Comments are moderated due to a certain persistent troll. Please be patient, and your comments will be posted. We welcome comments from Michele Bachmann supporters, and publish comments regardless of political slant. Comments reflect the opinion of the commenter and do not reflect the views of the Dump Bachmann blog.
--The volunteer team at Dump Bachmann.
HA! This is hilarious! The conspiracy theorist accusing others of conspiracy theorizing! Man, this is getting too funny!
I guess I struck a nerve, eh?
Notice that Ken doesn't deny his association with Light Rail Now, the group funded by huge corporations making billions in light rail construction. Instead, he tries to deflect the issue by calling my comment "tin foil hat stuff".
FOLLOW THE MONEY. Your taxes fund mega-million-dollar light rail projects, which fill the pockets of light rail construction firms, which fund the "Light Rail Now" astroturfing site - a site with which Ken Avidor has had a long term association.
So whenever you see an anti-PRT post by Ken Avidor, think to yourself "that's my tax dollars at work."
Whatever....
ATE, keep your comments on the issue rather than personal attacks. You've got your own blog to share your obsessions with Avidor.
Eva, may I respectfully point out that Ken himself raised the subject at the top of the post. In fact the only real subject is personal attacks, inasmuch as he doesn't develop the subject advertised in the headline -- whether Smoochy Bachmann thinks there is an LRT conspiracy.
What is the purpose of the post? In terms of content I see 1) something ATE wrote, contents unchallenged, 2) an old story he's told before (although one fanatic has become plural fanatics), 3) artwork.
The linked post at BSBH speaks for itself, one post which by itself is 100 times more persuasive than the entire body of work at Dump Mark Olson.
May I make a strategic suggestion? You should be trying to organize a campaign to recall Slappy Olson. He seems to be the most irrelevant politician in Minnesota and a certifiable wacko, it shouldn't be that hard of a sales job.
Benefit: You'd actually Dump Mark Olson!
Cost: The Dump Mark Olson blog would have to shut down- wait, that's a benefit too.
Eva, you may regard my comments as unpleasant, but they are absolutely on-topic for someone who has accused PRT promoters of malfeasance for 5 years, without a shred of credible evidence to support his claims. Here, I present actua evidence to link Ken with light rail corporate interests, and you call it off-topic?
Could it be that I've touched a nerve here?
Of course, you are fully within your rights to block my comments here. But nothing I've said here is untrue, only unpleasant for you and Ken, so if you delete my comments then you are effectively censoring the whistleblower. That would not be a very good image for a blog which openly boasts about it's support for free speech.
Anyway, rather than trying to chase me off, why don't you and Ken debunk my claims? Maybe because you can't debunk the truth?
I don't get paid to write about PRT.
Do you get paid to write about PRT, Mr_Grant (David Gow)?
Ha! That's like Dick Cheney saying he doesn't get paid by Halliburton - even though all his old buddies make millions every time Halliburton lands a government contract.
Ken, you clearly have a long standing relationship with "Light Rail Now", so when light rail succeeds, your buddies cash in.
Follow the money - that's what you always say, and that's all I'm doing here. Ken, how much did your light rail construction buddies make when Minneapolis chose light rail? And how much did your relentless campaign against PRT influence the choice of rail?
By the way, I should stress that I am not anti-rail, or anti-any-transit. I favor all forms of transit: heavy rail for dense cities, buses and light rail for less density, and PRT to fill in the gaps. If PRT works as promised, long term it may take more of the load from other modes, or it may complement other modes. The only problem I have with light rail is corporate-funded sites like Light Rail Now, which use misleading propaganda to discredit other technologies for the purpose of promoting their own financial interests. And Ken Avidor is a part of LRN's campaign - there can be little doubt of that.
Whatever...
A Transportation Enthusiast,
Thanks for exposing the corruption behind the light rail boondoggle. You are doing a great public service.
"Do you get paid to write about PRT, Mr_Grant (David Gow)?"
I guess that's the million dollar question, eh? Ha! But seriously, instead of starting down your road of talking points, I as a faithful reader of Dump Bachmann want to stay on-topic. I want to know -- does Smoochy think there's a light rail conspiracy? It's YOUR question.
Also, you characterize what ATE wrote as conspiracy. But ATE does not use that term. Maybe you can enlighten us: what is the difference between conspiracy and oligopolistic control of an economic sector?
Ken, I'm wondering why you've stopped participating in the discussion here on Dump Bachmann, but instead blogging about it at DMO. Where you don't allow anyone to comment.
