Joe Biden Rides Amtrak

[AlanB]

Maybe McCain may not kill Amtrak, but look at this example:
The SL used to go directly to Phoenix, but then UP stopped using the line west of Phoenix (and I think they ceased maintaining it too), so Amtrak discontinued service to Phoenix and now use Maricopa as their "Phoenix" stop. (Try to forget that there is no transportation to or from Maricopa to Phoenix!)

Remember that John McCain is the SENATOR FROM ARIZONA! (You ever hear the word PORK BARREL?) I'm sure that if McCain wanted to please his own state voters, he would have pushed for Amtrak to serve his STATE'S CAPITAL CITY! And he might also attach a spending bill to some other bill to maintain that track in order to provide service.

I don't recall him doing either one! (BTW - I used to live in AZ for 7 years and didn't vote for him.)

Maybe he won't or can't. Who knows for sure! I definitely thought about the Phoenix situation especially since last month was my first time visit to Arizona and to the Phoenix area, but my thoughts took a direction that perhaps he's upset because of the omission or spiteing if you will of Phoenix Amtrak service. (I had to use Flagstaff off the SWC) Now that you've brought up another view all I can say is who knows for sure beyond McCain himself! It would be interesting to hear what he would say if asked!

John McCain has never supported Amtrak, even before they stopped serving Phoenix, which by the way wasn't Amtrak's choice. They were forced into that, so he probably could have made a difference in that if he wanted to.

On the other hand the Senator against Pork Barrel has over the years gone out of his way to ensure that EAS (Essential Air Services) continues to serve certain AZ airports, despite horribly low ridership on some of those routes.

 

[sky12065]

I'll skip the fancy color of the font, and just reply to your points here in plain text:
1. My point is that driving a car is in no way unusual for a Senator, but taking Amtrak every day is - and therefore shows an appreciation and support of train travel.

2. You wrote in your original: "There ya go! No need to look any further into the presidential candidates' qualifications! Joe Biden takes the short trip to and from work and that no doubt makes Obama qualified to become president!" I think your meaning was crystal clear.

3. What on Earth gives you the impression that I was saying you do not have the right to express yourself? To the contrary, I think it's good to have discussions such as these, so errors can be pointed out. By the way, as a professor and author, I am known as a staunch supporter of The First Amendment.

But I do agree that we both want the same thing for Amtrak, and our country, and that everyone should vote for whomever they please.

I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader. Here's my reply back:

1. Appreciation and support for Amtrack is going to take a back seat, be it Biden, Obama, McCain and whomever, when it comes time to negotiate for pet projects and pork barrel or other matters that they preceive more important to THEIR personal or party adjendas. This is why I feel the Amtrak is kind of a moot item for personal thinking as to who would be the better president. Please don't misinterpet this last statement to mean that I don't think Amtrak is important. My feelings are quite to the contrary. I support Amtrak 100% especially long distance service!

2. If by "crystal clear" you mean intentionally factious against those (not you personally) who would make their decision on the issue of Amtrak alone, your right!

3. I am neither a professor nor an author and can't really put into words what makes me think what I did. Damn, I'm lucky that I even graduated from High School with the kind of grades I had. My son was the same - bottom 20% of his large HS class but unlike me he went on to graduate college cum laude! Anyway, despite my educational level I have more than once suprised those that know me when they find out that I'm not a college graduate and have even been called a professor following speeches (non-political you'll be happy to hear) that I've given. It will have to suffice to say that... stuff happens! :unsure:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Is John McCain is Anti-Amtrak or something? How about Obama? If not I don't see a point. It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:

John McCain is probably the most anti-Amtrak member of the entirety of the legislative branch. His actions sure support it.

 

[sky12065]

I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).
By the way, Tony, is your view of Biden and Amtrak perhaps colored by your politics?

