Local man questions doctor's competency

A Minneapolis man went public today with questions about the competency of Dr. Thomas X. Guy of the Physical Rehabilitation Therapies (PRT) clinic.

Ken Avidor of Kingfield accused Dr. Guy of not knowing what he's doing. Avidor, who describes himself as "perhaps the leading skeptic of physical rehabilitation therapy," says the clinic exists only to steer patients toward lengthy, painful and expensive treatment, and away from proven technologies like canes, wheelchairs and walkers.

Avidor also cited information on the clinic website, which he called "proof of the PRT scam."

"According to his biography on the clinic's website, Dr. Guy has been practicing medicine for over 20 years. Well how much practice does he need? When is he going to stop practicing and just do it?" wondered Avidor.

"How many chances does Guy of PRT get???"

Click Here for PollOnline Survey
| Website Polls
| Email Marketing

| Crowdsourcing Software
View MicroPoll

"Polish PRT?"

Ken Avidor (@Daily Kos)
read the PRTJJ coverage

gPRT Ken Avidor is a preexisting condition

Middle-age Wasteland

(Meet The New Lies -- Same As The Old Lies)
In case you haven't noticed (or, more likely, haven't cared), anti-PRTeabagger Ken Avidor has been blogging a lot about the proposed "PRT lab" in Winona, MN.

1. He's claiming PRT will blight historic buildings, presenting a Photoshop:

+

This is like his famous fake "Ugly PRT" photo, which depicted a PRT design no one is making, at a location no one was proposing installing it. Hey Ken, you know what happens if citizens don't want PRT on a certain street? Build it on a different street.

Here is the real initial guideway route.

+

If Ken is concerned about PRT spoiling views of the Target, Wal-Mart and hospital, then I invite him to say so.

2. He's wondering whether the City jumped through all the legal hoops in creating the proposal--

Major projects have major costs. [Duhhh! -Ed.]

It is unclear whether the anonymous designer of that route engaged citizens, businesses and public officials in a public discussion as required by law (NEPA), particularly when it comes to cost and who will pay.

The city won't put local tax dollars toward the [PRT] center and is unlikely to seek state funding, city officials said... [ellipsis in original]

There is an established process for determining the cost of transportation projects like the PRT project proposed for Winona.

That process is outlined in this Federal Highway Administration document - (MAJOR PROJECT PROGRAM COST ESTIMATING GUIDANCE PDF)

--and asking "What was the level of citizen participation for this plan?"

News flash -- if they haven't followed the rules, then the "PRT lab" won't happen! How stupid does Ken Avidor think Winona's government is? As stupid as him?

3. About ULTra, he's claiming its stated 3 second headway is "hokum.*"

Part I of this claim*
He quotes from the intro to a presentation from an Advanced Transit Association conference.

Note: Slide #10 of the presentation mentions a shuttle application with a "5 second minimum headway". This only refers to the headway along the guideway. The small end-of-line stations shown in the shuttle graphic on slide #11 could not operate with headways below about 15 seconds.

Hmmm, let's see. Avidor is agreeing the number of PRT vehicles that can use any one station is less than the number that can be carried on the main guideway. Congratulations, Ken, you've unintentionally gotten something right!

Ken's objection is only a problem for PRT if all vehicles traveling on the line have to stop at every station. But they don't, since stations are all offline, and pods don't stop until they reach their rider-selected destination station. This is one of the basic principles of PRT -- that Avidor doesn't know it shows how unknowledgeable he is.

Furthermore, by 'exposing' this issue in his blog Avidor creates the impression ULTra has hidden it. Except for a table on this page:

Far from hidden, it's on page 13 of this document on the ULTra website.


Part II of this claim*
He quotes more from the presentation:

This is because all vehicles have to reverse direction at a single point within the station, and furthermore the limited number of berths would not give time to deboard and board passengers A larger station with more berths and multiple turn-around locations would be needed to process a vehicle every five seconds.

