Why all the fuss over transit? It carries a trivial percentage of the traffic. Ron (tax to the max) wants you to pay more of that terribly regressive sales tax to support transit. The King County website pretty much establishes that transit isnt that important. http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf

 

TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS
INDICATOR 42:
Observations:
This indicator has fluctuated over the last ten years, with per capita ridership reaching a high in 1989,
and a low in 1994. It increased again from 1994 to 1997, but leveled off in 1998. The 1998 figure is
calculated from an annual ridership of 80,269,178, and a population of 1,665,800.
Transit ridership for 1998 was 48.2 trips per person.
Because of the overall stability, the transit system may be serving the same riders over the last ten
years, with the same market response.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
Transit ridership is a function of several regional variables, among them fuel prices, regional
unemployment, transit fare changes, suburban employment growth, and public perception of transit
service and traffic congestion. The ridership figures in 1996 to 1998 show the effect of the Six Year
Plan which began implementation in the fall of 1996.
While ridership per capita has fluctuated, population and vehicle miles traveled have increased
significantly. During the 10 year period from 1989 - 1998, King County population increased by
15.2% and transit miles traveled increased by 20.5%.
Data Source: Metro Transit General Managers Quarterly Management Report, Metro Transit Division,
4th Quarter, 1995, 1997, 1998, and lst Quarter 1999. The ridership figures are derived from a sampling of
transit ridership during the year; the population figures are consistent with those in the King County Annual
Growth Report.
Indicator #43 Percent of residents who walk or use transit, bicycles or carpools as alternatives to the
single occupant vehicle.
In 1997 the split in the mode of transportation for all day travel was: Transit: 5.7%; High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV)/Carpool: 33%; Non-Motorized/Other: 6.9%; Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV): 54.4%.
The high proportion of trips using the HOV mode (33% in 1997) is characteristic of daily travel, when
family members frequently accompany the adult driver on shopping, recreation, and other trip types.
The U.S. 1990 Census reports the countys mode split for work trips as 74% SOV, 12% HOV, 9%
transit, and 5% by non-motorized modes. These figures apply to peak hour travel, and cannot be
compared to the all day data reported in the table for this Indicator.

And while Im on the soapbox, where do people get off asserting that HOVs carry 40% of peak hour traffic? These figures are 12%ov vehicles (not counting buses) and that counts parents lugging their kids to school or daycare. The craigster


-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 16, 2000

Answers

Craig,

I would be all "for" continuing a fair amount of Transit subsidies, say 30-40%, if those people who want transportation choices would actually RIDE mass transit. But most don't or won't.

It would appear these people are unable to grasp reality that the Transit subsidies have yielded no increase in ridership, and all those millions (billions?) have given us in return are a few pieces of real estate, some busses, and a huge payroll to support.

I don't care what amount of data/statistics or logic you use, you won't convince most of these transit advocates to change their minds. I don't think they understand the concept....

It's still the demographics.

Why continue to throw away millions? Even if we never paved another mile in this state, we need to stop the Transit Empire from continuing it's overfeeding on the taxpayers.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 17, 2000.

to Craig: You ask: And while Im on the soapbox, where do people get off asserting that HOVs carry 40% of peak hour traffic? These figures are 12%ov vehicles (not counting buses) and that counts parents lugging their kids to school or daycare. The craigster."

Well, I commute every evening up the Southcenter Hill on I-5. There are a total of 5 lanes, one of which is a carpool lane. I can personally testify that the carpool lane is just as congested as all the other lanes. And this is for a length of several miles, sometimes 6 or 7 miles.

Since the vehicles in the carpool lane have to have at least two people, a slightly mathematically inclined individual should be able to deduce that the carpool lane is carrying a third of the people during the rush hour (4-5 PM).

Now, consider that some of the vehicles in the carpool lane are carrying more than two people, it is not unreasonable to believe that the carpool lane is carrying, say, 35% of the people during rush hour.

So, if 35% is a reasonable guess, I don't see how you can be making a big stink over 40%.

