See How He Ignores Context

Originally published ©2005 Get On Board! PRT

Transparently disinformative

"If those people want to pursue PRT with
their own money, that's okay with me."

—the Minnesota Anti-PRT Activist
(Seattle P-I, cached comment #356)

The Minnesota anti-PRT activist is at it again. This time he is claiming that the leading U.S. PRT company knows PRT is "too risky." Here's his latest distortion, aimed at discouraging private investment in PRT.

Taking out the context

What he's doing this time is regurgiating the following passage from a "Risk Factors document" (!) filed filed by Taxi 2000 with Commerce Department of Minnesota (!).

Taxi 2000 Document Reveals Safety Concerns Can Make PRT Systems "Unworkable".

...The following are excerpts that show that Taxi 2000 itself believes that PRT is a very risky investment.

"Federal and State safety regulation of automated transit systems can make PRT systems unworkable. Since there are no examples of our technology currently in operation, we cannot predict what sort of state or federal government safety regulation might apply. At this juncture, the Federal Transit Administration - which would exercise whatever regulation might apply at this level - has left the matter up to the states. Management believes the states will look foremost to the work of a committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which has developed a set of safety standards for "Automated People Movers" (APM's). We have been following that work and think at this point it will pose only one problem: eg., "brick wall stopping" requirements for the control system (borrowed from railroad signaling practice). The requirement is that if one vehicle stops instantaneously, the next vehicle must be able to stop before hitting the stopped one. That requirement would inhibit the sort of minimum vehicle headway used in our design, but it would not affect operation of the first, lower density systems. In the context of PRT, "headway" means the nose-to-nose time spacing between two sequential vehicles. Setting a minimum allowable headway determines the maximum carrying capacity of the guideway. We will work to have the headway requirement amended, since we believe it is inappropriate to PRT technology, but there is no guarantee we will be successful in that regard." Source

He makes no other comment, leaving the reader to think that PRT can be sunk if regulatory agencies and organizations don't change certain rules.

Context is so important, and this is a textbook case. The above paragraph is not some earth-shaking secret admission of a fatal flaw. In fact it is a fairly standard "safe harbor" statement, something all companies that offer stock are required to do, to apprise prospective investors of every conceivable risk, no matter how remote. In this safe harbor, Taxi 2000 is merely saying 'ASCE rules may not allow us to use as short headways as we are capable of, and we're going to seek a rule change because our technology overcomes the reason for the "brick wall" standard.'

Every public company has safe harbor statements in their prospectuses, annual reports and 10-K filings. So if everyone gave full, literal and equal weight to everything in safe harbors, no one would ever invest in anything.

That said, it is important to note that incompatibility with safety regulations is not the only thing theMinnesota anti-PRT activist has been claiming about the Risk Factors document. He has been portraying it as much more dire.

Watch him backpedal

For a long time the Minnesota anti-PRT activist provided no quotes from "Risk Factors," only his characterization of the contents. But recently, when pressured by this analyst to provide an actual quote from the document, suddenly his interpretation underwent a subtle revision:

June 30: "By popular request, I post an excerpt from the Taxi 2000's Risk Factors Document that acknowledges the Personal Rapid Transit headway problem is a major safety concern that would prevent a nose-to-nose PRT system from operating under current safety regulations." Source

That's not quite what the Minnesota anti-PRT activist used to say!

Late May 2005: "There is certainty that PRT is impossible and it's in Taxi 2000's Risk Factors document filed with the State of MInnesota [sic]. It says the headway problem[...] can only be solved by asking the ASCE for a change on their guidlines [sic] for APM's. ... something that's highly unlikely because professional engineers are unlikely to relax a safety recommendation that would surely result in crashes, injuries and deaths." Source

June 23, 2005: "I really doubt that this "project "will get more than a glance from Bill Gates. Like the rumored PRT project in Dubai, this stuff is meant to impress the suckers - investors and politicians. A savvy investor would ask to see the Taxi 2000 "Risk Factors" document filed with the State of MInnesota [sic]. The Risk Factors document clearly states that the headway problem is a problem that no technology can fix." Source

June 13, 2005: "If you want to know the real deal on PRT, read the Risk Factors document that the Taxi 2000 Corporation filed with the State of Minnesota. It says one of the risk factors is the headway problem (which cannot be solved by any sort of advanced technology). It instead suggests that Taxi 2000 would ask to have the guidlines [sic] for headways changed to allow pods to stop on a dime and subject passengers to gut-wrenching g-forces." Source

For the record, this is how PRT has really been designed to deccelerate:

"If all passengers are seated, simple experiments show that a 0.5g [a HALF g] deceleration will not throw a passenger out of the seat... requirements of PRT safety is that the vehicle be designed for all passengers seated."
Safe Design of Personal Rapid Transit Systems, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 28:1, 1994

So: just as when the Minnesota anti-PRT activist made the audacious claim that the Skyweb Express and ULTra PRTs don't have air conditioners, then nitpicked 'well, are there air conditioners installed in the vehicles in these photos?', he is backpedaling again. He's changing his earlier, sweeping claims that 'short headways are impossible, it can't be overcome by technology,' dropping the part about technology and just saying 'current regulations might not allow short headway'.

