# You can't please everyone all the time...



## Guest

Members, moderator and BNSF 1088;

It is high time that someone throw the reins on inuendos, false information and spectacular

tall tales. Four weeks have gone by since the "formulation" of the now infamous July 3rd date with all the doomsday scenarios. Believe me, this posting put a shiver up and down many Amtrak employees backs. Mr. Moderator, you are to be commended for running a tight ship. Only problem is you have a ship with no rudder if you allow unsubstantiated posts to go unanswered or just conveniently "close the link" because you feel like it is necessary. Harry Truman said it best, "When it gets too hot in the kitchen get the H out!" Deleting posts at will is _NOT _ going to give your sight any credability because the onlookers have no idea what you have deleted. You obviously owe some allegiance to BNSF 1088. However, he continues to post even though a multitude of your members have asked him to substantiate his claims. Perhaps this is in poor taste but look at the responses this gentleman is getting to his recent posts. ZERO. Also wonder if our fair moderator was knowledgable, or hopefully not involved, in this cruel and unusal hoax ???


----------



## battalion51

The reasoning behind it as far as I can see is that BNSF has many sources within the company. He knows a lot of people in Management positions across the east. Now that being said. I've been around this railroad for five years now, and I used to pay attention to all these shutdown threats, whatever. But many have come and all have past. I do not believe a single one of these til I see a news release from the company that says schedules are changed,180 day notices posted, etc. Have some of these things been talked about within the company, sure. I heard about the Palmetto cut a year before it happened, but until it happened I didn't believe even that. So everything you see, whether it be from me, whether it be from BNSF, whether it be from Joe Schmo has to be taken with a grain of salt, it may be true, it may not be, but until it actually happens no one really knows.


----------



## AlanB

I have already addressed this issue once before, but I'll do it once again.

First let me be clear, the only posts that have been deleted with regard to this topic were posts that resorted to inappropriate name calling, things like "troll" and worse. I will not allow anyone be it guest or member, to insult any other guest or member in such a fashion. While I’m not suggesting that you were one of those who resorted to name calling, this site’s credibility is hurt far worse by allowing that type of post to stand vs. the removal of the post. Criticism is one thing, name calling is another.

Post's that did not resort to such name calling do remain in the various topics, even if they harshly questioned BNSF.

Turning to the now closed original topic, I actually didn't close that topic. My understanding however for its being closed is as follows. The topic was getting quite old first, second it continued to attract the types of posts that I just mentioned above, and finally since it would appear that after a month's worth of prodding that BNSF isn't going to comment on it.

Next we come to the validity of the claims made by BNSF. I do not work for Amtrak, never have, and I can't imagine that I ever will. Therefore I have no way of validating any claims by any member, much less BNSF. If I just start deleting posts because I think that they might be rumors that IMHO is worse than allowing posts to stand even after they don't pan out. It is up to each member and guest here to take what they see on this board and decide how much credibility they want to give a post in the face of zero proof.

But I will mention that while there was no great train off as predicted by BNSF, even David Laney has now admitted publicly that there is a committee running around the system looking at the LD's for the purpose of restructuring and perhaps cutting trains. BNSF did report this in his train off thread, long before Laney owned up to it. So it would appear that while his source was wrong about the massive train off, his source was not wrong that there are things happening that could affect the current LD system as we know it.

Finally if you’ll note, I never made comments one way or the other as to whether I believed BNSF or not, and I never will. It is up to each member and guest to decide for themselves and while I do have an opinion, I won’t express it since I find that my being a moderator seems to add weight to my comments even though it shouldn’t. Beyond that, I’m not even going to address the rest of your baseless accusations; since if you’ve been around here long enough you’d know that they aren’t true.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ..But I will mention that while there was no great train off as predicted by BNSF, even David Laney has now admitted publicly that there is a committee running around the system looking at the LD's for the purpose of restructuring and perhaps cutting trains. BNSF did report this in his train off thread, long before Laney owned up to it. So it would appear that while his source was wrong about the massive train off, his source was not wrong that there are things happening that could affect the current LD system as we know it.


The fact that long distance services were being reviewed was not a secret and was not a scoop by BNSF. This effort was widely known and was, in fact, mandated by the FY2006 Amtrak appropriation that called for quarterly reports on efforts to improve the economics of long distance, first class service. The only real surprise is that, to date, nothing has really happened in this area.


----------



## Guest

battalion51 said:


> So everything you see, whether it be from me, whether it be from BNSF, whether it be from Joe Schmo has to be taken with a grain of salt, it may be true, it may not be, but until it actually happens no one really knows.



So I guess that means that anyone can post anything that comes to mind ??? There has to be an accountability factor somewhere.


----------



## MrFSS

Guest said:


> So I guess that means that anyone can post anything that comes to mind ??? There has to be an accountability factor somewhere.


The accountably factor is with us, the users of the forum. We can believe whom we want and not believe whom we want. Just because I read it on the Internet doesn't make it true.

We have messages on this forum quite often where someone will say something and someone else corrects them.


----------



## battalion51

In all reality they probably could, but amongst the regulars here it unfortuately takes awhile to gain respect for the things we post. Whether it's OBS and his employment with the company, BNSF and myself because of our connections within the company, etc. I know I myself am much more likely to trust the things that BNSF or OBS say than a guest who won't even reveal their identity. Could it be true? Sure. But in all reality it is not very likely due to the fact that they haven't built up credibility.


----------



## Anthony

AlanB said:


> It is up to each member and guest here to take what they see on this board and decide how much credibility they want to give a post in the face of zero proof.


Definitely true.

While these boards are moderated for obscenity and trolling, it is, after all, still an Internet forum on which anyone can procure an account and begin posting. Caveat lector.