Paul, thats absurd. The curse of our government, by its very design, is that it moves as if mired in slowly drying cement. No revolutions will happen in any area short of a revolution causing the government itself to fail. Biden and Obama will be better for Amtrak then McCain. Thats all I believe, and all I expect on the subject.

Biden rides Amtrak every day between Wilmington and Washington - did my heart good, shows he's not only in touch with people but the future...

There ya go! No need to look any further into the presidential candidates' qualifications! Joe Biden takes the short trip to and from work and that no doubt makes Obama qualified to become president! :blink:

Common folks, Joe Biden nor any other politician's verbal support for Amtrak will accomplish much without the public's demand... OUR demand for an improved passenger rail system.

You're wrong on several points, Sky:

1. Biden does more than give Amtrak "verbal support" - he rides it every day! And his son is on its Board.

What's your point? I drive my car every day and my wife rides with me. Does that mean I support higher gas prices any more that Biden's short train rides and his son being on Amtrak's board mean that Obama supports higher funding? Whoops! Guess I am wrong here and you do have a point since Obama represents the politics of tax and spend. My bad!

2. Who said anything about not looking at the candidates' other qualifications?

The statement I made was strictly reactive to what you stated and not directed toward you personally or any other specific individual for that matter. My apologies if you misinterputed or misunderstood my words.

3. Who said anything about not, as a member of the public, continuing to push for a better rail system?

Nobody that I know of stated it nor did I say anybody did! Is your intention here to tell me I don't have a right to express an impersonnal or non-specific statement or opinion if it differs from your own(?), or did I misinterput or misunderstand your words?

By the way, in case you haven't heard, McCain is in favor of killing Amtrak - and putting all of its service in the hands of private enterprise.

This is an instance where you're somewhat right and where McCain is another Bush. Neither of these politicans are Amtrak fans! However, your point here is moot because despite Bush's continual position on Amtrak, Amtrak has not been "killed" by a long shot and it ain't about to happen under McCain either... especially with a democratic congress!

In conclusing I will state that I believe that we want the same thing for Amtrak, to thrive and survive, but I also want our country to thrive and survive too! Vote for who you chose and I will too!

Joe, man, I suggest you work on your quoting abilities because this looks silly.

In anycase, speaking of looking silly, it is not wise to tear at arguments with ridiculous arguments such as:

What's your point? I drive my car every day and my wife rides with me. Does that mean I support higher gas prices any more that Biden's short train rides and his son being on Amtrak's board mean that Obama supports higher funding? Whoops! Guess I am wrong here and you do have a point since Obama represents the politics of tax and spend. My bad!

You probably don't support higher gas prices because I find myself in the minority in doing so. And yes, I drive every day. I've mentioned in other places I aim for the greater good, not mine, and the greater good is supported by higher gas prices.

I also don't know if you support increased highway funding to expand highways and decrease congestion, not to mention repair to give you a smoother ride. I don't know if you support it, but a hell of a lot of people do. If we were a group supporting driving cars, I'd imagine we'd appreciate a candidate who could relate to the abominable condition of our road infrastructure. I see their point, even if I personally would like it if we dropped highway funding altogether and let the damned things rot.

In anycase, you relation of gas prices and rail funding is ridiculous, and makes your point merely seem silly. You have a valid point, and you'd do yourself justice trying to come up with a more objective, less "fox-newsish" way to illustrate it.

My argument looks silly? This coming from someone who would like to see highway funding dropped? (or are you being factious?)

This coming from someone who would apparantly rather watch and be influenced by so called news from a bias liberal leaning network like NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN than one, despite leaning slightly to the right, gives the most unbiased and fair reporting one's seen in many a years?

Also, please tell me what I quoted that looks silly and why it looks silly. I really don't get that one!!! In fact I didn't really quote anything but rather segregated my response to the different segments of what I was responding to.

And as for highway funding let me say this... I would not want to be driving across a bridge and have it drop out from under me! It happened in my general area on the NYS Thruway a number of years ago and some of those that perished never had their bodies recovered. A co-worker knew one of them personally! I'm reminded of that tragedy every time I cross the bridge replacement.