Hardly in the same class as Newton's First Law or the speed of light, as he had earlier led you to believe.

Distortion; uninformed speculation; fabrication. Now revisionism is in his bag of tricks! 

Bring It On III: I am charming, funny and articulate

The back-and-forth on the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Noticeboard was paralleled by back-and-forth on the discussion page of the Personal Rapid Transit article. Send the rescue chopper, he's gone down in flames. Ovendoor the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist is as pathetic as on COIN, again carping about whether I get paid for PRT work, and again resorting to the 'I don't have time' cop-out. Whereas by comparison I sparkle like a 21st century Bennett Cerf. Read on --

Question About Conflict of Interest Concerning David Gow (Mr Grant)

David Gow maintains several websites, blogs that promote Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and moderates a Seattle PRT web forum. All this activity alone constitutes a conflict of interest, but I would like to know if David Gow (Mr Grant) has received payment for promoting PRT and if so, who has paid him...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 18:07, 8
August 2007 (UTC)

---

First: I have no clue whether or not he has been paid; second: it is entirely irrelevant here because he has not added anything advertorial or controversial to the article; third: if you insist on knowing whether Gow was paid, you should also answer whether you've ever been paid for your anti-PRT campaign - like, for example, any articles or Roadkill Bill works you've [sic] created that are anti-PRT in nature. Your presence on these articles has been much more significant and controversial than Gow's, so if you've made any money off your anti-PRT campaign then that would be much more of a COI than anything you can accuse of Gow. ATren 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Once again we see [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] attack a person because his attacks on the technology have been shown to be without foundation. As Atren notes, I may have a pro-PRT presence online, but it is only COI if my Wikipedia edits have a COI result. [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] seems to think expertise or opinion necessarily takes away one's ability to write objectively or neutrally.
As for whether I receive payment for my work, for the time being I am going to neither confirm nor deny anything, one way or another. The reason? I wish to be amused by the talking points and conspiracy theories [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] will produce in the coming days/weeks/months/years/eras, which I am sure are being concocted even as I write this. After all, one of my blogs is [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] Humor, and I always need material. --Mr Grant 19:51, 8 August 2007
(UTC)

---

Again, I ask respectfully; Have you, Mr Grant (David Gow) received payment for promoting PRT and if so, who has paid you?

The policy {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F]:

If you fit either of these
descriptions: you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or, you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;


then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.

---

And again, I ask you respectfully, which of Mr. Grant's edits to the PRT article do you consider to be problematic? ATren 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

And I, just as respectfully, respond to you, Ned Luddington ([Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist]), that I am in compliance with the policy you have quoted. I'll trust you on quoting them accurately. Love ya, don't change. Mmmmmmmwah. --Mr Grant 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

[Now he tries to change the subject, perhaps sensing his impending humiliation]

---

There also seems to be an obvious conflict of interest regarding owner of a start-up PRT company BillJamesMN editing the PRT page and it seems other editors were well aware of it [13]...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you have a problem, raise it at the COI noticeboard. I think you know where it

is... ATren 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey Nedken: I agree with you that BillJamesMN may have appearance of a COI. That is why I have proposed a remedy I hope will improve the article. How would you like to improve the article? --Mr Grant 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

One last time; Are you paid to promote PRT?...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

One last time: which edits are you concerned about? Because if he's not making promotional edits, then the COI question is moot! ATren 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Are you paid to oppose it? Because it's like a full-time job for you. --Mr Grant 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

With the exception of a comic about PRT back in 2003 for which I received $40, no... Now, you can answer my question; Have you been paid to promote PRT?...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

You're not the boss of me. And at 01:41 you promised that would be the last time you asked. --Mr Grant 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

And can you answer my question: which edits do you consider PRT "promotion"? Because unless there is evidence of actual PRT promotion on behalf of Mr Grant, the COI charge is completely irrelevant. Are you going to provide diffs [record of different versions side by side] to support your argument? ATren 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

So that's it? You refuse to provide the diffs? ATren 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

It would take a more time [sic] than I have... I agree with the admin--"If he (Gow) wants to avoid all potential for future misunderstanding he can confine himself to the article talk page."[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Hold the phone! You did the experiment without doing the research first? You went to battle without knowing the enemy's position? You asked a question in court without already knowing the answer? You expect me to believe that, with all the time you spend trawling the PRT waters, you have no actual evidence of my COI? This was just a fishing expedition!!! Is there a Wikipedia policy against time-wasting?

And staying on the talk page "to avoid all potential for future misunderstanding" amounts to a gag order -- because you are the one who will be doing the misunderstanding. So no way. I am educated in performing neutral, competent policy & program analysis, I have a sheepskin that says so. I perform neutral, competent policy & program analysis every day. How about you? FORTY DOLLARS???!!! --Mr Grant 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The admin also clearly states that Mr Grant's edit history is "all helpful and straightforward contribution." And, judging by your "I don't have time" excuse, it's quite clear that she's absolutely right - there is nothing on which to base a COI complaint. As Mr Grant states above, this appears to be little more than a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, I question why you believe that Gow has received money to promote PRT - do you have any evidence to support this? Once again, that seems to be a completely unfounded insinuation, made with the intent to falsely imply impropriety on Gow's part. To paraphrase the great Jackie Gleason: "Ad homina homina hominem". So as far as I'm concerned, Mr Grant has proven himself to be a model editor on these pages, and he can go ahead and continue editing without reservation. ATren 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

That's the end of it, as of this moment. However, Labridor did make another post that could be seen as a fitting conclusion to this saga -- read about it in Part IV.

