Weiner Watch

The Three Stooges in... Pod Killers!

2010-03-28T15:28:00.006-04:00

Our friend Ken Avidor is well known for his Photoshop hacks, so I figured I'd give it a try myself. Since 99.44% of all public anti-PRT sentiment can be traced to these three guys, I figured they deserved their own poster. Introducing "The Three Stooges" of anti-PRT propaganda: Ken Avidor, Michael Setty, and Vukan Vuchic.

These guys have been at it for years now. They've been debunked so many times that their credibility is trash among those in the know, but they can still bamboozle the unknowing public with their pseudo-intellectual load of crap. Someday the world will look back on these luddites as the three men who delayed transportation innovation for decades.

So whenever Ken posts one of his "pod squad" graphics, feel free to post this in response. My only regret is that I couldn't find a photo of Ken's fugitive buddy Mark Knapp. Maybe I'll get a mug shot, once he's caught. Any leads on the investigation, Ken?

Enjoy. :-)

Ken Avidor's Longtime Friend Caught with Mrs. Nussbaum's Credit Cards

2010-01-08T21:58:00.012-05:00

So everyone's heard by now how Ken Avidor's long time friend and blogging partner Mark Knapp was charged with aggravated identity theft for using credit cards obtained in another man's name.

There are so many hilarious ironies to this event that I had a hard time selecting which to write about. Most of the good quips have already been made: "the guilt-by-association king has guilty associations!", "Zimmermann is looking forward to having a fellow Green as a cellmate", and my personal favorite: "Green Party Gone Bad!"

The last, of course, is a reference to the blog, "greenpartygonebad.blogspot.com" that Mark Knapp and Ken Avidor shared right up until Ken apparently took it down when Knapp went fugitive. Can you imagine the scene at Avidor's computer that day, as he frantically tried to purge all his associations with Knapp? I imagine it was like those movie scenes when the cops arrive for a drug bust, and a drug dealer frantically flushes his stash down the toilet.

Ken Avidor flushing Knapp down the toilet. Now there's an amusing visual.

So anyway, I was looking for an different angle on this hilarious development, and I started thinking about Ken Avidor, the self-styled investigative reporter who claims to have "exposed the PRT scam". Ken Avidor, who thinks "LIM" is a PRT company, when it is actually a type of electric motor. Ken Avidor, who looked at a 10 year old satellite photo of ULTra PRT's test track site and claimed it had been bullozed (hint: the photo was taken before the track was built).

Yes, we've all had fun watching Avidor's sometimes bumbling, always inaccurate, "investigations" through the years. But with the Knapp revelation, Avidor took bumbling to a new level. Think about it: the whole time Avidor was investigating all the so-called "crooks and liars" of the PRT world, his best friend and blog partner was allegedly using stolen credit cards, and Avidor never even noticed!

So when they went out to dinner and Knapp was always picking up the check, wouldn't you think Avidor would get suspicious? Where was this luddite Green getting all this spending money? And why was he signing his credit slips "Mr. Nussbaum"?

No, Avidor didn't notice, and I'm not surprised in the least. I mean, if he can't even understand the concept of a dated satellite photo, is he ever going to grasp a high tech crime like identity theft? Of course not. So when I read that Avidor claimed he had no idea about Knapp, I believed him 100%. I'll even testify on his behalf if he wants me to, that's how convinced I am of Avidor's complete lack of skill as an investigative reporter.

Now, given that he didn't know about Knapp's criminal behavior beforehand, I started wondering what it looked like when Avidor finally found out. I think this photo captures it perfectly:

STOLEN!!

UPDATE:

I just received this email from Ken:

Michael Carrato,

You have made serious, false and defamatory statements concerning me in this blog post:

http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/ken-avidors-longtime-friend-caught-with.html

You may be liable for spreading false and misleading information about an ongoing criminal investigation.

The authorities have been contacted. You may want to consult an attorney.

Jeez, here I am, sticking my neck out, telling the world that I believe that Avidor knew nothing of Knapp's alleged wrongdoing, and what do I get in return? Avidor threatens me! No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.

And no, I won't be contacting my lawyer.

He Really Believes He's a Sleuth

2009-10-19T22:36:00.005-04:00

Ken Avidor has dramatically announced "the end of the road" for me. He claims I "slipped up" in revealing my IP address.

The real fact is, I've been dropping clues for months. I left a trail of breadcrumbs so obvious that an 11 year old hacker could have tracked me down in 15 minutes. But months later, Avidor still hadn't figured it out, so I had to get more obvious.

So a few days ago, I left this comment as "Mike C" on Streetsblog in which I basically revealed myself:

David Gow and I are enthusiastic about all forms of well-conceived public transportation, not just those which happen to be large vehicles gliding on precisely 2 rails. :-)

Notice that "enthusiastic" and "transportation" are in italics, and there's a smiley at the end. Get it? "A Transportation Enthusiast." How much more obvious can that be? Does that look like a "slip"?

So, Ken, congratulations on finally realizing the obvious. And, now that you know my true identity, surely we can commence our debate, right?

The Hypocrisy of TreeHugger.com

2008-03-13T18:01:00.008-04:00

"TreeHugger". The name is synonymous with in-your-face environmentalism - the kind of activism that stands up to corporate abuses in defense of nature's majesty.

So imagine my surprise at seeing Lloyd Alter, one of the most active members of TreeHugger.com, acting at the behest of corporate construction interests!

Allow me to explain. In one corner, there is personal rapid transit, PRT, a promising new green transportation technology. A PRT system is currently being built at Heathrow Airport in London. For the uninitiated, here are a few facts about this system:

Phase one is on budget and on schedule to open next year as a parking lot circulator, with plans in place to extend it throughout the airport and beyond.

The system features light, automated, battery-driven vehicles which run on demand on a dedicated guideway, and initial versions will move 1200-4800 people per hour, equivalent to buses running every 1-3 minutes.

Vehicles produce no local emissions, using batteries charged from the electrical grid.

Vehicles consume the equivalent of a 100 mpg automobile, and are even more environmentally friendly than that because they run off grid power, and can therefore take full advantage of advancements in clean power generation.

The system is more energy efficient per passenger than any other transit mode.

Construction and operating costs are significantly less than light rail, and PRT provides no-wait, non-stop, private travel, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

The system meets Kyoto sustainability targets today - 35 years ahead of schedule.

Now, if you are a true environmentalist, what possible problem could you have with a system like that?

So that's PRT. In the other corner, there is traditional light rail transit. Now, I'm as much a fan of rail as anyone - I'm amazed by metro/subway systems like NYC and Toronto - but light rail is not a panacea. There are many situations where PRT is a much better option than light rail.

The problem is, light rail has its proponents, and those proponents see PRT as a threat. Light rail construction firms and consultancies stand to lose BILLIONS of dollars if a new technology like PRT cuts into their monopoly on city transit, so it is in their best interest to see PRT fail.

Which brings us to the Light Rail Now (LRN) website. LRN is a corporate astroturfing website - basically a site that presents itself as a grass roots effort, but is in reality just an undercover marketing campaign - in this case, underwritten primarily by three rail companies.