And, to be honest, although I do see some moms or dads with car seats, the vast majority of vehicles I observe in the carpool lane are pickup trucks with two guys.

Perhaps, we're using different terminology. Most people who extol the virtue of HOV lanes, talk about the NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Whereas, you seem preoccupied with the NUMBER OF VEHICLES.

In the case of the HOV lane between I-405 and Hwy 516 on I-5 southbound, the HOV lane carries approximately 20% of the vehicles, since it is just as congested as the other 4 lanes. Your claim of 12% is not an accurate description of the HOV lane up the Southcenter Hill.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 18, 2000.

"In the case of the HOV lane between I-405 and Hwy 516 on I-5 southbound, the HOV lane carries approximately 20% of the vehicles, since it is just as congested as the other 4 lanes" " I can personally testify that the carpool lane is just as congested as all the other lanes. "

Which would certainly imply that Craig is right, HOV lanes AREN'T a good idea. If all are equally congested, then all you are really doing is stratifying the HOV vehicles into one lane and the SOVs into the other lane. Throughput isn't changing under these circumstances, either for vehicles or for people.

"Perhaps, we're using different terminology. Most people who extol the virtue of HOV lanes, talk about the NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Whereas, you seem preoccupied with the NUMBER OF VEHICLES. "

But the point that the King County planning benchmark report makes is that most of the people using HOV lanes (other than transit) are FAMILY GROUPS THAT WOULD HAVE TRAVELED TOGETHER ANYWAY. If all you are doing is segregating in a designated lane people who would have traveled together anyway there is NO NET GAIN IN THROUGHPUT.

Come to think of it, if all you are doing is expediting travel for people that would have travelled together anyway, you aren't increasing throughput either!

I think THAT is the point of the reference up above regarding transit. After decades of building up Metro, it still only amounts to less than one transit ride per person per week, and that includes all the free (no-fare zone) rides, double counting the transfers, despite free passes given out by employers, restrictions on parking, the bus tunnel, and everything else.

The average person travels over 12,000 miles per year. That's 250 miles a week. If only one transit rise (or less) is included in the 250 miles, Craig's right. Transit doesn't deserve any serious consideration when it comes to the issue of congestion.

We'd do a lot better spending the money on roads.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), June 18, 2000.

to Mikey: You write: "We'd do a lot better spending the money on roads."

I'm glad we're in agreement. The HOV lanes are roads. Therefore, spending money on HOV lanes meets your criteria. Congratulations!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 19, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>Ron (tax to the max) wants you to pay more of that terribly regressive sales tax to support transit.<<

Are you implying that you are concerned about the sales tax being too regressive? This implication, of course, is not supported by your past support of 695.

If you were truly concerned about the regressiveness of our taxation system, you certainly would not have supported 695, as it took one of the few progressive taxes and made it regressive.

Also, why are you so concerned about Sims putting a sales tax increase on the ballot? Voting on tax increases is what the supporters of 695 wanted, after all. Are you now saying you don't want King County voters to vote on tax increases?

Or are you saying that you want people to vote on tax increases, just as long as the proposed tax increases are ones that *you* agree with?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.

Hi BB, welcome back- "Are you implying that you are concerned about the sales tax being too regressive? This implication, of course, is not supported by your past support of 695. " No. This was merely a not too subtle jab at the legions of liberals who object to regressive taxes, but don't hesitate to resort to them to support THEIR priorities.

"If you were truly concerned about the regressiveness of our taxation system, you certainly would not have supported 695, as it took one of the few progressive taxes and made it regressive. " I don't necessarily agree with that. Although I could afford better, I tend to buy late model used cars and I've seen numerous people of very modest means in hock up to the gills for a new car, even financing the excise tax over the course of 5 years and paying off the annual excise taxes with a (17%) credit card that they made minimum payments on. Even before 695, I paid less than many people who do not have near my income. Heck, for some young people, their auto is most of their net worth. The excise tax, like the sales tax, was to a very real degree just a consumption tax. The more you consumed (in terms of expense of the car) the more you paid. You can debate whether or not consumption taxes are the best way to fund government, but as you note, we don't have a state income tax.

