 |
Re: My "Service Giraffe" Needs To Be Accommodated on a Pacific Surfliner
Author: .
Date: 05-22-2022 - 23:00
Amtrak Patron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Is my alleged "fetish" any more intense than the one afflicting the woman who operates the website "Libs of Tik Tok" on Twitter?
> I wouldn't know. That woman does not post on AltamontPress, so whatever she does is irrlevant to this conversation.
You should broaden your horizons and occasionally focus on things other than trains. Ask your doctor if you have Aspergers Syndrome.
>> Similarly, if someone posts pictures of car accidents, does that mean they have a "fetish" for car accidents? I use car accidents as an example because many people have a morbid curiosity about car accidents and that's why they slow down on the highway when they pass them---to allow more time to gawk at them. Can you connect the dots and see the similarities or do I have to draw a more complex diagram?
> I've never seen any car accident photos on Altamont Press (except possibly photos of grade crossing accidents). Again, not relevant to a discussion of pets on trains.
You made a claim that I have a "fetish" for gay guys and drag queens. I don't feel it's anything more than the curiosity a motorist has that compels him to slow down and gawk at a car accident. Some things are just so outrageous and out-of-the-ordinary that an outsider wants to gather more information. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a "fetish".
Interesting that you engage in armchair psychoanalysis in one breath and then in the next breath you insist that the conversation has to be limited strictly to pets and trains.
>> Do you have a "fetish" for reading and responding to discussion threads like this? Ask your shrink why you can't seem to develop the will power to scroll past them.
> This is a discussion thread. I read and respond to whatever I want, just as you do.
You also accuse people of having fetishes just because they post pictures of certain things or discuss certain things. You must have a fetish toward trains. Why else would you be hanging out at a website such as this one? And then you get bent out of shape if other subject matter creeps into the mix. That appears to be a pretty serious fetish.
> If the kind of stuff shown in the photo and the second video is what really interests you, there are other websites for that.
And you think I'm not aware of that?
The only "interest" I have is over the scenario that will invariably develop where a couple like what was depicted in the photo taken on Folsom Street will show up on a Pacific Surfliner and the guy holding the leash will insist that the other creature is identifying as a dog that particular day. We live in an era now where people insist that men can get pregnant and have abortions. We live in an era now where people insist that they can change their race,gender, age and even species. It is "their" truth. Did you not see the video by Paul Joseph Watson where the person identifies as a dog and even has a dildo for a tail?
>> Perhaps you can explain to all of us why people slow down and gawk at car accidents. This oughtta be good. Let me grab a bowl of popcorn and pull up a chair.
> Has nothing to do with railroads or pets on trains.
Similarly, your armchair psychoanalysis that I supposedly have a "fetish" has nothing to do with railroads or pets on trains. If you can deviate off the subject matter at hand, I can too.
>> Does looking at a leather-bound guy holding a leash to another guy pretending to be a dog make you feel uncomfortable? Has that photo thrust you into an "unsafe space"? Again, please explain to all of us the motivations of the two individuals who posed for that photo.
> Again, not relevant to the question of whether pets should be allowed on trains.
Explain to me how your proclamation that I have a fetish is relevant to the question of whether pets should be allowed on trains. I'll wait.
>> . . . as grade schools are now accommodating boys who are identifying as girls to use the female restrooms at schools, much to the disgust of other true and genuine females.
> You have not presented any evidence that this has actually happened. I am not going give you the satisfaction of participating in a discussion of a scenario which you made up.
Here's some evidence. Let me know if you require more.
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
"Examples of prohibited conduct which may constitute gender-based harassment include, but are not limited to:
Blocking a student's entry to the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity because the student is transgender or gender-nonconforming"
SOURCE: [www.sfusd.edu]
>> Did you see the SWORN TESTIMONY the other day of Aimee Arrambide where she told a Congressional hearing that she thinks men can get pregnant and have abortions?
[www.c-span.org]
>No and I'm not going to watch it now.
Why does that not surprise me? None are so blind as those who will not see.
>Has nothing to do with pets on trains.
Similarly, your proclamation that I have a "fetish" has nothing to do with pets on trains. Don't expect a policy to be adhered to that you, yourself, refuse to follow.