LRN has a somewhat famous "analysis" of PRT called "Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality". It was written anonymously, never published, and only exists on the LRN website in its "FACTS" section. It's basically promoted as a scientific analysis of why PRT would not work.

One problem: it's complete fiction. It's not a scientific analysis, it's marketing fluff, written to disparage PRT and preserve light rail's monopoly on city transit. Here are four separate, detailed rebuttals which debunk every major point in the "analysis".

But even though the LRN report is not accurate, it's very effective. Responsible journalistic entities wouldn't touch it - they know better than to trust anonymously written marketing fluff from an astroturfing site - but the LRN report gets plenty of circulation in blogs and forums, where transit activists who've never heard of PRT quickly buy into the criticism and spread it further.

Which brings us back to TreeHugger. Lloyd Alter apparently got a stack of propaganda from Ken Avidor, including one of Avidor's cartoons and a link to the LRN report. But Lloyd is not a journalist, so it didn't occur to him that an activist sending out propaganda should not be trusted to provide the full truth. Lloyd basically parroted Avidor's campaign verbatim.

But bad journalism is not necessary hypocrisy - maybe Lloyd was just being lazy? Nope. I posted a comment to that thread which outlined Ken Avidor's association with LRN, and LRN's association with corporate rail interests, but my comment never appeared. Then I sent an email to the TreeHugger editor detailing my concerns - no response.

And then there's this comment from Lloyd, in which he sarcastically acknowledges the objections. So Lloyd certainly cannot claim ignorance to the evidence.

No, Lloyd and TreeHugger have clearly chosen to ignore fact and support corporate rail. He's been shown the potential environmental benefits of this new technology, and he knows it's being built as we speak at Heathrow, yet he's still touting the rail company line.

Pure hypocrisy.

So the next time Lloyd goes on and on about the importance of biodegradable flooring, ask him why he is bashing the most environmentally friendly transit solution since the bicycle. Ask him why he has such a problem with a transit technology that can provide ultimate convenience and availability, and can also get us to Kyoto energy levels 20 years ahead of schedule.

It's obviously a question he's trying to evade.

Ken Avidor's Propaganda Resurfaces at TreeHugger

2008-03-11T19:41:00.004-04:00

Ken Avidor has supposedly "retired", but his anti-PRT campaign lives on. Someone named Lloyd Alter at TreeHugger has revived his campaign, complete with links to Avidor's Greatest Hits: a Road Kill Bill anti-PRT cartoon, and the much debunked Light Rail Now PRT attack.

I left a comment there, letting them know that Ken Avidor was the originator of all that disinformation - he's even one of the anonymous authors of that unpublished "Cyberspace Dream" pseudo-scientific analysis. I also pointed out that Light Rail Now is a backed by light rail construction interests who stand to lose $Billions if PRT succeeds, and that Alter had been snookered into believing the words of a single cartoonist with an agenda, who just happens to be in bed with corporate rail interests.

But - surprise surprise! - my TreeHugger comment never appeared, despite 13 other comments being approved (mostly mindless criticisms from people who know nothing about PRT) - so why is my comment being suppressed? Perhaps Lloyd Alter was advised by his "source" to suppress my comments?

TreeHugger is yet another example of idiot journalism - a collection of untrained, unprofessional writers who take the words of those with an agenda, and present them as unaltered, unswerving fact. Did Lloyd Alter bother to investigate Avidor's claims? Of course not! If he had, he would have found responses from others which answer every single one of Avidor's talking points.

He would have also discovered that the "Cyberspace Dream" paper had been thorougly debunked multiple times - including corrections to basic 11th grade physics mistakes - yet it still appears in its original unaltered form. Did it ever occur to Mr. Alter that an anonymously written "analysis" posted on a competitor's web site might not be accurate - indeed, that it might be nothing more than marketing fluff?

No, none of this crossed Mr. Alter's mind, because he is not a journalist, and TreeHugger is not a journalistic entity. Like the Twin Cities Daily Planet and the DumpBachmann blog, TreeHugger is nothing more than a megaphone for propagandists like Ken Avidor.

Another Attempt at Getting Past Eva Young's Censors

2008-01-12T16:43:00.000-05:00

I've just posted a comment to this DumpBachmann post. Given the long history of censorship at DumpBachmann, you might question why I would continue to waste my time posting comments there. But what can I say, I must be a glutton for punishment. :-)

Let's see what excuse they use to suppress this comment. They're pretty creative in their censorship rationalizations so I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with today...

Update: My comment appeared - 5 hours later and with an immediate response from Eva. And of course, they waited long enough so that my comment conveniently didn't appear on the recent comments list - more manipulation of the moderation system. I've just posted another comment (very much on topic) so we'll see what games they play to hide it.

Watch the DumpBachmann Censors - Live! (Recorded earlier)

2008-01-04T14:02:00.000-05:00

My little experiement in political censorship and comment manipulation at DumpBachmann is now complete, but feel free to browse the blow-by-blow account below (remember, read from the bottom up!)

Final Update, 10:45pm EST: But wait - we have our answer! As I was typing the last update, Eva posted a comment here at Weiner Watch which confirms that she has no intention of allowing my latest comment in the DumpBachmann thread! In other words, she freely admits that she's censoring my response, and she thinks she can avoid charges of censorship by posting it here - edited of course, with her own comments interspersed.

Unlike Eva, I'll keep her comment as is - I have nothing to hide. Specifically, I'm not hiding the inconvenient fact that my contributors are using my blog to advance the financial interests of light rail construction firms.

But this will be my final update, because my point is made: Eva Young is a censor who manipulates her discussions to advance her causes. In my particular case, her "cause" is promoting light rail by smearing PRT, and when I point out the obvious flaws in her propaganda, she uses comment moderation to manipulate the debate in her favor.

Lesson: Do not trust political hack blogs like DumpBachmann, and, more generally, never trust any forum moderated by propagandists like Eva Young and Ken Avidor, especially in cases like this where they have a possible financial conflict of interest.

It's too bad that the task of criticising Michele Bachmann, a politician overripe for criticism, falls into the incapable and corrupt hands of the DumpBachmann folks.

Update, 10:21pm EST: My second comment seems to have been ignored, much as the first was for nearly 6 hours. Since I posted the second comment almost 2 hours ago, two other comments from "friendly" jonerik have appeared on the DB, while my comment is still in limbo. Maybe Eva's editing it as we speak, or maybe she's holding onto it for a few more hours until it's stale enough that it doesn't appear on the "recent comments" list.

Update, 8:38pm EST: I have just submitted the following comment to the comments section. Let's see how long it takes to appear. Anyone want to start a pool? :-)

Two questions: (1) Why did it take 6 hours for my comment to appear, and (2) Why did you intersperse your response with mine?

DumpBachmann's comment policy is a joke:

- "moderation" that suppresses comments for hours or even days

- comments (when they finally appear) edited to include inline responses from DB contributors

- premature "closing" of comments sections that are unpleasant to you (this is not even a day old and you are already implying that you will accept no more comments)

- manipulating critical comments so the don't appear on the "recent comments" list on the front page of your blog.