"Also, why are you so concerned about Sims putting a sales tax increase on the ballot? Voting on tax increases is what the supporters of 695 wanted, after all. Are you now saying you don't want King County voters to vote on tax increases?" If you have been following any of my postings, BB, you know that I believe that we have expanded transit services far outside of their niche of cost- effectiveness. While I believe that any decision on taxes ought to be judged on its own merits, in this case I certainly would not personally vote a dime to decrease the impact of 695 to Metro, nor would I give anymore money to Sound Transit.

"Or are you saying that you want people to vote on tax increases, just as long as the proposed tax increases are ones that *you* agree with? " Is this tongue in cheek, BB, or what? I am in favor of having people vote on tax increases, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm in favor of them voting on every tax increase.
Generally speaking people do want other people to vote the way that they would vote on an issue. That's what advocacy is all about. Have you ever voted for a candidate or issue while telling yourself "I hope I'm outvoted on this and my cause or candidate loses?" If so, maybe you have something that zowie can diagnose. I certainly don't have many acquaintances that routinely vote for the candidate or issue they don't believe in. But this is an election, not a war. Sometimes they other side wins, and you either live with that or keep campaigning and hoping for a different result in the next election.

This was tongue-in-cheek, right? Like my subtle jab at those who would protest a regressive tax unless it's for something they want?

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 19, 2000.

"but that certainly doesn't mean I'm in favor of them voting on every tax increase. "

I phrased that inaccurately. This would have been better:

but that certainly doesn't mean I'm in favor of them voting FOR every tax increase that is proposed.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 19, 2000.

"where do people get off asserting that HOVs carry 40% of peak hour traffic? These figures are 12%ov vehicles (not counting buses) and that counts parents lugging their kids to school or daycare. The craigster"

The "40%" that I think you are referring to is the fraction of commuters on I-5 during the peak period that is carried by the HOV lane - actually 42%.

The US Census data quoted above is not about HOV lane usage. It says that 12% is the fraction of total work trips in the county that are made by HOV (21% if buses are included).

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

"The "40%" that I think you are referring to is the fraction of commuters on I-5 during the peak period that is carried by the HOV lane - actually 42%. "

If you count those in the buses (who are underfunding the road system). But how many would be car-pooling or using the buses regardless of whether or not there were HOV lanes? And how much of this is just stratification? If I have two equal sized groups of cars, one with two people in it, one with one person in it, and I mandate that the two-person cars use the left lane and the one person cars use the right lane I have created a situation where the left lane will carry 66.66% of the total users. But have I decreased congestion or increased throughput? Uh-uh.

Social engineering only works if it works. The NPTS indicates it's not working. Stratification doesn't increase throughput, only a net increase in occupants per vehicle will increase throughput, and you aren't seeing that because the demographics are increasingly against it. It's still the demographics. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 23, 2000.

Another way to put the question is, how many of the current peak-hour HOV users would switch to SOV commuting if HOV lanes were elminated? I'll get to that question once I finish the "Are HOV lanes unfair?" argument.

Do you have demographic data on the peak-hour users of HOV lanes in Washington?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.

No- Closest I could come to it is the mode split indicator, although this is an all day indicator. On the other hand, congestion is becoming more and more an all day problem, You would thing that (and HOV lanes) would increase the use of HOV. Hasn't happened. In fact, it's going the other way over time:

Indicator 43

Outcome: Assess the Mode Split
INDICATOR 43: Percent of residents who walk or use transit, 
bicycles or carpools as
alternatives to the single occupant vehicle.
Percent of County Residents Who Travel by Means other than a 
Single Occupancy Vehicle
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995* 1996 1997
Transit 3.2% 3.6% NA 3.9% 4.1% 3.7% NA 3.8% 5.7%*
HOV/ Carpool 36.6% 33.4% NA 35.3% 34.3% 35.8% NA 33.8% 
33.0%
Non-Motorized/
Other 4.9% 5.8% NA 5.8% 7.3% 6.3% NA 6.9% 6.9%
SOV 54.4% 56.3% NA 54.4% 53.6% 53.7% NA 55.4% 54.4%

Other demographic studies demonstrate that the family groups traveling together (who would do so with or without an HOV lane) are unchanged for the most part.