Ken links to the presentation in question, but doesn't disclose an important thing about the bolded passage: it applies only to one-sided, parallel ('sawtooth') berths at end-of-line stations (and it's a consultant's generic example, not even specific to ULTra). Avidor again reveals his lack of PRT knowledge: if you want to avoid having a reverse-single-point, then you don't put stations at ends of lines and do design your stations in one of these ways:

4. Winona wants to seek a federal grant for 80% of "PRT lab" funding, but Ken Avidor claims "PRT Guys Want an Earmark [i.e. "pork"] for Winona Pods." He doesn't know the difference between a grant and an earmark! Or maybe he does, and this is another smear -- people hate pork, they don't hate grants.


You choose: either Ken Avidor is purposely misrepresenting the facts, or he's ignorant of them. Before deciding, you should know he claims "I have the facts, I know my stuff", "I have proof of everything I say about PRT", and to be "perhaps the leading skeptic of Personal Rapid Transit".

Also: The building in #1 above isn't on the "PRT lab" map:

View 2 places in Winona in a larger map

NEW:
1981-2005: Federal spending in Minnesota
LESS THAN federal taxes paid

gPRT Ken Avidor is wrong again -- how many chances does this guy get?

He has a dream

More of a feverish delusion, really. Anti-PRTeabagger Ken Avidor observed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday yesterday by linking a PRT consultant to the suicide of a teenage girl in India:

Source at PRT Moondoggie

The King of Klass is trying to make you think Peter Muller (PRTGURU) was somehow celebrating the rumor and the tragedy. But Avidor is making that up.

Muller's link, http://bit.ly/4HKfpp, was not to the Telegraph or the BBC, rather to a webpage that quotes an article about LHC originally carried by Business Week.

The article isn't on Business Week anymore, but you can read about it:

Carrying the Republican War on Science to previously unplumbed depths of human stupidity, Kevin "Dow 36000" Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute calls for the USAF to bomb both France and Switzerland, hoping to get the scientists in their tunnels before they can destroy the earth...

Business Week should be deeply, deeply ashamed of itself.

I know that the American Enterprise Institute is not shamed by anything, but even an organization that is not shamed by anything should be ashamed of this.

Let me just say that, IIRC, Leon Lederman named the hypothesized Higgs boson the "God particle" as a joke, because its effects were everywhere yet nobody had ever seen it in the flesh--not because it was in any way powerful or dangerous or numinous or terrifying.

Source

I want you to read Muller's tweet, and decide for yourself: was there anything in the tweet that overtly endorsed the Hassett fearmongering?



Muller could just as easily have meant 'get a load of this idiocy'. The site where the article was copied is the website of a Richard J. Wagner, computer science PhD and Democrat -- maybe Muller meant to agree with Wagner's viewpoint. We don't know what he meant, we don't need to: the point is that Avidor doesn't bother to find out, and just goes ahead and gives it the most horrific of spins.

I would give Ken Avidor the benefit of the doubt on this, that he's still just an ignoramus who doesn't understand Twitter.

Except that he has falsely smeared and slurred before, linking an innocent man to a multi-fatality train accident. Now he's linking a respected consultant to a suicide; which according to the BBC article happened in September 2008.

And what did Ken Avidor mean by:

"Polish PRT?"

Ken Avidor (@Daily Kos)
read the PRTJJ coverage

And just to emphasize the point: I've decided the following tweet means Ken Avidor was a delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention:

+

gPRT

Look at who's a mindreader

First, read my Wednesday post and decide whether I am "[Insisting] on Misrepresenting Congressional Candidate's Position on PRT", as Ken Avidor 'insists' on claiming.

I have corresponded with Ms. Winograd, and what she told me is, "Until I know a lot more about the PRT, I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline to support it."
That is a far cry from Ken Avidor's extreme claims, such as 'PRT is a right wing scam' as well as being 'impossible.' In fact, Ms. Winograd's position is perfectly reasonable, because I don't want people to support PRT either until they know 'more' about it! Just like I don't want them to oppose it until knowing more about it.