ATE - it's a huge laugh that Avidor is making money from his interest in transit. Avidor's motivation with posting on transit issues isn't money.
I went to the Light Rail Now website - and it links to various discussion groups on transit. That is NOT typical of an "astroturf" site.
Is there a light rail construction lobby? Of course - just as there is a highway lobby.
Eva, Light Rail Now is basically a blog maintained and supported by light rail construction interests. It's clearly an astroturfing site.
And for what it's worth, I am equally opposed to both the light rail and highway construction lobbies, because they both have an agenda that is at odds with that which is best for cities.
Avidor and Light Rail Now are pro-train, but anti-transit. For LRN, the reasons for that are clearly financial - for Ken, the reasons are less clear, but his association with the astroturfing LRN leads me to suspect there is a financial motive, even if it's just his friends who are cashing in...
EY: Total slander on your part about Avidor. He is a community activist on transit.
Any reason why my last comment didn't appear? Others have appeared since I submitted so clearly someone is moderating today.
The lag seems to be getting longer and longer with each comment, and I notice that my comments are never posted without a response from one of the members here. Perhaps you are waiting to post mine until you can respond to it? That's somewhat at odds with your stated policy of open-mindedness...
I've notice that too ATE. The delay is soooo long that it's almost impossible to carry on a debate with anyone.
DB is the only blog I can think of that is does this.
Dare said, "I've notice that too ATE. The delay is soooo long that it's almost impossible to carry on a debate with anyone."
Debate... Dare2sayit suggesting that what he does here is carrying on a debate...
Now that's funny!!!
If you don't like the way comments are handled here, why don't you pathetic fucking trolls just go away then?
So, Eva, does Karl's "pathetic fucking trolls" warrant a warning like the one you gave me earlier? That's a personal attack if I've ever seen one...
As I said, I seem to have struck a nerve here. My original comment has spurred three strong responses from DB contribitors:
1. An attack post from Avidor ("tin foil hat stuff")
2. A warning from Eva accusing me of "obsessions" and "personal attacks" (earlier comment)
3. A vile personal attack from Karl ("pathetic fucking trolls" - above comment)
Yet, in all of these responses, I've still not seen a denial of any of my claims. The closest to a denial was Eva's claim that LRN is not an astroturfing site - a curious statement given that LRN itself admits that it is underwritten by light rail corporate interests.
The fact is: Ken Avidor has a long history of digging into his opponents' associations for the purpose of questioning their motives. For example, he once accused an executive at a PRT company of "encouraging sprawl" because he ran a school bus company! (see http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/...red-logic.html)
. I can cite many other examples if you like.
So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.
To put it another way: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Thank you Karl. It's about time someone invited Dare2sayit to go find another place to regurgitate his platitudes.
So, Eva, does Karl's "pathetic fucking trolls" warrant a warning like the one you gave me earlier? That's a personal attack if I've ever seen one...
As I said, I seem to have struck a nerve here. My original comment has spurred three strong responses from DB contribitors:
1. An attack post from Avidor ("tin foil hat stuff")
2. A warning from Eva accusing me of "obsessions" and "personal attacks" (earlier comment)
3. A vile personal attack from Karl ("pathetic fucking trolls" - above comment)
Yet, in all of these responses, I've still not seen a denial of any of my claims. The closest to a denial was Eva's claim that LRN is not an astroturfing site - a curious statement given that LRN itself admits that it is underwritten by light rail corporate interests.
The fact is: Ken Avidor has a long history of digging into his opponents' associations for the purpose of questioning their motives. For example, he once accused an executive at a PRT company of "encouraging sprawl" because he ran a school bus company! (see http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/...red-logic.html)
. I can cite many other examples if you like.
So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.
To put it another way: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
So, Eva, does Karl's "pathetic fucking trolls" warrant a warning like the one you gave me earlier? That's a personal attack if I've ever seen one...
As I said, I seem to have struck a nerve here. My original comment has spurred three strong responses from DB contribitors:
1. An attack post from Avidor ("tin foil hat stuff")
2. A warning from Eva accusing me of "obsessions" and "personal attacks" (earlier comment)
3. A vile personal attack from Karl ("pathetic fucking trolls" - above comment)
Yet, in all of these responses, I've still not seen a denial of any of my claims. The closest to a denial was Eva's claim that LRN is not an astroturfing site - a curious statement given that LRN itself admits that it is underwritten by light rail corporate interests.