A gradual decline is seen in the traditional carpool mode, driven by more trip chaining, more car owners, more flextime, more telecommuting, etc.

That is not to say that HOV lanes aren't being used. As the congestion generally increases they get more also. But if the purpose of HOV lanes is to induce people to use carpools, there's no evidencre they've done that.

You can assert that the decline in use of carpools may have been worse absent the HOV lanes, but I know of no evidence for or against such a theory.

the craigster * If you check the metrics, the person who pot them together kind of doubts this one years transit figures.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 26, 2000.

OK - again, this is data for the whole county, not for the specific routes that have HOV lanes. The people on those routes at peak hours are generally suburb-to-city (or city-to-suburb) commuters. I believe the demographics on those routes are substantially different from the demographics of the inner-city bus-riding population. A transportation engineer and former transit planner told me that in an informal conversation, and my own observation bears it out. I would feel better making that claim if there was a way to confirm it with objective data. Don't know if Metro keeps such statistics.

"You would think that [congestion becoming an all day problem] (and HOV lanes) would increase the use of HOV."

On the routes that have HOV lanes, yes; but not necessarily in the whole county, which the above data refers to.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.

to Craig: You ask: "But how many would be car-pooling or using the buses regardless of whether or not there were HOV lanes?"

In the case of Hwy 520 or the Narrows Bridge, the existence of an HOV lane or HOV entrance probably makes a significant difference. You might expect to see a drop-off of 30-40%.

In the case of the HOV lanes on I-5 or Hwy 167, you might only see a drop-off of 10%.

Let's ask the question the other way, Craig. How much more carpooling would you expect to materialize if there were no HOV lanes.

Any methodology for mitigating congestion must include the one key element: GROWTH. Whether the solution is GP lanes, HOV lanes, or rail, the solution must grow to accommodate growth in the economy. Hence, HOV lanes are doomed to failure if society does not continually expand the system. Also, society should also build more Park'n'Ride facilities if it is truly serious about HOV lanes.

Currently, the HOV lanes are improperly designed. They do not have their own on and off-ramps. They do not have direct connections to Park'n'Ride facilities.

So, it is no wonder that the HOV lanes do not encourage more carpooling.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 26, 2000.

"In the case of Hwy 520 or the Narrows Bridge, the existence of an HOV lane or HOV entrance probably makes a significant difference"

My college statistics professor used to blow a gasket when he saw oxymoronic sentences like that!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 27, 2000.

"My college statistics professor used to blow a gasket when he saw oxymoronic sentences like that! "

It wasn't oxymoronic Craig, just moronic!


zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

to Craig & Zowie: Thanks once again for your back-handed compliments. The fact that you have to resort to nitpicking semantics encourages me.

According to at least one dictionary, one of the meanings of the word, "probably" is "without a doubt".

WITHOUT A DOUBT, the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge makes a significant difference in the amount of carpooling across the bridge.

In fact, right now, I have a passenger in my vanpool from Gig Harbor who I normally would not have recruited because his work destination doesn't really fit well with the rest of us in the vanpool. However, because he MIGHT (depending on who shows up from Gig Harbor) make the difference in our ability to use the carpool entrance, I was MOTIVATED to get him to join the vanpool.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 27, 2000.

"According to at least one dictionary, one of the meanings of the word, "probably" is "without a doubt". "

Whose dictionary definition is this? Harrah's Club?

Are you just putting us on, or do you actually believe it? zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

to zowie: You continue to nit-pick over semantics.

You are unable or unwilling to provide a reasonable argument on why YOU believe the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge makes no appreciable difference in the amount of ridesharing from Gig Harbor.

The best you can do is to debate the meaning of the word, "probably".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 28, 2000.

