Not surprising: Silver trashes good HSR Altamont Route
Lobotomy Clinic
Altamont bullet route in limbo
High-speed rail board may postpone Valley-Bay Area decision
By Erin Sherbert
Record Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO -- The California High Speed Rail Authority board is
expected to vote today on nearly all the routes proposed for the
bullet train, but the area between the Central Valley and Bay Area
still needs further environmental study before a route can be
selected, a board member said.
The governor has proposed providing $3.9 million to the California
High Speed Rail Authority, allocating $1.7 million of it to study
potential routes between the Valley and Bay Area, said Mehdi
Morshed, the authority's executive director.
The environmental work will begin as soon as the Legislature
approves the 2005-06 state budget, he said.
The authority decided in September to study a corridor stretching
from the Altamont Pass south to the Pacheco Pass for potential
routes for the high-speed trains, said Rod Diridon, a member of
the authority's board.
"There was an outcry in regard to people interested in re-examining
the Altamont corridor," Diridon said, adding that many people also
wanted to consider a more southerly route near the Pacheco Pass.
Train riders, environmentalists and even San Joaquin County
government officials have lobbied in favor of the Altamont Pass
route to help ease congestion along Interstate 205, where about
45,000 cars travel daily to the Bay Area, officials have said.
San Joaquin County transportation officials have said they would not
support high-speed rail unless it goes through the Altamont Pass.
However, others believe that the Altamont Pass is not the best
route.
"I was an original supporter," said Richard Silver, executive
director of the Rail Passengers Association of California, a
statewide organization that lobbies for improved rail services.
"But after looking at the facts, I came to the conclusion that it
was not the best route functionally, environmentally, economically
or operationally."
The 700-mile system will run 220-mph trains to link Sacramento, the
Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles and the San Diego area.
The $37 billion project is projected to carry as many as 68 million
passengers yearly.
In its November meeting in Sacramento, the authority gave its
support to secondary routes, including a line that would run from
Sacramento south to Merced.
The authority's staff has suggested running trains from Sacramento
to Stockton mostly along the existing Union Pacific Railroad
corridor, using stations in downtown Sacramento and the Altamont
Commuter Express station in downtown Stockton.
From Stockton, the train would cross over to the east and travel
along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line to Merced to avoid
cutting through urban areas of south Stockton, the authority staff
proposed.
The authority will meet at 10 a.m. today in state Capitol Senate
Hearing Room 112.
RicSilver
RM> Silver trashes good HSR altamont Route.
RS>"I was an original supporter," said Richard Silver, executive director of
the Rail Passengers Association of California, a statewide organization that
lobbies for improved rail services. "But after looking at the facts, I came to
the conclusion that it
was not the best route functionally, environmentally, economically or
operationally."
Hey, sorry for having an opinion. But I don't see how my comments could be
considered "Trash"ing anything.
I realize in the Stalinist world of ba.transportation anything that doesn't go
along with group think it automaticly considered subversive.
Proof of that is that my posting have been prevented from being posted on the
HSRA comment board and on BATN group. Evidently the operators of those groups
only will allow one viewpoint to be expressed.
But there are still a few of us that have the ability of independent thinking.
In any case, I'm begining to come to the conclusion that the real goal of the
"Altamont" supporters is not use that route as a way of killing the whole HSR
project.
If that's the case, then they're doing a good job, becasue at this point HSR is
dieing a slow death.
gary baldwin
"not" a practical solution as it only expands urban sprawl and
encourages congestion. I love the statement of 220 mile an hour speed
when most proposed stations are 30 miles apart or less. It is said that
it takes 17 miles for the HRS train to reach it's maximum speed and a
similar distance to slow down to a stop.
Being a fixed system. the important decision is to plan the route for
future growth. Do you recall that SF Airport was once upon a time wayyyy
out of town.
It appears that HRS is another popular idea that sounds like a magic
bullet, but it is just a blank.
In the mean time the taxpayers get poor quality transportation
services while spending tons of money on HRS.
Airplane travel is not going to be replaced by rail. Air travel can
flex with the changes of market demand by rerouting flights and rail can
not. Air travel has a free market incentive and rail is part of the
government monopoly.
Common-cents says "Freedom without Responsibility
is an illusion".