----------



## AlanB

Guest said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So everything you see, whether it be from me, whether it be from BNSF, whether it be from Joe Schmo has to be taken with a grain of salt, it may be true, it may not be, but until it actually happens no one really knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that means that anyone can post anything that comes to mind ??? There has to be an accountability factor somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well if something was completely off the wall and proof existed to the contrary, then we might very well pull down the post. Or if said topic had nothing to do with trains, then it too might very well disapear.

But I'm curious as to how you would suggest we hold someone accountable? Do we suspend him? Do we ban him? Your very post as an anonymous guest already disproves that theory. Besides, in the case being discussed here, BNSF has helped many members and guests who wanted info on Michigan trains. And it's not like we can call the internet police to have him arrested for making false statements. Heck, I don't even know where BNSF lives, so it's not like I can just show up and strong arm him into apologizing or something like that.


----------



## Sam Damon

Reading this forum is no different than reading any other material in the newsbiz. Part of the power of the internet is how it allows anyone to publish "stuff."

Consequently, more folks need to develop the type of BS filters good journalists develop over the course of a career. This doesn't mean someone like BNSF 1088 should be banned for not-so-good information; it does mean you as a reader should discount what he says for what it's worth, given his boo-boo concerning train-off notices.

The easiest way to get out of a mess like this, should you find yourself in one, is transparency and accountability. If you hear a rumor, say "This is a rumor." Likewise, if you goof up, say, "I goofed up." Over the long haul, people will trust you if you keep your word, and maintain a sense of dignity and honor when posting.

I will amplify a bit; to my knowledge, several of us who post here asked BNSF to provide us on a back channel with a bit more sourcing, in line with traditional journalism. (I will grant we probably wanted confirmation of some sort for selfish journalism reasons, as in "breaking the story.") For whatever reason, he chose not to do this. At that point, we simply let things take their course. We have seen the results.

There no harm in posting rumors -- just be sure you label them as rumors.


----------



## Guest

Sam Damon said:


> Likewise, if you goof up, say, "I goofed up." Over the long haul, people will trust you if you keep your word, and maintain a sense of dignity and honor when posting.
> I will amplify a bit; to my knowledge, several of us who post here asked BNSF to provide us on a back channel with a bit more sourcing, in line with traditional journalism. (I will grant we probably wanted confirmation of some sort for selfish journalism reasons, as in "breaking the story.") For whatever reason, he chose not to do this. At that point, we simply let things take their course. We have seen the results.
> 
> There no harm in posting rumors -- just be sure you label them as rumors.


In the meantime BNSF just goes on his merry way posting whatever he feels is gospel....makes you wonder what makes a guy like that tick? And to act like he never posted the doomsday post is totally out of line for any site. Time to move on fellow rail buffs. Some people never want to understand the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## AlanB

Guest said:


> In the meantime BNSF just goes on his merry way posting whatever he feels is gospel....makes you wonder what makes a guy like that tick?


Here's what I wonder about too. :unsure: Why you are so willing to critcize, yet you can't even bothered to spend the 2 minutes required to sign up here and stop posting as an anonymous guest? Heck you won't even use guest handle name like others do and provide a temporary name, something that requires almost no effort. Instead you choose to remain totally anonymous. Makes what you say just ever so convincing.



Guest said:


> And to act like he never posted the doomsday post is totally out of line for any site. Time to move on fellow rail buffs. Some people never want to understand the difference between right and wrong.


I suppose that you have incontrovertable proof that BNSF's doomsday post was wrong. While I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right, can you show me some actual proof that all the flack created by his post didn't force David Laney and Amtrak to postpone their plans?

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question from above, just what do you propose I should do to him?


----------



## Trogdor

Guest said:


> Time to move on...


I'd suggest you heed your own advice. If you don't like a particular member's posts, then don't read them. Just move on.


----------



## Guest

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime BNSF just goes on his merry way posting whatever he feels is gospel....makes you wonder what makes a guy like that tick?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I wonder about too. :unsure: Why you are so willing to critcize, yet you can't even bothered to spend the 2 minutes required to sign up here and stop posting as an anonymous guest? Heck you won't even use guest handle name like others do and provide a temporary name, something that requires almost no effort. Instead you choose to remain totally anonymous. Makes what you say just ever so convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to act like he never posted the doomsday post is totally out of line for any site. Time to move on fellow rail buffs. Some people never want to understand the difference between right and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose that you have incontrovertable proof that BNSF's doomsday post was wrong. While I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right, can you show me some actual proof that all the flack created by his post didn't force David Laney and Amtrak to postpone their plans?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question from above, just what do you propose I should do to him?
Click to expand...




Ask him to "stand down" from his doomsday orations. Not a hard stand to take; but you have to take that stand sooner or later. It's most obvious that many on this list owe allegiance to this rumor monger. I guess the previous statement will be have us permanently banned from the list. What's next on his list of attention getters ??? Good luck; I'm not biting into these attention headlines . Adios, amigos; I can get all the info I need from reliable sources....


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ...I suppose that you have incontrovertable proof that BNSF's doomsday post was wrong. While I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right, can you show me some actual proof that all the flack created by his post didn't force David Laney and Amtrak to postpone their plans?


Please do not try to legitimatize the rumor mongering of BNSF by claiming his irresponsible posting so intimidated Amtrak that they postponed their evil plans. That is such bunk.

Here are the facts. BNSF posted information that he had no reason to post and for which there was no basis in fact. Period. His so-called sources were either wrong of he simply made up the whole thing. There was never any semblance of evidence that the junk he posted here was accurate and there was lots of evidence that it was not. Several of us pointed that out to BNSF multiple times prior to July 3 and he responded with arrogance and at times, quite frankly, with incoherence. Then, once proven wrong, he ignored the fact that he started the entire tempest and reverted to cutting and pasting information from other sources as if it all never happened.