And you have made another in a long series of vague statements that you parade out as facts. What dictionary are you claiming this came from? A name, if you please!

Not calling you a liar, just doubting that you're telling the truth.(Nowthat's semantics!)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.

OOPS! Must have forgot a tag.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.

Because it WORKS!! Look at Portland for proof. This area needs alternatives for commuting. Not 10 lane interstates. That does not work! Look at LA for proof.

Face it. Tim Eyman could care less about anything but himself. He's clearly out to make a big name for himself. Mark my words, you will see him run for office within 10 years. Lord help us if he does.

-- 2turboz (iuqre@aol.com), June 28, 2000.

to zowie: "Webster's Third New International Dictionary [unabridged]".

I do stand corrected. It is not "without a doubt"; it is "without much doubt" or "very likely". See definition 2b (or not 2b!).

Gee, zowie, you make such strong points. There is a SLIGHT likelihood that the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows bridge does not signifcantly encourage ridesharing.

It is VERY LIKELY that in the special cases of the Narrows or Hwy 520 bridges, HOV lanes/entrance make a difference in terms of the number of people who rideshare.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 28, 2000.

"I do stand corrected. It is not "without a doubt"; it is "without much doubt" or "very likely". See definition 2b (or not 2b!). "

By his own admission he mis-stated fact.

Debate goes to the other side in any debate competition (or court case) in the land.

Mattinsky has demonstrated that his alleged facts can't be trusted, let alone his opinions.

Game, set, and match goes to........ everybody else!

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.

to zowie: I am very happy to learn of your inability to dispute my statement: "It is VERY LIKELY that in the special cases of the Narrows or Hwy 520 bridges, HOV lanes/entrance make a difference in terms of the number of people who rideshare."

NOTE: One definition of "probably" is "very likely".

Good try, though, zowie. Maybe you can seek counseling on how to lose gracefully.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 29, 2000.

Matthew,

"NOTE: One definition of "probably" is "very likely".

Instead of playing school-boy, I showed you games, why don't you come up with specific numbers, data or other information to support your "theory"? Are you so busy posting BS that you don't have time to research it?

Most people "PROBABLY" rideshare because it is less costly than driving personal vehicles, (cheap) and gives them time to relax, (lazy).

Hov lanes are "PROBABLY" not the number one reason people rideshare....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.

"Hov lanes are "PROBABLY" not the number one reason people rideshare.... "

Additionally, the reason MOST people travel in a HOV is that they are a family group that would have been traveling together regardless of the presence or absence of HOV lanes. the craigster


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 29, 2000.

"to zowie: I am very happy to learn of your inability to dispute my statement: "It is VERY LIKELY that in the special cases of the Narrows or Hwy 520 bridges, HOV lanes/entrance make a difference in terms of the number of people who rideshare."

If it makes you feel better, I dispute it. The onus is on the one making an assertion to prove it, not on the ones who don't believe the assertion. Can you give an objective reference for your assertion?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.

"Can you give an objective reference for your assertion? "

Make it one we can all check, since you're a self admitted liar.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.

to Mark : You write: "Make it one we can all check, since you're a self admitted liar."

"Self admitted liar"??? Sounds like a contradiction in terms. How can you believe someone if they admit they're lying?

You, like zowie and Craig, are playing games with semantics because of your inability to prove the converse: ridesharing will increase WITHOUT HOV lanes.

I never "admitted" to being a "liar", which of course makes YOU a liar. I merely admitted to making a mistake when I transcribed the definition of "probably".

I was raised that admitting one's mistakes is a sign of great honesty and courage.

A definition of the word, "probably", equates to "very likely". Therefore, I was being reasonable when I combined the words "probably" and "significant". Yet, you, zowie, and Craig want to jump all over my back over semantics. Get a life.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 30, 2000.

to zowie & Mark: I'm not sure what you mean by "objective evidence" of increased ridesharing. I've already provided you with anecdotal evidence of my particular vanpool. Without the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge, I would have no motivation to recruit riders from Gig Harbor vs. Tacoma. And, in fact, I currently have a passenger who I would be motivated to drop from the vanpool, because his work location adds few minutes to our commute.