Ken is claiming to know what's in my head! The headlines he has written for the relevant blog posts are:

1. "PRT Promoter David Gow Spreads More Misinformation"

2. "PRT Promoter David Gow Insists on Misrepresenting Congressional Candidate's Position on PRT"

He's claiming I have the intention of misleading. Takes one to know one, Ken!

Dear readers, tell me if this is unreasonable: I get a Google Alert on PRT; it links me to a webpage that quotes Winograd praising the 1970s "Boeing" PRT (Morgantown), citing it as an example of how we should be putting aerospace workers to work. Isn't it then reasonable to assume she would support PRT today? Of course it is. But not if you're conspiracy-minded Ken Avidor.

I'll conclude my Winograd-related remarks by wishing her luck in the primary, we need fewer blue dogs and more true progressives in Congress.

Let's move on to the main part of the discussion: Ken Avidor's latest postings provide us material for another installment of--

What We Learned

What we learned this time is that Ken Avidor is so desperate to recover from the drubbing he took at Democratic Underground that he reverts to pattern -- he goes looking for another thing he can distort, in order to divert attention from his defeat. I won't just claim this, I'll provide evidence.

For example, after this defeat at Daily Kos, he constructed the "PRT = torture" lie.

After he failed to prove that only right wingers want PRT, he claimed persecution by a PRT company.

This time he decided to go after my list of pro-PRT people and organizations at Get On Board!PRT.

My mention of Winograd's documentable praise for "Boeing" PRT is notable because she is the only one on the list not making a specific, affirmative endorsement of the current generation of PRT technologies.

That Ken is picking on my listing of Winograd shows how desperate he is for cheap 'victories.' How about the others on the list, Ken?

• Are you going to claim World Wildlife Fund's pro-PRT video doesn't mean they support PRT?
  
• That the California Democratic Party didn't mean to put PRT in its 2004 platform?
  
• That Congressman Hinchey was talking about something else when he said government should focus on PRT?
  
• That Joan Bokaer's participation in the Podcar City II conference doesn't mean she's for PRT?
  
• That when Debbie Cook wrote"large-scale ramp-up of PodCars can significantly mitigate the impacts of climate change and peak oil, transforming ground transport from polluting fuels to clean solar energy," she didn't really mean it?

Want a good laugh? Imagine Avidor writing to everyone on the list, trying to grill them about PRT!

I hope you get a lot of comfort out of cheap 'victories,' Ken. They're the only kind you're going to get.

Also today: A grant is not an earmark, Ken! (and why is he surprised the Winona "PRT lab" is about economic development? It's what the city's Nov. 2009 pdf was all about!)

In the news: Minnesota Republican senate candidate Paul Ibisch is not on board with Winona PRT plan!
(and Democrat Steve Murphy of Red Wing "welcomes funding for PRT development in Winona or elsewhere.")Ken Avidor's biggest meme is wrong again

gPRT Imagine! - "Dear Rep. Hinchey: Why do you support Michele Bachmann? Sincerely, Ken Avidor."

A message for all humans

I'd like to break format today in order to ask all "PRT Is a Joke IS A JOKE!" readers to make a donation to help the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the major earthquake. Please follow one of these links to contribute -- even small gifts make a difference if we all help. Thanks.

American Red Cross
CARE
C.I.D.I.

J'Excuse Moi?

Fresh off his disappointing performance at Democratic Underground, Ken "Sketchy" Avidor is looking for blood. So he's off to the accusation races!

Is that right. Well, I have to withhold detailed comments until I know the exact question he asked Winograd -- Ken has claimed a lot of bogus things in the past.

All I can say at this point is when someone praises a Personal Rapid Transit program, I think it's reasonable to assume she supports Personal Rapid Transit.

Or at least doesn't oppose it! Hey, maybe Winograd doesn't have any current plans for PRT. Or maybe she has some other transit priorities. That's perfectly reasonable. Marcy Winograd is welcome to contact me through Get On Board!PRT, because -- unlike Ken -- I am always happy to correct or clarify anything I've written.