So what if tomorrow, or next week, or next year Amtrak decides to cut or truncate a long distance train? Does that then prove he was actually right? To quote a respondent at another rail site commenting on the postings of BNSF, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Even if a shred of what BNSF posted someday comes true, that does not vindicate or excuse what he did. It would be dumb luck. He was wrong and, to date, has not had the decency to admit his error.

What should you or this site do? I have no idea. But a start would be to not try and suggest that he was actually right. There is absolutely no evidence of that and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## AlanB

Guest said:


> Ask him to "stand down" from his doomsday orations. Not a hard stand to take; but you have to take that stand sooner or later. It's most obvious that many on this list owe allegiance to this rumor monger. I guess the previous statement will be have us permanently banned from the list. What's next on his list of attention getters ??? Good luck; I'm not biting into these attention headlines . Adios, amigos; I can get all the info I need from reliable sources....


As I've already said, what good would that do. He could just as easily come back here and post his doomsday orations as a guest. He could also ask someone else to do that for him too. There is no way for us to police and verify everything posted on this public site. And unless we can verify beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is false, then deleting it just because we think that it might be wrong isn't the answer. There is always the chance that it's not wrong.

As other have said before, it's up to each person to decide what's credible and what's not.

As for allegiance, I don't owe allegiance to anyone except the owner of this site. I serve at his pleasure, not BNSF's, yours, or anyone else. Besides, if I did owe allegiance to BNSF, then your posts would already be gone. The fact that they aren't, despite their somewhat insulting nature to me, shoots down that theory. By the way, this isn't a list, it's a Bulletin Board.

Finally with regard to reliable sources, good luck finding one. Rumors abound on just about every train site that I've ever seen, due in large part to the fact that Amtrak itself is a mega-rumor mill. As of us here, we never ever promissed that everything posted on this site was fact. It was never designed for that purpose anyhow. It's main reason for existance is to provide people with a place to come and discuss Amtrak, ask questions (espcially for first time riders), and to have a good time. It was never intended as the #1 place to come and get news on Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I suppose that you have incontrovertable proof that BNSF's doomsday post was wrong. While I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right, can you show me some actual proof that all the flack created by his post didn't force David Laney and Amtrak to postpone their plans?
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not try to legitimatize the rumor mongering of BNSF by claiming his irresponsible posting so intimidated Amtrak that they postponed their evil plans. That is such bunk.
> 
> Here are the facts. BNSF posted information that he had no reason to post and for which there was no basis in fact. Period. His so-called sources were either wrong of he simply made up the whole thing. There was never any semblance of evidence that the junk he posted here was accurate and there was lots of evidence that it was not. Several of us pointed that out to BNSF multiple times prior to July 3 and he responded with arrogance and at times, quite frankly, with incoherence. Then, once proven wrong, he ignored the fact that he started the entire tempest and reverted to cutting and pasting information from other sources as if it all never happened.
> 
> So what if tomorrow, or next week, or next year Amtrak decides to cut or truncate a long distance train? Does that then prove he was actually right? To quote a respondent at another rail site commenting on the postings of BNSF, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Even if a shred of what BNSF posted someday comes true, that does not vindicate or excuse what he did. It would be dumb luck. He was wrong and, to date, has not had the decency to admit his error.
> 
> What should you or this site do? I have no idea. But a start would be to not try and suggest that he was actually right. There is absolutely no evidence of that and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Bill,

I'm kind of sadened by your post.  I would have thought that you knew me better. I wasn't trying to legitimatize BNSF's post. In fact I specifically said "I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right".

The point that I was trying to make was that without solid incontrovertable proof one way or the other, that my deleting his posts would have been out of line. The only posts that I delete are those that are ads, ones that insult other members with name calling or foul language, and occasionally when the original poster asks me to do so. On rare occasions I've had to delete other posts, because they refered to an earlier post that I was deleting for one of the above reasons, and leaving them would have made no sense without the original post.

But at no point was I claiming that BNSF was right or wrong in his doomsday post. And I never will claim or tell anyone publicly what I think, as it is up to each person to decide what they think of it. My opinion as moderator is supposed to be nuetral.


----------



## 1702

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him to "stand down" from his doomsday orations. Not a hard stand to take; but you have to take that stand sooner or later. It's most obvious that many on this list owe allegiance to this rumor monger. I guess the previous statement will be have us permanently banned from the list. What's next on his list of attention getters ??? Good luck; I'm not biting into these attention headlines . Adios, amigos; I can get all the info I need from reliable sources....
> 
> 
> 
> As I've already said, what good would that do. He could just as easily come back here and post his doomsday orations as a guest. He could also ask someone else to do that for him too. There is no way for us to police and verify everything posted on this public site. And unless we can verify beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is false, then deleting it just because we think that it might be wrong isn't the answer. There is always the chance that it's not wrong.
> 
> As other have said before, it's up to each person to decide what's credible and what's not.
> 
> As for allegiance, I don't owe allegiance to anyone except the owner of this site. I serve at his pleasure, not BNSF's, yours, or anyone else. Besides, if I did owe allegiance to BNSF, then your posts would already be gone. The fact that they aren't, despite their somewhat insulting nature to me, shoots down that theory. By the way, this isn't a list, it's a Bulletin Board.
> 
> Finally with regard to reliable sources, good luck finding one. Rumors abound on just about every train site that I've ever seen, due in large part to the fact that Amtrak itself is a mega-rumor mill. As of us here, we never ever promissed that everything posted on this site was fact. It was never designed for that purpose anyhow. It's main reason for existance is to provide people with a place to come and discuss Amtrak, ask questions (espcially for first time riders), and to have a good time. It was never intended as the #1 place to come and get news on Amtrak.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right, Alan. Am now retired after working for Santa Fe, SP, & Amtrak, & the motto on the railroad was always "If you haven't heard a good rumor, START ONE!". Mr. BNSF seems to operate in that mode a good bit of the time & I'd guess they're usually harmless, but the one about the 180-day notices started a s--tstorm all over the internet for no good reason I could see except for self-aggrandizement for himself & his "Save Our Trains" groups.

