Does Ken Avidor Profit Financially from his anti-PRT Propaganda?

In the comments section of this Lloydletta abomination, I asked Ken Avidor a simple question: how much have you made on your anti-highway, anti-PRT cartoon, Roadkill Bill?

Ken refuses to respond.

Why is this relevant? Well, for weeks now, Ken himself has been asking pro-PRT people if they make money to promote PRT - on Wikipedia he tried (and failed miserably) to imply David Gow (Mr Grant) had a financial conflict of interest, and he's also aggressively questioned other pro-PRT people.

So certainly the question is relevant for Avidor himself.

But unlike Avidor's fishing expiditions, I have actual evidence to back up my question:

• Roadkill Bill ran for almost 4 years in Pulse of the Twin Cities during which time I assume Avidor was paid for producing it. (How much, Ken?)


• Roadkill Bill is aggressively anti-highway, and Ken has repeatedly tried to link PRT to highways but has never provided shred of evidence to support that bogus claim. Could there be a financial reason for Ken's persistent attempts to associate PRT with highway promoters?


• At some point (right around the time he stopped getting paid for producing Roadkill Bill), he produced this anti-PRT Roadkill Bill comic - pretty strange considering that PRT doesn't run on roads. This was right around the time PRT was being discussed heavily in Minnesota and he was ramping up his anti-PRT propaganda campaign. Could it be that Ken used PRT to revive his Roadkill Bill cartoon?


• Later, in the context of his never-ending attack on the Wikipedia PRT article, he posted another Roadkill Bill comic - this one critical of Wikipedia. What possible link could there be between an online encyclopedia and a cartoon about roads?


• Ken's anti-PRT pages are located on his Roadkill Bill website - so people searching on PRT are directed to roadkillbill.com.


• There is a Roadkill Bill paperback listed at Amazon. Does Ken continue to make money by keeping Roadkill Bill in the spotlight?

Is Ken Avidor's anti-PRT campaign nothing but a tool to promote his cartoon? It's a valid question.

Here's a very plausible scenario: in 2003, as Roadkill Bill was running out of steam, PRT was a big topic in Minnesota. Everyone was talking about this new exotic form of transportation that rode above the streets, but few people had any concept of how such a system would work or how much it would cost - it was a complete unknown for the general public.

In other words, PRT was ripe for attack - especially by a train advocate who was looking for new ideas for his floudering cartoon. Unlike the anti-highway movement, which is always battling against the huge majority that is the car-driving public, attacking PRT was a piece of cake.

But, how can an anti-highway cartoon like Roadkill Bill be used to attack a new form of public transit? Easy - just tell everyone that PRT is a tool of the highway lobby! It's really brilliant: you scare the left by linking PRT to highways, you scare the right by calling it a tax boondogle, you scare everyone else by linking it to terrorism - and all the while you revive your failing cartoon!

So here we are, several years later. Ken Avidor has kept PRT (and therefore Roadkill Bill) in the limelight for several years after the last Minnesota PRT bill was defeated. He's splashed his Roadkill Bill anti-PRT and anti-Wikipedia cartoons all over the Internet. He even got an article on Roadkill Bill at Wikipedia. And web searches on PRT direct you to... roadkillbill.com.

Indeed, PRT has gained Roadkill Bill much more exposure than the anti-car movement ever could - and I assume the royalties are still coming in from his paperback.

How much of this scenario is true? Who knows? It seems we'll never know, since Ken refuses to answer any questions about his profits from Roadkill Bill. But look at all the evidence above and judge for yourselves. I think it's a very safe assumption that Ken Avidor has benefited handsomely from his anti-PRT crusade. The only remaining questions are: how much has he made so far, and how much more business does he drum up every time he posts a new PRT smear?

Give Him an "E" for Effort

Ken Avidor has discovered Easter eggs, and he's begun using them on his dumpmarkolson blog. It's unclear when or where he learned this trick, but it's a good bet he got it from 'PRT is a Joke' is a Joke, which has featured Easter eggs for quite a while now.
Ken Avidor spreads lies about PRT.
But, bless his PRT-smearing heart, Ken still hasn't figured out how to do it right. See, the key to a good Easter egg is that it must be invisible - completely invisible - but Ken's Easter eggs are plainly not. Instead of using white-on-white, he uses really-really-light-pink-on-white:
Avidor uses the 35W bridge collapse as a propaganda tool.
Ken Avidor never admits when he's wrong.
Can you see it? In that big white gap above the "Labels:" line, there's a slight but very perceptible discoloration. Look closely and you will find Ken's attempted Easter egg. You can see it especially well if you are on a laptop and you tilt the screen back, which darkens the image and increases the contrast of the "Easter egg" until it's clearly legible.
Ken Avidor smears PRT and its proponents.
And there's another problem: notice the huge gap where the Easter egg is placed. A good Easter egg has no gap other than the typical gap between paragraphs. A giant space between paragraphs is a dead giveaway.
Ken Avidor is afraid to debate me on PRT.
But hey, we gotta give him some credit for trying, right? Maybe Ken never went to an Easter egg hunt as a child, and therefore he doesn't really get the concept of "hidden". So Ken, I applaud the effort. Keep on plugging and maybe someday you'll get it right...Avidor's anti-PRT campaign is disinformation.

Lloydletta Bottom-Feeders Plunge to a New Depth of Tastlessness

Lloydletta's Nooz brings us the latest bit of disgusting discourse from Ken Avidor. I won't go into details in this post out of respect for those tragic souls who are still in the water, but suffice to say that it took Acidor less than a day to shamelessly use an unspeakable tragedy in his own hometown to attack a PRT promoter - then alluded to it again on Lloydletta.

So, when David Gow naturally objected to Ken's shameless attempt to use this tragedy to make a point (also here), Ken, oblivious to hypocrisy as he is, shamelessly tried to pin the blame on Gow!

Can this man sink any lower? We already know he has no problem continuing to attack someone who died 4 years ago, but now we see he's not even averse to using tragic accident victims to promote his cause - even while the tragedy is still unfolding!

Lloydletta and Ken Avidor: plunging to the depths of tastelessness once again.