David Nebenzahl
> Published Wednesday, January 26, 2005, in the Stockton Record
>
> Altamont bullet route in limbo
> High-speed rail board may postpone Valley-Bay Area decision
>
> By Erin Sherbert
> Record Staff Writer
>
> SACRAMENTO -- The California High Speed Rail Authority board is
> expected to vote today on nearly all the routes proposed for the
> bullet train, but the area between the Central Valley and Bay Area
> still needs further environmental study before a route can be
> selected, a board member said.
[...]
> However, others believe that the Altamont Pass is not the best
> route.
>
> "I was an original supporter," said Richard Silver, executive
> director of the Rail Passengers Association of California, a
> statewide organization that lobbies for improved rail services.
>
> "But after looking at the facts, I came to the conclusion that it
> was not the best route functionally, environmentally, economically
> or operationally."
Whoa. Stop right there. [Addressing R. Silver, not the OP]
OK, I'll grant you that you probably know the meaning of the words
"functionally", "environmentally", "economically" and "operationally". You're
not a *total* moron.
But I seriously doubt if you have the any cogent idea whether the competing
HSR routes meet these criteria, nor can you make any cogent arguments about them.
I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead: explain to
us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
criteria you gave. We're all ears.
--
Today's bullshit job description:
• Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management
of the production Information Technology infrastructure.
- from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org)
RicSilver
GB>This HSR (Horse Shit Rail) argument is a joke. First of all it is "not" a
practical solution as it only expands urban sprawl and encourages congestion. I
love the statement of 220 mile an hour speed
when most proposed stations are 30 miles apart or less. It is said that it
takes 17 miles for the HRS train to reach it's maximum speed and a similar
distance to slow down to a stop.
True, but not all train will serve all stations. For example you could have
express trains, limited stop trains etc. This is common in passenger rail
service.
GG>Airplane travel is not going to be replaced by rail.
In Europe in many corridors it has! Between Paris and London, or Paris to
Southern France for exmples.
GG>Air travel can flex with the changes of market demand by rerouting flights
and rail can not.
Considering the "Fixed" locations of airports, the rerouting of air service
seems as fixed as rail service.
Richard Silver
650-368-7112
www.RailPAC.org
RicSilver
DN>OK, I'll grant you (Ric Silver) that you probably know the meaning of the
words
"functionally", "environmentally", "economically" and "operationally". You're
not a *total* moron.
DN>But I seriously doubt if you have the any cogent idea whether the competing
HSR routes meet these criteria, nor can you make any cogent arguments about
them.
DN>I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead: explain
to
us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
criteria you gave. We're all ears.
I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you flame me. Your not
interested in having a rational discussion, your goal is only to flame.
So why should I waste my time trying to rationilize with someone like you with
a police record?
Richard Mlynarik
> gary baldwin posted:
>
> GB>This HSR (Horse Shit Rail) argument is a joke. First of all it is "not" a
> practical solution as it only expands urban sprawl and encourages congestion. I
> love the statement of 220 mile an hour speed
> when most proposed stations are 30 miles apart or less. It is said that it
> takes 17 miles for the HRS train to reach it's maximum speed and a similar
> distance to slow down to a stop.
>
> True, but not all train will serve all stations. [...]
Except for the Rod "paymaster" Diridon Memorial Station in "downtown"
San Jose, that is.
RicSilver
DN>But I seriously doubt if you have the any cogent idea whether the competing
HSR routes meet these criteria, nor can you make any cogent arguments about
them. I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead:
explain
to us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
criteria you gave. We're all ears.
All ears? Based on your police record I though it was something else.
But seriously. why should I waste my time trying to explain something that
you're predesposed to disagree with me no matter what I say?
Your lifestyle and backround would lead anyone to question your sincerity on
anything.
>
ing on Craigslist
dvs519
>David Nebenzahl posted:
>
>DN>I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead: explain
>to
>us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
>criteria you gave. We're all ears.
>
>I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you flame me. Your not
>interested in having a rational discussion, your goal is only to flame.
>
>So why should I waste my time trying to rationilize with someone like you with
>a police record?
>
RS is right. Whether you've killed your mother or got too many parking
tickets, you are not allowed to have an opinion if you have a police
record.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave by the beach
Southern California
David Nebenzahl
Heh. Right; and I have a police record. Just like Lobotomy Clinic is actually
Richard Mlynarik, cowardly posting under an assumed identity.
