round-trip from NYC to DC

On 2006-06-15 07:05:17 -0400, bitbucket said:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
mouth...

He was also the one that said to me, when I made a point very similar
to yours, " sheesh you should try and get a clue before embarrassing
yourself like this". Nice, intelligent guy, isn't he?

On 2006-06-15 09:19:49 -0400, jdoe said:

when you are called on your ill informed statements of fact
you get all ****y.

Oh, you describe my comment as "all ****y"? How original and eloquent.
Novel, too.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:19:49 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:46:49 GMT, sechumlib
| wrote:
|
| On 2006-06-15 07:05:17 -0400, bitbucket said:
|
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| | why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| | use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| | users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| | transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.
|
| are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
| subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
| mouth...
|
| He was also the one that said to me, when I made a point very similar
| to yours, " sheesh you should try and get a clue before embarrassing
| yourself like this". Nice, intelligent guy, isn't he?
|
| Maybe you don't think the are you high comment isn't derogatory but I
| do and responded in kind
| both you and he are absolutely clueless about what you are commenting
| about, but when you are called on your ill informed statements of fact
| you get all ****y.

i have never been ``called'' on my statement by you or anyone. nor have you
backed up your statement with fact.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:47:35 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| On 15 Jun 2006 11:05:17 GMT, bitbucket wrote:
|
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| | On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:39:03 GMT, sechumlib
| | wrote:
| |
| | On 2006-06-13 09:25:44 -0400, Doug McDonald
| | said:
| |
| | sechumlib wrote:
| |
| |
| | I'm sure you're right about the motivation. The trouble is money.
| | Amtrak is so miserably funded
| |
| |
| | What does that mean? "Miserably funded"? If they don't have enough
| | money, RISE PRICES. If that means they lose more money than before, it
| | means that they are in an unsustainable business, which I suspect is
| | the case.
| |
| | If they "rose prices", there might be a little problem of driving off riders.
| |
| | I agree that the business, in its present form, is unsustainable
| | without subsidy. I'm not sure that means we shouldn't have passenger
| | trains.
|
| | why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| | use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| | users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| | transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.
|
| are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
| subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
| mouth...
| are you an idiot? please highlight which subsidies you are referring
| to?

post 9/11?

| do you realize the many fees airlines pay to use the airport
| facilities?

and?

| Do you realize the extra taxes and surcharges passengers pay on every
| ticket.

and?

| Please enlighten me as to where the money collected winds up
| most airports are cash cows for their government operators.

i'm not sure this is even english. what are you trying to say?

On 2006-06-15 10:42:28 -0400, jdoe said:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:36:45 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2006-06-15 09:19:49 -0400, jdoe said:

when you are called on your ill informed statements of fact
you get all ****y.

Oh, you describe my comment as "all ****y"? How original and eloquent.
Novel, too.
yawn

care to discuss the topic or is all you are capable of is this
mindless prattle?

I haven't seen much discussion of the topic from YOU lately.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:19:49 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:46:49 GMT, sechumlib
| wrote:
|
| On 2006-06-15 07:05:17 -0400, bitbucket said:
|
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| | why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| | use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| | users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| | transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.
|
| are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
| subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
| mouth...
|
| He was also the one that said to me, when I made a point very similar
| to yours, " sheesh you should try and get a clue before embarrassing
| yourself like this". Nice, intelligent guy, isn't he?
|
| Maybe you don't think the are you high comment isn't derogatory but I
| do and responded in kind

well my comment was meant to be derogatory.

| both you and he are absolutely clueless about what you are commenting
| about, but when you are called on your ill informed statements of fact
| you get all ****y.

you spoke bull****, and i threw the bull**** flag. i simply will not allow
you to get away with spewing rubbish.

here is some information for you to read and educate yourself. when you can
form a coherent thought, please come back and we can discuss.

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00435.html

On 2006-06-15 15:04:03 -0400, jdoe said:

Just because some fool posts idiocy on the internet, that doesn't make
it fact and you are even a bigger fool for buying into that guy's BS.

Seems like maybe you have an axe to grind, or something?

sechumlib wrote:
On 2006-06-15 07:05:17 -0400, bitbucket said:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
mouth...

He was also the one that said to me, when I made a point very similar to
yours, " sheesh you should try and get a clue before embarrassing
yourself like this". Nice, intelligent guy, isn't he?