You are all hypocrites for claiming to be open and accepting to all non-abusive comments. This is a propaganda site, pure and simple: you advertise open debate even while secretly manipulating comments behind the scenes. Shame on DumpBachmann, and shame on you Eva.

Update, 8:02pm EST: Now things get interesting! My comment finally appears - but not in its original form! It's been edited so that Eva's response is interspersed inline with my own!

And, of course, her comments don't deny anything, but simply repeat the same old Eva/Avidor anti-PRT talking points. For example, Eva uses the ridiculous tactic of associating PRT with creationism. This tactic was borrowed from Ken's corporate light rail buddies at Light Rail Now, who derisively refer to PRT proponents as "gadgetbahners" and "zealots". She also questions why there would be an "attack blog" against a "private citizen" - conveniently ignoring the fact that Ken Avidor has plastered his image across the Internet as the so-called "leading skeptic" on PRT.

Also notice that my comment has appeared with the original timestamp of nearly 6 hours ago - meaning that it appears way down the list of "recent comments". This is Eva's way of burying my comment so readers can't see it. Contrast this with official DBTO dare2sayit.com, whose comment was approved immediately and appeared at the top of the "recent comments" list.

Eva closes her comment manipulation with this decree:

Further comments on this matter can be taken to weiner watch - not here.

In other words: Eva won't engage in a debate which she cannot win, so even though the original post is less than a day old, she has closed comments.

But I'm not willing to let it end there. Stay tuned. :-)

Update, 7:28pm EST: We're well into our 6th hour waiting for my comment to appear. In the last hour, two additional comments have been approved: one from DB supporter "Doug", and also one from critic "dare2sayit.com", who nicely fills the role of official DumpBachmann token opposition (DBTO).

See, Eva Young wants you to think she allows criticism in her blog comments. So she's found an idealogue blogger from the other side - the official DBTO - whom she regularly props up as evidence that she's not a censor. She even has a link to DBTO's own blog displayed on DB.

Why was dare2sayit selected as DBTO? Simple: because dare2sayit has strong, extreme opinions that are easy to attack and debunk. They'd never have me as DBTO, because my opinions are not extreme, nor do I post ideological rants. My posts are centered in fact, and often debunk their own inflammatory rhetoric.

In short: I will never be DBTO, because they don't want you to see what I write.

I often wonder if dare2sayit is actually a plant - i.e. one of the DB contributors posing as opposition to make the other side to look bad. Normally I wouldn't jump to such conclusions (I like to think that most bloggers are above such petty manipulations), but DumpBachmann contributor Ken Avidor has a long history of such deceptions.

In any case, we now have a total of four comments approved since I submitted mine over five hours ago, including one from the official DBTO, yet mine is still censored.

Update, 6:08pm EST: Exactly four hours have passed, and my comment is still censored. But it's early yet - in the past I've waited days for critical comments to get past the DumpBachmann censors.

Update, 4:55pm EST: Going on three hours now, and my comment is still censored. No other comments have appeared either... I wonder how many other critical comments are "awaiting moderation" along with mine?

Update, 3:58pm EST: Nearly two hours later, and my comment has not yet appeared. In the meantime, two supportive comments from "Eric Z" have appeared on other DumpBachmann posts, so obviously someone is moderating. Conclusion: my comment is currently censored.

Initial post, 2:08pm EST: Ten minutes ago, I submitted a comment to this absurd DumpBachmann post. Now lets watch the DumpBachmann "moderators" (censors) at work.

I'll post updates throughout the day. We'll see how long it takes for my comment to appear, and how many other supportive comments get approved while my criticism is held back. Updates will appear at the top of this entry, so hit the refresh key often!

For reference, here is the comment I posted:

Silliness! Ken Avidor and Eva Young continue to obsess over this one single issue, as if everything can be traced back to PRT. Eva and Ken are obsessed with PRT and anyone involved with it - why is that? Why does this dead issue (dead in Minnesota, at least) continue to inspire Eva and Ken to draw a crooked line from every single politician's failure back to PRT?

What is their motive in all of this? What is the point? Can anyone honestly say that this is the most compelling message to come out of yesterday's newsworthy day in politics?

This blog has an agenda - to discredit PRT and everyone associated with it. I don't know for sure what drives that agenda, but in my experience usually a financial motive is at the heart of such obsessiveness. And we already know that Ken is involved with light rail corporate interests through the astroturfing Light Rail Now site.

What I do know is this: for whatever reason, this relentless agenda has persisted for nearly half a decade, and it is filled with nonsense like this latest post.

DumpBachmann is a Joke

2008-01-02T21:36:00.000-05:00

Today I posted more responses to the ongoing DumpBachmann comment thread, and Eva refused to post them. Again. Eva's blogs are the worst kind of deception: they claim openness but even as they do, they silently manipulate the debate by squelching comments from the other side.

Can anything they do or say be trusted? How can a person like Eva Young claim to have a shred of credibility after such hypocrisy?

As I've said before, it's every blogger's right to censor comments - but when you openly boast that you don't censor anyone's comments, then silently suppress views you don't agree with, that's pure hypocrisy.

DumpBachmann is a joke.

DumpBachmann Hypocrites are Selectively Censoring Comments

2007-12-30T20:19:00.000-05:00

Once again, the hypocrites at the DumpBachmann blog are playing fast and loose with the First Amendment. For several months now, Eva Young has activated moderation to supposedly "prevent vandalism by a certain persistant Troll." Well long after the troll is gone, moderation is still in effect at this blog, and they are now selectively censoring comments from people who disagree with them!

Last night, I posted a civil comment to the comments section of this vacuous DumpBachmann post by Ken Avidor, the anti-PRT propagandist. My comment was a direct response to this attack from DumpBachmann contributor "Karl":

If you don't like the way comments are handled here, why don't you pathetic fucking trolls just go away then?

The text of my response was:

So, Eva, does Karl's "pathetic fucking trolls" warrant a warning like the one you gave me earlier? That's a personal attack if I've ever seen one...

As I said, I seem to have struck a nerve here. My original comment has spurred three strong responses from DB contribitors:

1. An attack post from Avidor ("tin foil hat stuff")
2. A warning from Eva accusing me of "obsessions" and "personal attacks" (earlier comment)
3. A vile personal attack from Karl ("pathetic fucking trolls" - above comment)

Yet, in all of these responses, I've still not seen a denial of any of my claims. The closest to a denial was Eva's claim that LRN is not an astroturfing site - a curious statement given that LRN itself admits that it is underwritten by light rail corporate interests.

The fact is: Ken Avidor has a long history of digging into his opponents' associations for the purpose of questioning their motives. For example, he once accused an executive at a PRT company of "encouraging sprawl" because he ran a school bus company! (see http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/tortured-logic.html). I can cite many other examples if you like.

So if Ken's constant digging into PRT proponents' associations is fair game, then why is it considered an "attack" or "pathetic fucking trolling" to question Ken's associations? Whether he likes it or not, his long history of anti-PRT activities opens him up to the same sort of scrutiny.

To put it another way: don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Now, my comment may be unpleasant for Eva and her gang to read, but it's certainly not abusive or "trollish". In fact, Karl's comment is far worse than anything I've ever posted at DB.