Richard Mlynarik
Dejanews reports 41 messages from rics...@aol.com containing the word
"Altamont" (exact searching is always dicey given the spelling ability
of the poster.)
None of them seem to contain significantly more information than the
above exemplar.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=altamont+author:rics...@aol.com&scoring=d
All messages containing "high" "speed" and "Altamont"
or "HSR" and "Altamont"
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=altamont+high+speed+author:rics...@aol.com&scoring=d
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=altamont+hsr+author:rics...@aol.com&scoring=d
* 5 Dec 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/f8986d1adbc66350?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 24 Feb 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/1dc17cdc7d3977c1?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 1 Sep 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/45f6b65b76c3cac9?dmode=source
Opposing HSR altogether and claiming, without evidence that
"The HSR will need to great expand the current CalTrain ROW thereby
taking a lot of businesses and homes."
* 23 Feb 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/1b88f1c3b3682e94?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 28 Feb 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/1143bafc449afa85?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/51113dc291242c12?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 2 Mar 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/8f3cadf30f39f501?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/c32a78099a99a496?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 6 Apr 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/a3085c16524b3ed2?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 19 May 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/3e8664641d895d5e?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 18 Aug 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/19e701a57ec0dba8?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 21 Aug 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/985d7dbc8e574566?dmode=source
Opposes running HSR trains on SF peninsula because it will
"Tearing up established communities"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/73682fd988da6bf7?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 4 Sep 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/880787be38931015?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/a23969fdf24e27c6?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 4 Nov 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/880787be38931015?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/a23969fdf24e27c6?dmode=source
Nothing about Pachecho/Altamont
* 26 Mar 1999
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/c6787a7a057729fe?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 1 Feb 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/5b5f126225dbf98c?dmode=source
Nothing about Pacheco/Altamont
* 22 May 2002
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/be6a3437266f6ad5?dmode=source
"Why do you have to go south? HSR will stop in SJ on it run to SF via
the peninsula Obviously your not aware that the HSR route was changed
2 years ago to run via a route that comes up to SJ via south of Pacheo
Pass, NOT via Altamont pass you seem to alud to."
* 15 Sep 2002
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/e74eb551d684cb77?dmode=source
"Tolmach suggests an Altamont Pass alignment would be better than
Pacheco Pass to the south. But the board and any number of experts
and citizens rejected that route years ago because of significant
disadvantages. For example, it would require three route splits
to serve Silicon Valley, San Francisco and the East Bay -- a highly
inefficient and expensive alternative. And it would cost additional
billions of dollars to construct the first new major bridge on San
Francisco Bay since the 1930s -- something that would create an
environmental firestorm."
"While it would result in a longer (but still speedy) commute to and
from Sacramento, the Pacheco Pass or Mt Hamilton alignments would
efficiently link the entire Bay Area to Southern California, with
only one route split required to best serve millions of potential
riders."
Given that the wording of this unpublished proposed op-ed piece
_EXACTLY_ mimics the statements of the corrupt CHSRA staff and Board
(notably Rod "Father of Santa Clara Light Rail" Diridon and allied
sleazebags), and given the comprehensible syntax and spelling, I
very much doubt that these are Silver's own words.
This is merely proof by assertion, with no costs, ridership numbers,
or cost/benefit information provided.
* 16 Sep 2002
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/38d657a3a7970c0d?dmode=source
"Most enviromental groups oppose another bridge. A HSR Bridge
would be much larger that anything proposed for conventional rail."
[In reply to "It is also a heck of a lot cheaper than going
through Pacheo Pass."]
"What is your espertise to make that statement? Since the experts
disagree with you what proof do you have that proves them wrong?"
* 17 Sep 2002
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/eb27a486aadc4da0?dmode=source
"Generally you can't run both HSR and conventional service on the
same tracks."
"No, the Altamont/Dumbarton route is more expensive."
"There really isn't that much more distance because you'll still
need to build a spur to SJ from Newark, but more importantly it's
cheaper to build because of the terrain."
* 23 Apr 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/21d84e5cfe851f66?dmode=source
Opposing SB916 (the enabling legislation for the RM-2 bridge
toll measure which passed in February of last year) because
it included money to STUDY the Altamont Pass HSR routing:
"This was already studied and turned out to not be the best route.