The more interesting question this evening is -- why is Ken Avidor of Minneapolis (the guy who only yesterday was telling me to butt out of Democratic Underground because I don't live in Minnesota) bothering a congressional candidate in California 36?



gPRT The answer starts with H and ends with ypocrite

This is the thanks I get?

Gee, I post this nice editorial about light rail and PRT, and the Seattle Transit Blog goes and blocks me after one comment!

What what what could could could they they they be be be afraid afraid afraid of of of?



gPRT You're welcome

Tattoo You...

...Ken!

Yesterday: "Democrats are divided..."

gPRT No Kleenex?

Democrats are divided...

...about Ken Avidor. One sees through his propaganda, and the rest don't seem to care!

'Unrecommended'
after only TEN MINUTES!--

Responses to Avidor's anti-PRTeabagging at Democratic Underground

A selection:

I guess this is more about who presented the idea. As much as you might hate a politician, it is possible to evaluate something based on the merits of the technology. #12

Apparently you are an anti-PRT blogger so this is not a casual topic for you. For me, I was just offended intellectually by the logic in the video and the reasons to shit-can the whole concept because some politician that you don't like. If anything, I like Bachman [sic] even less by having her name associated with it. #15

You seem to be fighting pretty hard against even research taking place. You have not even made a concrete argument as to what is so bad about it. #17

...you are pretty heavily into telling everybody that it is bad, but why can't you list out the reasons that it is bad? It couldn't be strictly financial, otherwise you would be supporting it if the economy was good. I always feel suspect about people that are so much against something, but have no reasons to explain why they feel that way. It makes me think that you are really just against the politician supporting it and no matter what that politician would suggest, you would be emphatically against it. Trying to argue logically about the pros/cons is just a waste of time. Thinking about it, that sounds like the entire Republican party and we can see how that is bad for the country. #19

You may try to dismiss Mr. Grant because he only made one post, but why don't you take him up on his bet if you are so sure he is being paid. You lose alot of credibiity [sic] here on this note. If you can continue to insinuate that he is being paid, then take him up on his bet or, if I can quote my original post, then S T F U!!!

[Comment: Ken keeps asking about my income because he believes PRT is a vast right wing conspiracy. Conspiracies must have paid minions, and because I am a visible PRT proponent he assumes I must be paid to do it. Which I might be. Or might not.]

So, Avidor, why is it that the other side can at least list facts and make their case. I only know a little bit about the topic, but why is it that peope [sic] like Mr. Grant can list facts to support their side, but the best you can do is say "go read this link by an expert". Aren't you an expert? If you were just the average Joe who had an opinion about the topic, I would say fine. But since you are so involved in it, I would expect you to write alot more than I would even care to read. It reminds me of the many republicans that feel a certain way about (insert topic here) and can ony [sic] support their case by saying that Hannity said it or Rush said it. #27

[Comment: Indeed, Ken does claim to be an expert.]

So, you already knew about the bet that Mr. Grant threw out there. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bring up the topic, he is going to verbally bitch slap you again about the bet. It couldn't be that hard to figure out that if you talk about him being paid, that he will talk about the bet. Even Michele Bachman [sic] could figure that one out. Whenever somebody calls you out on a claim you make and you can't back up your claim, it makes you look bad. That's just the way it is. If you don't want to look bad, don't bring up this topic. #28

What is your basis for saying that these people are being paid? Give me one. If you can't support your claim, then making it is just smearing. I can't tell you to stop doing it, but from my experience I can say that people resort only to smearing when they can't support their case factually. #36

...since you are so much against even debating PRT and making your case, I must conclude that it really does have alot of merit and the folks that are fighting tooth and nail against it are probably supported by industries that would lose money if it became a reality. #39

This thread should be referenced somewhere in the Pro-PRT websites. Maybe it should be referenced in the anti-PRT sites as well as an example of how "NOT TO" make your case... The anti-PRT side really did focus on fear, smearing, easily disprovable claims and could not answer even the simplest question of "What supports your point of view? Make your case".
...Avidor, on the other hand, has put in 3 years in taking the anti-PRT position and behaves as if the Silver Bullet is to scare, smear and make sure the truth is kept hidden. He should realize that that is a red flag to anybody who has not already decided on their position. He was put on the spot in a number of places and could have easily defended himself if he had the facts on his side. The absense of that makes the anti-PRT side look sketchy in my book. #61