Anyway, I checked this morning, and my comment had not yet appeared. I resubmitted it, just in case it got lost in transit. By midafternoon, still nothing, even as comments from others were posted. I gave it one last chance a few hours ago - still nothing.

Even before this specific case, I've noticed a trend recently at DB: when you submit a critical comment, they don't post it until they can respond to it, so that there is never an unanswered critical comment. There have been times where I've waited 6 hours or more for them to post one of my comments - with their response posted at the same time.

But this time, my response didn't appear at all.

It's clear what's going on here. I've struck a nerve with my comments, DumpBachmann has no answer, so they are quietly censoring my comments. I wonder how many other reasonable criticisms have been deleted by Eva's content police?

So remember: next time you read any of Eva's blogs, chances are you are only seeing half the debate.

This would generally not be such a big deal - blog owners can do whatever they want with their comments. But Eva has repeatedly bragged about her openness to debate on her blogs, and she has criticised others for censorship. Just one more example of the hypocricy of Eva Young and Ken Avidor.

Update: To be fair, when Eva returned (nearly two days later), she did post all my comments. So apparently it is her moderators (Ken and Karl, maybe others?) that are censoring my posts, against her wishes. She should institute a policy that all non-abusive comments are to be accepted without delay - no exceptions - and then perhaps these conflicts can be avoided in the future.

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

2007-08-18T10:50:00.000-04:00

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

2007-08-15T15:52:00.000-04:00

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

2007-08-07T07:55:00.000-04:00

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.

An Open Challenge to Ken Avidor: Debate Me Online

2007-07-24T16:56:00.000-04:00

In the comments section of this post, Ken Avidor made the following declaration:

"I have offered to debate PRT with local PRT proponents for years and they have declined every time"

And at least the first part of this statement is true: Ken has repeatedly made this same declaration indicating his desire to debate a PRT proponent.

So, naturally, I replied that I'd be more than willing to take him up on his offer, which I was sure he'd accept - if he's so sure about his stand on PRT that he's willing to debate a local Minneapolis PRT expert, why would he back away from debating an anonymous nobody from Buffalo, NY?

His response, from the same comment thread:

"My terms are a debate with a person who is a member of ATRA, CPRT, Taxi 2000 or an elected official who has authored legislation for and/or promoted PRT. I would prefer to debate that person in front of a live audience, but I will also debate that person live on radio or television. It's important that people get to ask questions."

Wow, you can tell this guy's a bicyclist by the way he backpedals! It took only a few hours to go from grandiose declaration to meek legalistic cop-out!

So, to summarize: he'll only debate certain PRT experts. And only in certain forums. And there has to be an audience. Well so much for PRT people "declining for years". I guess he doesn't consider me a PRT person, even though he's frequently awarded me the "gadgetbahner" and "PRTista" labels.

Are you afraid to debate me, Ken?

I am hereby challenging you, Ken, to an online debate on PRT. Here are my only terms: (a) it has to be an online forum, (b) and I'm not going to reveal my true identity.

That's it. You make up the rest. It can be on any online forum of your choosing. It can be live chat or email, whatever you choose.

I'll declare now that I have no financial or personal interest in PRT - my interest is purely academic. So there really is no reason for me to reveal myself. My entire history with PRT is documented using my current moniker, so that's all you need to know. If you doubt this, I will reveal myself to a trusted third party who can verify these claims.

What have you got to lose?

So that's my open challenge, Ken. Whenever you're ready for an online debate, leave me a comment here and I'll be sure to respond. And we can finally get this long-awaited debate started.

DumpBachmann = Journalistic Abomination

2007-07-21T20:39:00.001-04:00

What are we to make of the DumpBachmann blog? On the surface, they seem to have a noble purpose: to hold Michele Bachmann accountable for everything she says and does.

But, who holds DumpBachmann accountable? Answer: nobody. And that's the problem. DumpBachmann would have you believe they are fools for the truth, but in reality, they are as fast and loose with the facts as any politician.

My evidence? Take a look at this inflammatory post by Ken Avidor. He writes:

Michele Bachmann conspired to defraud taxpayers with this Nixon-era, anti-transit scam. Michele Bachmann has yet to explain why she wrote legislation to fund a bogus PRT "Safety Certification & Training Facility". (emphasis mine)

Anti-transit scam? Bogus PRT Safety Certification & Training Facility? Where is the proof for these allegations? Answer: there is no proof.

Nope, DumpBachmann doesn't need to provide proof. But hey, forget about proof - I'd settle for a single piece of evidence - a single nugget of real verifiable information supporting these loaded charges!

Nope, nothing.

And don't think I didn't try. I engaged in an excruciatingly long comment thread in which I repeatedly asked for anything substantitive to support these claims. Nothing. All I got was criticism for "picking on poor Ken".

Ken's contribution to this debate? Well, practically nothing, except for this: "I just want to point out that I have offered to debate PRT with local PRT proponents for years and they have declined every time." So, naturally, I accepted his apparent offer! I would love to see exactly what "evidence" he has that PRT is a "scam", and what better forum than an online debate?

But, alas, Ken has no intention in debating me, probably because he can't launch ad hominem attacks on an anonymous online contributor. So when Ken didn't respond to my acceptance of the debate challenge, his co-contributor Bill Prendergast came up with an excuse: "Ken may not want to debate you here or elsewhere. I don't know if he does or not; he may not want to talk to you."

Well, thank goodness he didn't cop out of that, huh?

So, when it became perfectly clear that DumpBachmann had no intention of providing a shred of evidence to support their inflammatory and unsupportable claims, I asked for a retraction. Alas, no, DumpBachmann doesn't retract "opinions" like "PRT is an anti-transit scam".

OK, here's an "opinion" from me: DumpBachmann is a journalistic abomination, little more than an attack site that is willing to post inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.

Prove me wrong.

Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about Michele Bachmann, her politics, her religious beliefs, or her voting record. This has nothing to do with Michele Bachmann, and everything to do with the DumpBachmann blog posting unfounded accusations about PRT and its supporters.

This Just In: Wacky CNN Joins Silly New York Times Promoting PRT!

2007-06-20T07:29:00.000-04:00

Ken Avidor has the scoop:

The publicity barage continues. This puff piece in CNN Money.com reads like it's transcribed from the same press release as the others.

Let's think about this for a moment. The Times article was about the Morgantown PRT system in West Virginia. The CNN report was about the ULTra system, currently being built at Heathrow airport - a different PRT design built 30 years later on a different continent by different people!

Yep, practically transcribed from the same press release.

So two of the most well known and reputable news organizations on the planet have written favorable articles on different PRT systems in the last month, but Ken Avidor would have you believe this is all just puff. Why? Because the Twin Cities Daily Planet (Ken Avidor, Transportation Editor) has already debunked PRT as nothing but a tool of the highway lobby!

Obviously, the New York Times and CNN didn't get the message. Neither did the IEEE or the European Union. Maybe they all forgot to read the Daily Planet that week?

Avidor Debunks Himself!

2007-06-18T00:31:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting comment from Ken Avidor, from a DumpBachmann comment thread:

...anti-rail transit individuals and groups have used PRT to block rail transit, particularly LRT for thirty years in several cities...

