Somebody help me with G. Conklin.
ERIKG3
Hey gang,
Can you tell me what to do regarding our friend, Mr. Conklin?
I am having a debate with him about Airport and Aviation Infrastructure
Finacing over on (of all places) M.T.Rail.Americas.
He seems to think I am lividly angry. But I am not.
Does he do this in all debates? Thanks in Advance!
-Erik
Bradshaw, Cynthia
> om
whoever is debating with him. My advice is to just stop. Debating George
won't do anyone any good. He'll raise your blood pressure (and iritate
everyone else reading the n.g.). He often uses facts and statistics out of
context, makes statements of facts, etc. I haven't seen anything that will
change his style.
Cynthia
-my own opinion, not my employers
Robert Coté
"Bradshaw, Cynthia" <Cynthia....@METROKC.GOV> wrote:
=> eri...@aol.com[SMTP:eri...@aol.com]
=> om
=> Hey gang,
=>
=> Can you tell me what to do regarding our friend, Mr. Conklin?
=>
=> I am having a debate with him about Airport and Aviation
=> Infrastructure
=> Finacing over on (of all places) M.T.Rail.Americas.
=>
=> He seems to think I am lividly angry. But I am not.
=>
=> Does he do this in all debates? Thanks in Advance!
=>
=George has a long history of turning any debate into an ad hominum attack on
=whoever is debating with him. My advice is to just stop. Debating George
=won't do anyone any good. He'll raise your blood pressure (and iritate
=everyone else reading the n.g.). He often uses facts and statistics out of
=context, makes statements of facts, etc. I haven't seen anything that will
=change his style.
George is also a recognized expert in airport planning. It may very
well be that what you are "debating" is in fact a long settled matter
of historical record. George has a very low tolerance for disagreement
when aviation is the subject and you don't have the facts to engage him.
PSchleifer
(Robert Coté) writes:
>George is also a recognized expert in airport planning.
Recognized by whom? I thought he is a sociology prof.
--
Peter Schleifer
ny...@ny.ubs.com
pschl...@aol.com
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
Kev Kwan
>
> Recognized by whom? I thought he is a sociology prof.
>
I thought architects do the actual plannings...
:)kev
Bradshaw, Cynthia
certain amount of expertise on certain areas related to airports. I would
not call him an expert on airport planning -- particularly areas related to
architecture including how people move through and relate to spaces.
However, he often applies his knowledge in a blanket wide manner to areas
where there are other issues and expertises to be considered.
For example: I may be an expert of planning bus bases, but I am not an
expert on maintaining buses.
Robert Cote
Bradshaw, Cynthia wrote in message
<248256C355C1D111BBB...@kcmail1.metrokc.gov>...
Good point. By "expert in airport planning" I was refering to
siting/costing
"big picture" (tm C Leech) expertise. His fellow board members at the
time respected his opinions on these subjects. You did know he held
such a position of authority and respect, didn't you?
Kev is "taking a knife to a gun fight" when he challenges GC on airport
funding issues. Don't tell him it's safe because the other guy with the
gun doesn't always shoot straight.
Bradshaw, Cynthia
expertise. The problem I had is that he projected the expertise he
developed in Durham to areas with significantly different circumstances --
such as Seattle. There are very few areasin planning where "such an such"
is ALWAYS the case. Neither of these two analogies are true: Hong Kong
recoups its entire operating cost from transit fares, therefore everyone
does OR Seattle Metro recoups 25% of its cost from fare revenues therefore
no transit system can be profitable (two errors in that one).
Maybe a better analogy would be: I'm an expert on planning internal
infrastructure for medium to large transit agencies; however, I'm not an
expert at determining facility needs for a small rural system.
Therefore, I wasn't willing to accept many of his stated "global" facts as
true. However, they may be true in some circumstances.
Robert Cote
>> Good point. By "expert in airport planning" I was refering to
>> siting/costing
>> "big picture" (tm C Leech) expertise. His fellow board members at the
>> time respected his opinions on these subjects. You did know he held
>> such a position of authority and respect, didn't you?
>>
>> Kev is "taking a knife to a gun fight" when he challenges GC on airport
>> funding issues. Don't tell him it's safe because the other guy with the
>> gun doesn't always shoot straight.
>>
>I knew George was on an airport board, but wasn't aware of the exent of his
>expertise. The problem I had is that he projected the expertise he
>developed in Durham to areas with significantly different circumstances --
>such as Seattle. There are very few areasin planning where "such an such"
>is ALWAYS the case. Neither of these two analogies are true: Hong Kong
>recoups its entire operating cost from transit fares, therefore everyone
>does OR Seattle Metro recoups 25% of its cost from fare revenues therefore
>no transit system can be profitable (two errors in that one).
>
>Maybe a better analogy would be: I'm an expert on planning internal
>infrastructure for medium to large transit agencies; however, I'm not an
>expert at determining facility needs for a small rural system.
>
>Therefore, I wasn't willing to accept many of his stated "global" facts as
>true. However, they may be true in some circumstances.
That's why I don't engage him. He will generalize from a specific and
cite exception to invalidate the general rule but will not accept similar
replies to his arguements. Like I said, gun, bullets, going off
indiscriminately. No fun being right and abused for the priviledge.
Kev
> > >where there are other issues and expertises to be considered.