Anyway, I think you've handled the whole mess very well & folks should be commending you, not taking potshots.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Bill,
> I'm kind of sadened by your post.  I would have thought that you knew me better. I wasn't trying to legitimatize BNSF's post. In fact I specifically said "I'm certainly not trying to suggest that BNSF was right".


Alan:

My apologies for seeming to question your judgment or motives. That was not what I meant and was certainly nothing I would ever say or feel. What set me off was the suggestion that it was possible that Matt could have been right after all and that the hub-bub he caused here and elsewhere actually caused Amtrak to quietly withdraw their plans. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all, and plenty of evidence that Matt was simply wrong.

Regardless, it is his judgement and facts that are in question, not yours. Sorry for the clumsy wording that suggested the contrary.

Bill


----------



## 1702

PRR 60 said:


> Alan:
> My apologies for seeming to question your judgment or motives. That was not what I meant and was certainly nothing I would ever say or feel. What set me off was the suggestion that it was possible that Matt could have been right after all and that the hub-bub he caused here and elsewhere actually caused Amtrak to quietly withdraw their plans. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all, and plenty of evidence that Matt was simply wrong.
> 
> Regardless, it is his judgement and facts that are in question, not yours. Sorry for the clumsy wording that suggested the contrary.
> 
> Bill



You're 100% correct, Bill. To suggest that Amtrak would base a major business decision (or any other decision, for that matter) based on feedback from internet posts is just ludicrous. Does anyone really think that those two "Save Our Trains" pseudo-organizations bring any real weight to bear on what Amtrak does?

Kudos again to Alan!


----------



## Boxcar

> Here's what I wonder about too. Why you are so willing to critcize, yet you can't even bothered to spend the 2 minutes required to sign up here and stop posting as an anonymous guest? Heck you won't even use guest handle name like others do and provide a temporary name, something that requires almost no effort. Instead you choose to remain totally anonymous. Makes what you say just ever so convincing


As Gomer Pyle would say" Surprise, surprise, surprise." After being on the road over a long weekend to return and find this old dead horse being beaten again.

I think it goes beyond an anonymous guest stirring the pot too a regular member that just can't or will not accept that his demand for an apology was not forthcoming.


----------



## Another Guest

As Gomer Pyle would say" Surprise, surprise, surprise." After being on the road over a long weekend to return and find this old dead horse being beaten again.

I think it goes beyond an anonymous guest stirring the pot too a regular member that just can't or will not accept that his demand for an apology was not forthcoming.

It seems to me that if the "mystery" guest signed in it would make no matter if it was Superman or Lois Lane. The "dead horse" is still directing non-entities and continues to act like, "Well, maybe I meant July 3rd, 2525". He did a big number on a bunch of Amtrak employees in addition to anyone reading this site.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

I will post information as i get it no one can tell from day to day what is going on at Amtrak.

Something is always being done to try to cut service on trains or try to take trains off.

And there is only 1 way to stop it make it public if you let it not get out to the public it could happen behind all of our backs.

And for the people that are mad about me not giving names i never will for the fact that if the Amtrak Board finds out a name of an employee leaking out information there fired on the spot.

I think a lot of you don't understand how Amtrak runs/operates the Amtrak Boad has full power on Amtrak ever since David Gunn was fired and the Amtrak Board is run by the Bush Admin which does not want Amtrak around and will try anything it can to kill Amtrak or take away trains for a slow death.

I had good reason to post what i did about the 180 day notices.

I have my ways of knowing if i post false information around and this was not the case for the 180 day notice issue.

And like i stated the whole time that things could change at anytime i said at the time of the post that these trains were on the list.

Which meant that there plan could backfire there was a lot of pressure on this issue more then any of you will ever know because you dont deal with the issues like i do.

If you dont want to belive me fine your not going to hurt me or stop me from trying to save Amtrak before we lose what we have.

The reason why some of you got the answers you did from people that you know in Amtrak is there jobs wernt at stake it was NOL so why would the people outside of NOL risk losing there jobs to say yes something is going on about train off's like i have posted before ANY AMTRAK EMPLOYEE THAT SAYS ANYTHING WILL BE FIRED ON THE SPOT that has been made very clear to Amtrak employees.


----------



## Steve4031

I have been a member of this forum for several years, and have found that the administrators, moderators, etc have done a pretty good job with this forum. For the most part, I have found posts and threads to be interesting and informative. Additionally, the tone of nearly all contributions is usually pretty reasonable.

I have viewed other railfan sights where the tone of posts were demeaning, which made me reluctant to participate or express views on those sights.

Personally, the information posted by BNSF was upsetting to me. I would hate see LD passenger trains discontinued. However, he is entitled to free speech. Rather than immediately respond, I stepped back and watched for developments from other sources to collaborate this information. Ultimately, I still dont feel qualified to comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of anyones statements related to this topic.

The irony in all of this is that Bush's efforts to end Amtrak is, in my opinion, forcing congress to actually take a serious look at the role of passenger rail in this country, and the necessity for it. Ultimately, I believe that this will lead to a stronger system in the next 10 years.