...I recently discovered two reports from the U.S. Congress published in 1976 that detail how PRT was used to block real transit in the Twin Cities and Denver in teh early 1970's

Voters in Denver approved a half cent sales tax to pay for a PRT. They never got a PRT. But, that tax was used to fund their first LRT line and they are adding more lines.

Let's analyze this. First, he claims that PRT groups have blocked rail transit in several cities. This has been a recurring theme in recent Avidor rants.

Forget for a moment that this is akin to accusing Pepsi of "blocking" Coke - of course PRT proponents are going to push PRT, just like rail proponents are going to push rail! Isn't that the definition of proponent - someone who advocates their solution over competing ones?

Not in Avidor's narrow world view. For him, trains are sacrosanct and PRT is evil; it follows that PRT proponents must also be evil, therefore any act of advocacy on behalf of PRT is viewed as some crooked scheme to block his beloved trains. See how easy that is: start with a simple, childlike good-vs-evil premise, and you are bound to arrive at a fairy tale conclusion.

But back to the original quote by Avidor. Just after blaming PRT proponents for blocking trains everywhere, he tells us that Denver PRT money was used to build light rail! That's right! Voters in Denver voted to pay for PRT, but that money was diverted to the light rail project!

Think about this: as evidence that PRT blocked rail, Ken presents a case where PRT directly enabled rail! PRT funding (which was approved by voters who expected to get pods, not trains) was actually responsible for getting Denver its first light rail line!

So, if PRT funding enabled rail in Denver, and PRT proponents enabled that PRT funding, doesn't it follow that light rail in Denver would not exist today without the efforts of PRT proponents?

And I bet Avidor didn't even bother to thank them.

This Just In: New York Times Supporting Mark Olson!

2007-06-11T16:55:00.000-04:00

Ken Avidor has the scoop! According to Ken, the New York Times is conspiring to help a Minneapolis Republican in his domestic abuse case!

As amazing as that sounds, Mr. Avidor has breathlessly documented the whole thing:

In May, I predicted that Mark Olson's pals at the Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) would crank up the PRT publicity machine as a preemptive whitewash for Olson's role in the PRT scam in time for his upcoming trial. Today, the New York Times published yet another puff piece about the Morgantown PRT...

So, why did the Times run this puff piece for PRT? Does all this recent PRT publicity have something to do with Rep. Mark Olson's trial?

See, this is just another example of right wingers using the New York Times as their own personal propaganda tool. It's so transparently obvious that a Times piece about a West Virginia transit system must be linked to the Minnesota Republican party!

And even if this obvious transgression was unintentional, the Times should know better. Any good reporter will tell you: when writing an article about a successful piece of technology, always be sure to check whether a local politician 1500 miles away supports a kinda-sorta similar technology and is awaiting trial for a completely unrelated domestic abuse charge! How can a jury be expected to render a proper verdict when they've been tainted by this Morgantown article?

Shame on you, New York Times.

He's At It Again!

2007-01-17T12:12:00.000-05:00

Here we go, another round of the Ken Avidor anti-PRT smear campaign has begun! Avidor, the anti-PRT propagandist who has been caught in so many lies that he's considering running for congress, has now written an "opinion piece" for the Santa Cruz Sentinel. After a short layoff, it looks like Avidor is rested and ready for the next round of attacks.

It's the same old pattern for Avidor in this Sentinel piece: he cannot say "PRT is a scam" anymore - we've repeatedly ridiculed that absurd statement, to the point where he's stopped saying it - so he resorts to "guilt by association", implying that Olson's and Zimmermann's support of PRT somehow taints the entire effort. Forget the fact that the European Union has endorsed PRT for application in cities - that means nothing to Avidor.

No, all that matters is that a few unknown local politicians in Minnesota happened to support PRT and got in trouble for unrelated reasons. This is the Avidor scale of justice: hundreds of respected authorities in Europe and elsewhere have endorsed PRT, but that means nothing because two insignificant politicians in Minnesota supported PRT and later got into unrelated legal trouble.

This is the way that the cartoonist's mind works: everything is ridiculous caricature - even his opinions.

And now, for today's obligatory hypocrisy from the propagandist:

Avidor writes "I am a great believer in local control over transportation decisions." HA! Is this why a Minnesotan is writing letters to the editor in Santa Cruz, California??! So much for local control, eh? Once again I have to chuckle at this brazen display of hypocrisy, courtesy of our propagandist friend - I honestly believe that the propaganda spews so naturally from him that he doesn't even recognize the ridiculous irony of that statement!

For more, see "PRT is a Joke" is a Joke

More PRT Disinformation

2006-10-30T22:42:00.000-05:00

Avidor recently reprinted a comment from David Greene, a software engineer from Minnesota who doesn't think PRT can work because the computer algorithms are too complex. As a fellow software engineer, I feel compelled to respond to his post, point by point:

Greene: "The idea that computers can automatically control a distributed network of machines that by their nature have a human interaction component and that this system will work at peak efficiency with vehicles traveling inches behind one another is absurd."

What is absurd is Greene's statement that PRT vehicles would be traveling "inches behind one another". The truth is, vehicle separations are measured in dozens of feet even for very short headways, with conservative designs exceeding one hundred feet. See "PRT is a joke" is a joke" for an expanded discussion of vehicle separations for different systems.

Greene: "We have plenty of examples of much smaller and less complex systems have taken years to get right, if at all. A few that
come to mind:

- Denver airport's baggage handling system

- MSP airport's trams (which only go from one single, fixed point to another!)

- Metro Transit's GoTo card system"

None of these systems has anything to do with PRT or PRT companies. It's like saying light rail is doomed to failure because of Amtrak's financial troubles. Amtrak and light rail are at least as comparable as PRT and the Denver baggage system.

Greene: "As a computer professional, I can state with utter certainty that computers are not the magic bullet that will save us. At one level they are extremely simple machines. But at another level, they are incredibly complex. Debugging distributed software is no easy task. Programs will always have bugs. The question is, can the developer get rid of enough of the critical ones to make the system mostly functional? Is mostly functional good enough?"

First off: I never trust someone who makes predictions with "utter certainty".

As for his statement about complexity, he neglects to mention the fact that very complex distributed systems are all around us - so much so that we take them for granted. Some examples of massively distributed systems that we use every day without even thinking about it:

The Internet - over half a billion computers on a heterogeneous worldwide network - and any one can connect to any other within milliseconds
ATMs - hundreds of thousands of fully automated kiosks, providing financial services to millions of users. It would seem that they've worked out most of the critical bugs, despite having to integrate real time financial data from hundreds of different financial institutions.
Inventory systems - retail giants are able to track every piece of inventory in every single store, with such accuracy that an online shopper can check store inventory, purchase an item online, and pick it up in-store within 15 minutes.

Compared to these problems, routing a few thousand vehicles on a local guideway is relatively simple. Note: I didn't say absolutely simple - certainly there are complexities in controlling a PRT system. But if we can tackle problems as complex and distributed as the Internet, ATMs, and global inventory systems, is it really such a stretch to assume we can handle PRT?