>> Her testimony is just after Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) has an argument with Dr. Yashica Robinson over the proper usage of pronouns and whether or not Robinson wanted to answer simple questions or give lengthy, biased political speeches in lieu of answering questions. The fun-and-games can be found at the 03:23:00 mark in the link above.
> I am sure there are other internet forums to discuss that testimony with others who think like you. For purposes of this thread, I am only interested in pets on trains.
Is that interest before or after you deviate from the discussion subject matter and accuse people of having fetishes?
> Speaking for myself, I am not thrilled with the idea of allowing passengers to bring pets on trains, but Amtrak's policy appears to be a reasonable compromise of allowing some patrons to bring their pets with them without overwhelming the train with animals by limiting the number of pet reservations.
I'm not thrilled about it either, but they're doing it to kow-tow to a certain group of people who can't go anywhere without their pets. Do the passengers who are allegic to pets have any rights? Will I be compensated with a partial refund of my fare if I have to listen to a cat meow incessantly for six hours? I was on an Amtrak train once where a guy had a live chicken in a paper bag. He was compassionate enough to poke some holes in the bag so the chicken could breathe, but all of the passengers had to hear a chicken cackle for the full duration that the man was on the train. I wonder if the chicken tasted good?
>> Will Amtrak be able to accommodate my "emotional support" giraffe if it's identifying as a dog or cat that particular day?
> Here's an idea. Why don't you pose the question Amtrak, since that's what interests you.
How? Over the telephone? Julie isn't as friendly as she used to be.
>> You libs have made your absurd bed. Now it's time to sleep in it.
> Nothing in my post indicated my political leanings. As an Amtrak patron and a member of a passenger rail advocacy group, I never requested that Amtrak accommodate animals. What bed did I make?
Surprisingly enough, you and I appear to have found common ground on this issue. Pets on trains is not a good idea, but, apparently, pet owners now have more political clout than non-pet owners. Political clout is what it's all about. That explains why gays can groom kindergartners and have the support of the Biden administration. It further explains why the pro-abortion crowd can intimidate and harass Supreme Court justices at their residences in blatant violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1507 and receive encouragement to do so from the Biden administration.
[codes.findlaw.com]
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Is my alleged "fetish" any more intense than the one afflicting the woman who operates the website "Libs of Tik Tok" on Twitter?
> I wouldn't know. That woman does not post on AltamontPress, so whatever she does is irrlevant to this conversation.
You should broaden your horizons and occasionally focus on things other than trains. Ask your doctor if you have Aspergers Syndrome.
>> Similarly, if someone posts pictures of car accidents, does that mean they have a "fetish" for car accidents? I use car accidents as an example because many people have a morbid curiosity about car accidents and that's why they slow down on the highway when they pass them---to allow more time to gawk at them. Can you connect the dots and see the similarities or do I have to draw a more complex diagram?
> I've never seen any car accident photos on Altamont Press (except possibly photos of grade crossing accidents). Again, not relevant to a discussion of pets on trains.
You made a claim that I have a "fetish" for gay guys and drag queens. I don't feel it's anything more than the curiosity a motorist has that compels him to slow down and gawk at a car accident. Some things are just so outrageous and out-of-the-ordinary that an outsider wants to gather more information. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a "fetish".
Interesting that you engage in armchair psychoanalysis in one breath and then in the next breath you insist that the conversation has to be limited strictly to pets and trains.
>> Do you have a "fetish" for reading and responding to discussion threads like this? Ask your shrink why you can't seem to develop the will power to scroll past them.
> This is a discussion thread. I read and respond to whatever I want, just as you do.
You also accuse people of having fetishes just because they post pictures of certain things or discuss certain things. You must have a fetish toward trains. Why else would you be hanging out at a website such as this one? And then you get bent out of shape if other subject matter creeps into the mix. That appears to be a pretty serious fetish.
> If the kind of stuff shown in the photo and the second video is what really interests you, there are other websites for that.
And you think I'm not aware of that?