"Bring It On" Series, parts I, II, and IV

The best Ken Avidor anagram is still -- nAive dorK
gPRT

The Propagandist gets a spanking

The Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist's recent attack on this blog, and Weiner Watch, gave rise to this spirited exchange in the Dump Bachmann comment section. Yes, this reporter and WW's A Transportation Enthusiast have to do the usual debunking of Kenwood's same old talking points; yes, he makes a post as a sockpuppet. But on the bright side, one mysterious Anonymous commenter seemed interested in a substantive dialogue.

And in the end, Kenmore goes out with a whimper!

The exchange is preserved below for your enjoyment:

I wish one of these people would inform me of the benefit of a small pod over a city bus/railcar
-Anonymous

---

Anon - In a small pod you could try to arrange an encounter with a congressional page, in a way that you could not conduct yourself in a bus or railcar.

Perhaps that's only a difference. Not a benefit.
-Eric Zaetsch

---

More Avibore inaccuracy.

I did not attack Wetterling-- I pointed out a mistake she has made, with evidence. Weiner Watch provides even more explanation.

Furthermore, I urge readers to vote for her because we need to take back the House.

Why doesn't Labridor address the ridiculousness of his "stalking horse" talking point? His post is nothing but a distraction from that.
-Mr_Grant

---

I have proof of everything I say about PRT.

There is no doubt that PRT is a stalking horse for anti-LRT groups... just look at any PRT website such as this one Mr_Grant/Gow of the CPRT runs and you'll see links to anti-LRT screeds such as Emory Bundy's "Why Rail" rant here:

http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html

Emory Bundy once had his own PRT company called Pathfinder. What happened to Pathfinder, Mr. Gow?

Maybe Mr. Gow can send his complaints about the Wetterling campaign to Eric Black at the Star Tribune. I'd like to see Gow go on record with his nonsense.

I'll also add that Mr. Gow had a chance to debate me via podcast, but refused.
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]

---

If you have proof, why has not one shred of your claims been accepted at Wikipedia??? All you had to do was provide one reputable, objectively factual, non-sockpuppet reference. And you couldn't.

"There is no doubt"? Whose playbook are you copying from??? Like them, you are distracting by attacking people, because your attacks on a technology fall flat.

Any complaint I send to any media would be about you, not Wetterling. And, I AM on the record, especially about you.

Speaking of 'on the record'--get your facts straight, and stop putting our past debates down your memory hole. Bundy is not anti-transit, and he is a respected environmentalist and award-winning progressive documentary producer--you know that. Pathfinder was not Bundy's "own" company--you know that. I am not a member of CPRT--you know that.

On the other hand, we know how a "debate" with you would go--you making ridiculous 5-second charges that are copies of your already-rebutted talking points. I rebut you, and you just change the subject. Why would I want to walk into that?
-Mr_Grant

---

Aviderm wrote:
I have proof of everything I say about PRT.

Here are some brainteasers for K#n:

What is a LIM?

If a PRT has a LIM, what are the wheels for? (see #419)
-Mr_Grant

---

Like waiting for Godot, I am still waiting to see a faith based pod system actually work. But no, here I stand, podless after 40 years. There are more working blimp systems than PRT systems.
-Podnoys Complaint

---

Hey [K#n], Mr_Grant asked you some direct questions; why do you refuse to answer them? Instead you pull a Dick Cheney "there is no doubt..." declaration.

And then we have Eric Zaetch taking advantage of the page scandal yet again to smear an opponent. Eric, you once seemed somewhat reasonable, but now you are in full Karl Rove mode.

In fact, Lloydletta and DB are now the Karl Rove of the left: [MN anti-PRT propagandist] with his Cheney impersonations, Zaetch wielding the page scandal as a political weapon against every Republican within six degrees of separation from Foley, and of course, Eva, sitting back and watching it all happen, so fearful of losing her "contributors" that she refuses to enforce even a minimum of journalistic integrity.

And, oh, by the way, I'm still officially "banned" from commenting - squelch the opposition, another Rovian tactic. If Eva had her way, I wouldn't be able to post this message at all; luckily, I can get around the ban.

The right doesn't have an exclusive on dirty politics, that's for sure.
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

ATE and Mr Grant are also avoiding the questions. What's wrong with buses and light rail that a pod solves?
-Anonymous

---

ATE and Mr Grant are also avoiding the questions.

All you had to do was ask one. Start your research here:

http://gettherefast.org
-Mr_Grant

---

If you have proof, why has not one shred of your claims been accepted at Wikipedia???