Avidor is doing wonders in creating new pro-PRT advocates, simply by being himself. #65

Related: See Ken Avidor get pwned at Daily Kos again and again -- review any PRT thread in his diary

Table (Google Doc): PRT supported by more Democrats than Republicans in 2003-04 Minnesota Senate (the session with Bachmann's bill)

gPRT Where division is concerned, Ken Avidor is the remainder

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Are you following the pot's latest exercise at calling the kettle black?

Ken Avidor started the whole thing at PRT Moondoggie on January 7, by lying about the activities of Mike Carrato, aka Transenth and author of WeinerWatch:

Yonah Freemark had a post about PRT on the Transport Politic blog last month. Freemark said the following about the veracity of the PRT promoters:

Over the years, most attempts at implementing PRT have failed due to a lack of interest from investors — and as a result of deceptive, dishonest campaigns by “pod people” who simply promise too much.

...Many of the pro-PRT comments came from "Mike C" (Michael Carrato), formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast" , author of the Weinerwatch blog and other nasty stuff on the blogosphere and on Wikipedia.
...
The fact that the PRT industry tolerates and encourages Carrato's activities should suggest that it is not an industry at all, but a deception... a distraction from the real-world transportation choices public officials and citizens face.

Of course Avidor is totally distorting Carrato's modus operandi. What Carrato does is offer accessible and research-based explanations to conceptual and technical questions about PRT. But only when a commenter is openly confrontational and factually wrong does Carrato respond in kind.

Therefore on January 8, Carrato responded to Avidor by having a little fun, writing about Ken and his longtime friend and co-blogger, the federal fugitive Mark Knapp:

So anyway, I was looking for an different angle on this hilarious development, and I started thinking about Ken Avidor , the self-styled investigative reporter who claims to have "exposed the PRT scam". Ken Avidor, who thinks "LIM" is a PRT company, when it is actually a type of electric motor. Ken Avidor, who looked at a 10 year old satellite photo of ULTra PRT's test track site and claimed it had been bullozed (hint: the photo was taken before the track was built).

Yes, we've all had fun watching Avidor's sometimes bumbling, always inaccurate, "investigations" through the years. But with the Knapp revelation, Avidor took bumbling to a new level. Think about it: the whole time Avidor was investigating all the so-called "crooks and liars" of the PRT world, his best friend and blog partner was allegedly using stolen credit cards, and Avidor never even noticed!

So when they went out to dinner and Knapp was always picking up the check, wouldn't you think Avidor would get suspicious? Where was this luddite Green getting all this spending money? And why was he signing his credit slips "Mr. Nussbaum"?

No, Avidor didn't notice, and I'm not surprised in the least. I mean, if he can't even understand the concept of a dated satellite photo, is he ever going to grasp a high tech crime like identity theft? Of course not. So when I read that Avidor claimed he had no idea about Knapp, I believed him 100%. I'll even testify on his behalf if he wants me to, that's how convinced I am of Avidor's complete lack of skill as an investigative reporter.

Source

"Mr. Nussbaum"! HA!

I know it's hard to believe (or maybe not) but Ken Avidor, the shameless propagandist who has been lying about PRT and impugning the motives of PRT supporters all these years, actually is offended by Carrato's obviously satirical post! As we have seen before, Ken Einstein can't let anything drop, so he blogged in response:

...This is an email from Michael Carrato of Buffalo, New York, responding to the previous post:

Ken,

I just wanted to thank you for your recent posts mentioning my name. Maybe it's vanity, but I'm really happy I revealed myself to you and I get a little thrill every time you mention me. Maybe I'll even get my 15 minutes out of this! :-)
...
Also, what's going on with the whole Mark Knapp thing? Surely you realize that your association with him all those years is pretty damning, right? And aren't you supposed to be some sort of investigative reporter? How could an investigative reporter spend so much time collaborating with Knapp and NOT be aware of his illegal activities? Either you aren't a very good reporter... or you were in on it! I'll assume the latter, since I already know that's true. :-)

[Avidor added the bold]

Ken Avidor also replied to Carrato by email, whining: "You have made serious, false and defamatory statements concerning me."