The only "interest" I have is over the scenario that will invariably develop where a couple like what was depicted in the photo taken on Folsom Street will show up on a Pacific Surfliner and the guy holding the leash will insist that the other creature is identifying as a dog that particular day. We live in an era now where people insist that men can get pregnant and have abortions. We live in an era now where people insist that they can change their race,gender, age and even species. It is "their" truth. Did you not see the video by Paul Joseph Watson where the person identifies as a dog and even has a dildo for a tail?
>> Perhaps you can explain to all of us why people slow down and gawk at car accidents. This oughtta be good. Let me grab a bowl of popcorn and pull up a chair.
> Has nothing to do with railroads or pets on trains.
Similarly, your armchair psychoanalysis that I supposedly have a "fetish" has nothing to do with railroads or pets on trains. If you can deviate off the subject matter at hand, I can too.
>> Does looking at a leather-bound guy holding a leash to another guy pretending to be a dog make you feel uncomfortable? Has that photo thrust you into an "unsafe space"? Again, please explain to all of us the motivations of the two individuals who posed for that photo.
> Again, not relevant to the question of whether pets should be allowed on trains.
Explain to me how your proclamation that I have a fetish is relevant to the question of whether pets should be allowed on trains. I'll wait.
>> . . . as grade schools are now accommodating boys who are identifying as girls to use the female restrooms at schools, much to the disgust of other true and genuine females.
> You have not presented any evidence that this has actually happened. I am not going give you the satisfaction of participating in a discussion of a scenario which you made up.
Here's some evidence. Let me know if you require more.
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
"Examples of prohibited conduct which may constitute gender-based harassment include, but are not limited to:
Blocking a student's entry to the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity because the student is transgender or gender-nonconforming"
SOURCE: [www.sfusd.edu]
>> Did you see the SWORN TESTIMONY the other day of Aimee Arrambide where she told a Congressional hearing that she thinks men can get pregnant and have abortions?
[www.c-span.org]
>No and I'm not going to watch it now.
Why does that not surprise me? None are so blind as those who will not see.
>Has nothing to do with pets on trains.
Similarly, your proclamation that I have a "fetish" has nothing to do with pets on trains. Don't expect a policy to be adhered to that you, yourself, refuse to follow.
>> Her testimony is just after Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) has an argument with Dr. Yashica Robinson over the proper usage of pronouns and whether or not Robinson wanted to answer simple questions or give lengthy, biased political speeches in lieu of answering questions. The fun-and-games can be found at the 03:23:00 mark in the link above.
> I am sure there are other internet forums to discuss that testimony with others who think like you. For purposes of this thread, I am only interested in pets on trains.
Is that interest before or after you deviate from the discussion subject matter and accuse people of having fetishes?
> Speaking for myself, I am not thrilled with the idea of allowing passengers to bring pets on trains, but Amtrak's policy appears to be a reasonable compromise of allowing some patrons to bring their pets with them without overwhelming the train with animals by limiting the number of pet reservations.
I'm not thrilled about it either, but they're doing it to kow-tow to a certain group of people who can't go anywhere without their pets. Do the passengers who are allegic to pets have any rights? Will I be compensated with a partial refund of my fare if I have to listen to a cat meow incessantly for six hours? I was on an Amtrak train once where a guy had a live chicken in a paper bag. He was compassionate enough to poke some holes in the bag so the chicken could breathe, but all of the passengers had to hear a chicken cackle for the full duration that the man was on the train. I wonder if the chicken tasted good?
>> Will Amtrak be able to accommodate my "emotional support" giraffe if it's identifying as a dog or cat that particular day?
> Here's an idea. Why don't you pose the question Amtrak, since that's what interests you.
How? Over the telephone? Julie isn't as friendly as she used to be.
>> You libs have made your absurd bed. Now it's time to sleep in it.
> Nothing in my post indicated my political leanings. As an Amtrak patron and a member of a passenger rail advocacy group, I never requested that Amtrak accommodate animals. What bed did I make?
Surprisingly enough, you and I appear to have found common ground on this issue. Pets on trains is not a good idea, but, apparently, pet owners now have more political clout than non-pet owners. Political clout is what it's all about. That explains why gays can groom kindergartners and have the support of the Biden administration. It further explains why the pro-abortion crowd can intimidate and harass Supreme Court justices at their residences in blatant violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1507 and receive encouragement to do so from the Biden administration.
[codes.findlaw.com]
