Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Utica Ave

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Utica Ave

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Thanks for the clarification and patience.
  2. I agree that the best way to understand a subject is to have a 360 degree viewpoint with input from as many sources as feasible but that's not always possible. Especially in the internet age. Being on a forum with like-minded individuals does not necessarily mean everyone approaches the subject matter from the same perspective. You can have different viewpoints. In my experience going to opposing forums looking to discuss a topic in most instances will only get you white noise with very little added. Every once in a while you get lucky though. I think BB has gotten better counterpoint in this forum from you than he will probably get from a dozen forums from the other camp.
  3. (I meant to comment on this sooner) I actually remember having the "in a rush" experience on one of my first returns home after moving to California. I didn't expect it to be so pronounced. I had been living in San Diego for over 10 years at the time and I had a chance to come home for a job related assignment. I didn't realize how much the sunshine and laid back lifestyle had altered me. I had flown home and had a meeting near Herald Square. Of course I decided to ride the train. After everything was done, I head for the 34th Str/6th Ave station. I was moving so much slower than everyone else it seemed. People were bumping by me as I entered the station and it seemed like I was in one of those time lapsed videos. I wasn't into drugs but I felt like I was in some kind of stupor with people, cars and trains rushing by me. Everything just felt sped up. I was back to "normal" when I got back on the left coast but I still remember that effect. It always highlighted the difference between the two coasts to me.
  4. Like I said earlier, I haven't been back home in awhile. I can't imagine NYC rapid transit being too slow. I've read various forums and understand about the timers and other methods to slow trains down because of infrastructure issues and other problems but after riding other systems around the world, it doesn't seem that New York's would be slower than some I've ridden to the point of deterring people from usage. When I've taken BART out here one of my biggest talking points I never had the sense of speed I felt riding back home and the cost was way more than New York. For me other systems were weak in comparison. Maybe just hometown bias or altered memories - who knows. The main thing is I am always interested in ways to improve service on transit systems. I have an affinity for transit systems but I will use whatever method best gets me where I want to go. There are certain line items that dictate how much of the populace gravitates towards mass transit. Something like a cost efficiency threshold - taking into account gasoline price fluctuation, travel time and location. Convenience and safety are also paramount for commuters to switch from other modes. When certain criteria are met and exceeded, then transit ridership will rise. B35, I don't think BB only wants debate from pro-transit types but that's where you will most likely have civil discourse and bounce ideas around without having to participate in unproductive flaming sessions. Why go to a forum that is against what you believe in, express your point of view and expect reasonable responses? There's a chance but more than likely you'll get an ad hominem diatribe that only frustrates readers. You don't let attack dogs get to you by keeping your distance from them. Wearing a flame suit is not a preferable method of participating in these forums.
  5. Brooklyn Bus, I have followed your comments and subsequent responses on this subject in a couple of forums and I do empathize with you. I understand where you're coming from and don't particularly get the negative comments but maybe I haven't gone back far enough. Maybe I don't understand why there are such negative connotations associated with being a "transit advocate." I consider myself a transit advocate. These days I drive most of the time since I now live in the bay area in California. At times I walk and other times I'll ride my bike. Whatever will get me to my destination in a reasonable amount of time in a convenient method. There are various forms of mass transit out here starting with BART but hardly any of them will get me from my doorstep to somewhere I want to go but I'm still a transit advocate. I've hardly been back to NYC in the last 25 years or so (since the opening of the Archer Ave terminal) and my memories were that I could go where ever I wanted to be on transit 24/7/365(6). I didn't need a car. I remember walking during the strike over any of the bridges from Brooklyn to midtown Manhattan to get to work. I kept car use to a minimum - only when partying and chasing women - and I had a nice wine colored Camaro I loved but I still wanted more for the transit system. Now being "pro-transit" does not mean you can't be "pro-car", "pro-bike" or even "pro-environment". I don't see how anybody's able to make that distinction. It's not black and white. Being for something does not mean you're against everything else although "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have made it seem that way. These groups like having titles that have positive connotations versus calling themselves "anti-choice" or "anti-life". The only problem is that groups like this are always at the extreme end of the spectrum. They feel you have to be one way or the other - no gray areas. That's not reality. These are complex situations that require complex solutions best suited for specific needs. I actually decided to write this after biking 28.7 miles from home to a job. Back story - my car is on the fritz, my wife was using the other car and my son was using his car. The bus out in my area doesn't run fast enough to make it feasible for my purposes and BART is far enough away not to be an option. I decide to ride after checking Google maps and determining it might be fun. I'm not a cyclist and haven't rode in quite awhile but it seemed like a good challenge. My GPS said it would take over 3 hours but I made it in under 2. I had my wife pick me up and it took 25 minutes to get home. I'm happy but I couldn't help but wonder what I would have done if the BART extension had been up and running in my neck of the woods. I like transit. Transit helps cities grow and flow a lot easier. Better transit also helps the environment. Being a transit advocate means you are hopeful for solutions that will achieve those goals.