Have you, dear readers, noticed the hilarious thing? The WeinerWatch post being satirical commentary, the only thing really defamatory is the followup statement "I'll assume the latter, since I already know that's true."

Which was in a private email. Which Avidor made public by posting it on PRT Moondoggie.

Can he sue himself for defamation?

Also today:
Avidor continues to ignore fact that

the City of Irvine, CA, has apologized for

saying PRT is "Not Feasible"

gPRT Hey Ken, I bet you can find a Mr. or Mrs. Nussbaum who will sue

The year: 2010

And yet Ken Avidor returns to the past again, re-posting in PRT Moondoggie his most favoritest Minnesota Public Radio story ever -- the one from 2004 that contains the magic words PRT, Bachmann and Zimmermann:

+

Por que? Es claro: because Ken has set about the task of politicizing the issue of PRT in Winona. Look at what he's already posted this week:

Jan. 4: City Council Vote Soon on Winona Pods
Jan. 4: Candidate Jeremy Miller's Position on the Winona Pod Project
Jan. 5: SD 31 Candidate Paul Ibisch's Position on Winona Pod Plan

Ibsich and Miller are Republicans (and Miller is a son of Winona mayor Jerry Miller -- didya know that, Ken? You're welcome). Democratic Farmer Labor incumbent Sen. Sharon Erickson Ropes hasn't responded to Ken's single issue question yet, he says.

He doesn't need her response. Because even though Ibsich and Miller The Younger's support for the PRT plan is clearly conditional, for Ken Avidor the only correct position is total opposition to PRT. This of course is the Risser Rule, after the one-time Green candidate whom Avidor relentlessly attacked and linked to Bachmann, Zimmermann and Mark Olson -- until Risser abandoned her noncommittal position:

The upshot is that Ken now has more than enough info to brand Ibsich and Miller The Younger as 'PRTistas' who are 'just like Bachmann and Zimmermann.' Ken will use this to continue his talking point that only right wingers want PRT.It's a talking point because it's propaganda. A lie. Avidor knows full well that PRT has support from both ends of the political spectrum -- he knows because I've explained it to him, at places like his own Daily Kos diary (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

And Michele Bachmann's support for PRT in 2004? There were actually several PRT-related bills other than hers, and the majority of authors/co-authors were Democrats (read them for yourself). Other non-Republicans who support PRT include Marcy Winograd (running in California against blue dog Jane Harman), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Gus Ayer, Peak Oil expert Debbie Cook, TheocracyWatch founder Joan Bokaer, and New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe.

Update (2/25/2012):

Now Ken's going after Minneapolis community leader/environmentalist Sarah Sponheim (daughter of old Avidor target A. Sheffer Lang)

gPRT

Reading is fundamental

And it still hasn't been mastered by Ken Avidor, the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist.

"Masdar Postponed" screams the headline of his post of earlier today. In his article, he writes that the launch of the Masdar PRT has been delayed. And yet what is in the article he quotes?

Masdar Postponed

The National:

Masdar, the Abu Dhabi Government’s clean energy firm, has discarded a 2016 final completion date for its signature US$22 billion (Dh80.8bn) development as the challenge of building a carbon neutral, zero-waste city has proved greater than first expected.

Masdar officials emphasise that the first phase of Masdar City will be finished by the original 2013 deadline. The rest of the development at the edge of the capital will emerge gradually over the ensuing decade as the company experiments with new technology, officials said.

Masdar PRT launch delayed, Heathrow PRT launch delayed (twice).

Why would elected officials want to waste taxpayers' dollars on these guys?