Why waste the money doing it again?"
Again, no more than proof by assertion.
* 29 May 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/70dbe302e83548dd?dmode=source
"The Altamont issue that Haggerty has raised, and that I am also
opposed to, is an entirely different issue and really unrelated
to HSR since the two service are incompatable in using the same
track."
"Altamont has already been studied and been rejected. You may not
like the decision, or the way it was done, but you're wrong if you
say it wasn't studied."
"Bust as for the S2 billion savings on Altamont, are you factoring
in the enviroments cost for put another bridge over the bay? and
isn't the $2 billion cost more thna off set by the increase
ridership (aprox 2.4 million a year)?"
* 2 Jul 2002
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/bb482cdb63a0d388?dmode=source
Official letter of opposition from "Rail Passenger Association
of California" to SB916 (complete with characteristic illiteracy,
eg "long overdo".)
Re $2m proposed for Altamont HSR _study_:
"This item is an end run around the
High Rail Authority's Board of Director's decision to delete the
Altamont pass option from consideration because of its cost and
environmental impact. This item would delay, and possible kill,
the HSR project."
* 1 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/087b4e96a4903d27?dmode=source
Re not opposing Diridon's HSR through Henry Coe route:
"Because I don't think it's flawed. I think it is a lot less
harmful that a bridge that would cross the bay.
"In any case the question is really moot. The HSR project is dead
for all practical purposes. Thank to those folks that want a bay
crossing and a three way split in fremont."
* 1 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/7586643632cd9d7d?dmode=source
Re replacement of existing Dumbarton rail bridge:
"I question you line of though. The bridge would be much bigger,
especially if you included BOTH HSR and conventional rail.
Perhaps 4 tracks wide. Then there would be the approches, on bay
lands, that would have a much larger footprint. I think it would
be a mess with major enviromental and nimby opposition."
Re HSR serving, SF, SJ, Sacramento AND LA:
"I thought the frist priority of HSR was to connect SF with LA?
a SF to Sacto connection, as good an idea as it might be, is not
the primary priority. I would/should come later."
Re suggestion that SJ-Oakland HSR be deferred indefinitely:
"So could the Sacramento route for that matter."
* 1 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/26c9609145b068a2?dmode=source
Re Dumbarton rail bridge:
"The current Dumbarton bridge is much smaller than what would be
needed for a joint HSR/Conventional rail bridge."
[Who said anything about such a thing? Nobody I know who actually
wants to see the thing built, as opposed to building up strawmen.]
Re Silver's sudden concern for Bay wetlands:
"Just realitic enough to realize that a new bridge would be hard
to get approved."
* 3 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/97e3319dac348a3f?dmode=source
Opposing SB916
"NOTE: This item, contrary to what the bills says
IS NOT sponsored by the HSR authority."
"The inital goal of HSR is to provide service between LA and SF.
Service to Sacto, San Diego etc are worthwhile and necessary,
but are not the inital goal of HSR. As for providing serive
to the Valley, HSR will, look at the route.
Changing back to the rejected Altamont route will only casue
confusing and delay and help to kill HSR."
"Better and cheaper than all trains will run through bayland
in Fremont"
* 7 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/26800a0fd4563108?dmode=source
Opposing SB916
"I don't believe you. You'd still find something else to complain
about. Beside it's your arguments in favor of Altamont that convince
me even more that it's a bad idea."
(in reply to message
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/42056b532d5722e0?dmode=source
from "lobotom...@aol.com")
* 7 Jul 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/79fa0e89e2453c6b?dmode=source
Opposing SB916
"I don't see any other rail advocay groups (Rescue Muni, NARP, TRAC,
Bay Rail or MTS) on the list of supporters. That should tell you
something. I've talked to the leadrs of some of thoses and other
groups, and they feel much like us, there is good and bad in SB916.
Even some of those listed as supporting SB916 question some of the
projects included. SamTrans supports SB916 except for the
item dealing with money for the Altamont pass issue."
PS note that Rescue Muni, TRAC, BayRail Alliance and SamTrans (at least;
I'm not going to spend line looking up NARP and MTS) endorsed RM-2.