Wikipedia can be "edited" by anybody. The PRT article is written mostly be PRT proponents.

Instead, look up Personal Rapid Transit in the Encyclopedia Britannica.... there's nothing.

Why? Because PRT doesn't exist.
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]

---

A very insightful link, although it is from a PRT group. It'd be interesting to see a study by a more neutral source. I don't know who one would ask, as I'm sure everyone leans either one way or the other. I don't know how PRT would quite hold up after a Twins game compared to light rail, but even that is packed. It seems as though it would handle your average hubub. The network theory is a pretty good idea, although light rail combines the use of buses, so the drawing of the "Y" is slightly misleading. Pros and cons aside, it still fails to please me on one regard: what happens to my favorite bus driver? The ride to work will be so dismal without.
-Anonymous

---

It'd be interesting to see a study by a more neutral source.

The 2001 OKI Report. Cost the Taxpayers $625, 000. Parsons Brinkerhoff was the engineering firm that compared th ePRT concept with more conventional modes. You can download the OKI report here:

http://www.oki.org/transportatio...entralarea.html

This article explains why PRT is infeasible from an engineering perspective- Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/fact...s/fa_prt001.htm
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]

---

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] writes:

"Wikipedia can be "edited" by anybody. The PRT article is written mostly be PRT proponents."

No, that's a lie. The current version had many contributors, pro and con. Even Louis Demery from publictransit.us, certainly not a PRT proponent, was involved in crafting the current wording of the PRT article.

In fact, the most prolific editor in that article by far was a Wikipedia administrator from the UK who prefers light rail, doesn't like PRT at all, and is actually a huge Road Kill Bill fan! Yet, still, none of [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s content is in the article, because it is simply unsupportable.

When [K#n] discovered he couldn't manipulate Wikipedia to spread his false message, he attacked Wikipedia itself and its founder. See my blog for details.

The Wikipedia PRT article is solid - battle tested and thoroughly fact checked by at least 4 editors who were very skeptical of PRT. Don't listen to [K#n]'s lies, check it out for yourself.

(By the way, I am still forced to jump through hoops to post this comment, because Eva refuses to lift a ban on my IP address. Selective free speech is alive and well on DB and Lloydletta!)
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] writes:

"The 2001 OKI Report. Cost the Taxpayers $625, 000. Parsons Brinkerhoff was the engineering firm that compared th ePRT concept with more conventional modes..."

And Parsons Brinckerhoff has no PRT expertise, therefore they misanalyzed the proposed PRT system. PB is also heavily vested in light rail construction, so you might say they had an interest in killing the PRT proposal.

For a thorough technical rebuttal of the PB report and its conclusions, see:

http://www.skyloop.org/cals/rebu...o-CALS-
DFR2.pdf

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] also writes:

"This article explains why PRT is infeasible from an engineering perspective- Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality..."

[K#n] conveniently fails to mention that he is one of the authors of that article, which is posted on a light rail advocacy site. This article is riddled with inaccuracies and propaganda, and has been the subject of at least four separate rebuttals:

http://www.gettherefast.org/
ligh...ghtrailnow.html

These rebuttals call into question almost every point in that report, and yet there has never been a response to these rebuttals from the "anonymous" (wink, wink) Light Rail Now authors. Apparently, the authors have no response to the rebuttals, and would rather just propagate their misleading report as if it were completely unchallenged.

But hey, why would they correct the misinformation in that report? To this point it's worked like a charm for them - even intelligent people like Patty Wetterling are buying into the [MN anti-PRT propagandist] anti-PRT propaganda message, hook, line, and sinker.
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

Both sides are using propaganda. All in all, we still would need to come up with cash to pay for either system. If you guys can't stop bickering, let's just end the thread- unless the article is from a transportation organization, or a study set up by a city, stop posting the links. You can't criticize the other side for being biased, and then print out fastPRT or lightrail now links.
-Anonymous

---

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] wrote:
The 2001 OKI Report. Cost the Taxpayers $625, 000. Parsons Brinkerhoff was the engineering firm that compared the PRT concept with more conventional modes...

Oft-rebutted talking point! See #4 here.

This article explains why PRT is infeasible from an engineering perspective- Cyberspace Dream

Talking point! Debunked right there at http://gettherefast.org !


Anonymous wrote:
It'd be interesting to see a study by a more neutral source.

This is what the European Union thinks.
-Mr_Grant

---

Anonymous: Both sides are using propaganda.

I see where you're coming from. But consider my POV: I am an advocate, but I'm objective about it. It is also in the long term interest of PRT and society to make sure that, if PRT happens, it happens responsibly, that it works and is a good investment. In other words, it is in PRT's interest that I and other advocates tell the truth. I hope we all are.

However, I think I and others have successfully documented how [MN anti-PRT propagandist] is not doing likewise. Look at the substance at my admittedly satirical blog; check some of the articles at my main site.

Who is more accurate? Who relies on facts and logic? If [MN anti-PRT propagandist] is right, then why can't he stick to the truth?
-Mr_Grant

---

Anonymous:

You are absolutely right to question links from PRT advocacy organizations. I was also quite skeptical when I first started reading about PRT (about 10 months ago).

