Maglev Vs. High-Speed Rail

[Q]

I think that in this country the car takes precedence regardless of practicality because of the whole individual independence thing.

[EnderWiggin]

^^Absolutely agree.

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

I fail to see how implementing high-speed rails in smaller, suburban towns leads to urbanization, warts and all. This would be greatly beneficial for the countless number of suburbs around Chicago; by linking them together, there would be a greatly reduced numbered of commuter cars on the highways, reducing the norm of rush hour traffic delays.

 

How would increasing different forms of transportation cause decay is smaller communities? Now that everyone has a short trip to outlying areas, would all of the "bad people" migrate into the "nice" towns? Poorer people living in seemingly isolated ghettos can now escape the slums, through the rails. Naturally, I'm sure it's a very human response, but I can't see how providing benefits for the disadvantaged can corrupt more well-off communities.

Keep in mind the context in which she was responding. Darth Yuthura said she would HAVE to move to the city to take advantage of this.

 

My major problem with maglev and another train is that it's a bit like using a chainsaw to cut steak. It's wasteful and impractical. Drive from your house to the train station. Wait for train to board. board. Wait for train to depart. WOOSH! get to destination. depart. join the mass of people rushing to get cabs. Not to mention that it is still easier and faster just to drive yourself there. PLUS driving yourself there means you can go at more or less your own pace. You don't have to meet the train's schedule. That's the reason a person would rather have a car. if they need a car to make the train why not just take that car to the destination.

 

It just doesn't make sense. With the city sprawled out you could find yourself driving just as far to get to the station as it would be just to drive to the destination. So it really comes down to fundamental questions.

 

Does it do me any good? In my case, I live less than 10 miles from my work.

Will I ever use it? I go downtown once every 6 months.

Is there a better alternative to MagLev? Yup. A more efficient train from town center to town center. How about we give it a name... AmTrack sounds good.

Is it worth it? Aside from the coolness factor, I really can't see it.

Why should I pay for a VERY expensive inefficient train that chances are I'll never use?

 

Cargo transportation: Well we have freight trains. They are essentially huge hybrids. They are propelled by electric motors powered by diesel generators. They move massive amounts of cargo for hardly any fuel(relatively speaking).

[Darth_Yuthura]

Yeah.. somehow a maglev makes less sense to me than the hydrogen fuel cell. High energy cost of the maglev and the poor coverage make it unavailable to a large chunk of the population. If we're looking for things to spend cash on... I'd suggest things like electric vehicles updating power plants, new fuel sources, bio-fuels, automated driving, heck even updating the highway system. We don't need another AmTrack. Besides, think of how many people you would put out of work in the airline industry.

 

Believe me, I love the idea of it. It sounds all spiffy cool and futurific. But practicality just isn't there.

 

You've got it backwards. Maglev is THE most energy-efficient means of transportation available. All friction except wind resistance is gone. You have quieter trains(that only generate noise caused by the wind resistance) The entire track acts as the motor. It maximum speed is potentially thousands of miles per hour where HSR is pushing to reach 300.

 

Frieght trains are cheaper than semi trucks, but they are very slow and inconvenient because the transportation hubs are greatly outdated and it's easier to just use one semi truck from starting point to destination than switching across transportation systems. We need to get away from tractor trailer semi trucks and put more goods on freight trains. Maglev could at the very least serve as a transit system between LA, Chicago, NY, and Atlanta for the majority of freight instead of the slower diesel trains, or more expensive semi trucks. It has a higher capital cost, but lower operating costs compared to alternatives. They also have a more futuristic appearance than air transports, not to mention comparable shipping speeds, they're not as loud as those jet engines, and cleaner to use.

 

And in regards to the previous issue with steep terrain... given that trains are suspended by the tracks and not resting on top of them, a Maglev line could make steeper climbs and sharper turns without being thrown off the tracks. That is why it's more sound than boring a tunnel all the way through the Rocky Mountains.

[Drunkside]

Well, if you think about it, our technology is one of the few things that make our military powerful. Our numbers are pretty low in comparison to that of Russia and China, I mean, how many do we have? 500,000? 100,000? That's alot, yes, but in comparison to the massiveness of some nations, our army is very small. But we make up for that with our tech. We're pretty darn ahead of our rivals. Battle robots and invisiblity suits may just help us if we ever get into combat with a much...much larger enemy. Though we can probably do this on a smaller budget, but that's up to Washington.

 

You know, the toys the scientists make have no real uses. And besides, the great, mighty, POWERFUL army of the United States is a joke. If you think about it, its just a huge mob of criminals who have been given the most basic training, meaning that somebody told them really simply which side of the gun shoots out bullets. The next lesson was that they were told that side is supposed to be pointed at the enemy. Then they were taken to Iraq or afganistan to shoot at anything that moves. Or doesnt move.

[Jae Onasi]

With all due respect, you made some definite assertions without anything to back your claims or disprove what I stated.

My assertions are backed up by actually having lived in Chicago.

Mass transit and population density are DIRECTLY dependent upon one another.

I live in a lovely, if small, Cape Cod in a town with a much lower population density than Chicago. Guess what? We have mass transit. Three different types, in fact--bus, commuter train, and Amtrak.

 

In Chicago, most of the suburban areas receive crappy service because those regions are sparsely populated... meaning there will be less frequent stops.

I lived in a Chicago suburb for several years. I happen to know that

a. the suburbs are definitely not sparsely populated (look up the population statistics for Downer's Grove, Lombart, Palatine, etc), and

b. there was enough mass transit for us to survive on 1 car instead of needing 2--there were Pace buses and Metra trains running regularly, and the L-trains go all the way to some of the suburbs like Cicero and Evanston.

 

While you're talking to someone who's actually experienced life and mass transit in both the big city of Chicago (including guys who play shell games on the red line, and someone who tried to sell me crack on the green line) AND the suburbs, what else is it you think you know about Chicago life that I can elucidate further for you? You certainly haven't had much if any experience with Chicago proper or its suburbs.

 

In Manhattan, the public transportation works well because the population density is much higher than most cities in the world.

It also works better because a. there's no place to park a car, b. it'll get jacked or screwed up in an accident anyway, c. because of that the insurance is so gawdawfully expensive only the rich can afford to keep cars as a result, so everyone else uses mass transit or taxis. It's economics there, not population density. Mass transit is considerably less expensive than insurance and parking.

LA and Atlanta worked well enough before gasoline became a major concern, but their citizens who struggle to get by have no substitute for the automobile.

That is their choice. When you live in a free country, you have responsibilities that go along with the choices you make. There is mass transit in LA and Atlanta if people choose to use it, so don't tell me they have NO substitute when they clearly do.

The population is not dense enough for any practical mass transit system of any kind. That is why LA's mass transit sucks.

Their mass transit system sucks because the people have voted in officials who don't want to spend the money on it to make it good. They like their cars too much, and they're willing to put up with gas costs and the long commutes to keep their cars. Pelosi's Speaker of the House--she's not even putting her money where her mouth is for her district and state, though she certainly makes a good show of it.

If you can give me ONE city in the US where you have high population density (>5000 per square mile) w/out mass transit, or a decent light rail system and a density of less than 3500 people per square mile... and you'll not find ONE.

Try Winthrop Harbor, IL. Nice small town. Sits on a light rail line. Fort Sheridan, IL. Also sits on bus and light rail lines.

 

More trains you say? And how exactly would they be paying for them?

I'm assuming taxes and user fares--how do you think Maglev trains will come into being? The tooth fairy isn't going to wave them into existence with her magic wand, you know. It would require enormous amounts of government capital to bring those into being.

Given that there wouldn't be enough riders for it to be of any practical use, one would have to invest huge sums for upkeep and operating the system.

And you're arguing for Maglev/High-speed rail using this argument for what reason again?

OR abandon the single family detached home completely and pack more people closer to the stations.

I have zero desire to do that, and happily I and many others don't have to.

 

The issue is this pathetic 'Jefferson ideal' of every American having their own house, lawn, auto, and spreading over the landscape like a virus. NO other state builds cities like the US... any idea why that is?

NO other state does this? Been to Uruguay lately? Kenya? Afghanistan? Oman? They're all RURAL. The US has the land available for people to live on or not AS THEY SO CHOOSE, and if they want to live packed in like sardines close to a train station, fine, and if they want to live in suburbia and have their homes and yards and commute in, fine, and if they want to live out in BFE Kansas and never seen anyone else for weeks at a time, fine.

 

Jefferson, a man committed to independence and free will, would roll in his grave at this very idea of people being forced to live somewhere.

 

An extremely steep population gradient, massive urban footprint, inversed social structure, dependance on the automobile, and suburban sprawl are only associated with the American city and these are not positive attributes that the rest of the world integrates into the urban planning of their states.

No, the other superpowers like China and Russia force their people to live in little boxes. Thank God we have a choice here. So what if we don't conform to some idiotic European 'model'? This isn't Europe, it's the US. They do things their way, we do things our way. The US is arguably The superpower of the world, for good and ill all, so it seems to have worked for us so far. Not saying we can't improve on it and make it better, but that's something that should come from the business/capitalism side of things. This is a country that speaks with its wallet as much as English. Make mass transit economical and time-saving, and people will go for it.

 

Answer this question first: Where would you recover all the farmland that had been covered with concrete and housing from the suburban sprawl?

Uh, no, it doesn't work that way.

 

Your answer: they could recover it by removing the millions of acres of suburban sprawl and relocating them from single family detached homes into condominiums closer to the central city. With a smaller urban footprint, you use less land for development.

We have millions of acres of untilled land in the bread-basket farmland. I'm not too worried about lack of agriculture land at this time.

Building large cities (upwards) actually means more land for agriculture. THAT'S where you get the millions of acres of farmland.

Yes, of course, because over the course of the last 200 years or so, Chicago, LA, NYC, Dallas, and other major metro regions have just gotten smaller, even when building up. That's not a realistic answer.

Well I don't like the 'suburban model,' which is based on a number of correct assumptions that are backed by fact.

I'd love to see your new facts, since I disproved most of the ones in this thread already.

 

You are certainly free to live in a little box by the trains if you'd like, and I will respect your decision to utilize mass transit to your heart's desire. I'm not going to force you to live in suburbia, unlike you trying to force people to do things your way.

 

Millions are leaving the cities because of 'Maga urbs,' which are entirely auto dependent. (snipped long rant about cloverleafs and parking lots)

Millions leave the cities because they WANT to, not because they're dying to live on a cloverleaf and thumb their noses at people using mass transit. We left Chicago because we didn't like the urban environment, we wanted to live in a place with actual clean air, not worry if we were going to get mugged or ripped off every day, not worry if our kids would get shot going to school, not ride a train where people sell crack, not live in a city where the school system was so bad we couldn't put a dead mouse into it. Those are all urban realities. Airy population density theories and mass transit idealism doesn't mean squat when you're dodging bullets in the middle of a riot and have to worry about what color you're wearing in what neighborhood so that you aren't accidentally mistaken for someone in a rival gang by the local gang members. THAT'S why people have left the city, not because they're tied to their cars. They want better schools, safer environments. Until you address the underlying reasons why people choose to live in rural/suburban settings instead of in cities, you'll never make headway with your idealistic project.

 

New York City and Downtown Chicago don't have parking lots stretched to as far as the eye can see because of mass transit. Suburbs are terrible in this retrospect.

Have you ever BEEN to downtown Chicago or NYC? Never mind, that's a dumb rhetorical question, because I know you haven't or you wouldn't have said such a ridiculous thing.

I have been to downtown Chicago, quite often. I worked in downtown Chicago. I've also been to NYC, including the downtown. There are parking lots all over the place, and on top of that, grossly overpriced parking garages that help create the 'concrete jungle' that is a big city. You can even see them on Google maps for yourself. If you can find a place that lets you park in downtown Chicago for less than $25/day, it's a miracle. Don't try to misinform people here by saying there aren't parking lots stretched as far as the eye can see in Chicago's downtown. You can't swing a dead mouse around your head without hitting a parking garage or lot. Where do you think all the commuters put their cars during the day otherwise?

 

You're lucky if you see anything _besides_ concrete in either downtown. The trees on Michigan Avenue are all encaged and stunted, and surrounded by sidewalk. The only greenery is the stuff the city puts in pots and pays someone to fertilize and water regularly, or the seaweed that washes up on the lakeshore, or the carefully manicured lawn of Wrigley Field or Lincoln Park.

[Tommycat]

For the sake of not escalating this matter further, I respectfully ask that the public transportation argument end here. I AM NOT just giving up because 'someone has proven all my arguments to be false.' Some of my arguments may be lacking, yes; but so are counter arguments that are not backed by anything beyond one person's experiences in a major city.

 

I won't carry this on and would respectfully ask that Jae not respond to this again. I don't want this escalate this issue because she has the power to throw me off this forum. I am NOT backed in a corner and could continue this, but don't want to.

 

So maglev is no longer public transportation?

 

Great, so the argument is basically "I think maglev is cool and we should have it even if it's not cost effective."

 

Other forms of transportation make more sense. Investing in fuel efficient and fuel free cars is a more sound investment. At least the masses can see the benefits of it. The suburbs and the city folk alike can benefit from it. If I'm paying for it, I'd rather have something that I can see the benefit from. A maglev wouldn't decrease the number of polluting cars. It wouldn't increase air quality. It would however lighten my wallet for something I would likely never use. It would ALMOST make sense as something to connect the mainland to Hawaii(still a huge undertaking for little benefit).

 

Alternate form of freight transport: Think about why they don't build freight trains above ground and you MAY get your answer. Standard rail costs significantly less than a maglev track would, but even they build on the ground to save cost. They reuse lines that have been around since the 1800's(and spaced according to post civil war gauges). It makes more financial sense to build high speed trains that can reuse existing tracks, replacing where it appears unfeasible.

 

Oh and Phoenix has a light rail... It just went into service in December. For me to use it I have to take 3 busses for a 10 mile trip, to take another bus to any location. $1.4BILLION just for the startup. And honestly, do you want to stand outside in some of our 120º summer days waiting on a train?

[Web Rider]

Alternate form of freight transport: Think about why they don't build freight trains above ground and you MAY get your answer. Standard rail costs significantly less than a maglev track would, but even they build on the ground to save cost. They reuse lines that have been around since the 1800's(and spaced according to post civil war gauges). It makes more financial sense to build high speed trains that can reuse existing tracks, replacing where it appears unfeasible.

 

High speed rail can't resuse old track for the exact reason that you can't travel at high speeds on it. Most track in the US rail system is freight grade, with some that gets more commuter use of slightly better grade, but high-speed rail, that is, any train that travels in excess of 100mph, requires an extremely smooth track. US track, ESPECIALLY freight track, is not up to these standards, if you tried to travel 130 on a freight track, you'd jump the tracks in an instant.

[Tommycat]

High speed rail can't resuse old track for the exact reason that you can't travel at high speeds on it. Most track in the US rail system is freight grade, with some that gets more commuter use of slightly better grade, but high-speed rail, that is, any train that travels in excess of 100mph, requires an extremely smooth track. US track, ESPECIALLY freight track, is not up to these standards, if you tried to travel 130 on a freight track, you'd jump the tracks in an instant.

 

My bad, I was meaning to say reusing the old lines. You can reuse the old lines and replace the tracks along those routes for far cheaper than building an elevated track system. Main reason being that they wouldn't have to buy up a whole bunch of land.

[Web Rider]

My bad, I was meaning to say reusing the old lines. You can reuse the old lines and replace the tracks along those routes for far cheaper than building an elevated track system. Main reason being that they wouldn't have to buy up a whole bunch of land.

 

True, the space those tracks are in in most places would be fine with a a little(read: expensive) work.

[Tommycat]

True, the space those tracks are in in most places would be fine with a a little(read: expensive) work.

 

Well you'd save on land, and quite a huge chunk on planning. So there's a definite advantage there.

[Web Rider]

Well you'd save on land, and quite a huge chunk on planning. So there's a definite advantage there.

 

Supposedly there's a high-speed rail link in the works that will finally link LA and the Central Valley. I don't know what the progress is on that though.

 

edit: here's the overall proposal and a fairly current update.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/traffic_autos/transit/High-Speed-Rails-First-Leg-Bakersfield-Merced.html

[Q]

Since you adamantly believe that the hydrogen fuel cell won't work because hydrogen production depends on electricity, which you insist has to be produced by burning fossil fuels because everyone knows that there are no other methods for producing electricity,* please tell us what, pray tell, powers the maglev?

 

 

*

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic, here.

[Web Rider]

And no, none of the solutions involving hydrogen fuel cell, ethanol, electric hybrid, renewable energy, or 'everything is fine' are realistic either, so don't bother with those.

 

Well I guess we're all screwed then because you're solution isn't realistic at all.

[Q]

I have a feeling that quite a bit will depend on steam power again. Like steam-driven turbines in nuclear power plants to produce the electricity that, in one form or another, will be used to power the vehicles of tomorrow.

 

You know, I was actually in favor of D_Y's argument for improved mass transit (it is certainly advantageous in in urban areas) until it degenerated into a socialist rant about forcing people to live like ants and how anyone who isn't in favor of that level of tyranny is just a selfish pig.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I have a feeling that quite a bit will depend on steam power again. Like steam-driven turbines in nuclear power plants to produce the electricity that, in one form or another, will be used to power the vehicles of tomorrow.

 

You know, I was actually in favor of D_Y's argument for improved mass transit (it is certainly advantageous in in urban areas) until it degenerated into a socialist rant about forcing people to live like ants and how anyone who isn't in favor of that level of tyranny is just a selfish pig.

 

Actually, the issue of mass transit shifted into commuter rail systems.

 

I had defined that maglev would be unrealistic for that purpose, but it would serve well as a freight and passenger line between the major cities. If people don't intend to live in these 'steel caves,' then most goods would still have to go through Chicago, New York, LA, and other transportation hubs. Maglev lines would simply make it cheaper and more favorable than current diesel train lines.

 

If you attempted to use Maglev for short trips, then it would not function well in the US. For long trips, then it would come out on top.

 

@Qliveur:

 

Before anyone goes pointing the finger at maglev for being 'every bit as dirty as hydrogen,' then I'd like to see a hydrogen-powered vehicle that achieves a nearly 80% energy efficiency rating. I'd also love to see another solution that doesn't involve generating more energy when the issue is coping with fewer sources.

 

Oh, and your nuclear suggestion is not so clean either. Mining, milling, and fuel rod fabrication are actually very bad for the environment.

[Tommycat]

Actually, the issue of mass transit shifted into commuter rail systems.

 

I had defined that maglev would be unrealistic for that purpose, but it would serve well as a freight and passenger line between the major cities. If people don't intend to live in these 'steel caves,' then most goods would still have to go through Chicago, New York, LA, and other transportation hubs. Maglev lines would simply make it cheaper and more favorable than current diesel train lines.

 

If you attempted to use Maglev for short trips, then it would not function well in the US. For long trips, then it would come out on top.

 

@Qliveur:

 

Before anyone goes pointing the finger at maglev for being 'every bit as dirty as hydrogen,' then I'd like to see a hydrogen-powered vehicle that achieves a nearly 80% energy efficiency rating. I'd also love to see another solution that doesn't involve generating more energy when the issue is coping with fewer sources.

 

Oh, and your nuclear suggestion is not so clean either. Mining, milling, and fuel rod fabrication are actually very bad for the environment.

 

You haven't offered an alternative that does not use electricity. Many of those power plants use coal and oil. Nuclear is one of the cleanest alternatives. Solar is great, but efficiency is around 20% and it isn't a viable option in some areas because cloud cover tends to severely limit it's usefulness. Geothermal: not available in many areas. Hydroelectric: not available in many areas, and tends to kill off native fish in some areas. Wind: NOISY, kills birds, expensive to maintain, and again, not a viable option as it requires near constant wind.

 

Quite frankly MagLev is far less cost efficient. Not only that, but HST's CAN run on normal commuter tracks(at slower speeds obviously) whereas a maglev cannot go on any existing tracks(only around 1150km of the TGV is high speed, 75% is on conventional rail). Maglev efficiency is only slightly better than a normal train as the key resistances are air friction and tonnage wheel friction is only a slight efficiency drain.

 

What document are you referencing for 80% efficiency? I mean a turbine achieves 50 to 70% efficiency in the real world. But has a theoretical possibility at or above 90%.

[Q]

@Qliveur:

 

Before anyone goes pointing the finger at maglev for being 'every bit as dirty as hydrogen,' then I'd like to see a hydrogen-powered vehicle that achieves a nearly 80% energy efficiency rating. I'd also love to see another solution that doesn't involve generating more energy when the issue is coping with fewer sources.

Why don't you just admit that you're anti-hydrogen because any solution that allows people to maintain their independence doesn't conform to your (and the people who are spoon-feeding you this crap) political agenda?

Oh, and your nuclear suggestion is not so clean either. Mining, milling, and fuel rod fabrication are actually very bad for the environment.

So is just about every other practical means of producing electricity, only nuclear power is non-emissive. It is the best option that we have ATM, given the way that our power grid is set up. It is certainly not a permanent solution, but it will buy us enough time to come up with something better, like fusion, which is not very far in the future.

 

You know, I'm pretty certain that you weren't so anti-nuclear a few months ago. What changed your mind (as if I didn't already know)? I have a hard time keeping up with the latest environmentalist fad, which seems to change every time the political winds blow in a different direction. Could it be because environmentalists on the whole are far more interested in pushing a political agenda than they will ever be in saving the environment?

 

We would already have several more nuclear power plants in place and online had it not been for all of the environmentalist obstructionism, scare-mongering and general stupidity 20-30 years ago.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Why don't you just admit that you're anti-hydrogen because any solution that allows people to maintain their independence doesn't conform to your (and the people who are spoon-feeding you this crap) political agenda? :¬:

 

Why would I? That's not remotely the reason. For your information, I DESPISE living in urban locations. I am living in an apartment with a guy above me who sounds like his feet are made of lead and where there's a lot of noise from traffic. Crime isn't that great an issue, though.

 

If any of you are thinking that I don't want privacy, access to a personal automobile, and avoiding noise from others; I am not asking others to do it so I don't have to. I only use a car when I have to travel more than 5 miles from my present location. If I were to ask people to do all this crap and I wouldn't do the same, that would be very hypocritical of me, wouldn't it?

 

As for the reason I'm against hydrogen, if you haven't already read and rejected my answer from before is that it would demand ADDITIONAL energy than what we are already consuming. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, but a means of transmission from another source. It's coal and nuclear energy converted to chemical energy, which is then converted to electric energy in your vehicle. If there were no loss of energy per each conversion, then I would be all for it. Electricity loses ~4% per 1000 KM it has to travel from the power plant to the destination, but hydrogen has at least a 10% loss.

 

The ONLY advantage it has over electricity is independence from a power grid or slow recharge time. That would give it its only edge over the electric car, but beyond that; it's very inefficient.

 

One other thing that contradicts such a bogus statement is that I supported the split-cycle engine LONG before it was introduced this month. Clearly, I am not advocating ONLY public transportation. I am advocating EFFICIENT transportation.

 

So is just about every other practical means of producing electricity, only nuclear power is non-emissive. It is the best option that we have ATM, given the way that our power grid is set up. It is certainly not a permanent solution, but it will buy us enough time to come up with something better, like fusion, which is not very far in the future.

 

You're right, but you happened to say EXACTLY what I wanted.

 

When you accused maglev of not being 'clean,' you suddenly jumped to the opposite side to attack me for making the same kind of argument as you. Therefore, you're initial statement about maglev's energy not being clean is moot. With a flagrant disregard for the holes in your own solution, you don't exactly prove your point by attacking holes in my solution that actually are less severe than those of hydrogen.

 

You know, I'm pretty certain that you weren't so anti-nuclear a few months ago. What changed your mind (as if I didn't already know)? I have a hard time keeping up with the latest environmentalist fad, which seems to change every time the political winds blow in a different direction. Could it be because environmentalists on the whole are far more interested in pushing a political agenda than they will ever be in saving the environment?

 

I actually do support nuclear above the other sources of energy both economically and environmentally.

 

We would already have several more nuclear power plants in place and online had it not been for all of the environmentalist obstructionism, scare-mongering and general stupidity 20-30 years ago.

 

The first-generation plants are also used for political reference as 'expensive' and 'dangerous' and 'produce too much waste' Anyone with an ounce of sense could not claim that all nuclear waste over 50 years compares to the sheer quantity of ash produced by ONE coal plant annually.

 

All American nuclear plants were WAY too expensive to build, but because of obvious flaws in design and construction. Don't compare a modern reactor in France to a 50-year-old American design! I even support heavy-breeder reactors more heavily, if they happen to be twice as much to build. They happen to be at least 20 times as efficient with their uranium fuel.

[ForeverNight]

I actually do support nuclear above the other sources of energy both economically and environmentally. I was lying.

 

So, you're lying now... I bet that means you were lying about the Urban-being-better and how we should all give up our independence from our preferred surban environment?

 

Anyway, which is it? Were you lying about lying or not?

 

Edit: My first line in this post is a (rather poor) attempt at adding some levity to an otherwise serious discussion. [/disclaimer]

[Q]

I actually do support nuclear above the other sources of energy both economically and environmentally. I was lying.

Too late on the ghost edit, there, slick. This alone makes you not even worth acknowledging, let alone arguing with. As if I didn't already know this.

 

Say hello to my little friend, otherwise known as my ignore list.

 

And do yourself and this forum a favor and stop posting your nonsense lest someone actually take you seriously.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Too late on the ghost edit, there, slick. This alone makes you not even worth acknowledging, let alone arguing with. As if I didn't already know this.

 

Say hello to my little friend, otherwise known as my ignore list.

 

And do yourself and this forum a favor and stop posting your nonsense lest someone actually take you seriously.

 

Obviously! I can't exactly edit something after I was already quoted!

 

And if you already knew that, then why did you go on under the assumption that I simply changed my mind? Answer: You assumed that I advocated against nuclear energy so you could supplant my argument with more irrelevant information. And you failed, miserably!

 

You know, I'm pretty certain that you weren't so anti-nuclear a few months ago. What changed your mind[/Quote]

[Q]

And if you already knew that, then why did you go on under the assumption that I simply changed my mind? Answer: You assumed that I advocated against nuclear energy so you could supplant my argument with more irrelevant information. And you failed, miserably!

Oh, and your nuclear suggestion is not so clean either. Mining, milling, and fuel rod fabrication are actually very bad for the environment.

 

[Jae Onasi]

Too late on the ghost edit, there, slick. This alone makes you not even worth acknowledging, let alone arguing with. As if I didn't already know this.

 

Say hello to my little friend, otherwise known as my ignore list.

 

And do yourself and this forum a favor and stop posting your nonsense lest someone actually take you seriously.

 

Qliveur, this does not meet the criteria of 'friendly discussion.' It does meet the description of flamebaiting, which would be good for you to avoid.

 

Obviously! I can't exactly edit something after I was already quoted!

Well, you can edit your own post, and did (I can see the edit-change logs for each post, the one where I fixed the quote tags, and the 2 edits you did). However, someone quoted your post before you made the edits.

 

And if you already knew that, then why did you go on under the assumption that I simply changed my mind? Answer: You assumed that I advocated against nuclear energy so you could supplant my argument with more irrelevant information. And you failed, miserably!

I think he was working on the assumption that you had changed your mind rather than accusing you of lying, which was appopriate of him. Don't flamebait him further with accusations, please.

 

OK, everyone, time to tone it down. We're talking about choo-choo trains. No need to get personal about Thomas the Tank Engine here.

[Q]

Qliveur, this does not meet the criteria of 'friendly discussion.' It does meet the description of flamebaiting, which would be good for you to avoid.

My apologies, Jae. I thought that she was deliberately toying with me and playing silly games, and TBH I'm still unsure as to whether or not that was actually the case.

 

I'll keep it civil from here on out, regardless.