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

Prick and Prejudice

What's Ken Avidor doth protesting about in his recent post, "Chilling - British Company Goes After American Blogger (Me)"?

Editor's note: We continue beta-testing the change to one of the oldest editorial policies of "PRT is a Joke" IS A JOKE. For a limited time, The Name of the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist will be shown -- although special formatting will be used.

Here's what he wrote:

The British company Advanced Transport Systems Ltd. ...posted a page on their website complaining about "anti-PRT bloggers".
...
The page ends with this chilling observation:

As a private-sector company, it is startling for ATS ULTra to view the immense quantity of PRT blogosphere debate. For PRT systems that will receive public-sector funding, an active blogosphere should serve a fiduciary role. However, given the less-than-civil nature of chat, it is difficult to characterize the current debate as "healthy."

Let me get this straight: this entity, this Ken Avidor, has spent years (1) misportraying the ULTra technology, (2) fabricating crises to make the company appear to be failing, (3) denied the existence of its flagship project, (4) tried character assassination on a company officer, (5) and blatantly lied about the vehicle

-- and then when the company, finally, responds to him by name, he goes all Jane Austen on us? "Oh Mr. Bennet, we are all in an uproar!"

Give us a break, Ken.




Recently: CallieDog71 wins the Golden Polygraph Award!



gPRT
Brrrrrr, it's chillin'!

More from the Safe Place

It's always suspicious when the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist posts anything at Dump Mark Olson. As noted earlier, he usually does it when he wants to put out "information" that he doesn't want to have to defend.

In this case it's a reprint of a post about PRT made in a Minneapolis issues forum. Note that it has nothing to do with dumping Mark Olson, or supporting Jim Huhtala. This time the poster is not the Propagandist, but rather a self-described computer professional--who actually manages to express himself pretty well (until the end, when he throws in the Talking Point pie in the sky).

...The claims made by PRT proponents are pie-in-the-sky nonsense. They are made by people who have no real understanding of the underlying technology needs and complexities.

David Greene
Source

If you speak the truth, why the Talking Point?

Leaving aside the fact that many of the "people" he is deriding are real-live Professional Engineers and other computer professionals, we can see right away that Greene makes a suspect claim:

The idea... that this system will work at peak efficiency with vehicles traveling inches behind one another is absurd.

Did you spot it? "Inches." No PRT system proposes vehicles traveling at headways of mere inches. Here's a sample headway table:

Seconds	Speed (m.p.h.)	Tail-to-head Separation	PRT car lengths Approx.-- 9 ft/car
2.5	35	119.3 ft	13.2
2.5	30	101 ft	11.2
2.5	25	82.7 ft	9.2
1.0	35	42.3 ft	4.7
1.0	30	35 ft	3.9
1.0	25	27.7 ft	3.1
0.5	35	16.6 ft	1.8
0.5	30	13 ft	1.4

Initial headways for the new PRT designs nearing implementation are 1-5 seconds. No reputable PRT designer is proposing the public ride at any headway until such operation is proven safe to the satisfaction of regulators--such as the British Rail Inspectorate, which has approved ULTra to carry passengers.

Therefore we see that Greene--like Kenwood the Propagandist--is not accurately describing how PRT is being designed to operate. What else about PRT is he wrong about? Why does he need to cloud the issue by citing three "proofs" that had zero to do with PRT companies (Minneapolis airport trams, the GoTo transit card, and the Denver automated baggage system--itself a Talking Point ^{1, 2, 3})?

What these sorts of postings by Greene and the Propagandist are all about is an attempt to put the public off on the concept of PRT before it can gain momentum. Kenmore trots out someone who may or may not be an expert, to spout reasonable-sounding technical jargon to show that PRT won't work. Which is ironic, since Kendoll has accused this reporter of using "techno-mumbo-jumbo."

The Propagandist is simply out to preëmpt public interest in technological innovations that don't suit his personal taste.

Related: "More disinformation" (Weiner Watch).
Archive: His safe place (10/19)

Update (11/2): Here is the forum thread with Greene's original posting. Get a load of this great response by William McGaughey at the sublink--

The attacks on PRT continue. David Greene weighs in with his self-proclaimed expert opinion.

As I understand Green's line of reasoning, it would be as follows: (1) My professional expertise is in the area of large-scale computing. (2) In the course of my professional work, I have come to the conclusion that large-scale computing systems are no "magic bullet". In many or most cases, the technology does not work. (3) PRT would require large-scale computing and therefore would not work.

My question is where Greene got his idea that large-scale computing systems don't work? On projects in which he has personally been involved? In that case, why would an employer want to cut Greene a paycheck for work on systems that don't work?

"PRT Is a Joke" Is a Joke hereby awards its second-ever Golden Polygraph Award to William McGaughey!

Archive (PRTJJ v.1): And the winner is... (9/20/05)

gPRT
People don't like to ride with Ken Avidor

And the winner is

Originally published at "PRT Is A Joke" IS A JOKE v.1
Words written with wildcards (***, !!!, etc.) was the way we originally wrote Ken Avidor, Ken, and Avidor.

Coinciding with the Emmys, we awarded the first ever Golden Polygraph, or "Polly," to The Gomezticator, a blogger who wrote about Monorail. PRT was mentioned, and so 2 days later he received an anonymous comment from *** ******. But instead of just
taking *** at face value, The Gomezticator actually did his homework, drew his own conclusions, and proceeded to rip *** a new one:

...Everything else you linked just reeks of a mean-spirited, almost fanatical hatred for the [PRT] idea.

The fact that there is a website devoted entirely to slamming the proposal at length based on two failed proposals in two cities and indiscretions involved with those proposals is more telling than anything else. I love all the mean spirited photoshops and flash. Real stand-up, mature effort there. It comes off like something out of Craigslist Rants and Raves. Why such a fervent hatred?... Your obvious fear of this system is irrational, especially if it's as unviable as you claim it to be.

What flaws were found in the Cincinnati study? Why did [*** ******] decline to mention the flaws and cite particular items in the study? Because they might have been correctible? Source



Erratum: 4773 visitors



gPRT