But what I found is that, in addition to the advocacy, there are also textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles dedicated to PRT technology. I've seen some of the engineering and designs myself and they seem quite solid (from this engineer's standpoint). And, as we speak there are many active PRT projects on 3 continents - people around the world are working on this technology.

All of this is hard evidence that counters the ridiculous accusations of fraud and anti-transit conspiracies. PRT is a real technology with real potential, and should be part of the debate. Right now, the political environment is such that even a casual mentiion of PRT, even as part of a multi-modal solution, results in vicious anti-transit accusations from [MN anti-PRT propagandist]. The atmosphere is so poisonous that even pro-PRT politicians in Minnesota are backing off just to save their political lives.

Is this the way it should be? This is not debate, it's transit McCarthyism!

So here's what I would suggest for the open-minded out there: look past the propaganda and research for yourselves. The information is out there. Start at the Wikipedia article, which has indeed received a critical treatment from several skeptical editors. It's a good starting point and has plenty of good links to the PRT debate (including concerns and skepticism).

Then, once everyone is armed with real information, let the actual debate begin. Maybe then, a reasonable person would still reject PRT - which is fine, everyone has their preference. But to reject it solely on the basis of [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s misinformation is just plain intellectual laziness.
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

If you guys can't stop bickering, let's just end the thread

I sympathize with with people who are bewildered by these long arguments about something they have no interest in.

PRT, like Intelligent Design is a wedge issue designed to produce this sort of endless, tedious arguments. But, it is wrong to conclude both sides are wrong... that's just how wedge issues work to muddy the issues.

Politicians like Bachmann, Vandeveer, Mark Olson, and Zimmermann have used PRT to stop funding of transit, particularly rail transit... and for many years this wacky thing called PRT was very effective in helping to keep the Twin Cities and other cities from planning reality-based rail transit systems.

Since the success of the Hiawatha LRT line, hardly anyone is promoting PRT in Minnesota anymore... not even J. Edward Anderson... what ever happened to Ed Anderson?

I think that we've heard enough from A.T.E. who is from Buffalo, New York and Mr. Grant/Gow who is from Seattle. The person who needs to explain why she promoted PRT is the candidate for the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota- Michele Bachmann.

TC Daily Planet article about PRT:

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/1152

My web PRT skeptic site:

http://www.roadkillbill.com/
PRTi...PRTisaJoke.html
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]

---

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] writes:

"I sympathize with with people who are bewildered by these long arguments..."

What is the problem with "long arguments"? Is this not what debate is all about? All we are saying is for people to check the facts, and don't base their entire viewpoint on the words of a single individual with an agenda.

"PRT, like Intelligent Design is a wedge issue..."

The "intelligent design" comparison is one of [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s big talking points lately. But which side is pro-science in this debate? We refer you to a thoroughly fact-checked encyclopedia article and ask you to review the hundreds of published scientific papers on PRT.

[MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s reponse? Attack PRT proponents and politicians with baseless accusations, attack Mr. Grant and me because we're not locals, then post links to his own article and web site!

Ask yourselves: who's acting like the anti-science fundamentalist here?
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

Wikipedia is "thoroughly fact-checked"? What a joke! With "editors" like A.T.E., Wikipedia is full of errors. The few people who bothered to add some healthy skepticism to the Wikipedia PRT article were endlessly bullied and gave up.

Here's a perfect example of A.T.E's bullying behavior.

PRTistas cite the Wikipedia PRT article, because they wrote the PRT article (and because they can't cite a real encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica which does not even mention PRT).

So A.T.E., if you are really a scientist as you claimed to be on the Seattle PI web board (before you got removed), why don't you reveal who you are? Science is all about transparency and honesty. Do real scientists publish under a pseudonym?... or spend all day comment-spamming on the internet?
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]

---

[MN anti-PRT propagandist] writes:

"The few people who bothered to add some healthy skepticism to the Wikipedia PRT article were endlessly bullied and gave up...."

These are all lies. At least 4 skeptical editors were active on that page for several months. They went over that article with a fine-tooth comb and challenged almost every PRT claim. Almost nothing was removed, because it's all based in rock solid fact.

Now, as for [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s "skepticism", since he provided no sources for his claims, they were removed. In fact, much of his content was removed by a pro-LRT, anti-PRT, Road Kill Bill fan (!), because he could find no basis for [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s claims! See my blog for a more detailed analysis.

The Wikipedia PRT article is solid.

As for the rest of [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s post, they're simply attacks on me, designed to discredit me. Except that I don't care what he writes about me, because my credibility is irrelevant to this discussion. All I'm asking is for people to do their homework and fact-check [MN anti-PRT propagandist]'s claims. Nobody has to believe a word I say - as long as they go to the sources and research it for themselves.

In other words, my identity and credibility are irrelevant. So, attack me all you want, [K#n].
-A Transportation Enthusiast

---

Whatever....
-[MN anti-PRT propagandist]



gPRT
Avidormania: not Ken Avidor, but an incredible simulation

Here comes the cloud of obfuscation

It's now the afterglow of Kiln Ovendoor's latest Daily Kos humiliation, so you know what that means, dontcha?

