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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