What part of the testimony do you not understand? Do I need to look up the word, "motivation", in the dictionary for you?

It is my opinion that there is a high concentration of vanpool vans in the Gig Harbor area relative to its population. For example, at the Park'n'Ride where I pick up passengers, there are 10 vans besides my own. Yet, the lot only holds about 30 vehicles. Therefore, the vanpool vans are getting a lot of passengers from other locations, probably Tacoma. Do you consider this to be objective evidence? I could take a picture of the Park'n'Ride lot; scan it and; e-mail it to you. Would this help you to understand my point?

I may be able to obtain info from Pierce Transit on the number of vanpool vans originating from the Peninsula. If the numbers are disproportionatley high relative to the population, would you consider this to be objective evidence?

Gig Harbor is only about 5 miles from Tacoma. So, if the vanpools did not start in Gig Harbor, in order to join a vanpool, one would have to drive at least 5 miles. Perhaps you're claiming that people would be equally motivated to save at least 10 miles round trip as they would to save 10-15 minutes on their commute, in which case eliminating the HOV entrance would have no appreciable effect.

But for some vanpools starting in Gig Harbor, like mine, there would be a time penalty for an additional stop(s) in Gig Harbor. Where's the motivation for me as a driver to recruit people from Gig Harbor? I might better off concentrating my efforts on folks in Tacoma.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 30, 2000.

Getting to work

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

to zowie: Thank you for the link, but it provides no illumination on the Puget Sound during rush hour. Remember, we were discussing how HOV lanes increase the probability of ridesharing.

Since many communities don't even have HOV lanes, I'm not sure what useful purpose is served to cite a statistic which lumps data from all across the nation.

For a cost of $800 million plus, we're going to get shoulders across a 1.3 mile Tacoma Narrows bridge. So, that comes out to around $350 million per lane-mile.

SCREW STUPIDITY, SUBSIDIZE VANPOOLING!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 03, 2000.

"I never "admitted" to being a "liar", which of course makes YOU a liar. I merely admitted to making a mistake when I transcribed the definition of "probably". "
Transcribed?
Transcribed??
How about, making up a definition?

"I was raised that admitting one's mistakes is a sign of great honesty and courage. "

My oh my! You have more opportunities to demonstrate great honesty and courage than anyone I know.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

to Mark: You rhetorically write:

"Transcribed? Transcribed?? How about, making up a definition?"

Please support your scurrilous remarks, proving beyond reasonable doubt that I INTENTIONALLY made up a definition, as opposed to reading a definition from a dictionary, and, then, from memory, typed it out on this thread.

Again, I am quite amused that neither you, zowie, nor Craig can produce any evidence whatsoever that eliminating the HOV lanes will result in an increase in ridesharing.

The best you can do is to resort to mudslinging. If you can't beat the message, maybe you can pummel the messenger. Tell me Mark, were you a bully in school?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"The best you can do is to resort to mudslinging. If you can't beat the message, maybe you can pummel the messenger"

Pummel?

What kind of a namby-pamby school did you go to?

You got caught in a lie.

Deal with it.

Don't quibble over what the definition of "is" is.

Be a mensch!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

to Mark: You continue to fail at owning up to your own deceit and pathetic behavior. You write:

"You got caught in a lie." [No, I did not. You, as a liar, called me a liar.]

"Deal with it." [Practice what you preach!]

"Don't quibble over what the definition of "is" is." [I'm not the one quibbling over definitions. You're the one calling me a liar because I did not completely type in a definition of a word I looked up in the dictionary!]

"Be a mensch!" [Again, practice what you preach!!!].

I may be ignorant. I may be incurably ignorant, thus making me stupid. But, I have no cause to be a "liar".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"I may be ignorant. I may be incurably ignorant, thus making me stupid. But, I have no cause to be a "liar".

And this is a great,/b> example of Matt's stupidity.