In summary, moderators and administrators, keep up the good work. Members and guests, thank you for your contributions too. All of you have helped me learn more about Amtrak, railroad operations, and rail travel.

Thank you


----------



## sechs

The problem, as I see it, is that some members choose to post here rumour and hearsay, and say that it is unequivocal fact. What the administrators here should consider doing is enforcing common sense.

Common sense tells you that, if I say that, "I know for a fact that Mexico has nuclear weapons" is not the same as, "I have been told that Mexico has nuclear weapons."

If someone posts something which they pose as a fact, and not opinon, rumour, hearsay, etc., then they should be able to point directly to the source or proof of truth. Should he fail to do that, then the moderators need to intervene, not to edit or take sides, but to make sure that the readers here have all of the information.


----------



## Trogdor

sechs said:


> What the administrators here should consider doing is enforcing common sense.


No. What the administrators here should do is make sure that all members are respectful of each other and don't post personal attacks, profanity, or links to inappropriate websites, etc. Basically, to keep this forum "clean."



> If someone posts something which they pose as a fact, and not opinon, rumour, hearsay, etc., then they should be able to point directly to the source or proof of truth. Should he fail to do that, then the moderators need to intervene, not to edit or take sides, but to make sure that the readers here have all of the information.


Bovine excrement. It's not the moderators' job to make sure that the readers have anything, other than a clean, courteous environment in which to post and read other posts (see above). It's the readers' job take responsibility for themselves to decide whether or not they believe certain posts. If someone posts something that you don't believe to be true, and they fail to provide proof, then all you need to do is go up to the top of the page, click on one of the links that will take you out of the thread you are currently reading, and move on.

The moderators of this forum have lives outside of the internet. They can't babysit this forum 24 hours a day to act as the "truth police," especially considering the fact that they may not know what the "truth" is (and therefore, how are they supposed to know what to take action on, and what to let stand?). They have done a wonderful job in the couple of years that I've been on this forum of keeping things clean, and ensuring that the environment is conducive to helpful, productive discussion (unlinke a certain other forum which I shan't mention, but which I no longer visit except on rare occasion due to extreme moderator intervention, including, but not limited to, editing members' posts without their knowledge just because he doesn't like a particular word or phrase used to describe something).

I was one of the many people critical of the recent "the sky is falling" thread. I even made a post or two in that thread. My concerns/suspicions weren't adequately addressed by the member(s) in question, so do you know what I did? I stopped reading the thread. It was no longer of any interest to me, so I ignored it, even though it grew to be over ten pages long.

There is always something else on the forum to read. There's no requirement that you read every message in every thread. I honestly can't understand why some folks can't get over themselves and just let the whole situation drop. Even if this same situation comes up again, all you have to do is say to yourself "I don't believe this," and move on, and not read the thread again.


----------



## Boxcar

Another Guest said:


> It seems to me that if the "mystery" guest signed in it would make no matter if it was Superman or Lois Lane. The "dead horse" is still directing non-entities and continues to act like, "Well, maybe I meant July 3rd, 2525". He did a big number on a bunch of Amtrak employees in addition to anyone reading this site.


The *Big* difference is that BNSF does his posting under his registered Member name and not hiding behind a non-member...non-regestered *Guest* name. There are several members of this forum that have expressed either dissatisfaction or a forgiving attitude over the "180 day" posting but they had the courtesy and courage to do so using their member name and not a *Guest Name*. The whole concept of a non member *Guest* being able to post to our forum is unique in itself and is in disfavor by many members. A non-member demanding anything from a member *IMHO* is as Robert put it,*"Bovine excrement"* and supports the mood of many to stop non-members from posting.

If you are not a member, I suggest you become one. As a member you can still agree/disagree with any posting if done within the forum's rules and you will have more credibility.

As for BNSF still posting, as a member that is his prerogative and I suggest like others have stated, "Don't read his post's" if you disapprove.

Also another Quote from rmadisonwi



> I honestly can't understand why some folks can't get over themselves and just let the whole situation drop.


Amen Robert.............


----------



## sechs

rmadisonwi said:


> Bovine excrement. It's not the moderators' job to make sure that the readers have anything, other than a clean, courteous environment in which to post and read other posts (see above).



Either it is the job of the moderator to police the community or not. If they are going to make value judgements on the "cleanliness" of the forum, then they can certainly enforce rules allowing dear reader to have the information that he needs to determine the efficacy of a post. By your reckoning, it's quite alright for someone to yell "fire!" in a theater, as it's up to those hearing the exclamation to determine as to whether it's true or not. That's your load of baloney.


----------



## Trogdor

sechs said:


> Either it is the job of the moderator to police the community or not. If they are going to make value judgements on the "cleanliness" of the forum, then they can certainly enforce rules allowing dear reader to have the information that he needs to determine the efficacy of a post. By your reckoning, it's quite alright for someone to yell "fire!" in a theater, as it's up to those hearing the exclamation to determine as to whether it's true or not. That's your load of baloney.


It is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for obvious reasons. If you cannot identify the obvious differences between that situation and someone posting a rumor (and presenting it as fact), then there's nothing I can do for you. I'm through with you and with this thread.

Good day.


----------



## sechs

It should be against the rules to falsely post "Amtrak is failing" in a crowded forum such as this, for obvious reasons. If you cannot identify the obvious similarities between someone posting a rumour as fact and someone yelling rumour as fact in a theater, then there's nothing anyone can do for you.

I'm fine and making plenty of sense, thank you.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

I have 1 qusition how do you know that i am posting a rumour or fact i have ways of finding out my information thru sevral ways.

