiscally conservative from that perspective and attuned to the Abrahamic religion's "love one another" dictates. So, we're all unhappy hypocrates these days - any wonder we're dysfunctional?

Guys, people suck but we're still all in this together like it or not. Give pragmatism a try.

_________________
"Techies never minded eating bits and jots of their work. They were grit and grease inside and out and could turn a pile of junk into a magical kingdom."

Andrea Hairston


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:00 pm 

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:18 pm
Posts: 64
Bruce_Mowbray wrote:
My $.02

I think it's the "green groups" that have been or are being brainwashed by outdated politicians with special interest agendas . I planned a trip into NYC a couple of weekends ago from Pennsylvania. For the first time I decided to take the train from an "out in the country" station outside the city instead of driving into the NYC having to deal with traffic, pay $10.50 tunnel toll, and, getting raped for $50+ at a parking garage for the day. Instead, I calmly drove to NJT station in rural NY. Parked for free. Took a leisurely 45 minute train ride into NYC and got off the train in Penn Station in the heart of Manhattan. Spent entire day in NYC. At the end of the day, I took the train back out of NYC and back to my car. Total cost for transportation both ways, $28.00. I will never drive into the city again!! Why would anybody be against this mode of transportation??? Less expensive both economically and environmentally (as in green?) I really wish the trains ran farther out. Another example. I spent an entire week in Switzerland. Didn't have to rent a car and traveled all over the country with a rail pass. All on rails (and a boat) Wake up America!! Trains ARE the way to go!
'

Bruce Mobray --
Most excellent post, but ruined for me, and I am sure for all women, by your unfeeling and very hurtful use of the word "raped" to describe merely having to pay more than you wanted to for parking in New York City.

Misuse of the word "raped" for anything except actual physical rape is yet one more shameful way to condone and legitimize rape, and enables men to ignore its horrors and therefore to refuse to take rape seriously as the awful crime it is that has harmed millions of women. This is yet another example of the horrible "rape culture" in this country that accepts rape as no big deal.

Sir -- My huge objection to your misuse of the word "rape" is most emphatically NOT demanding that you be "politically correct", but is a cry from yet another woman who sees and know how horrid rape is to yet another man who, no mater how nice he may be personally, just "does not get it". And "not getting it" in a way condones rape and gives a pass to all rapists and all those who sexually abuse women and children.

To the mods --
We here on RYPN are a community focused on railroad preservation, and certain rules must be followed in order to support decent behavior. One of those rules should be to edit or delete posts that condone acts of violence. Rape is an act of violence, and Bruce Mobray seemingly unknowingly violated that rule by his use of the word "raped" to describe merely being upset at the high cost of parking in New York City.

This NOT about "being PC". This IS about refusing to post anything that condones violence, and refusing to tolerate posts that condone violence.

Margaret


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:42 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am
Posts: 464
MargaretSPfan wrote:
Misuse of the word "raped" for anything except actual physical rape

Dictionary.com has 8 definitions for the word rape, including the definition Mr. Mobray used in his post:
Quote:
3.an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.


MargaretSPfan wrote:
To the mods -- We here on RYPN are a community focused on railroad preservation, and certain rules must be followed in order to support decent behavior. One of those rules should be to edit or delete posts that condone acts of violence. Rape is an act of violence, and Bruce Mobray seemingly unknowingly violated that rule by his use of the word "raped" to describe merely being upset at the high cost of parking in New York City.
I strongly disagree.

RYPN Mods should not be deleting posts whenever another user complains about how a single word was used in the post.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:39 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8395
Location: Baltimore, MD
Margaret:

With all due respect..............

As ill-thought-out, tasteless, and potentially offensive as Mr. Mowbray's choice of metaphor may be, it DID NOT "condone an act of violence." If anything, it ranted against it by using it as a metaphor for a negative act.

I'm not going to defend his bad choice of terminology. But by deliberately choosing to exaggerate his use of such a term into "condoning an act of violence," you end up undermining your case (and that of others that want the word used less) by appearing to be the overly-sensitive "snowflake" actively seeking out ways to be offended and reasons to complain.

Now, back to our increasingly derailed topic.......


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:57 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:50 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Northern Illinois
And this is how our experiment with democracy ends, when we can no longer discuss ANYTHING, because some word will upset someone, somewhere.

_________________
Dennis Storzek


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:25 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1753
MargaretSPfan wrote:
Bruce_Mowbray wrote:
My $.02


Bruce Mobray --
Most excellent post, but ruined for me, and I am sure for all women, by your unfeeling and very hurtful use of the word "raped" to describe merely having to pay more than you wanted to for parking in New York City.