He has to do something to change the subject. As usual he's telegraphing his punch:

I can always tell when something really embarrassing has occurred for the PRT guys when Mr. Gow tries to distract me with his silly comment spam.

Stay tuned.

by K*n A***** on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:45:43 AM PDT

"Stay tuned" means I'm frantically Googling right now. He'll take a bunch of unrelated items and combine them into something that fits his conspiracy theory. A little from Search A, a pinch from Search B, stir in some Search C; add bile and serve! (An example of this was his smear against Trevor Smallwood of ATS Ltd.*)

Notice also how Labridor is doing the time warp again -- he says I'm trying to distract him from an imaginary PRT embarrassment. Whereas in normal space-time I'm responding to his imaginary Morgantown news blogging that came first.

UPDATE! Kenwood says it has something to do with the New York Times and The Guardian. Funny, my Google News Alert has nothing PRT-wise from those esteemed journals.

UPDATE II: The cloud is more of a sandstorm.

* Notice how he has never repeated it!

gPRT
Ken Avidor takes the L out of Lover

Light rail segment obliterated - Heroic editor sounds alarm

Watchful transportation expert alerted by Google Maps

A large segment of a Minneapolis light rail line has been obliterated under mysterious circumstances.

Ben Labridor, transportation editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet, alerted authorities on Monday after discovering that a block-long section of the Hiawatha light rail line was missing from the vicinity of Hiawatha Avenue and E. 29th Street. Metro Transit officials have yet to comment, and Minneapolis police and fire departments report no explosions or other demolition activities.

"This tragedy goes far beyond mere vandalism or even terrorism," said an anxious Labridor by phone from his Minneapolis home. "This is transit bashing at its worst."

Labridor said that he had been at home performing internet research about transit systems, when he happened to chance upon an aerial photo of Minneapolis that shocked him.

"I had just seen the light rail earlier today," said Labridor, "When I'm in the area I always make sure to look at the train," he said, "its long, hard, ramrod-like form going back and forth through the neighborhood, back and forth, back and forth. In and out of Bloomington, in and out."

"Just imagine my surprise, then, when I saw on my computer that according to Google Maps a huge section of our beautiful Hiawatha light rail is gone. Around 29th Street on the west side of Hiawatha Avenue--nothing but scarred earth," said a shaken Labridor.

Labridor vowed he won't rest until he finds who is responsible. He said he believed the culprits have something to do with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), which he said is a nonexistent transit technology that can't work and is being built at London's Heathrow Airport, as well as a site in Sweden. An early version of the nonexistent technology has been running in West Virginia for over 30 years.

Labridor said he had just found evidence on Google Maps that a PRT test facility in Wales may have been demolished, and discovered the damage to the Hiawatha Line shortly after. "It's too much of a coincidence, it's obviously payback by the PRT cabal," said Labridor. He would not elaborate on the PRT cabal without reporters first signing oaths in blood.

"Rest assured, destroying a light rail line is not beyond the power of the PRT conspirators," he said. "They've erased evidence of their work in Wales, bulldozing one half of their test facility, and turned the other half into a very realistic simulation of undeveloped industrial land."

"They're diabolical, and they could be anywhere," he said, looking over his shoulder.

Links: the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist thinks Google=reality (claims pre-ULTra aerial photo is Now)
See Wales test track (Microsoft Virtual Earth, Bird's Eye View)

Update (2/21): ULTra track's continued existence
just means "the bulldozing has been postponed." Apparently Google Maps is now a magical glimpse into the future!
Also: he asks about the Raytheon test track (MSVE, BEV)--desperately trying to change the subject, again.

Update (Aug. 2007): Cardiff test track enhanced to emulate Heathrow conditions. "The bulldozing" pushed even further into the future!

Update (May 2008): The Google Maps Affair is mentioned at Daily Kos (in response to this item of propaganda)

I smell Eisner nomination!
Imagine, an entire comic book about hernias:


gPRT
Microsoft has announced a security flaw in Ken Avidor, a patch will be released soon

Today in Oz

Today the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist attempts to respond to getting slammed in the Sherburne Citizen (Word is getting out, 10/4).

Read his lame response. He makes it all about him, by crying about being attacked (again, he dishes it out but can't take it), so as to distract from the point of the original letter: Lugubridor's "numerous factual errors." (He never addresses all the times he's been wrong; he just tries to change the subject. But it seems like he forgets sometimes, and claims --laughably--to be right about everything.)

He then fluffs and preens, claiming that legislative calendars are reshuffled in fear of him. Another example of his claiming credit for things where it is not deserved.

Pay no attention to the disinformer behind the curtain.



gPRT
Ken Avidor represents the Lollipop Guild

See Him Bash Comedy Gold

Here is today's comment thread from Ken Avidor's Dump Mark Olson post about Taxi 2000's landlord. I have reconstructed the Comedy Gold posts that he deleted.