Just because it didnt happen or it was not in the news does not make it a false posting or a rumour.

Mabey the reason it didnt happen is because it was made public when the information was never suppose to reach the public in the 1st place which then puts a lot of heat on the people who were in charge of putting it into place.

A lot of you don't know who i am or what i have done for Amtrak service in the past i know how this stuff operates if you get information to the public you have a good chance of it not happning they like to do things behind the publics eye to cut trains or take services away.

The news media is the last people to know what is going to happen.


----------



## Guest

Just because it didnt happen or it was not in the news does not make it a false posting or a rumour.

On the other hand; just because you said it does not mean it was, or ever is, going to happen. Justify yourself; don't come ramming out of the roundhouse in #8 just because you can. Roaming around Lafayette, LA in a fire truck, or listening to the fire radio, does not add to your less than impeccable credentials.


----------



## Guest

BNSF_1088 said:


> The reason why some of you got the answers you did from people that you know in Amtrak is there jobs wernt at stake it was NOL so why would the people outside of NOL risk losing there jobs to say yes something is going on about train off's like i have posted before ANY AMTRAK EMPLOYEE THAT SAYS ANYTHING WILL BE FIRED ON THE SPOT that has been made very clear to Amtrak employees.



I don't think this is the first time you have made this claim about Amtrak employees being "fired on the spot". If you know anything at all about being a craft employee (i.e., union-represented) you know that such an employee cannot be "fired on the spot". What can happen is the employee can be removed from service pending the filing of charges & a formal investigation. The findings of the formal investigation may be termination or a lesser penalty. If you don't know this very basic fact about working for a railroad that is unionized, then it really calls into question the rest of your "knowledge".


----------



## Guest

BNSF_1088 said:


> Just because it didnt happen or it was not in the news does not make it a false posting or a rumour.
> 
> Mabey the reason it didnt happen is because it was made public when the information was never suppose to reach the public in the 1st place which then puts a lot of heat on the people who were in charge of putting it into place.
> 
> Priceless! Just because the sky didn't fall doesn't mean it couldn't have! As far as information reaching the public, what the heck do you think a 180-day train-off notice represents? The purpose of it is to give the public & their elected representatives ample time to weigh in before anything actually happens.
> 
> Stick a fork in me, I'm done!


----------



## 1702

Posts #'s 33 & 34 are mine......went to a different browser & forgot to log in.


----------



## Guest

The reason why some of you got the answers you did from people that you know in Amtrak is there jobs wernt at stake it was NOL so why would the people outside of NOL risk losing there jobs to say yes something is going on about train off's like i have posted before ANY AMTRAK EMPLOYEE THAT SAYS ANYTHING WILL BE FIRED ON THE SPOT that has been made very clear to Amtrak employees.

I don't think this is the first time you have made this claim about Amtrak employees being "fired on the spot". If you know anything at all about being a craft employee (i.e., union-represented) you know that such an employee cannot be "fired on the spot". What can happen is the employee can be removed from service pending the filing of charges & a formal investigation. The findings of the formal investigation may be termination or a lesser penalty. If you don't know this very basic fact about working for a railroad that is unionized, then it really calls into question the rest of your "knowledge".

Me thinks the sentationalism of his own doing has gotten the better of him. Maybe if everyone would ignore this "Director" (the title that he bequeathed upon himself), he would just go the way of used diesel fuel; into the wind to never be seen again. He has to know what an official railroad investigation entails but presumes that the vast majority of non-railroad readers will bite into his baited hook. Good luck and don't think you have impressed too many people with your garbled nonsense.


----------



## Observer

Guest said:


> Me thinks the sentationalism of his own doing has gotten the better of him. Maybe if everyone would ignore this "Director" (the title that he bequeathed upon himself), he would just go the way of used diesel fuel; into the wind to never be seen again. He has to know what an official railroad investigation entails but presumes that the vast majority of non-railroad readers will bite into his baited hook. Good luck and don't think you have impressed too many people with your garbled nonsense.


I certainly hope this thread doesn't run 10 pages like the last ridiclous smear thread did. I think there was a reason the moderators locked it down and hope this one and new ones on the same subject will be locked.


----------



## sechs

BNSF_1088 said:


> I have 1 qusition how do you know that i am posting a rumour or fact i have ways of finding out my information thru sevral ways.


There are three complete sentences there, but only one period and one capitalised word. Furthurmore, it's a false argument.

I know something, that you don't, that makes everything that I type here true. And I'm not going to tell you what that something is. Prove me wrong. Let everyone here know it.

Once you've done that, BNSF_1088, I will be able to answer your challenge.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

And the reason why i cant say where it comes from is like i have said time and time agian employees will get fired for giving out information and i will never get an Amtrak employee in any trouble.

So thats why i won't say where i get the information from.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

Guest said:


> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why some of you got the answers you did from people that you know in Amtrak is there jobs wernt at stake it was NOL so why would the people outside of NOL risk losing there jobs to say yes something is going on about train off's like i have posted before ANY AMTRAK EMPLOYEE THAT SAYS ANYTHING WILL BE FIRED ON THE SPOT that has been made very clear to Amtrak employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the first time you have made this claim about Amtrak employees being "fired on the spot". If you know anything at all about being a craft employee (i.e., union-represented) you know that such an employee cannot be "fired on the spot". What can happen is the employee can be removed from service pending the filing of charges & a formal investigation. The findings of the formal investigation may be termination or a lesser penalty. If you don't know this very basic fact about working for a railroad that is unionized, then it really calls into question the rest of your "knowledge".
Click to expand...

Well if you know RR slang we use the word getting fired as time off work such as 30 days which this would fall under.