For I did, precisely what he is doing, and he himself has demonstrated why his system doesn't work.

Example one:
Matt had one of his infallible assumptions about HOV lanes "In the case of Hwy 520 or the Narrows Bridge, the existence of an HOV lane or HOV entrance probably makes a significant difference. You might expect to see a drop-off of 30-40%. " and then taunted everyone over their alleged inability to disprove his allegation somehow giving this opinion validity.

Example two: Matt gives as fact something that is not correct, is called upon it, and has to subsequently admit that what he had stated was fact was not fact at all. Whereupon he was called a liar, and took umbrage stating that he was merely ignorant and stupid, but not a liar.

He is in this case totally correct (No, not just about being stupid and ignorant, but about being correct in that he has been placed in an untenable position of having to prove the negative, ie., that he is not a liar.

This dramatically illustrates what zowie was saying (above). The onus is on the one making the assertion to prove a positive, rather than on those supporting the "null hypothesis" of no difference. Matt might do a little study on the scientific method. (http://www.isd77.k12.mn.us/resources/cf/SciProjInter.html)

But, just as he must now concede that the onus is on him to prove his assertion that HOV lanes encourage car-pooling, the onus on me is to prove my assertion that he is a liar.

If I am unable to come up with convincing evidence to prove he is a liar, we are all obligated to accept his alternate hypothesis, that he is simply ignorant and stupid. Mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

Whoops, broken tag.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

to Mark: You write: "Example two: Matt gives as fact something that is not correct, is called upon it, and has to subsequently admit that what he had stated was fact was not fact at all. Whereupon he was called a liar, and took umbrage stating that he was merely ignorant and stupid, but not a liar."

No, you are incorrect, again, verging again on deliberately being misleading, which makes YOU the liar. I admitted to making a MISTAKE about the definition of the word, "probably", not to being ignorant OR stupid. You have a right to judge me and decide if my mistake warrants the label of ignorant, stupid, or whatever. But, I only admitted to making a mistake, nothing more.

You also write: "The onus is on the one making the assertion to prove a positive, rather than on those supporting the "null hypothesis" of no difference."

I've never denied that. I accept the responsibility of proving my assertion. Apparently, for you, zowie, and Craig, I have not provided enough proof. That's fine. I commend you all for seeking as much objective evidence as possible. I remain confident that as I acquire more "evidence", it will support my hypothesis. Even if what you claim about the "null hypothesis" is true, then HOV lanes cause no harm in the case of the Narrows Bridge or Hwy 520. Doesn't sound like too bad of a fall-back position to me.

You also write: "But, just as he must now concede that the onus is on him to prove his assertion that HOV lanes encourage car-pooling, the onus on me is to prove my assertion that he is a liar."

Ah, at last! You've seen the light. I'll take your posting as back-handed apology. It's better than nothing, I suppose.

You finally end with "...he is simply ignorant and stupid. Mark"

Oh, gee. You've hurt my feelings so. What a great debater you are. Do I dare say it? Perhaps you are even a master debater.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"I admitted to making a MISTAKE about the definition of the word, "probably", not to being ignorant OR stupid. "

"I may be ignorant. I may be incurably ignorant, thus making me stupid. "

Are you sure about that narcissistic personality thing, zowie?

He appears to be becoming schizophrenic!


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

RE: ""I may be ignorant. I may be incurably ignorant, thus making me stupid. ""

HMMM!

That is showing an awful lot of self- insight for a narcissistic personality disorder. Most wouldn't recognize they were ignorant and stupid like this.

But the diagnosis is pretty solid. My guess is that he will now deny being ignorant and stupid, once again demonstrating that the insight was merely fleeting and unsustainable.

He's a narcissistic personality disorder.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

to Mark: You write: "He appears to be becoming schizophrenic!"

I'm not schizophrenic. Yes I am!

I'm not! I am!

Not! Am!

Just kidding, of course. And, I apologize in advance to anyone who does, or knows someone who does, suffer from mental illness. I'm poking fun at myself, not at anyone else.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 07, 2000.