But in actuality, no assumptions are necessary. Morgantown PRT, though not technically a true PRT system, has featured automated control of vehicles on a switched track for over 30 years, without incident; Cabintaxi was a thoroughly tested German system which was able to route two dozen vehicles over 1.9km of guideway with 6 stations. Both of these systems were built in the 1970s, when computing power was measured in kilohertz. More recently, ULTra has logged thousands of miles of testing at its Cardiff, UK test track. All of these systems have carried passengers.

In other words, it is absolutely absurd to "state with utter certainty" that PRT computer control will not work - since it's already been demonstrated to work by multiple independent groups.

Greene: "In technical terms, the problem of optimally scheduling a distributed network of traveling objects is likely NP-complete (I haven't done the formal analysis). That means that the computer will have to make guesses and I can guarantee that it will guess wrong in some cases. That doesn't mean the system will break down, but it won't always achieve the peak efficiency that its promoters proclaim."

This is mostly flat-out wrong, despite Greene's "guarantee". PRT routing and control algorithms are among the most studied and simulated aspects of PRT research. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of miles of real system testing done on Cabintaxi and others, in-depth simulation studies have also subjected these routing algorithms to billions of miles of testing, validating the algorithms under the most extreme loads.

Modern algorithms feature asynchronous control, which is decentralized, scalable, and flexible. Vehicles can be largely autonomous, especially when it comes to maintaining safe distances, so regional controllers are not burdened with every safety detail. Central control can focus on global optimizations to optimize routes and reduce congestion.

Is every single passenger guaranteed an optimal ride? Of course not - no transportation system can make such a guarantee in heavy loads. But extensive analysis, simulation, and testing have shown that these systems will operate at or near optimality for all passengers.

Greene: "A system like PRT will need many layers of redundancy, and that adds cost."

Nonsense. Computers are cheap, as are most of the mission critical components that would require redundancy. The vast majority of the cost of PRT is in guideway and construction materials, and in the manufacturing of the vehicles. Adding a few redundant components to such a large infrastructure only adds a trivial amount of cost.

Greene:"I just don't buy the claim that private companies will pay for it and make a profit. If that were the case, why does PRT need any subsidy at all?"

Light rail requires subsidy for both construction and operations. That doesn't stop us from building more light rail. PRT, on the other hand, offers the promise of providing much better service (try taking the train at 3:30am on a Sunday morning) for less operating cost, and may even be able to recoup the construction costs. At worst, if all the projections are terribly wrong, we'd wind up with just another subsidized system like LRT - only more convenient and available 24x7.

Private companies haven't embraced PRT for the simple reason that it's too much of a corporate risk to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into. Big companies, like governments, are wary of any radical challenge to the status quo.

Greene: "I work in the supercomputing industry developing the software that users need to develop their applications. I also do some high-level hardware architecture work. A system like PRT will need something equivalent to a low-end supercomputer to work. I know how difficult it is to get these systems to function."

This is absolutely, ridiculously false. A low end supercomputer? Come on! The most complex PRT computations are routing and trajectories, neither of which requires anything near a supercomputer. Computers have been calculating trajectories since World War II! Heck, an iPod could probably handle the load of a small PRT network!

As proof of this, I again reference Cabintaxi - which was fully controlled by computers five years before the original IBM PC came out!

Greene: "The claims made by PRT proponents are pie-in-the-sky nonsense. They are made by people who have no real understanding of the underlying technology needs and complexities."

The only nonsense here is Greene's wild assertions. He is either hopelessly misinformed, or is just another mindless follower of Avidor's propaganda campaign. As a fellow software engineer, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just hasn't done his homework.

Debunking the Lies

2006-10-18T21:33:00.000-04:00

Ken Avidor has posted a long list of lies in his latest blog entry. I'm going to debunk each point individually:

Avidor smear: "Horns, wings and hoofs exist on different animals yet nobody has seen a flying unicorn... or a working PRT system."

What Avidor neglects to mention is that there have been working PRT systems - CVS and Cabintaxi were PRT systems that had thousands of miles of testing in the 1970s - these were fully functioning prototype systems that carried passengers in actual vehicles in an actual network. ULTra has also had thousands of hours of testing at its test track.

Avidor wants you to believe that PRT is a myth, a unicorn. He wants you to believe it has no basis in reality. He's lying.

Avidor disinformation: "Sorry, last I heard, ULTra has a few development hurdles to jump before construction begins."

Based on what? When you make a claim like that you should provide links, links, links! According to ULTra’s website, the Heathrow Pilot program is underway, with the first installation scheduled to open in the summer of 2008.

Please provide proof for your claim of "hurdles", otherwise I’m going to assume it’s yet another lie.

Avidor lie: "Anyways, what relevance does a battery-powered buggy that cannot operate in snow or ice have for Minnesota?"

According to ULTra’s website, "Approaches to ice and snow control have also been prepared for applications in cold climates." Do you even read about the stuff you slam?

Avidor propaganda: "The other would-be PRT company he mentions, Vectus is yet another sham PRT "testing facility" project. For forty years, PRT was always on the verge of some breakthrough that never happened. Here's a long list of PRT projects that never happened and never will."

Notice he doesn’t say anything about Vectus directly – he resorts to dogmatic proclamations like "there’s never been a PRT system and there never will!" Why doesn’t he post anything specific about Vectus? Because he has nothing on Vectus, so he spews generalities.

Avidor flip-flop: "Skyweb Express/Taxi 2000 never advanced beyond the shiny red pod prototype. Taxi 2000 has failed to update its news page on its website since 2004... when Olson's bills failed in the legislature. A dead website usually means a dead company."

But, just a few days ago, when he was slamming JPods, he proclaimed "Unlike the shiny red Taxi 2000 prototype, the J-Pod is obviously a joke." So which is it, Ken? Is the "shiny red prototype" a joke or not a joke? When you’re slamming JPods, it’s not; when you’re slamming Taxi 2000 two days later, it is.

This, folks, is what’s known as a flip-flop.

See also ”PRT is a joke” is a joke.

Avidor deception: "There is no technology. When Taxi 2000 sued J. Edward Anderson in 2005, Anderson claimed there were no PRT patents."

The truth is that Taxi 2000 had patents that expired. The claim that there is no technology is a blatant lie. See Dr. Anderson’s extensive discussion of this supposedly non-existent technology and decide for yourselves.

Avidor deception: "The U of M is no longer interested in PRT."

As proof of this claim, Avidor points to a blog entry by a U of M researcher who never was interested in PRT, and still isn’t. His criticism of PRT? That it hasn’t yet found a market and may have a difficult time doing so. In other words, he’s not exactly calling it a "unicorn"…

Avidor smear: "Mr. Swanson obviously hasn't ridden the Hiawatha LRT... LRT is a completely modern, state-of-art technology. PRT on the other hand has not advanced further than the concept stage which is hardly different than the 1960's concept of PRT."

Let’s digest this for a moment. Ken is criticizing PRT for not having changed much since the 1960’s, when his preferred technology has barely changed at all since the 1860s!

I also find it ironic that "state of the art" is considered a plus when speaking about light rail… but mention that PRT is a "state of the art" system and you’re labeled a wacky gadgetbahner.