A Transportation Enthusiast said... Not only that, I heard that JE Anderson's neice's [sic] best friend has a half brother who patronizes a certain accountant -- and that accountant just happens to have a client who donated $50 to Bachmann! Coincidence? I think not! Mr_Grant said... Why are you supporting Bachmann? When you, Kenwood Ovendoor, put money in your bank, do you think it just sits there? It does not! The bank loans it out. Thousands of loans. Some of them donate to Bachmann! You're supporting people who support Bachmann!!! Hope this helps! Mr_Grant said... Oh, and Kent? A gentle reminder: spellcheck! Nothing kills a headline faster than a typo. Hope this helps! Mr_Grant said... Pure Polymers LLC is located in a Steiner-managed property at 7966 Century Blvd in Chanhassen, MN. What's their connection? Hope this helps! Mr_Grant said... The Dance Warehouse Dance Studio is located in the same complex as Pure Polymers! How are they connected to the PRT scam? How do Michele Bachmann, Mark Olson, Ed Anderson and Jeral Poskey plan to use various forms of dance to promote PRT? Hope this helps! Mr_Grant said... Imagewerks is a computer-visualization firm located at 1600 Gervais Avenue in Maplewood, MN, a Steiner Development property. What's their connection to the PRT scam? Is Imagewerks creating simulations of Taxi 2000's test facility? Are they computer-generating Michele Bachmann's quasi-Mary Tyler Moore hairstyle??? Are they computer-generating Bachmann herself??? Hope this helps! Avidor said... Mr. Gow, Please don't put the names of businesses that have nothing to do with the post in this comment section. I will remove your posts if you do that again. Mr_Grant said... Kiln, the point of my comedic premise was that those businesses have as much to do with Taxi 2000 as Steiner has to do with Taxi 2000. Using your logic, you should remove your own post! Hope this helps! Avidor said... i appreciate you wanting to "help", Mr. Gow. Can you tell me what happened with this PRT project? A Transportation Enthusiast said...Ken, why are you deleting comments? Don't you have a sense of humor? Mr_Grant said... Yes, I can. But that's for me to know and you to obsess over. Do your own research! Hope this didn't help! Avidor said... Haven't heard much from Ed Anderson lately. Who muzzled the wacky professor? Mr_Grant said... Hey A.T.E., Kenwood is desperately trying to change the subject! Guess that about wraps things up for this talking point! Mr_Grant said... Yay! You fixed the typo in the headline! Glad I could help! Avidor said... Comments from A.T.E and David Gow will be removed from now on. A Transportation Enthusiast said... Ha! Well, Ken, let me tell you something: you just made my week! Please, please, delete this one so I can enjoy this weekend too! This is just too much fun! :-D Just another example of you being able to dish it out, over and over again - calling what you do "satire" when it's little more than juvenile attack politics - but you can't take it! Here, someone turns the tables on you, giving you and your blog the satirical treatment, and you come along and censor the whole thread! Hilarious! It's just so refreshing to see someone reveal their hypocrisy so blatantly. Thank you, Ken. :-D A Transportation Enthusiast said... So I guess the delete button is out in full force, eh? I must say, I'm not surprised at all -- just more evidence that Ken Avidor does not tolerate dissenting opinion. You're either with him or against him! It's his way or the highway - literally, since anyone who doesn't agree with him is labelled a shill for the highway industry. And he obviously does not enjoy his opinions being lampooned. It's much easier for him to delete than refute -- especially when there's no basis on which to refute. Next thing you know, Ken will be holding a Fahrenheit 451-style PRT book-burning party... easier to destroy than refute. Now let's see how long it takes for him to delete this comment. :-D

By deleting these comments, not only is he censoring, he is also bashing comedy! Why does he hate comedy? Why does he hate America? Comedy-basher!

Update: More Funny here!

gPRT
And Miss Universe 2006 is... Ken Avidor!

Fun with Google Translate

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.

Google Translate keeps improving all the time. The following is translated from an article written in Chinese:

Exclusive a suburban
Occupy an entire section on a suburban train directly to office? "Personal Rapid Transit" is to achieve this dream.

Wen | Cheng Ge

Are not you waiting for the suburban railway, but the suburban railway at home waiting for you. This is the light-rail-and-coming urban-based "personal rapid transit" (PRT). As long as drilling a single section of the suburban railway carriages, it will be directly taken along the track you want to go to office buildings, off-line automatic Guairu side of the site, you are to lay down their car.


Roller coaster embodiment of urban light rail

West Virginia University student Matt (Matt) and his companions take the PRT had a short trip on the road did not encounter any traffic jams, but also want the flexibility to go to any place, the same as by car. They take such a transport system in the U.S. city of Morgantown. This is the first building of its kind around the world transportation system, it cuts across the urban Morganton, West Virginia University campus and Medical Center and other places, mostly here in University City services. Students, teachers and university staff and local residents can take.

At West Virginia University student home page, you can query to run the timetable. It is based on the University's teaching time to adjust. Every spring and fall semester Monday to Friday, from 6:30 am to start operations, to the end of 10:15 in the afternoon not open. Ensure that students are not late for class. But the summer semester hours of operation will be extended to the entire day, from 6:30 am assigned to at 18:30. Every Saturday is from 9 am to 17 points, because this is usually the majority of students up late day.