 

[sky12065]

It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:

Thank you! This is the shortest but most meaningful statement I've yet to see here! B)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Also, please tell me what I quoted that looks silly and why it looks silly. I really don't get that one!!! In fact I didn't really quote anything but rather segregated my response to the different segments of what I was responding to.

First, let me show you how I would have done what you did to explain what I mean with regard to quotation. The reason is that I rarely look in the quote itself for the answer. Had I been you, my post would have looked like so:

Paul:

1. Biden does more than give Amtrak "verbal support" - he rides it every day! And his son is on its Board.

What's your point? I drive my car every day and my wife rides with me. Does that mean I support higher gas prices any more that Biden's short train rides and his son being on Amtrak's board mean that Obama supports higher funding? Whoops! Guess I am wrong here and you do have a point since Obama represents the politics of tax and spend. My bad!

2. Who said anything about not looking at the candidates' other qualifications?

The statement I made was strictly reactive to what you stated and not directed toward you personally or any other specific individual for that matter. My apologies if you misinterputed or misunderstood my words.

3. Who said anything about not, as a member of the public, continuing to push for a better rail system?

Nobody that I know of stated it nor did I say anybody did! Is your intention here to tell me I don't have a right to express an impersonnal or non-specific statement or opinion if it differs from your own(?), or did I misinterput or misunderstand your words?

By the way, in case you haven't heard, McCain is in favor of killing Amtrak - and putting all of its service in the hands of private enterprise.

This is an instance where you're somewhat right and where McCain is another Bush. Neither of these politicans are Amtrak fans! However, your point here is moot because despite Bush's continual position on Amtrak, Amtrak has not been "killed" by a long shot and it ain't about to happen under McCain either... especially with a democratic congress!

In conclusing I will state that I believe that we want the same thing for Amtrak, to thrive and survive, but I also want our country to thrive and survive too! Vote for who you chose and I will too!

I think this looks better, I think it doesn't look as obnoxious as red text, and its more clear to the reader- at least in my opinion. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to disprove your arguments this way, just trying to help you come across better. You do have a few valid and important points.

This coming from someone who would apparantly rather watch and be influenced by so called news from a bias liberal leaning network like NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN than one, despite leaning slightly to the right, gives the most unbiased and fair reporting one's seen in many a years?

Mark Twain, and many hundreds of others, once made the following not completely attributed famous statement: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." That being said, I don't think you're a fool, but that comment sure makes you look like one. I have not watched a television news broadcast since 9/11/01, when I watched the events that day. It was the one time in the past 15 years I felt the promptness of being informed important enough to watch any sort of television whatsoever.

The Talmud says in it, "First learn. Then form opinions." I've taken this to heart, my friend.

I read two newspapers each day: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Most other information I glean from places involves me searching for it and comparing it to several different sources. I hate biased news. I hate news delivered with the intent to sway opinion. I grab facts and leave the rest to people more easily swayed then I.

My liberal leanings? I'm a firm believer in the eventual superiority of Marx's predictions, which one day, many years in the future, will surely come to pass. Have been for years. I believe in mass transit over personal transportation. I believe that making things better now is not a good course, if at the expense of making things better overall in the future. I'm not your typical American. I have no ambitions other than being happy. I might be able to (probably am able to) make millions of dollars a year, if I worked my ass off, if I took on a stressful job, if I did things my moral sense tells me are wrong. (And that includes Walmarting!) But I'm not going to, because I'd rather enjoy myself and be relaxed.

And as for highway funding let me say this... I would not want to be driving across a bridge and have it drop out from under me! It happened in my general area on the NYS Thruway a number of years ago and some of those that perished never had their bodies recovered. A co-worker knew one of them personally! I'm reminded of that tragedy every time I cross the bridge replacement.