Avidor smear: "…nobody wants to pay the cost o developing it and nobody wants a transportation system that requires communities to cut down half the trees on their streets for a monorail with a clear view into their bedroom windows…"

…and yet, elevated light rail is perfectly acceptable. Apparently, Avidor doesn’t care if people can see in his windows, as long as those people are inside a train and not a pod.

Avidor propaganda: "This is one of the big lies of the PRT disinformation campaign. No transit system can be built and operated without subsidy."

Let’s read into this statement: we know that light rail requires a huge subsidy in almost every case. We also know that the only acceptable form of transit for Ken Avidor is light rail. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that all transit requires subsidy.

This, despite studies that have shown that PRT can operate at a much reduced subsidy as compared to LRT, and also provide 24x7, on demand service! So PRT provides more for less, but it can’t possibly be better than LRT, which costs more to operate and is unavailable on nights and weekends. Yet another example of tortured Avidor logic.

Avidor disinformation: "PRTistas like Swanson claim that PRT is so cool that people would pay any price to ride it. The ridership figures for monorails, the closest thing to PRT falls far short of rail transit."

Actually, monorails are much more like elevated rail than PRT. In fact, from a functional standpoint, the only difference between monorails and traditional rail is… two rails!

In fact, the only similarity between monorail and PRT is the fact that both are on dedicated guideways. In almost every other way, PRT is different:

Monorail/LRT	PRT
large trains	small individual vehicles
line haul with frequent stops	network with non-stop point-to-point travel
online stations	offline stations
reduced service during non-peak times	full 24x7 availability

PRT is nothing like monorail. The fact that Ken makes this comparison is just more proof that he really doesn't know what PRT is.

Avidor lie: "Here's a blog sums up what most transporation professionals think of PRT…"

…and then he posts a link to an anonymous blogger who references back to Avidor’s own propaganda! Where are the transportation professionals who are lining up against PRT? The folks at publictransit.us have been conspicuously silent about PRT recently. Why is that, Ken?

Pot, Kettle

2006-10-12T20:47:00.000-04:00

Ken Avidor has written a defiant letter to the editor. Here's an excerpt:

"The Citizen published a letter from Mark Swanson that states that I am a "false expert". Mr. Swanson is attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message. Mr. Swanson then goes on to denounce me as a "left wing author" even though Mark Olson worked very closely alongside the Green Party’s Dean Zimmermann (recently convicted of bribery) to promote PRT."
(emphasis mine)

Here, in a single paragraph, we have a microcosm of Avidor's entire hypocritical campaign: in sentence one, he condemns Mark Swanson for "attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message". In sentence two, he himself proceeds to attack Olson and Zimmermann!

I actually had to re-read this twice, because the juxtaposition of these two sentences was so unintentionally ironic that I found it hard to believe it at first. But there it is, in plain English.

In Avidor's defense, personal attacks have become so routine to him that maybe he doesn't even know he's doing it. He is, after all, the maintainer of the Bachmann "fun page", which features various tasteless Photoshop hacks, as well the Luv Pod page, which ridicules the "wacky professor" and other PRT proponents, whom he commonly refers to derisively as "gadgetbahners" and "PRTistas".

And then there is the Sheffer Lang attack page, a whole page devoted to attacking this former Taxi 2000 Chairman, who can't even defend himself because he passed away tragically three years ago. And then there is the "Ned Luddington" affair, in which he created a false identity to serve as a fake source for his attacks on Zimmermann.

So is it any wonder that a personal attack (or two) slipped into his letter condemning personal attacks? It almost feels wrong to criticize him for it, like denouncing a tiger for killing his prey. Almost.

Avidor closes his letter with the following:

I welcome an opportunity to share what I know about PRT with the citizens and voters of Sherburne County in a forum or debate.

We all know what he "knows" about PRT - he presented his whole repertoire in the comment thread copied here. After we debunked every single point, he finally gave up with his traditional cop-out rejoinder, "whatever".

Something tells me he will be presenting these same talking points to the fine folks of Sherburne County - and in person, so he can spew his disinformation unchallenged.

Why is Patty Wetterling Pushing Avidor's Propaganda?

2006-10-04T23:00:00.000-04:00

Patty Wetterling has an interesting quote on her campaign website:

"According to a column in the St. Croix Valley Press, PRT 'was little more than a stalking horse for the highway construction industry and individuals belonging to anti-rail transit groups.'"

Anyone who is familiar with Ken Avidor's smear campaign recognizes this quote: it's the foundation of his entire anti-PRT crusade. It's also a complete fabrication. Avidor has been repeating this accusation for years, without a shred of proof to back it up. He's been repeating it so long, many people think there is a factual basis, but there really is none.

In fact, I can prove that the "stalking horse" theory has no factual basis:

Early this year, Ken tried to infiltrate Wikipedia with his propaganda message. For six months, he waged war on the PRT article, insisting that his "stalking horse" theory be prominently represented. I, along with several other Wikipedia editors, fought to keep him from corrupting the Wikipedia article with unproven (and often ridiculously false) propaganda. But he did find an apparent ally in his fight: a Wikipedia administrator who favored light rail and also happened to be a huge fan of Road Kill Bill (Ken Avidor's anti-car cartoon). In the end, though, even with a sympathetic administrator in his corner, not one piece of Ken Avidor's message was kept in the article.

Why did Ken fail to spread his message on Wikipedia? Simple: Wikipedia demands evidence. Anyone can get an op-ed piece or a letter to the editor published, but when it comes to an encyclopedia, a higher standard must be met.

So, you might ask, what is the standard for inclusion at Wikipedia? Again, the answer is simple: you must provide a reference to a reliable source. That's it! A single source will do, but it has to be reliable: for instance, a published research paper in a peer-reviewed journal, or a news article from a respected news organization.

Now, consider: Ken fought hard to get his "stalking horse" theory included, and failed. Why? Because he could not provide one shred of reliable evidence to support it! That's all he had to do was provide one credible source, and he never did.

So, let's review what we know:

Avidor really wanted his "stalking horse" theory represented in Wikipedia article.

In order for it to be included, he needed to produce one piece of reliable evidence to support it.

To date, he has not produced that evidence, and the words "stalking horse" do not appear in the article

Conclusion: there is no evidence to support his theory; because if there were, he certainly would have produced it as evidence for Wikipedia, wouldn't he?

(Interesting side note: the minute that Avidor discovered he couldn't manipulate Wikipedia for his own purposes, he attacked the encyclopedia and its founder.)

So where did the "stalking horse" theory come from? Easy: Avidor made the whole thing up, then promoted it incessantly for years on every blog and open forum on the planet, to the point where even reasonable people take it as fact. During this relentless campaign, he used every trick in the book to "prove" his conspiracy theory: half truths, guilt-by-association, distortion, speculation. (For a good example, see David Gow meticulously dissect of one of Avidor's stalking horse "proofs".)

And it's not just the "stalking horse" that failed at Wikipedia. Search for "hoax" or "fraud" at the Wikipedia article - not there, because Avidor made it up. Not one bit of Avidor's campaign is represented there - because it's all one big fiction; only his obsessive persistence in promoting it makes it appear factual.