> > >
> > >For example: I may be an expert of planning bus bases, but I am not an
> > >expert on maintaining buses.
> >
> > siting/costing
> > "big picture" (tm C Leech) expertise. His fellow board members at the
> > time respected his opinions on these subjects. You did know he held
> > such a position of authority and respect, didn't you?
And his fellow board members needed his expertise at WHICH major New
Jersey Metropolitan Airport? Newark? Besides, Just because he can say a
couple of general and rational points does not mean that he's an expert...
I mean, I can support Windows NT users, but that does not mean that gives
me the level of expertise to advise Microsoft on how to design the next
version...And if I post my opinions to the MSDN, I'll probably get laughed
off...feedback is one thing, but conducting a pissing war with something
you only have a brush of data on is just plain idiotic.
> > Kev is "taking a knife to a gun
fight" when he challenges GC on airport
> > funding issues. Don't tell him it's safe because the other guy with the
> > gun doesn't always shoot straight.
> >
Well, I think you're missing the point here...
I have no interest in any topic when it is linked with personal
politics, or when it comes down to making a case for discrimination and
oppression of rights.
I'm just getting pissed because these 2 guys constantly have these
pissing wars in m.t.u.t that involves personal attacks and such...I mean,
just because you have usenet access does not entitle you to be a
jerk...I mean, If you're so pissed, carry on at private emails, or
meet each other in an open place and beat the tar out of each other...
Just don't flood my news reader with that "I didn't write this, you're an
idiot"/"I didn't write it, You cloned it" crap...I've seen more orderly
arguments in Pre-schoolers...
> I knew George was on an airport board, but wasn't aware of the exent of his
> expertise. The problem I had is that he projected the expertise he
> developed in Durham to areas with significantly different circumstances --
> such as Seattle. There are very few areasin planning where "such an such"
> is ALWAYS the case. Neither of these two analogies are true: Hong Kong
> recoups its entire operating cost from transit fares, therefore everyone
> does OR Seattle Metro recoups 25% of its cost from fare revenues therefore
> no transit system can be profitable (two errors in that one).
>
> Maybe a better analogy would be: I'm an expert on planning internal
> infrastructure for medium to large transit agencies; however, I'm not an
> expert at determining facility needs for a small rural system.
>
> Therefore, I wasn't willing to accept many of his stated "global" facts as
> true. However, they may be true in some circumstances.
Well, Just because a person felt his or her opinions or platforms are true
it does not entitle him or her to force it on other people. I agree with
you totally that while in certain cases, what G. Conklin stated are true,
while in other cases, I take it as false...
In any case, to pursuit an opinion and force it down others who disagree
is just an act of a fanatic, and fanatics are not tolerated in a
pluralistic society.
besides, I seriously want to know, how the heck did this pissing war
between Marc and G. Conklin started, anyways?
:)kev
Colin R. Leech
Kev Kwan (co...@freenet.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>>
>> >George is also a recognized expert in airport planning.
>>
>> Recognized by whom? I thought he is a sociology prof.
>>
> Got credentials to back the claim as an expert on Airport planning?
> I thought architects do the actual plannings...
Architects are pretty useless at designing buildings that are actually
_functional_ ...
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Colin R. Leech
"Bradshaw, Cynthia" (Cynthia....@METROKC.GOV) wrote:
>> Kev Kwan[SMTP:co...@freenet.buffalo.edu]
>>
>> > >George is also a recognized expert in airport planning.
>> >
>> > Recognized by whom? I thought he is a sociology prof.
>> >
>> Got credentials to back the claim as an expert on Airport planning?
>> I thought architects do the actual plannings...
>>
> certain amount of expertise on certain areas related to airports. I would
> not call him an expert on airport planning -- particularly areas related to
> architecture including how people move through and relate to spaces.
My impression is that his knowledge relates more to things like noise
contours. I don't recall seeing evidence of expertise in planning traffic
movement and functional space requirements.
> However, he often applies his knowledge in a blanket wide manner to areas
> where there are other issues and expertises to be considered.
A polite way of saying that he often babbles about things of which he has
little knowledge. :-)
> For example: I may be an expert of planning bus bases, but I am not an
> expert on maintaining buses.
>
> Cynthia
> -my own opinion, not my employers
>>
>>
>
Aaron M. Renn
>Architects are pretty useless at designing buildings that are actually
>_functional_ ...
And engineers tend to be pretty useless at designing buildings, roads,
airports, etc that actually take people into account and that don't
dehumanize everyone that comes into contact with them.
--
*****************************************************
* Aaron M. Renn *
* Email: ar...@urbanophile.com *
* Homepage: <URL:http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/> *
*****************************************************
John R Cambron
>
> Kev Kwan (co...@freenet.buffalo.edu) wrote:
> >>
> >> >George is also a recognized expert in airport planning.
> >>
> >> Recognized by whom? I thought he is a sociology prof.
> >>
> > Got credentials to back the claim as an expert on Airport planning?
> > I thought architects do the actual plannings...
>
> _functional_ ...
A more colorful way of saying this would be "Architects can design an
asshole, but can't make it shit."
--
======================================================================
NT Geek, John R Cambron Carpenter,
Transit Geek, North Beach MD USA I am getting
Road Geek, Remove '*' to reply by email to old
Railroad Geek, fairland@mail.*chesapeake*.net for this
Model Railroader HO N kind of work!
======================================================================