I would not want you driving across the bridge, period. I'd rather you avoid using your car unless it is absolutely nesscary. That is my perspective. Given that I'd like to see America entirely abandon her highway network and not use it by 2015, why the devil would I want to spend a dime upkeeping it? A bridge gets unstable? Close it. You have an iota of doubt about it? Demolish it.

My argument looks silly? This coming from someone who would like to see highway funding dropped? (or are you being factious?)

I'm not being facetious. My argument is not silly, if you bothered to consider why I might feel the way I feel. Unpopular? Yes. Silly? No.

I said your argument looks silly, in that the way you are making it makes you seem excessively biased, and really looks, to me at least, like you are intending to skew the facts and arrange them so as to make your argument look better. Doing that just makes you seem to be support something without much just cause. Which is unfair, because some of your reasons for supporting what you support make sense. You'd be better off attempting to portray them objectively.

Fact is, Joe, reasonable minds can differ. I, based on my ideas, my ideals, my perspectives, and my personal vision for humanity's future, believe we should be heading in a specific direction. Obama heads a lot more towards my vision than McCain does. Neither do it, but Obama comes closer. You do not share my vision. And thats fine. Few people do. I do not hold it against you that you differ in your goals for humanity and yourself.

Given what you seem to want, McCain is the right man for the job of the two. I just feel bad that your very valid arguments and perspectives get lost under a litany intended to discredit. Say not what Obama doesn't do or will be unable to do. Say what McCain does and can do for your goals.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues.

Maybe, maybe not. The President tends to be pretty busy. I wonder if maybe even a Vice President is less busy such that maybe a very pro rail Vice President would be able to spend more time making more rail happen than a very pro rail President.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I also don't know if you support increased highway funding to expand highways and decrease congestion, not to mention repair to give you a smoother ride. I don't know if you support it, but a hell of a lot of people do. If we were a group supporting driving cars, I'd imagine we'd appreciate a candidate who could relate to the abominable condition of our road infrastructure. I see their point, even if I personally would like it if we dropped highway funding altogether and let the damned things rot.

I think we should maintain the current highways at their current capacities (or maybe think about gradually shrinking them, one lane in each direction every decade or two), but that we should be looking at rail where we want to decrease congestion.

There's a lot of rearranging what buildings are where that would need to be done to get to an all-rail environment, and I'm not sure how you connect farms with consumers effectively in an all-rail environment (then again, it was done in the past, probably with farms depending on horses to get to the train station).

 

[sky12065]

I would not want you driving across the bridge, period. I'd rather you avoid using your car unless it is absolutely nesscary. That is my perspective. Given that I'd like to see America entirely abandon her highway network and not use it by 2015, why the devil would I want to spend a dime upkeeping it? A bridge gets unstable? Close it. You have an iota of doubt about it? Demolish it.

For the most part I am not going to respond to this post What you've stated speaks for itself, much of which I disagree with. I will how ever make a few comments:

 

1. I have to agree that your quoting method is better, but I would say that it is not significantly enough better that it was worth commenting about. Anyway, it did at least make me thing that making the quoting is not as time consuming as I was thinking it would be. I just didn't stop to think about the quoting button. (See, I can be open minded about some things! LOL)

 

2. I've watched many hours of the news networks I previously mentioned and I do believe that they are bias to the left. I have watched FOX for many more hours than the other networks and I know that they get a bad rap from the left because they do try hard to be unbiased or have a balance on shows like Hannity (C/R) and Colmes (L/D). As I said Fox does lean slightly to the right but is way more unbiased that all the others. I especially like O'Rielly who is neither Dem or Rep but indepentant! To be honest he's been more than fair to the left that I would personally care to witness! Anyway, to demostrate just one example of their unbias, on H&C especially - whenever they have a pundant for the left I have to hold the steam in my ears because they almost always have to interject "McCain is another Bush" into their responses no matter what the question is that they are asked; so much so that "Polly wants a Craker" rings in my brain everytime I hear it! In contrast, I would do reading like you, but reading is very tiring on me. I just started reading last year at the age of 60 and just finished my 50th book since then. The last on I started while in Mesa Arizona last month and just finished up just a few days ago - one month after starting! So I just don't have the impitus to get into news papers, never did, probably never will!