----------



## Guest

sechs said:


> name='BNSF_1088' post='54335' date='Sun, Aug 6, 2006, 05:57 AM']I have 1 qusition how do you know that i am posting a rumour or fact i have ways of finding out my information thru sevral ways.





> There are three complete sentences there, but only one period and one capitalised word.



Soooooo, What is the Grammar lesson suppose to mean? :blink: He also had 2 misspelled words out of 27 and you had 1 misspelled word out of 14

I noticed on another rail fan site that I will not name, but will call OTOL, that the moderator singled out a post

that had several misspelled words. In pointing this out he more or less insisted that if a person couldn't spell well or use the spelling guide to correct his spelling, to not post. Is this your meaning or is it that incorrect grammar is an indication of like of intelligence?


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

Guest said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> name='BNSF_1088' post='54335' date='Sun, Aug 6, 2006, 05:57 AM']
> 
> I have 1 qusition how do you know that i am posting a rumour or fact i have ways of finding out my information thru sevral ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are three complete sentences there, but only one period and one capitalised word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, What is the Grammar lesson suppose to mean? :blink: He also had 2 misspelled words out of 27 and you had 1 misspelled word out of 14
> 
> I noticed on another rail fan site that I will not name, but will call OTOL, that the moderator singled out a post
> 
> that had several misspelled words. In pointing this out he more or less insisted that if a person couldn't spell well or use the spelling guide to correct his spelling, to not post. Is this your meaning or is it that incorrect grammar is an indication of like of intelligence?
Click to expand...

Let me explain something to you i have a dissabilty in reading and writing at a 3rd grade level.


----------



## 1702

BNSF_1088 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why some of you got the answers you did from people that you know in Amtrak is there jobs wernt at stake it was NOL so why would the people outside of NOL risk losing there jobs to say yes something is going on about train off's like i have posted before ANY AMTRAK EMPLOYEE THAT SAYS ANYTHING WILL BE FIRED ON THE SPOT that has been made very clear to Amtrak employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the first time you have made this claim about Amtrak employees being "fired on the spot". If you know anything at all about being a craft employee (i.e., union-represented) you know that such an employee cannot be "fired on the spot". What can happen is the employee can be removed from service pending the filing of charges & a formal investigation. The findings of the formal investigation may be termination or a lesser penalty. If you don't know this very basic fact about working for a railroad that is unionized, then it really calls into question the rest of your "knowledge".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you know RR slang we use the word getting fired as time off work such as 30 days which this would fall under.
Click to expand...


Oh no, you're not getting off that easy. I spent 29 years as a craft employee for 3 railroads, retiring after 19 years with Amtrak, so yes, I do know railroad slang. "Fired" is not a term one would ever use for an employee getting "time on the ground" (as we referred to it at Amtrak) with a return to work at the end of the suspension period. "Fired" means just that, dismissed from the service permanently after a formal investigation.

Just another example of your casual relationship with what the rest of us call "facts".


----------



## Guest

BNSF_1088 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> name='BNSF_1088' post='54335' date='Sun, Aug 6, 2006, 05:57 AM']
> 
> I have 1 qusition how do you know that i am posting a rumour or fact i have ways of finding out my information thru sevral ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are three complete sentences there, but only one period and one capitalised word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, What is the Grammar lesson suppose to mean? :blink: He also had 2 misspelled words out of 27 and you had 1 misspelled word out of 14
> 
> I noticed on another rail fan site that I will not name, but will call OTOL, that the moderator singled out a post
> 
> that had several misspelled words. In pointing this out he more or less insisted that if a person couldn't spell well or use the spelling guide to correct his spelling, to not post. Is this your meaning or is it that incorrect grammar is an indication of like of intelligence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me explain something to you i have a dissabilty in reading and writing at a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...

You don't have to explain anything to me BNSF...I just didn't think it proper to be attacked for grammar skills among other things.....


----------



## had8ley

Let me say one thing; I put in over 35 years on the railroad both on the ground and the majority of it in the cab of a locomotive. I have pulled everything from circus trains to steam passenger trains. Yes, maybe some manager MIGHT have said, "You'll be fired on the spot" and yes, just maybe, there was a 180 day list out there somewhere waiting to be implemented. But don't you think that perhaps you might have consulted with someone such as the administrator (or someone you trust) before you put out such hard hitting posts? You seem to never want to look back; it is over a month since your famous "Sky is falling" post. The sky is still there even though it is raining today. Who cares who your "unknown" sources are. They are not winning any fans on this site. Besides, they may or may not exist.

With all the havoc you have created it is not high time that you admit that all your information is not correct? I'm surprised that the BN-SF even hired you if you are as functionally illiterate as you now claim. I don't think too many on this site will bite into that one. Besides, I've probably pulled more trains over the Huey Long Bridge than you can make up stories. Good luck, you're going to need it. This is one post and subject I'm holding an investigation on right here and now. You're outright dismissed with a level 5 and de-certified as a poster that has absolutely no creditability as far as I'm concerned. I'll not waste any other legitimate posters time with this "sand house" nonsense. (I doubt you even know what sand-house is.) I'm thrilled that you do not work for our railroad. You might have been legitimately fired long before now.


----------



## sechs

BNSF_1088 said:


> And the reason why i cant say where it comes from is like i have said time and time agian employees will get fired for giving out information and i will never get an Amtrak employee in any trouble.
> So thats why i won't say where i get the information from.


And the reason that you're wrong is because I type it here. Like I said, I won't tell you the something that makes what I type here true. That something will disappear for making what I type here true, and I will never let that something disappear.

So you're just going to have to deal with being wrong, or realise that there is a difference between someone telling you something and that something being a fact.