* 3 Sep 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/6adb8e33036b3027?dmode=source
In response to my pointing out that, as was widely known
at the time, there would be no November 2004 vote on HSR
bonds
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/0d95af2c082880ab?dmode=source
"My guess is that now that the Altamont pass route is dead due
to it bring dropped from SB916, Richard would rather have no HSR.
"His comments above are the begining of his (and perhaps others)
efforts to "question" the timing of the vote. Funny he didn't
have the same question 3 weeks ago when Altamont was still in SB916.
Why was that?"
* 4 Sep 2003
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/544d94ecc7f502f6?dmode=source
Re my statement that it would be better not to vote on November 2004
than to have it definitely rejected (which it 100% certainly would
have been):
"Actually, I think the real reason is that the Altamont Pass study
option was dropped from SB916. If SB916 had passed WITH the
Altamont Pass study still in it I really doubt that you be saying
what you said above."
"Well you better suck it it pal, becasue your pet project is
history. And, for good reason.
"What if I had said that I wasn't going to support HSR if it had
included the Altamont pass? You'd be ripping my ass off with all
your usual childish slander.
"The fact is that HSR - the entire project - is a good one regardless
of which route it takes into the bay area. I just happen to believe,
based on the info I've seen that the Altamont Pass is not the
better choice."
"Study if you want and if you can get the support to do it, but if
it were up to me and based on the information I have, it would be
a waste of time and money.
"When I working to get a bike lane buildt along the Caltrain ROW you
and other (i.e. TRAC, Dan McNamara, PR2000 etc) opposed even the idea
of doing a study to see if it was feasiable.
"Well to me this is the same thing. Why should I be open minded on
this when you seem to find being closed minded on other issued so
aceptable.
At least your mother isn't getting phone calls in the middle of
the night telling her that her son was wrong and was going to be
killed." [!!!!!!!!!!!!]
* 26 Jan 2004
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/a55cedbdf67dbca0?dmode=source
"Could it be that you think the Altamont Pass route is better because
the proponets of that route have themselves been guilty of distorting
the facts in there favor? We know of at least one instance where they
lied at a CHSRA meeting about a position taken by TRAC. There could
have been others."
* 9 Nov 2004
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/d807fa02e45cb23c?dmode=source
Re proof by assertion that "it would be cheaper to upgrade the area's
current commuter rail, the Altamont Commuter Express" AS WELL AS
build the all-trains-via-Diridon-Memorial-Station Pacheco/Henry Coe
route:
"I spent over 30 minutes talking with the reporter, I can't help
what she decided to included and not include in her story.
"In any case I don't think we'll ever know. With so many
"Advocate" promoting their own agenda and not trying to look at
the bigger picture or trying to understand others views I think
HSR isn't gonna make it."
* 26 Sep 2004
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/la.transportation/msg/a32ae7950a681091?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/126c99a39505dd74?dmode=source
Nothing about Altamont/Pacheco.
* 29 Jan 2005
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/5f751dd1e8b8b3ec?dmode=source
Re request to document how Altamont is an inferior routing:
"I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you flame
me. Your not interested in having a rational discussion, your goal
is only to flame.
"So why should I waste my time trying to rationilize with someone
like you with a police record?" [!!!!!!]
* 30 Jan 2005
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/6fb8069ecf7f90ec?dmode=source
Re request from David Nebenzahl that he's "all ears" should
Silver ever wish to explain how the Altamont Pass HSR routing
is "not the best route functionally, environmentally,
economically or operationally":
"All ears? Based on your police record I though it was something
else. [!!!!!]
"But seriously. why should I waste my time trying to explain
something that you're predesposed to disagree with me no matter
what I say?
"Your lifestyle and backround would lead anyone to question
your sincerity on anything." [!!!!!]
So there you have it. That's it.
No data. Nothing but appalling spelling, random misattributions,
syntax tortured beyond breaking point, proof by assertion, a
bit of random paranoia thrown in for good measure, non sequiturs
a go go, some casual slander and allusions to "police records"
and "lifestyle" of other contributors to ba.transportation,
and, at best, an appeal to "the info I've seen".
The closest he's ever come to anything like an argument is the
ghost-written piece dated 15 Sep 2002, but again this provides
no argument, furnishes no evidence, and merely parrots the line
of the San Jose mafia.