 

3. I left just one thing in my quote above because I want to say that I vehemently(sp) disagree with your view on highways, roads and bridges. Your vision would deny me and many like me the ability to have a life. I'm not supposed to walk further than a 5 minutes distance, I would not be able to get to an airport even if could fly, I would not be able to get to an amtrak station (heavens forbid) to travel and even if I could I'd go nowhere from the train stations where I would arrive at. I would also not be able to get to any doctor appointments, the hospital if necessary and I would not be able snow-bird to Arizona which we hope someday to be free to do. I would also not be able to visit family or friends nor could they ever visit me. Of course I could revert to the horse and buggy to resolve some of these issues, but then again I'm in no shape to take care of a horse and his droppings! :huh:

 

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Your opinion on FOX disagrees with what little I have incidentally been subjected to, but since I do not watch it or others on a regular basis, I'm really not qualified to comment.

I'm not suggesting removing cars and not replacing them with other methods of transportation. I have a wide variety of items I feel that, between them, will more than replace automobiles for most needs. Further, I wasn't suggesting all roads be demolished. Just the highway system. For long distance travel, a car is neither convenient nor efficient.

By the way, if you want to get farther into a discussion on this, email or instant message me.

 

[Guest_George Harris_*]

I read two newspapers each day: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Most other information I glean from places involves me searching for it and comparing it to several different sources. I hate biased news. I hate news delivered with the intent to sway opinion. I grab facts and leave the rest to people more easily swayed then I.
My liberal leanings? I'm a firm believer in the eventual superiority of Marx's predictions, which one day, many years in the future, will surely come to pass.

Probably should leave this alone, however:

If you believe the New York Times is unbiased, you really need to get out more and try to compare what they say with observed reality. There bais has in many areas has been readily apparent as long as I have been reading newspapers, now about 50 years.

The Marx statement is frightening. The abject failure off all governments that have ever attempted to follow any part of it whether in reality or pretense should put the lie to the validity of his perspective.

End political commentary.

 

[Tony]

Just saw a story on CNN, that Biden was at his usual Amtrak station today. He apparently missed his normal train (I think he said 120?).

While he was at the station, CNN didn't specifically state that Biden actually road Amtrak today.

 

[sky12065]

Your opinion on FOX disagrees with what little I have incidentally been subjected to, but since I do not watch it or others on a regular basis, I'm really not qualified to comment.

It's sort of like taking a statement out of context like Obama's committee took McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment out of context! It's apparant though that you haven't watch Fox much... or to be fair & balanced like Fox is, you might have watched something that I havent! In any case I've found that when someone does have an opinion that Fox is bias, it's usually because they hear truths that are contrary to their own belief or does not align with their political agenda. But to be clear, I don't believe that applies to you if you have not been as exposed to Fox as you indicate! But I would if you watched regularly! BTW, it's not by accident that FoxNews is by far the most popular network and some of their programs are #1 in the ratings!

I'm not suggesting removing cars and not replacing them with other methods of transportation. I have a wide variety of items I feel that, between them, will more than replace automobiles for most needs. Further, I wasn't suggesting all roads be demolished. Just the highway system. For long distance travel, a car is neither convenient nor efficient.

Your comments did not reflect that you were not suggesting "removing cars" or suggesting that "all roads (not) be demolished." So I'll take the comments as standing corrected! However, I disagree with the idea of "just the highway system should be demolished." (It's this kind of thinking that helped make me a Republican) A defunct highway system would devistate the economy because it would not be practical for all points nationally to be serviced. It would also make distant travel near impossible for many of us who are limited by disablities and many that are quickly becoming unable to afford for either train or air travel... and just what else would be negatively effected by setting us us back by more than 50 years of progress! It would be much better to get rid of cell phones than the highway system, but that ain't gonna happen either!