So, if the stalking horse theory is not real, why is Patty Wetterling referring to it as proven fact on her campaign site? I can only assume she found a convenient sound bite to use in her campaign against Michele Bachmann, and didn't bother to check the veracity of the claim.

Interestingly, she says she got the quote from the "Saint Paul Pioneer Press", 2/11/2004, and "Saint Croix Valley Press", 5/25/2006. I searched both of those press sites, and found nothing about PRT on those dates. Could it be that she is quoting an op-ed piece, or even a letter to the editor as fact? Gee, I wonder who would author such an op-ed piece?

So, Patty, are you going to remove the "stalking horse" reference from your campaign site? If you value truth and honesty in politics, I'm sure you will.

See also: "PRT is a Joke" is a joke.

Tortured Logic

2006-09-26T21:25:00.000-04:00

Take a look at the latest bit of tortured logic from Ken Avidor, the Minneapolis anti-PRT propagandist. It seems that ATS Ltd, the company that is about to deliver the first commercial PRT installation at Heathrow airport next year, is looking for a new CEO.

What has Avidor extrapolated from this morsel of information? Well, for one thing, the fact that they're hiring a CEO must indicate a shake up, right? Of course it must - there's no other reason a company would hire a CEO, especially an evil PRT company!

Well let's analyze ATS Ltd. They have spent the last several years in a research and development mode. During this time, the ULTra system has matured from immature prototype to fully developed, tested and safety approved transportation system. Martin Lowson, the current CEO, is a professor, researcher, and inventor. In other words, he was the perfect person to lead ATS during its research and development phase.

But these days, ATS is in transition. The first version of their product is essentially complete. Their primary focus is changing from R&D to operations and sales. Now that they have a product, they are looking to sell it and build it elsewhere.

Given this new company focus, is it any real surprise that they are looking for a new leader? Martin Lowson's talents are invention and innovation, not necessarily sales and operations. Why would he continue in the CEO role as the company moves further into an operational mode?

But such logic is far too reasonable for Ken Avidor. He sees it differently. The hiring of a new CEO can only indicate a "shake up" within ATS, much like Michele Bachmann twiddling her thumbs indicates her inner turmoil. This seems to be a new theme for Avidor: any movement by his opponents is automatically assumed to be a sign of suppressed turmoil.

It doesn't end there. Avidor then goes digging for dirt on ATS's board, and he finds it in the most unlikely of places. This time, the target of Avidor's mud is ATS board member Trevor Smallwood, who has no less than 34 years experience in public transport. You say, how can Avidor criticise someone who has spent his life promoting public transit?

Easy. Avidor will torture the facts until they fit his warped vision. Let's analyze what Mr Smallwood is "guilty" of:

There is a group which is against the deregulation and privatization of transit in the UK. This group has protested increases in fares on buses run by Mr. Smallwood's company, FirstGroup plc. So, Mr. Smallwood is guilty of running a bus company that raised its fares.

In 1999, FirstGroup made a profit, in the same year that there was a tragic accident involving one of its trains. Avidor thinks this makes FirstGroup "one of the the worst when it comes to privatizing transit", even though the accident was not the fault of the FirstGroup driver! So, Mr. Smallwood is guilty of running a rail company that made a profit in the same year that one of its trains was destroyed by somebody else's error.

Here's the kicker: apparently, FirstGroup operates school buses in North America. According to Avidor, the use of school buses is directly correlated with "the creation of suburban sprawl rather than transit-oriented communities". Folks, I'm not making this up. Avidor is actually insinuating that urban sprawl is caused by the proliferation of FirstGroup school buses! So, Mr. Smallwood, by virtue of his involvement with school buses, is guilty of suburban sprawl!

Forget his 34 years in public transit! Mr. Smallwood is anti-transit because his buses fares are too high, one of his trains was in an accident in 1999, and he owns school buses in North America. What a transit hater this guy is!

This snippet of tortured logic provided courtesy of Ken Avidor. Somebody notify John McCain.

For more on this Avidor abomination, see Mr. Grant's blog.

Journalistic Integrity in the Blogosphere

2006-09-20T12:23:00.000-04:00

Blogs are really big these days. Until recently, mainstream media has always had a monopoly on information -- blogs have changed that. Now virtually anyone with a computer can broadcast their ideas to the world. It's an unprecedented level of expressive freedom, and in many ways blogs have supplanted mainstream media as a supplier of information.

Is this a good thing?

Consider the case of Mr. Av^d*r, the Minnesota anti-PRT activist. He has a history of lying and deception, regularly committing journalistic offenses that would get him fired from any self-respecting news organization, and yet he continues to be a major presence in the Minneapolis corner of the blogosphere. Why? Because otherwise respectable blogs like Lloydletta and DumpBachmann continue to give him a voice.

Lloydletta and DumpBachmann were both created by Eva Young. Over the years they've built a following and gained in respectability, to the point where they've even caught the eye of mainstream media.

Yet, Mr. Av^d*r, a known liar and admitted fraud, is still allowed to post at will, at both DB and Lloydletta. Eva Young has admitted that she is aware of his deceptions, but is this enough for her to remove him as an editor? Apparently not.

Why does Eva continue to allow this one editor to compromise the integrity of her blogs? We get a hint here:

"Av^d*r... told me he was Ned Luddington^***... Ken is a volunteer, and has done excellent work at Lloydletta and Dump Bachmann..."

^{*** For details on Av^d*r's "Luddington" deception, see this}

So, if I am to read this correctly, Eva is claiming that (a) she knows that Av^d*r created and maintained the fraudulent "Luddington" sock puppet for over a year, and (b) that's OK, because he's working for free!

And just what is it that Av^d*r contributes to Lloydletta and DB, other than his anti-Green, anti-PRT propaganda? As far as I can tell, the sum total of his contribution is the occasional Photoshop hack and some video of Bachmann in public, like this groundbreaking video of Bachmann twiddling her thumbs.

So, a few amateurish video shorts and Photoshop hacks -- this, apparently, is the price of Eva Young's journalistic integrity.

Free Speech and Hypocrisy on Lloydletta

2006-09-05T01:38:00.000-04:00

Take a look at this snapshot of hypocrisy from Lloydletta's blog:

Can you spot the hypocrisy?

Here's a hint: the original post was a rant by K*n Av^d*r slamming some politicians for restricting free speech "on the internet (sic) and on television"

But, as the snapshot shows, if I go into the comments section of that very same post, I get this message in bold lettering:

Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

Even more hilarious, Eva herself chimes in with this comment:

"Samuels and Rybak are first amendment challenged"

Eva calling someone else first amendment challenged! How deliciously ironic!

You see, Av^d*r has banned me from adding comments on Lloydletta, and Eva has apparently upheld the ban. The reasons they cite are vague, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that I was posting stuff they would rather you didn't know. (More on this in a later post.)

If I were able to post a comment on this Lloydletta forum, I might point that, in fact, the Lloydletta comments section is part of the same Internet that you seem to be defending! Why do you not hold yourselves to the same standards as "Samuels and Rybak"? How can you justify banning (and deleting) comments which you don't agree with? Is this your idea of free speech?

Talk about "first amendment challenged"...