Misuse of the word "raped" for anything except actual physical rape is yet one more shameful way to condone and legitimize rape, and enables men to ignore its horrors and therefore to refuse to take rape seriously as the awful crime it is that has harmed millions of women. This is yet another example of the horrible "rape culture" in this country that accepts rape as no big deal.

Sir -- My huge objection to your misuse of the word "rape" is most emphatically NOT demanding that you be "politically correct", but is a cry from yet another woman who sees and know how horrid rape is to yet another man who, no mater how nice he may be personally, just "does not get it". And "not getting it" in a way condones rape and gives a pass to all rapists and all those who sexually abuse women and children.

To the mods --
We here on RYPN are a community focused on railroad preservation, and certain rules must be followed in order to support decent behavior. One of those rules should be to edit or delete posts that condone acts of violence. Rape is an act of violence, and Bruce Mobray seemingly unknowingly violated that rule by his use of the word "raped" to describe merely being upset at the high cost of parking in New York City.

This NOT about "being PC". This IS about refusing to post anything that condones violence, and refusing to tolerate posts that condone violence.


Margaret



First of all, this is your second attempt to derail this discussion by confining it to the strictures of your peculiar indoctrination, which you call "rules"; so telling that us that "We"are a community focused on railroad preservation" is just a bit on the ironic side.

Then again, SJW's always lie, always project and always double down.

But here's a little newsflash for you. You don't set the rules for the use of language based on your idiosyncratic reactions, and you are woefully ignorant about the crime of rape.

As those of us who've been employed in corrections know, it is not only possible to rape a man, it's all too common. Sorry, but you don't get to throw your contrived indignity bombs because of your plumbing.

Why don't you get an adult beverage and watch Blazing Saddles and read Iris Chang's 1997 Magnum Opus The Rape of Nanking.

And some of you thought Len Shaner couldn't be outdone.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:47 pm 

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:18 pm
Posts: 64
OK, guys - can we just please STOP the insults? Please?

I get it that what I wrote made some of you angry, but, really -- I did not deserve any of the insults that Mr., Mowbray or Mr. Mitchell threw at me.

Now - can we please get back to the original topic? Thank you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:33 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:34 pm
Posts: 617
I can't hardly comment on this. Only thing I can think of is trolling for fish and we are the bait. But if this is a trolling affair, I must say it is pretty good and if I were going to have some fun, this is how I would do it.

With so many wackos getting free air time on main stream media, like we should really concern ourselves about how morally outraged an unemployed actor feels about some issue. Why not. So is this real or memorex? Only the shadow knows? If this were April 1st I would understand better and be equally unimpressed.

Regards, John.


Last edited by John Risley on Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:38 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8395
Location: Baltimore, MD
MargaretSPfan wrote:
I get it that what I wrote made some of you angry, but, really -- I did not deserve any of the insults that Mr., Mowbray or Mr. Mitchell threw at me.


I was deliberately exceedingly reserved and polite with observations of fact, not "insults." And what you wrote in no way whatsoever made me "angry" or even upset--it only strained my eyes with rolling.

The fact that you choose to view those observations as "insults" is--once again--part of the problem with your communications and viewpoint. If you actively seek to be insulted or offended at any statement, people with common sense will thus ignore anything you discuss, if not your entire presence, and with just cause.

And, frankly, it's that kind of mindset that's part and parcel of "what we're up against."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:25 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 240
Dave wrote:
If one is truly a fiscal conservative, rail is more sensible than investing in even more or bigger highways.


Dave - In looking at mass transit options, highway congestion can also be reduced by the use of buses, and so the high upfront costs of building a rail line to reduce congestion on a crowded highway may not be viewed as the least-cost alternative.

New Jersey Transit has had a reopening of the Lackawanna (or New Jersey) Cutoff as an on again off again project for many years now. Even at 6:30 AM, the eastbound traffic on route 80 is bumper to bumper as folks flock in from the exoburbs and PA. The people in NJ Transit's bus division push hard against funding for rebuilding the cutoff. They assert, most likely correctly, that the most cost effective mass transit solution to the congestion on 80 is the provision of expanded and new bus routes. The interstate is already in place and the buses provide a more efficient way to move people in a given space. So the investment options are not limited to adding lanes, building new highways, and/or constructing or rebuilding new rail lines.

So in advocating for rail, maybe the best approach, as in the discussion of piggy back service and trucking, is to advocate for multi modal transportation systems which include rail as a more important piece in the larger puzzle.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:46 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1753
MargaretSPfan wrote:
OK, guys - can we just please STOP the insults? Please?

