What he said!

Thanks for the magnet recommendations. We had thought about doing that, and I think it's the solution for us. Also, thanks for mentioning the waiver process, it's nice to keep that trinket of info in my back pocket.

Neither are.

In every forum I've seen, both of those are universally hated by forum users. Sometimes the forum does not care. Coughyoutubecough be glad for what you got.

Superheater, for this discussion means those uttering the words: bush Obama teabaganything healthcare deficit lobbyist and blah blah. If it is a conversation which #%^*$$es you off, or it's opposite, then that's the thing.

Sorry, superheater, I request that you review our excellent moderator's (Tom Gears) post above. And I agree with Tom.

That would be fine, except for two things:

Policy intrudes on operations, for example: the coming "1099" debacle.

It was a small provision of the healthcare bill (oops, politics), that is going to affect EVER organization on here that expends $600 on anything in a year. As it currently is written, EVERY organization that you purchase in excess of that threshold from MUST be issued a 1099-and its up to you as an issuer to get their Tax ID Number (your ISP, electric company, property insurer, liability provider, etc).

The IRS is totally unprepared for this onslaught (oops, politics)and most people see it as unreasonable(oops, politics). Once it came to light, several powerful individuals are resisting an attempt to repeal it. (oops, politics)

There's a reason why this is being done and its ABSOLUTELY political in nature, so if you'd don't feel like researching, contact me back channel.

Then again, we can never discuss stuff like this or the upcoming deadline for "postcard" 990 filers to cure their failure to file issues (also political)

The second thing is that two years ago, one of the better known posters actually posted a political ENDORSEMENT of one of the presidential candidates, and the endorsement was of course, thoroughly unrelated to preservation and before that another embedded a link to another candidate's website. Neither, as I recall received any moderator attention. Then again, one of those fellows once threatened litigation.

On the other hand, a discussion about about forces and reasoning affecting an FRA reg, a very relevant discussion, is verboten, especially for those of us who are only vaguely aware of it.

Yeah, you're the moderator, so you can be the king of a shrinking fiefdom, but dip into some older threads-say from 2002 and-you'll notice a whole bunch of names (people of SIGNIFICANT accomplishment in restoration and operation) who don't post anymore.

The problem as I see it is that if you don't discuss general business/regulatory policy, the [logistical] politics involved, and the potential or actual involvement of [governmental/election] politics in these issues, then for all practical purposes this board becomes largely yet another cross of self-promotion and "look what I saw today" bulletin board far too common in "internet railfanning."

The delicate dance is to be able to have a rational discussion along those lines without dipping into the inevitable argument over the basic role of government in our lives, and the scope necessary for it to be there. Because, basically, that's what most political debate boils down to: degree of power/intrusion. And just as an urban city setting is a different universe physically, psychologically, and philosophically from a remote Montana or Arizona ranch, so, too, are the Chicago freight corridors a different universe from a loop of narrow-gauge track at a museum.

You could, for example, argue as to whether the Federal regulations imposed by the FRA, CFR, etc. are applicable to what we do, or necessary to our industry, or will be the death of us. You could discuss whether the transfer of surplus Amtrak assets to preservation should be done at no cost or scrap value. But this is not the place to argue whether Amtrak should exist or not, or whether the ICC should be revived or the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 should be revoked.

Superheater,

You seem to be more plugged into this that I am. What efforts are underway to repeal the form 990 provision in the health care law? What are your estimations of its success?

We don't have time to keep track of everyone that we spend $600 or more with in a year. Heck, we don't have time to do half of what we NEED to do!

What I'm hearing is, "Discussion of issues such as 224 striping, Form 990s, etc. are essential to this forum because they impact us. These fall into the very wide trough I call POLITICS. If you allow any, you must allow ALL discussion of POLITICS, and believe you me, I'm ready to rag on about teabaggers, obamacare, and whatever I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show today. If you DON'T allow discussion of POLITICS, then you are a terrible preservation forum because discussing Part 224 striping and Form 990s is essential."

BUNK - I say. This is a bait-n-switch.

I find people who hunger so totally for partisan politics are consistently unethical in their handling of information. They distort as they please to make their point and have their way. This is just that sort of thing, and it makes ALL their information corrupt. As such they are not an asset, and don't feel bashful about showing them the door.

Whether or not I agree with your apparent disdain for partisan politics here and elsewhere, it does highlight one flaw in such "debate": Everyone, be it the director of a major state railroad museum, a private car owner, the UP steam program's boss, a state railroad official dealing with his state-run excursion line, the trackside photographer, the president of the Big Successful Private Excursion Railroad, or one of BSPER's shop workers, is ALWAYS going to frame his or her presentation in terms of "how will this affect my situation?" By not paying attention to how, for example, a change in passenger car truck regulations affects the RBBB Circus trains or the New Hope & Ivyland or the WW&F, an Amtrak or UP person commenting on same is, by your definition, "distorting as they please to make their point and have their way" and "mak[ing] ALL their information corrupt."

As hard as it may seem for those who frame everything with a conspiratorial mindset to fathom, not every statement of a belief, policy, or viewpoint is an attempt to deceive, mislead, or corrupt the debate for nefarious purposes.

In my experience, civil and rational discourse breaks down at one of two points: accusations of either stupidity or evil/malice. Check the online comments of any major city's newspaper articles if you want a demonstration or evidence. Saying "The railroad is charging far, far more than their costs to ship our car" is much different from "The railroad is a buncha greedy b*st*rds!!" If we can manage to simply avoid such a breakdown at any costs, we can discuss most things here rationally. And since the vast majority of "political" debate seemingly centers around stupidity and/or evil intent, that alone will keep the partisan politics in check..........