  6. No one said SI "needs" to grow but building rapid transit in sparsely populated areas is not necessarily a bad thing.
  7. I personally think this map is a good start. Not extremely adventurous or creative - same as most fantasy maps - but the ideas are good. Those that mention that there is too much rapid transit for Staten Island seem to forget that New York grew as the new lines were added including building in sparsely populated areas at the time. Way to take preexisting ideas and lay them down. Looking forward to the rest.
  8. I have been on just about every mass transit in the United States and around the world - including Japan, China, Tokyo and Brazil. NYC by far gives you the most bang for the buck and a very interesting system that gets you just about anywhere you want to go. For $2.25... are you kidding me? I've been living out in the bay area in California for the last ten years and that might get you from one station to the next on BART. I miss my subways.
  9. Okay, I'm game. I'm willing to keep this going. You probably don't know what I'm refuting because your suppositions are all over the place and it's hard for you to follow. You don't seem to want to comprehend what I am writing. You're creating your own talking points and arguing those vs anything I have written. Let me make this simple... allowing everyone the right to carry firearms will not reduce crime. It is NOT a deterrent to criminals looking to commit crimes. It will only allow more innocent citizens to become involved in crimes by either becoming criminals or being victimized with even more serious implications. Guns are not the answer for any civilized world. So, what textbook am I quoting? You seem to be under the impression that thugs will think twice if they knew everyone could carry a gun. Let me say that again... You seem to be under the impression that thugs will think twice if they knew everyone could carry a gun. The thought that anyone could believe that is assinine. A thug, properly motivated, will try to victimize anyone they can no matter what. They are thugs. They want to do dirt. A store clerk with a gun will not necessarily deter a thug if that store has something the thug wants bad enough. Banks with security guards carrying guns won't necessarily deter thugs. Heck, a thug will rob another thug with ten other thugs all carrying automatic weapons if they think they can pull it off. I am not conveying any point about the store clerk always gets shot. I have not said anything about the thug always getting away unscathed. I am saying don't put yourself in the position to have to roll the dice in those type of situations. I don't care that every so often a thug comes out on the losing end of these situations. More often than not it's the innocent ones who get hurt. Trying to put firearms in everyone's hands will only exacerbate a serious problem. Criminals will just change their mindset if they come to believe that everyone could possibly be carrying. They will not go away. They will not stop committing crimes. Most will just assume that they have to come harder when they act and prepare to do their worse if they need to. Apparently unlike you, I give the proverbial 'thug with a gun' all the credit in the world for being the most ignorant person in the world who really doesn't give a st about my life or anybody else'. So why would I challenge that? The average person wouldn't and shouldn't. Even if they do have a gun, the moment they have to pull that trigger will be life altering. So stay away from the precipice if you can. That young lady who stabbed one of the perps has been changed because of what she had to do. It's not that easy for the average citizen. Her life was possibly in danger. She HAD to do something to save herself. Would you want to do that for a few bucks in your pocket? Even if you had a gun in your pocket too, would you pull the trigger to save yourself a few bucks? Guns are not the answer.