He doesn't read what he snips! Masdar (City) hasn't been postponed -- only the original completion date has been! Doesn't the on-time finish for Phase One count for anything?

And the PRT system isn't mentioned at all. I know Avidor lurks on the Transport-Innovators Google forum, so I know he knows that completion of the PRT is awaiting construction of the Masdar Institute of Science & Technology campus. Or does Ken think that the transit system should be up and running first, even if there is nothing to serve? Maybe in Sim City or Second Life, but not in real life.

Ken Avidor has an exacting standard: if a project -- even Masdar, a multibillion dollar test bed for a variety of new green energy technologies -- misses ONE deadline, it's a failure! Hey Ken, don't you know you flunk your own standard???

And ULTra? Tick-tock, Ken!

ALSO yesterday in The National:
The challenge that will keep changing

Abu Dhabi's Masdar initiative, one of the boldest attempts yet to revolutionise how we use energy, will confront a host of unforeseen challenges. And as we report today, Masdar has pushed back deadlines for when its zero-carbon city will be completed...
It is far better that Masdar confront these realities than push forward with the same plans in spite of them. Masdar, after all, is a venture into the unknown. The project will undoubtedly face a changing set of challenges. There can be no doubt, however, that Masdar must deliver. Its cause is critical for both Abu Dhabi and the world.

Masdar Institute under construction, late 2009
+

gPRT Er- Mork?

Head of the Klass

Editor's note: We're keeping the change! Yup, we're going to make permanent our change in editorial policy: the Name of the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist will now be shown -- although special formattingwill be used.

The Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist started 2010 with a shock! As in Ken Avidor is shocked, shocked he is, that anyone pro-PRT might have something not-nice to say about him:

Keep it Klassy, PRT Dudes!
From the Transport Innovators forum:

I have always thought that Avodor was being paid by somebody to "prove" that PRT won't work, and now we know.

The very fact that he thinks Morgantown is PRT shows how little he actually knows, and that statements like "all PRT systems to date have been failures" shows that also. Here is a message from me to him:

Hey, Stupid, there have not been any PRT systems actually tried, so how can they be failures? The first is being tested now at Heathrow, and first reports indicate that it will be a success. Aren't you going to have a lot of Crow to eat when it begins to spread elsewhere? Who is going to pay you anything afterwards? Maybe you can get a job cleaning toilets somewhere.

Jack Slade

I'm curious whether Mr. Slade is the would-be PRT vendor listed on the City of San Jose website.

"Klassy"? And how many Jack Slades does he think there are in the PRT world? Come on now. This offends the guy who ridiculed Americans as fat because they drive a car ("standard-size, 300 lbs [sic] Americans")? Who calls babies in car seats and strollers "automorphed"? Who equates teenagers with street drunks, prostitutes and drug dealers?

By contrast, let's read through Mr. Slade's supposedly 'klassless' quote. What precisely is supposed to be objectionable -- the implication of monetary gain? The namecalling? Ken Avidor has said far worse about PRT supporters, for instance repeatedly demanding to know my source of income, famously swearing at Larry Fabian, and freely flinging such insults as wacky, loony, cultish, unhinged, nutcases, deluded and fanatics.

In order to make a claim that a PRT company official is anti-transit, Ken Avidor even went so far as to link that official -- falsely -- to responsibility for a multi-fatality train accident.

Ken has never apologized for these outrages. Those targeted by his attacks -- or anyone at all -- are blocked from leaving comments on his blogs.

In this instance, Avidor's tactic is obvious: to play the victim and point a finger at Slade. And hope San Jose DOT notices and downgrades Slade's response to the PRT RFI. Business as usual for Ken Avidor.

Ken, what did you mean by:

"Polish PRT?"

Ken Avidor (@Daily Kos)
read the PRTJJ coverage

He also distorted today:
The Daventry UK podcar program is on hold due to the global recession. But Ken Avidor wants you to think it was because PRT is "an imaginary mode of transport" that ripped off the town (he also implies transit shouldn't be expensive to plan)

gPRT Ken Avidor: the Flucker of Fling