Krugman himself has become tedious, shifting from "prize-winning economist" to "partisan hack" promoting a leftist agenda, being hired by the NY Times for explicitly that purpose. Various right-wing and libertarian/free-market pundits and websites make a hobby of tallying an increasingly long list of his spectacularly-wrong projections of late, including his 2016 election-night column saying the U.S. stock market would "never" recover from Trump's election (it shot up 250 points the next day, and over the course of his term the DJIA gained around 50 percent in value).

I'm not buying the "encouraged to make wild predictions" excuse. It's what he does. It's on par with a horoscope: his fans highlight his accidentally accurate predictions while deftly ignoring his egregiously wrong ones with the excuse of "but he won a Nobel Prize!" (Well, so did Milton Friedman, the standard-bearer for the free-market economics Krugman and his acolytes rush to refute and condemn.)

They also asked him to comment on whether we would have flying cars yet in 2098, like in the 1960s cartoon The Jetsons. Was that serious, too?

"They also asked him to comment on whether we would have flying cars yet in 2098, like in the 1960s cartoon The Jetsons. Was that serious, too?"


Your posts are tedious.

Not in comparison to yours, because there are far fewer of them in a given week than yours, and they are far less verbose.

There is a balance to be achieved on a public website, and it is not easily done. Having been editor of an international magazine, I understand the difficulty moderators face on a site like this. One has to set aside one's personal views for the betterment of the site. If careful moderation is not practiced, the forum will drift into darkness.

"Not in comparison to yours, because there are far fewer of them in a given week than yours, and they are far less verbose."

Perhaps you don't understand tedium or verbosity. Your paranoid, off-topic rant about a quote being a subversive plot was both and risible, given that you quoted a notorious partisan and when challenged by Mr. Mitchell, felt compelled to make frail excuses.

Then again, I have people thanking me for the detailed accounts about things I've actually observed or had direct involvement in (and some do so privately)-I see nothing similar for you here.

But in spite of alleged deficiencies; you continue to read and respond, but never with factual disputation or a different interpretation-just argumentum ad hominem.

I agree, 100%

I come here to hopefully learn some useful information from others involved in railway preservation, and/or to share experiences that I hope will be useful to others in the field. Unfortunately the generic flame war type posts, about topics that are more about general socio-political issues than railway preservation per se, swamp out the useful posts. I wouldn't mind it if there is a passionate argument about something on-topic, like use of modern materials and finishes. I'm just not at all interested in slogging through a thread that has devolved into yet another debate about the role of government, or similar. If I want that sort of stuff, I don't need to come to a railway preservation board.

I tend to agree, Jeff. Luckily, all of us have the freedom to click into or ignore specific topic threads. If you see threads with obvious hot button titles, such as Covid in Railway Preservation for example, you can be certain that the thread may drift into politics and easily ignore the banter by not clicking into the topic.

Most of us can, but poor Tom went and became a moderator, and he therefore has to suffer through everything. Well, theoretically, anyway.

Heavy hangs the head that wears the visor.

About once a year, we have this "I don't like the moderators" thread. Are we done yet?

As a moderator, I am less concerned about the discussion of moderation and more concerned with the name calling in the most recent posts...

Lets stop the name calling...

Randy

Aren't you just glad that I'm no longer a moderator. This pointless electron-sponge of a topic deserves an ignominious extinction. It's pointless, distracting and serves no real purpose.