By the way, if you want to get farther into a discussion on this, email or instant message me.

No, I don't want to get farther into a discussion on this! I didn't want to start in the first place and tried telling myself not to, but in some cases I won't or just can't ingnore what's posted when I strongly disagree with it and I will respond accordingly and publicly.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Probably should leave this alone, however:
If you believe the New York Times is unbiased, you really need to get out more and try to compare what they say with observed reality. There bais has in many areas has been readily apparent as long as I have been reading newspapers, now about 50 years.

I never suggested they were unbiased. I just said I read them. I think their factual reporting of local news is fairly accurate, and they do a fairly good job of reporting things accurately compared to most of the rags around here.

The Marx statement is frightening. The abject failure off all governments that have ever attempted to follow any part of it whether in reality or pretense should put the lie to the validity of his perspective.
End political commentary.

Any attempt to create a government following Marx's prediction that isn't a natural occurrence is doomed to failure, that I don't disagree with. Marx's political system will take hold of its own accord. When we are ready for a new, better world, it shall come to pass. It will not work now, couldn't work now. It would require greed to become abolished due to an evolutional hatred for it. It will happen. Has to. Lest we become extinct.

It's sort of like taking a statement out of context like Obama's committee took McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment out of context! It's apparant though that you haven't watch Fox much... or to be fair & balanced like Fox is, you might have watched something that I havent! In any case I've found that when someone does have an opinion that Fox is bias, it's usually because they hear truths that are contrary to their own belief or does not align with their political agenda. But to be clear, I don't believe that applies to you if you have not been as exposed to Fox as you indicate! But I would if you watched regularly! BTW, it's not by accident that FoxNews is by far the most popular network and some of their programs are #1 in the ratings!

Its not by accident that Smirnoff and Absolute are the two most popular vodkas. People have poor taste. At least they have to be to like that weak-but-rough garbage. My only point being, popularity is rarely correlated to something's virtues.

Your comments did not reflect that you were not suggesting "removing cars" or suggesting that "all roads (not) be demolished." So I'll take the comments as standing corrected! However, I disagree with the idea of "just the highway system should be demolished." (It's this kind of thinking that helped make me a Republican) A defunct highway system would devistate the economy because it would not be practical for all points nationally to be serviced. It would also make distant travel near impossible for many of us who are limited by disablities and many that are quickly becoming unable to afford for either train or air travel... and just what else would be negatively effected by setting us us back by more than 50 years of progress! It would be much better to get rid of cell phones than the highway system, but that ain't gonna happen either!

You say that because you are paying out about $10,000 a year in operating a car. Now imagine that $10,000 now in your budget, but going to mass transit instead. Same thing, different product.

It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.

 

[Walt]

It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.

I thought "highways" had the wrong turn radius and the wrong inclines, for rails?

 

[AlanB]

Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.

Actually with a thin layer of snow spread out and a pair of supershorts, even the above is possible. :lol: Probably not practical or very useful, much less fun; but again, with a pair of supershort skis it would be possible.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader.

If you want to make things easy for the reader, don't hide new text inside a quote box. I generally only read text inside a quote box if, after reading text below that quote box, I am looking for clarification of the context, because normally the text people put in a quote box is text I've already read.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.

I thought "highways" had the wrong turn radius and the wrong inclines, for rails?

I think Walt is right that many of the highways we have in the US have grades which are too steep and curves which are too sharp for current rail technology. And with a rail car having less surface area in contact with the rail than a truck has in contact with the highway for a given amount of weight, that may be a difficult limitation to overcome unless you want to remove some of the energy efficiency that rail offers over rubber tires.

 

[sky12065]

I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader.

If you want to make things easy for the reader, don't hide new text inside a quote box. I generally only read text inside a quote box if, after reading text below that quote box, I am looking for clarification of the context, because normally the text people put in a quote box is text I've already read.