So I think it is safe to say that Rick has never, contra his
claim to "done it severals times in this groups" ever explained
how Altamont is "not the best route functionally, environmentally,
economically or operationally".
The statement in
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/5f751dd1e8b8b3ec?dmode=source
that "I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you
flame me. Your not interested in having a rational discussion,
your goal is only to flame."
can be definitely shown to be an outright misrepresentation.
I REALLY need to take a nice long shower after wading through
this filth.
-- Richard.
PS even the paranoid have enemies:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22police+record%22+author%3Aricsilver%40aol.com
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22threats%22+author%3Aricsilver%40aol.com
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=calls+night+author%3Aricsilver%40aol.com
PPS Speaking of Dejanews, the "new" "Google Groups" interface is
truly a steaming pile of Javascript-infested heuristified shit
in which the most straightforward searching for verbatim text is
a hugely and completely unnecessarily painful undertaking.
Obviously the hordes of cretins Google has hired with its mountains
of cash learned nothing from the awesome clarity and simplicity
of the original web search interface. Those responsible should
be simply taken out and shot. "Do no evil" indeed, Google.
Argggggh.
David Nebenzahl
> RicSilver wrote:
>
>> David Nebenzahl posted:
>>
>> DN>But I seriously doubt if you have the any cogent idea whether the competing
>> HSR routes meet these criteria, nor can you make any cogent arguments about
>> them. I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead:
>> explain
>> to us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
>> criteria you gave. We're all ears.
>>
>> All ears? Based on your police record I though it was something else.
>>
>> But seriously. why should I waste my time trying to explain something that
>> you're predesposed to disagree with me no matter what I say?
>>
>> Your lifestyle and backround would lead anyone to question your sincerity on
>> anything.
>
> Dejanews reports 41 messages from rics...@aol.com containing the word
> "Altamont" (exact searching is always dicey given the spelling ability
> of the poster.)
>
> None of them seem to contain significantly more information than the
> above exemplar.
[many, many article references snipped]
> So there you have it. That's it.
>
> No data. Nothing but appalling spelling, random misattributions,
> syntax tortured beyond breaking point, proof by assertion, a
> bit of random paranoia thrown in for good measure, non sequiturs
> a go go, some casual slander and allusions to "police records"
> and "lifestyle" of other contributors to ba.transportation,
> and, at best, an appeal to "the info I've seen".
>
> The closest he's ever come to anything like an argument is the
> ghost-written piece dated 15 Sep 2002, but again this provides
> no argument, furnishes no evidence, and merely parrots the line
> of the San Jose mafia.
>
> So I think it is safe to say that Rick has never, contra his
> claim to "done it severals times in this groups" ever explained
> how Altamont is "not the best route functionally, environmentally,
> economically or operationally".
>
> The statement in
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/5f751dd1e8b8b3ec?dmode=source
> that "I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you
> flame me. Your not interested in having a rational discussion,
> your goal is only to flame."
> can be definitely shown to be an outright misrepresentation.
>
> I REALLY need to take a nice long shower after wading through
> this filth.
Richard: bravo.
And as one of the aggrieved parties in this latest little dust-up, I owe you a
debt of gratitude. I should have done all that work, digging up all those
non-answers.
Should I still call you "LobotomyClinic" and give the Sekrit Handshake?
RicSilver
DN>I invite you to prove me wrong, right here in this forum. Go ahead: explain
to
us all, Rick, how the Altamont Pass route is not the best according to the
criteria you gave. We're all ears.
RS>I've done it severals times in this groups only to have you flame me. Your
not interested in having a rational discussion, your goal is only to flame.
So why should I waste my time trying to rationilize with someone like you with
a police record?
DN> RS is right. Whether you've killed your mother or got too many parking
tickets, you are not allowed to have an opinion if you have a police record.
There goes David again, distorting what I've said. By all means you have every
right tpo post your nonsense and distortions and halftruths. I just think folks
should have a fuller picture of your intentions and motives.
In any case you and Richard M. seem to have no problem flaming anyone that
honestly disagrees with your opinions. Why isn't turn around fair play?
DN>Heh. Right; and I have a police record. Just like Lobotomy Clinic is
actually
Richard Mlynarik, cowardly posting under an assumed identity.
Yep!
Hank Fung
http://groups.google.ca. It hasn't infected Canada yet.
--
Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