Matt wrote in his diary: "It's really cool! It is a monorail around the entire campus! It's like an amusement park!" This statement is, and its design is inspired by the monorail from Disneyland train.

This transport system was built in 1975, Boeing was in Morgantown built an 8 km-long rail, and is equipped with 21 seats in the cars. Rail through the steep gorges, will need to use the original 16 campus shuttle bus connection linking delivery of 15000 passengers per day, with an average trip distance of about 2.3 km. Their modes of operation is flexible, either continuous cycle of operation can also be in strict accordance with the timetable.

New students came to Morgantown, PRT ride around the campus is a wonderful experience. No drivers on it, but also trains, cars, walkways, and experience the wonderful roller coaster ride, etc. combine together. It is faster than the escalator than the roller coaster safer and more orderly than the cars, even smaller than the train.

Currently, Microsoft's Redmond headquarters is located in Seattle, ready to use personal transportation system, the construction of a park's public transport system. The park has more than 30000 employees, therefore, a number of junctions the daily throughput of up to more than 30000. As the park every day, a large number of meetings, training and business negotiations, had to prepare another 43 bus, CDB 5500 times a day, can be pulled these employees designated locations.

Microsoft believes that, PRT far more than the speed of vehicles. Moreover, it also takes into account Microsoft's notorious scarcity of parking spaces. Typically, an employee time spent looking for parking by even more than the previous work on the road. The PRT track of this non-stop continuous running vehicles can be avoided this problem.

Under construction in Microsoft's headquarters in the park's PRT system will include 29 sites, a total of five to run the loop, with a total mileage of approximately 10 miles (about 16 km). On the one hand, one-way closed loop circuit to ensure there will be no head-on collision of the incident, but on the other hand, the control center can take the initiative to limit vehicle speed to ensure the orderly operation, does not occur before and after the collision. Because each vehicle can only take 2 to 4 people, which will undoubtedly reduce the time the door switch, allowing the site to start the vehicle from the dock to keep a very short time. Moreover, if no one on the bus, the vehicle will be driven away on their own.

The subject of ridicule in the commercialization of

Multi-cartoonist Kena Wei (Ken Avidor) is such a staunch opponent of new modes of transportation. His anger came from his hometown - Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 2004, the city's three members asked the Government invested heavily in a joint proposal to build PRT, in order to improve the traffic environment in the region. The move angered many Kena Wei. He believes that they conspired together a few in an attempt to deceive Minnesota taxpayers money.

"This is a joke," Ken said, "First of all, PRT's supporters can say, 'people do not like and strangers riding the same car', may be that people do not necessarily think so." In his view, "PRT is only suitable exists on the computer drawing of the cyber-space, in the brochure, in the lovely three-dimensional animated."

He also drew a lot of comic books come to satire PRT, for example, a single track in the Kaopu looked very swinging back and forth, in the above means of transport and even ran a small bomb into heaven, hop hop to. There is these that no one managed to run PRT in people's head, Paul would not be allowed when the window was open, with fast speed to drop some rotten eggs and tomatoes down, smacked their heads on the streets of pedestrians. He said that if run PRT in the urban areas, the streets will be every day, "off night soil." He even has specially set up a Web site is called "PRT is a joke". PRT's supporters, however, soon hit back, launched a "'PRT is a joke' is a joke" site.

Although controversial, PRT has gradually became popular in the recent, and has won a number of cities in order. In Ken's home page, he drew attention to: In other cities, in your side, whether there is such a scam? He listed a series of PRT has been or is about to use the long list of cities, including: Cincinnati, Denver, Cardiff, Morgantown, Seattle and Minneapolis. He believes that these places also, and his village, the use of PRT members of the public confusion, but for its authenticity, availability, and its improvement of public transport capacity and get rid of dependence on foreign oil, etc. but did not elaborate.

However, the dissenting voices but never the other hand, proved the success of PRT. Cardiff and other cities in the United States, PRT project has been in operation, the United Kingdom Science and Technology officials even there, the airport has been able to trial ride like cars.

PRT commercial, one of the biggest promoters of ATS companies has received orders for an airport in London. It relied on the名叫希斯罗the airport, "In the future transportation system arrived at Heathrow Airport" headline news published in the company's home page. In April 2009, representatives of 16 countries were invited to come to visit the PRT system has been completed. Engineers and operations personnel called for the delegates introduced ULTra vehicles. Vehicle has a spacious interior and ergonomic controls, and equipped with emergency exit system. During a visit to the elegant ground station, people can also observe up close how the automatic ULTra arriving and departing the station, and almost no sound run along the rails. The control room will be to achieve a comprehensive network, through a set of operating system that allows operators to anticipate the needs of passengers, including the frequency of information and local traffic conditions in order to pre-arranged location in the corresponding waiting vehicle.

"At first I thought we're just testing an idea, sometime in the future can be achieved," a transportation agency representatives said, "but I saw the amazing design, it is ready to enter the public transportation system and address a number of urban transport the problem?? I have to go back and tell my colleagues, so that they must come and see!"

2009 8 issue

gPRT