So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! ADAPT! That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading! You're beginning to sound like the professor who has problems separating himself or herself from the classroom!

EDIT: As an after thought, I think I have already started doing just that which you're suggesting, except where it may be more of a bother than it's worth. Irregardless, my ADAPT response still stands!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! ADAPT! That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!

I think fewer than one out of ten thousand posts on this forum follows the convention you had been using.

Most people who post here probably post because they want other people to read what they write. If you don't care whether I read or even skim the things you have to say, I don't have any objection to you ignoring the convention. But I would expect you might be interested in learning to maximize the effectiveness of the things you write.

There's really nothing for you to disagree with when I tell you that putting your new text inside a quote box makes it much less likely that I will read it.

I really doubt I'm the only person who reads these forums in this fashion.

 

[Guest]

So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! ADAPT! That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!

I think fewer than one out of ten thousand posts on this forum follows the convention you had been using.

Most people who post here probably post because they want other people to read what they write. If you don't care whether I read or even skim the things you have to say, I don't have any objection to you ignoring the convention. But I would expect you might be interested in learning to maximize the effectiveness of the things you write.

There's really nothing for you to disagree with when I tell you that putting your new text inside a quote box makes it much less likely that I will read it.

I really doubt I'm the only person who reads these forums in this fashion.

Joel & others, including GML, You're smart, no doubt, but when you want to correct a fellow poster, please pm them if they're registered. That shows more courtesy. For me, I despise reading these "correction of your technique posts". They're arrogant and it breeds more arrogance. You need to give some slack for the variety of folks that post here. I fall in the "don't care" group.

 

[Montanan]

Joel & others, including GML, You're smart, no doubt, but when you want to correct a fellow poster, please pm them if they're registered. That shows more courtesy. For me, I despise reading these "correction of your technique posts". They're arrogant and it breeds more arrogance. You need to give some slack for the variety of folks that post here. I fall in the "don't care" group.

Um, it seems to me that you've just made a post of the very sort that you claim to despise.

 

[sky12065]

So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! ADAPT! That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!

I think fewer than one out of ten thousand posts on this forum follows the convention you had been using.

Most people who post here probably post because they want other people to read what they write. If you don't care whether I read or even skim the things you have to say, I don't have any objection to you ignoring the convention. But I would expect you might be interested in learning to maximize the effectiveness of the things you write.

There's really nothing for you to disagree with when I tell you that putting your new text inside a quote box makes it much less likely that I will read it. I intend on no longer discussing this unless I'm publicly attacked again!

I really doubt I'm the only person who reads these forums in this fashion.

Boloney that "one out of ten thousand posts on the forum follows the convention" I've been using. That's your opinion, and if you did do the research to prove what you've stated, you surely have entirely too much freek'n time on your hands!

As for your quote box problem, what part of my statement "I think I have already started doing just that which you're suggesting, except where it may be more of a bother than it's worth." don't you understand??? (which incidently you just happened to conviently exclude in your quote) I don't know if your problem is because of pettiness, lazyness or whatever, or because your political views (and those of the liberal that pushed the same opinion onto me) differ from my own, but the problem is not my problem. The problem is yours and anyone that would agree with you.

To Others: My apologies to those who had to read this response, but since this matter was made personal and publicly, I deserve the right to respond in like! Hopefully this will be the end of this "beating of a dead horse" issue that I feel should have never begun in the first place!

 

[sky12065]

To any moderator:

 

Perhaps you should consider closing this thread to make sure the discussion ends!

 

[AlanB]

To any moderator: 

Perhaps you should consider closing this thread to make sure the discussion ends!

Closing the thread is not an option that I'm willing to consider at this point, since the main topic contained in this thread is still relevant.

However, I will agree that who quoted what in what way has run its course, and therefore will instruct the staff to delete any further posts on that subject.