----------



## sechs

Guest said:


> Soooooo, What is the Grammar lesson suppose to mean? :blink: He also had 2 misspelled words out of 27 and you had 1 misspelled word out of 14I noticed on another rail fan site that I will not name, but will call OTOL, that the moderator singled out a post
> 
> that had several misspelled words. In pointing this out he more or less insisted that if a person couldn't spell well or use the spelling guide to correct his spelling, to not post. Is this your meaning or is it that incorrect grammar is an indication of like of intelligence?


So, mister I-can't-be-bothered-to-register-and-login, what are you trying to say? I don't believe that I made any statements concerning misspelled words, other websites which you suppose not to have named, or intelligence. By your mention, I can only infer that *you* are implying that these things are important to *you*.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to stuff words into my mouth, that's simply pretty cowardly. But at least it's a coherent bit of misdirection.


----------



## Anthony

It's a sad day when I can't take a weekend train trip without coming back to personal attacks on the forum. Common courtesy to fellow railfans has been one of our strong points in the past.

I understand that this is a passionate and charged topic for many of you, but we must try to remain civil, including our unregistered posters. To those who have, thank you.

I am typing this on a cell phone on the train but will go through these messages when I am back at my desk later this morning. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## had8ley

It's a sad day when I can't take a weekend train trip without coming back to personal attacks on the forum.

I understand that this is a passionate and charged topic for many of you, but we must try to remain civil, including our unregistered posters. To those who have, thank you.

Mr. Administrator,

I do not think that my post is a personal "attack." It is how one legitimate railroader feels about what one person has done. Three pages of rebuttals ought to speak for themselves. Let this person continue his "Bull in a China Shop" march and this site will be worthless. And I am certain, from your previous posts, that you do not want this valuable tool to go down the tubes. If only there was just some qualification in all of this like, "I think this is going to happen" or "Rumor has it..." it would have been a much better approach to what you, yourself, call a "charged" topic.


----------



## Guest

sechs said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, What is the Grammar lesson suppose to mean? :blink: He also had 2 misspelled words out of 27 and you had 1 misspelled word out of 14
> 
> I noticed on another rail fan site that I will not name, but will call OTOL, that the moderator singled out a post
> 
> that had several misspelled words. In pointing this out he more or less insisted that if a person couldn't spell well or use the spelling guide to correct his spelling, to not post. Is this your meaning or is it that incorrect grammar is an indication of like of intelligence?
> 
> 
> 
> So, mister I-can't-be-bothered-to-register-and-login, what are you trying to say? I don't believe that I made any statements concerning misspelled words, other websites which you suppose not to have named, or intelligence. By your mention, I can only infer that *you* are implying that these things are important to *you*.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you are trying to stuff words into my mouth, that's simply pretty cowardly. But at least it's a coherent bit of misdirection.
Click to expand...

Not putting words into your mouth just questioning and pointing out your unreasonable attack on someone's

grammar. If you can't see the point of my reply I feel no need to try to explain it except the other site was wanting proper grammar. What was the reason for pointing out the three sentences , etc things? You couldn't even answer my question without an attack and is a reason I don't care to register or become a regular member.

Good Luck Mr. Administrator, I'm out of here.


----------



## Anthony

This thread has become truly ridiculous and I am closing it permanently. I am not endorsing either side of the debate by doing so. I am fully aware that there is a significant amount of members and unregistered guests who feel BNSF_1088 has committed a true injustice with his thread from some weeks ago, but as a public Internet forum, common sense dictates *caveat lector*. Plenty has been expressed to this effect, and Alan and I as forum moderators are not charged with validating or endorsing information posted by public members. Before chastising me for impeding the flow of useful information or constructive criticism, or for letting BNSF_1088 "get away" with posting information that turned out to not materialize, I urge you to consider that it is our job only to keep things civil and on topic here. Member BNSF_1088's postings were merely informational, however dubious the information turned out to be -- while the retorts and angry replies were in many cases inappropriate. The appropriate or tasteful criticism he received, you must notice, was not moderated. We try to leave all sides of a conversation available for viewing so that the full story is there, only working to make sure readers -- fellow railfans -- are not offended or attacked.

A single member's postings and their reception should only reflect upon that member, not upon the forum as a whole. How would the maintainers of this forum know if anything anyone posts is true or false? It is unreasonable to pursue Alan or me as if some sort of resolution or justice is warranted. Take it for what it was worth, apply skepticism to all future posts from the member in question if you so desire, and move on.

If a new traveller posts that he or she is taking a spouse and children on the Coast Starlight, and stimulates six pages of in-depth and lengthy conversation and assistance, would he or she be similarly berated if it turned out no travel was happening and there was no family, or trip in the works? Similarly, if a member posts with a service advisory that isn't obviously at first glance untrue, false or malicious, who are we as moderators to strip that post of the due process of discussion? How do we know if someone internally did or did not intend to cut off those trains? Unless a surprise bunch of Amtrak insiders jumps out of the ether and answers affirmatively one way or the other, or unless BNSF_1088 was being purposely and recklessly malicious (which I doubt), we probably will never have the answer.

Let us not beleaguer this "dead horse" in the public forum any longer. If enough comment reaches my private message box, I will post a summary statement at a later time for the edification of the greater membership. If there are messages which would be best directed at individual members, rather than at the forum as a whole (as was the case in this specific thread), I invite the use of the Private Message function to send concerns to those members in question. Note that registration is required for this task -- it is a privilege of membership to send messages to members directly without the scrutiny of public moderation.

Remember that for each member who is vocal in disagreement with our neutral position, there is probably at least one member who appreciates what we're doing. "You can't please everyone all the time," indeed.


----------