  10. I hope you don't go out there tempting the fates and try one of those "fools" who might not have bullets in their gun or don't know how to use it. Quickest way to becoming a dreaded statistic. Just because you're packing does not mean you are not the path of the least resistance. There is no proving your point there. The thug is not going to know what you have on you or, for the most part care if they can catch you sleeping and the opportunity arises for them to victimize you. Don't put yourself in those positions if possible. Here's the thing with guns (specifically but knives or just a gang of thugs as well), they can make people a lot braver (and stupider) than they need to be. The more people that are allowed to carry them indiscriminately, the more likely your chances for having unnecessary, unfortunate incidents between well meaning(?) individuals with beefs that get out of hand, arrogant idiots showing off or a multitude of scenarios where if guns weren't involved, it would never get beyond a shouting match. That's not even taking criminal acts into account. I wonder where I got that "Protect And Serve" motto from? They do it to the best of their ability. Most of them do a pretty good job of it too. How soon we forget those that protect and serve were all too willing to run into the towers almost nine years ago risk (and lose) their lives to save others. Save your cynicism. You've missed the boat on this. As someone pointed out earlier, this was about a girl who saved herself by stabbing one of the perpetrators. No guns involved. Here we are talking about Constitutional law and the police job description. I want to know who here think they can do what she did? Right or wrong.
  11. If the two articles I have read are correct, you can reserve your cynicism. They picked the wrong girl to mess with.
  12. I love seeing crazy responses after a good Christmas meal. Just brings out the holiday spirit! We don't need to get into constitutional law and I'm never caught up in what politicians would like for me to believe. Common sense is my beacon. The 2nd Amendment will not keep you safe in the face of sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors. Proper law enforcement just might. Did you really think about that statement before you typed it? The vast majority of criminals are like electricity - they look for the path of the least resistance. Even if the average citizen were allowed to pack heat, they wouldn't go down the street pointing it at every person (or group of people) that looked at them cross-eyed. At least I hope they wouldn't. Using your scenario, a thug will walk up to a potential victim with their weapon already drawn. If the victim even flinches like they may try to do something or indicates they may have a weapon too, things will get out of hand in a hurry and instead of the victim just losing some property or being violated in some way, they may lose their life unneccessarily. Now maybe, just maybe a victim under your scenario gets to pull out their weapon. The trick now is to use it. Until they have been in such a situation, they don't know how they'll react and it's not that easy. Unless they have been trained for these situations or were a closet sociopath/psychopath to begin with, there might be some hesitation. Enough to get themselves in deeper trouble. So it's best to leave it to trained professionals. Just like any place else, criminals in Florida and Arizona don't necessarily think twice because their potential victim "may" have a gun. Criminals hardly think at all. Most of the time it's about opportunity. If crime rates were lower there, I believe it would have more to do with good law enforcement techniques. You cannot be serious. The gun will only protect you if you could pull it out in that situation and then fire if you had to. If someone puts a gun to your head or have you dead in their sights, I seriously doubt you are going to try and get your piece out unless they start firing and you have no choice. I don't know if I'd call anyone an idiot but I do agree with you. That is the premise of my original statement. As far as this young lady is concerned, the 2nd Amendment had no bearing on her situation and she came out okay relatively speaking. She actually had to deal with eight knuckleheads and fought them off while killing one - with a knife. I applaud her. She was extremely lucky. I hope those investigating the case just let her fade of into anonymity while someone erects a statue to her bad self. She's much tougher than Bernie Goetz ever thought of being.
  13. How does the 2nd Amendment play into this? Thugs will be thugs no matter how many guns the average citizen is allowed to carry - and they won't think twice when they're looking for a victim to prey on. They'll just shoot before asking. A criminal is more than likely to commit a violent act before the average citizen because they've already shunted their inhibitions towards violent acts. Don't get it twisted.
  14. It's nice to see SC4 lovers in the house!
  15. I was always down with KFC because they were within walking distance of my house and a 20 pc hot wings did the job when my better half took a break but every once in a while we'd make a run to Popeye's since they had spicy shrimp and jambalaya. Then they put a Popeye's a little closer to my house, my son got a job there and we get a nice little windfall when he works late. So Popeye's wins.:cool:
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.