Airlines receive far more subsidies than AmTrak, but the subsidies are
not a direct cash infusion (see
"http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html"). However intercity
roads are generally paid for by gasoline taxes, tolls, and vehicle
license fees.

In the case of AmTrak's more popular routes, were they shut down there
would be a need for more vehicle capacity on roads in the northeast
corridor. It does make little sense to subsidize cross-country AmTrak
trains.

But back to the original poster's question. I needed to do a similar
trip last February. If it's for more than two people, it makes sense to
rent a car, though it's not a pleasant drive, and the tolls are very
high. For two people, it's a wash between AmTrak and driving. Also look
into flights on Southwest from Long Island Islip to BWI. Starting August
17th, Jet Blue has flights from JFK to Dulles.

JFK is a very convenient airport now that the SkyTrain connects directly
to the subway station, though the $5 for the short ride on the SkyTrain
is somewhat of a ripoff.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:04:03 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| On 15 Jun 2006 18:16:24 GMT, bitbucket wrote:
|
| On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:19:49 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| | On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:46:49 GMT, sechumlib
| | wrote:
| |
| | On 2006-06-15 07:05:17 -0400, bitbucket said:
| |
| | On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| | | why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| | | use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| | | users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| | | transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.
| |
| | are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
| | subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
| | mouth...
| |
| | He was also the one that said to me, when I made a point very similar
| | to yours, " sheesh you should try and get a clue before embarrassing
| | yourself like this". Nice, intelligent guy, isn't he?
| |
| | Maybe you don't think the are you high comment isn't derogatory but I
| | do and responded in kind
|
| well my comment was meant to be derogatory.
|
| | both you and he are absolutely clueless about what you are commenting
| | about, but when you are called on your ill informed statements of fact
| | you get all ****y.
|
| you spoke bull****, and i threw the bull**** flag. i simply will not allow
| you to get away with spewing rubbish.
|
| here is some information for you to read and educate yourself. when you can
| form a coherent thought, please come back and we can discuss.
|
| http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00435.html
|
|
| that nonsense is the basis of your ignorance,
| one example of the idiocy you've quoted:
| the military doesn't train pilots or mechanics for the airlines they
| train pilots and mechanics to fulfill their missions, the fact that
| airlines are about to hire these pilots when their hitches are up is a
| meaningless. The military also trains doctors does that mean that the
| military is subsidizing the medical community? They train people in
| programming, and many other fields that doesn't mean that they
| subsidize everything.
|
| Do you think that once someone is trained by the military are forever
| beholden to the military or are they free to leave the military after
| their commitment is up?
|
| another fallacy that airports are paid for by the taxpayers and
| airlines don't pay for their use. Pure nonsense, sure government issue
| bonds to pay for airport construction, but they charge hefty fees for
| landing and gate rights and most publicly owned airport turn a profit.
| In fact in europe many airports are privately operated, do you think
| these companies that operate airports lose money?
|
| Just because some fool posts idiocy on the internet, that doesn't make
| it fact and you are even a bigger fool for buying into that guy's BS.

OK, i happen to think Ed Hasbrouck is fairly intelligent, lucid and succint
in his writings. i don't just randomly google for points to find articles to
back up my point of view. give me some credit, please.

you are not refuting anything Mr. Hasbrouck states with fact. you are merely
stating _your_ opinion. you originally stated:

| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than
| mass transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

unless you can refute all points that Mr. Hasbrouck makes with _fact_, then
please just admit that your statement about ``...let train users pay their
own way just like plane users do and highway users do.'' (OK, i won't even
call you to the carpet on the crap about highway users), is not accurate.

so please back up your statement with fact, or drop this thread.

this will be my last posting to this thread.

good bye.

On 2006-06-15 22:35:45 -0400, jdoe said:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:11:26 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2006-06-15 15:04:03 -0400, jdoe said:

Just because some fool posts idiocy on the internet, that doesn't make
it fact and you are even a bigger fool for buying into that guy's BS.

Seems like maybe you have an axe to grind, or something?
you keep commenting on me, are you incapable of discussing the
subject? if so feel free not to respond

I like ;-) the fact that you use a definition of "subsidy" that is
clearly different from the definition(s) used by others in this thread,
and when those differences come out, you use grossly abusive language
to attack those who disagree with your restricted definition. Then,
when others throw their hands up and decide it's not worth doing battle
with you, and make other comments directed at your abusiveness, you
decide they're "incapable of discussing the subject".