The fact is: Ken Avidor has a long history of digging into his opponents' associations for the purpose of questioning their motives. For example, he once accused an executive at a PRT company of "encouraging sprawl" because he ran a school bus company! (see http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/...red-logic.html)
. I can cite many other examples if you like.
So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.
To put it another way: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Are you censoring my posts? This is the third time I've submitted this since last night, and it still hasn't been approved...
====
So, Eva, does Karl's "pathetic fucking trolls" warrant a warning like the one you gave me earlier? That's a personal attack if I've ever seen one...
As I said, I seem to have struck a nerve here. My original comment has spurred three strong responses from DB contribitors:
1. An attack post from Avidor ("tin foil hat stuff")
2. A warning from Eva accusing me of "obsessions" and "personal attacks" (earlier comment)
3. A vile personal attack from Karl ("pathetic fucking trolls" - above comment)
Yet, in all of these responses, I've still not seen a denial of any of my claims. The closest to a denial was Eva's claim that LRN is not an astroturfing site - a curious statement given that LRN itself admits that it is underwritten by light rail corporate interests.
The fact is: Ken Avidor has a long history of digging into his opponents' associations for the purpose of questioning their motives. For example, he once accused an executive at a PRT company of "encouraging sprawl" because he ran a school bus company! (see http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/...red-logic.html)
. I can cite many other examples if you like.
So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.
To put it another way: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Whatever....
Whatever....
Whatever....
Eva,
The filth from Komrade Karl..
"If you don't like the way comments are handled here, why don't you pathetic fucking trolls just go away then?"
gets the OK nod, but filth from Jake the Snake gets him banned and we have to put up with several hours of screening before our comments get posted?
What gives?
EY: There's no comparison between Karl's comment and the vile comments left by JtS. It also wasn't just filth, but JtS threatening people and impersonating others in the comments that got him banned. (Which was exactly what he wanted.)
Consider this thread closed. Dare's comment is the last I will approve on this thread.
Edited By Siteowner
We are volunteers at comment moderation - and I do not do comment moderation during the day. One of our comment moderators has recently quit volunteering in the effort - so it is now Ken Avidor and I moderating comments.
Karl's comment (pathetic fucking trolls) was in response to two comments whining about the comment moderation. Everybody knows why comment moderation is turned on.
The constant pushing the limits behavior (kind of like children) is generally the definition of troll - so while I don't think the profanity was necessary, the point was, if you don't like it here, you can always leave.
There are plenty of non-profits that get donations from corporations - LRN isn't alone in that area. Regardless - this isn't a blog to discuss the pros and cons of PRT and Light Rail. There are discussion forums for that elsewhere - the focus of this blog is Michele Bachmann.
ATE: So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.
EY: As I said before, you have your own blog to rant about Avidor. It's not the topic here - the topic is Bachmann. That doesn't belong here.
ATE - Please take further discussion on this thread to weiner watch - it doesn't belong here.
Also, please don't repost a comment when it doesn't go through. Instead please email dumpbachmann@gmail.com. That email is checked by multiple people throughout the day. Put comment moderation in the subject line.
Thank you...
Looks like my days are numbered on this blog. Sounds like communism to me.
EY: Dare - I appreciate MOST of your comments here - even when I don't agree with them. I would encourage you to push yourself a bit and come up with more original things to say and cite your sources as Doug suggested. Comments about how slow the comment moderation is, isn't really useful though. Would you mind sending those to dumpbachmann@gmail.com. The DB crew checks that email more often than we check haloscan.
Edited By Siteowner
Eva,
I will help screen comments if your own people are jumping ship. You guys have been like family to me and I would be happy to help out.
EY: That's very sweet of you Dare. Generally I try to get comment screeners from the existing people who have posting access to the blog.
Edited By Siteowner
Thanks Eva,
You know that I've always had a lot of respect for you.
Sorry about my complaints about the delay in getting comments approved and posted, but I like this blog and it would be great if you could try going back to the way it once was, just one more time. I think things would be fine.
"this isn't a blog to discuss the pros and cons of PRT and Light Rail."
Eva, Ken's post involved PRT and LRT! ATE and I have been on-topic. We have been no more strident than Ken, and well within the bounds of civilized discussion.
The Urban Dictionary's definition of TROLL is: "One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers"
How does this fit ATE and I? We are making observations and asking questions that amount to fact checking. We WANT Ken to respond.
There are two kinds of quintessential Ken-isms: 1) "Whatever." That means he's dished it out --"PRT is a scam," for instance -- but when people call him on it he shuts down and refuses to participate any further.
2) He ignores others' followup questions and moves on to an off-topic point --"SkyTran is built by robots," for instance. Go back to our earliest encounters and you'll see this.
In both cases, he's started an argument and then refused to listen to other points of view.
Gee, that fits the definition of TROLL.
EY: The post that got this going was a post that quoted ATE if I recall - and then had Mark Olson in a Tin Foil Hat. I disputed one claim by ATE (on LRN). And there has been lots of discussion - much of it rather pointless - on this post - mostly unfair claims about the comment moderation.
It's up to Ken whether he wants to respond to you.
No more comments will be approved on this thread. If you or ATE want to respond, do so on your blogs - not here.
I want the discussion to be on the 2007 Michele Bachmann moments - not this pointless waste of time.
Edited By Siteowner
The main reason I contribute to this blog is because of Bachmann's virulent opposition to funding transit and her enthusiasm for funding highway expansion.
Bachmann wrote legislation for PRT and promoted PRT in the media with Rep. Mark Olson and Dean Zimmermann.
Bachmann has yet to explain why she did that.
Avidor,
We shouldn't spend ANY money on rail until we at least have plans to widen our frewways such as I-94 in Rogers where 3 lanes turn into 2 and traffic backs up for miles. What a waste of gas and time, not to mention pollution. I live very close to where the Northstar boondoggle will go, but it won't do me or any of my neighboors any good, but developement in the area will destroy more farmland and countryside, it's already happening.
And in ten years you'll be complaining that they need to expand 3 lanes into 4 and then you'll have citizens complaining when the state seizes private land.
When the alternative would be to add more cars to the railline or increase the frequency of the runs.
Avidor wrote: "The main reason I contribute to this blog is because of Bachmann's virulent opposition to funding transit and her enthusiasm for funding highway expansion."
This is false. Bachmann supported personal rapid transit. She supported transit, just not your preferred transit type.
"Anti-train" is not "anti-transit", no matter what rail advocates say.
Transit - in its common use, generally means traditional rail transit. PRT is an untested concept car. But if you'd like, Michele Bachmann is strongly opposed to rail transit - and part of the "we don't want no choo choo trains" tin foil hat brigade.
What's strange is, why doesn't Michele Bachmann defend her support of PRT - she could make the argument you just made ATE?
Eva writes: "Transit - in its common use, generally means traditional rail transit."
Ah, yes, this blog strictly adheres to the rail proponent's definition of transit: it's not transit unless:
- the vehicle rides on precisely TWO rails - not zero rails (bus), not one rail (monorail), only TWO rails will do.
- the two rails must be made of steel and installed precisely 4ft 8.5in apart - the standard that was established nearly 200 years ogo to accomodate horse drawn trains.
- the vehicles must be huge and heavy, with steel wheels. Steel is a requirement because it's heavy and it was invented before 1850. Tin is expressly prohibited.
Everything else is "tin foil hat" stuff. If wasn't invented in the 19th century it's craaaaaap! (Apologies to Mike Myers 
)
Ok, you win, ATE, PRT and Flying Saucers are also forms of transit. Buses are clearly transit - and have been around quite a while.
So let's give equal time - and money to PRT AND Flying Saucers....
Why not equal time for personal jet packs as well? 
ATE's response (also posted on his blog):
The comments that DumpBachmann doesn't want you to see: (this is the third time I've posted them, and Eva continues to censor them even as she allowed comments from others to pass) ========== "PRT and Flying Saucers are also forms of transit" No, Eva, allow me to respectfully correct your misconception: - PRT is real, like bus and rail transit - Flying saucers are imaginary, like anti-PRT conspiracy theories. So, repeat after me: PRT: real. Flying saucers: imaginary. You'll get it eventually. ========== "Why not equal time for personal jet packs as well?" Well, let me list the reasons... jetpacks are: - less safe - less efficient - less practical - more polluting - not public transit PRT, on the other hand, is more safe, more efficient, and less polluting than jepacks, trains, buses, and private cars. PRT and jetpacks have nothing in common, unless you are a luddite who views all new ideas with condescension and mockery. Once again, a DumpBachmann contributor gets it completely wrong when it comes to PRT. But by all means, keep trying, eventually you might get something right.
Edited By Siteowner
Note: Comments here are temporarily moderated to prevent vandalism by a certain persistent Troll. Please be patient and your comments will be posted as soon as we can get them. Clown art by Hebiclens / WMxdesign
--The volunteer team at Dump Bachmann.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