I get it that what I wrote made some of you angry, but, really -- I did not deserve any of the insults that Mr., Mowbray or Mr. Mitchell threw at me.

Now - can we please get back to the original topic? Thank you.


You took the thing off topic TWICE.

You were not insulted; you were disputed.

As for the allegation of anger; you were the one that got angry.

SJW's always project


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:46 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:27 am
Posts: 11
If you think driving a car into NYC is expensive try an OTR semi to make a delivery. Word to the wise grab your ankles apply Vaseline to your rear entry point and pray your company has Ez-Pass for the tolls. Why without it your looking at 200 bucks for the GW bridge and about 100 for any of the other toll bridges in the city. Then to make you go let go of my wallet please if you ran a load from Florida to Boston and on 95 your toll outlay just to get there is almost 1 grand now. Yet people in the Northeast wonder why their Cost of living is 15 percent higher than anywhere else. Well the industry that delivers everything up to you charges a surcharge to even get it up to you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:19 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:54 am
Posts: 743
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Old Smokey wrote:
Richard Glueck wrote:
On the lighter side of things, I visited a truck dealer in Bangor, requesting a donation to restore the 470. He told me he didn't want to support a restoration because, and here I quote, "Railroads are the sworn enemies of the trucking industry!"


Richard,

So true...and a rather common opinion in the trucking fraternity, I have found.
Voiced by several good friends who drive the big rigs.

When BC Rail ran the railway up this way, they had their own fleet of trucks.
This was questioned by more than one railroad employee.

When I asked a BCR management type about this and why they were in competition with themselves...he laughed and said "we aren't".

The train does the long haul, and the trucks do short haul...pick-up and delivery at each end. That way we can offer the customer seamless door to door delivery.

They got a lot of business that way, as the customer had only one shipper and one bill to deal with.

I've always admired that business model..It combined the unbeatable advantage of rail haul...with the flexibility of trucks.

Perhaps co-operation instead of competition might be the lesson here..?

Dennis.



Fortunately, a lot of guys and gals in the driver's seat have similar thoughts. The trucking industry has changed a great deal over the years. Right now they have a shortage of drivers and many drivers now prefer fixed routes or shorter hauls. The fact that so many containers and trailers move by train show that (Schneider, UPS and Hunt can't be wrong). One of our best volunteers at TVRM was a truck driver-he drove a fixed route for USF and was home every night. He'd done OTR driving and quit that once he and his wife had a kid.

_________________
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."- Conductor Nimrod Bell, 1896


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What We Are Up Against
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:31 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3054
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
Alan Walker wrote:
Old Smokey wrote:
Richard Glueck wrote:
On the lighter side of things, I visited a truck dealer in Bangor, requesting a donation to restore the 470. He told me he didn't want to support a restoration because, and here I quote, "Railroads are the sworn enemies of the trucking industry!"


Richard,

So true...and a rather common opinion in the trucking fraternity, I have found.
Voiced by several good friends who drive the big rigs.

When BC Rail ran the railway up this way, they had their own fleet of trucks.
This was questioned by more than one railroad employee.

When I asked a BCR management type about this and why they were in competition with themselves...he laughed and said "we aren't".

The train does the long haul, and the trucks do short haul...pick-up and delivery at each end. That way we can offer the customer seamless door to door delivery.

They got a lot of business that way, as the customer had only one shipper and one bill to deal with.

I've always admired that business model..It combined the unbeatable advantage of rail haul...with the flexibility of trucks.

Perhaps co-operation instead of competition might be the lesson here..?

Dennis.



Fortunately, a lot of guys and gals in the driver's seat have similar thoughts. The trucking industry has changed a great deal over the years. Right now they have a shortage of drivers and many drivers now prefer fixed routes or shorter hauls. The fact that so many containers and trailers move by train show that (Schneider, UPS and Hunt can't be wrong). One of our best volunteers at TVRM was a truck driver-he drove a fixed route for USF and was home every night. He'd done OTR driving and quit that once he and his wife had a kid.


First, I want to thank Alan Walker and others for helping get the thread back on track. No need for anger between us here.

I have come up with something else to consider in this.

In the latest available edition of Railfan and Railroad, James Porterfield (best known for his book, "Dining By Rail") has a column, "Lighthouses or Locomotives." He recounts how a commercial artist, one with membership in a railroad painting association and other places, paints a variety of subjects, some offered as prints. . .and his best selling lighthouse print outsells his best selling railroad print by 17 to 1.

Let that sink in--17 to 1, with us being the 1. How do you explain such a serious discrepancy? What does this tell us about what people want to spend their money on?

What does this tell us about our standing in society? What does this tell us about what we might need to do?

Is there even anything we can do?


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: