Fact-Checking the "PRT Boondoggle" Blog
A project of the PRT NewsCenter

Tuesday, February 14, 2006


Here's an interesting convergence: you-know-who and "spittle". Is this the new (damp) talking point (Feb. 14 19:26)?


Saturday, February 11, 2006

Sinking ship

Leroy Demery, writing for hisself and Michael D. Setty, appear to be disassociating themselves from Avidor and his Wiki-war, removing passages taken from their past anti-PRT writings from both the Pros and Cons section of the Wikipedia PRT entry.

Strange, since it was only this past October that Demery and Setty praised 
Kenny-boy's site as "an excellent portal to skeptical views regarding Personal Rapid Transit." Is the Avidor-publictransit.us love affair kaput?

(Welcome back, Mr. Demery. We're glad to read that your recent medical challenges are behind you.)


Thursday, February 09, 2006

Three Bile Island

Ken's "contributions" to the discussion of the Wikipedia PRT entry are hilarious! Make some popcorn, crack open a cold one, and have a good laugh!

Also today: The 'geniuses' who slam PRT 'nerds and geeks' are in good company.


Thursday, February 02, 2006

...is Doomed to Repeat It

Having expended all his Talking Points at Wikipedia, Ken Avidor has done what he always does: he posts a message in which he dials back on the slash & burn and portrays himself as reasonable.

But the true nature of Ken still comes through in this final message (05:47, 2 February 2006):

He's revisionist--

"I don't expect this article to read like what I've written about PRT." Despite having vandalized the article previously.
He tries to suppress opposing sources (even when labelled "Satire")--
"I would start by doing something about this:
'Web site owned by a non-cartoonist supportive of PRT.' " (That's "PRT Is a Joke" Is a Joke!)
He doesn't take responsibility for his own words--
"Wikipedia contributors do not have my permission to twist my words." Even though what we do is quote him.
He puffs up his own role--
"I have written about transportation for several publications", when what he really does is just submit the same disproven propaganda over and over (Low on Toner, 1/26).
Double standard--
"I expect that that [sic] opinion be labled [sic] as such", which is rich coming from a propagandist.
He doth protest too much--
"If critics are mentioned, I want to see them treated with respect", when the ad hominen attack is a major tool in his standard game plan.
Double standard 2--
Every piece of PRT data must be questioned, but the biased views of vocal PRT critic "Professor Vukan Vuchic [should be used in the] description of PRT for the intro."
Double standard 3--
"Information should be as up-to-date as possible. Skyloop for instance was rejected by Cincinatti [sic] back in 2001. Ford's "Prism" is also history." Funny! His own propaganda basically hasn't been updated since 2003 (Low on Toner). He never mentions that Skyloop was rejected based on a shockingly flawed negative analysis (see 23:17, 30 January 2006, and "Parsons" here). Prism is not PRT, it is Dual Mode (p.1, para 1).
"PRT is an unproven concept... I would like to see the present tense removed." Yes, if it clashes with his reality it doesn't exist. Cabinentaxi market-ready, still available through a US company? He never mentions it. Successful ULTra testing, chosen for Heathrow Airport? ULTra must not be PRT, he convinces himself.

And then he's gone. Where will he pop up next? Just wait for the next neutral PRT story on the Web. He--and his Talking Points--will be there.

Ken Avidor keeps colliding with reality