OhioJeeper t1_j9m9f5z wrote

>Cool, i understand you you favor a certain political party,

No, you think you understand. The only republican I voted for in the last election was Marla Gallo Brown and that was more because the incumbent democrat had been in office for close to 30 yrs. I said republicans have done more because the representatives in the area are republicans.


OhioJeeper t1_j9lv2kv wrote

>Or are you only interested in taking politics 🤔?

In case you forgot here's the comment of yours that I replied to:

>I don't think the second statement means he isn't corrupt. It just means it doesn't cost much to compromise his morals. It's worse to be able to be bought for less.

I'm sure you saying that one of our senators sold out his constituents over $1,000 is grounded in reality and not your own political biases.

>It's not a melt down. It was an effort to facilitate discussion. I like how you only know how to talk down to people you aren't actually open for a conversation.

Tagging someone in a dozen different threads because they called out your political dig isn't facilitating discussion.

>When I'm unaware of something, I like to educate myself. I guess you like to throw tantrums and name call. Not surprising since you are focused on politics rather than actions.

Sure you do. I mentioned free well and air testing and immediately you dismissed it as "insufficient", but please go on about how you'd rather focus on actions than politics.

>You don't disagree with me. You just don't comprehend logic.

I do disagree with you on multiple points you've made, saying I don't, telling me I need to grow up, accusing me of gaslighting, accusing me of projecting, and dismissing literally everything I say isn't going to change that, it just means I was justified in calling you a twat earlier because if you weren't being one then you certainly are now.

Me choosing not to try and follow your shitty binary logic isn't the same as not comprehending it. I grew out of being an idealist in my 20s.


OhioJeeper t1_j9lhgbb wrote

>No. Why would there be something wrong with focusing on the title of a post.

Because there's more to the story than the headlines but this conversation is starting to make a lot more sense if I'm having to explain that to you.

>Don't gaslight and backtrack. I Said testing was insufficient.

You said "If the 'best help available is free air and water testing, that's pretty pathetic all around, don't you think?" in response to me pointing out that the republican representative in the area has managed to be more helpful than a Pennsylvania specific message board. Not agreeing with you isn't gaslighting or "derailing" a conversation either.

>You suggested that I meant that testing was unnecessary.

In response to you suggesting that I said it was sufficient. "If you think testing is sufficient response, you don't truly understand the problem." was met with "If you don't think testing is a necessary response do you understand what's actually at stake here?".

>OK here's your chance talk about it. Talk.

What do you think I've been doing? Have you been "listening"? Just saying "it's not enough" and shitting on the things that have been done doesn't exactly add to the discussion.

>I'm not downplaying anything. And even if I was, which I'm not, that somehow justifies calling me a that? Lmfao. Control yourself.

Saying this then following it up with "anyway, say something important here about what's being done to help" is downplaying the testing that I mentioned previously by suggesting it isn't important. Literally the first step towards determining if there were damages and it's available to everyone in the area. It's also necessary to confirm to what extent the drinking water supply was impacted in the area.

But please let's stick to the important matters of a $1,000 donation, see you next time I need someone to remind me to stay on topic.


OhioJeeper t1_j9l3clm wrote

You don't think there's something wrong with an entire thread focusing on a $1,000 donation but radio silence about things that actually help people effected by the derailment? That doesn't make you question where this subreddit's priorities are?

>I Said It is insufficient.

Who said it was sufficient? You seem more concerned with being right than having an informed view of what is actually being done to help people in the area.

>Name-calling? Grow up. Don't reply if you are going to act like a toddler who lacks emotional regulation.

You're downplaying the free testing to someone that has a potentially compromised drinking water supply, you deserve to be called a lot worse. Don't reply if you're going to act like a toddler that lacks emotional understanding.


OhioJeeper t1_j9kv6qd wrote

Not really outraged, just offering up an additional point of view, but considering I'm close enough to this issue that I have to get my well tested while the rest of the comments here are fixating on a $1,000 campaign contribution don't you think any outrage would be justified?

>If the 'best help available is free air and water testing, that's pretty pathetic all around, don't you think? Nothing to be cheering for.

Where did I say that I was cheering or that this was all that was being offered?

If you want NS to pay for damages, what do you think needs to be done first to ass the damage?

>The representatives in that area should all be responsible for helping residents in a meaningful manner and for ensuring that the railroads are held accountable.

They have been? I'd make a post about what Marla Gallo Brown and Mike Kelly have been doing but somehow I don't think it would be as well received as a post criticizing a state senator over a $1,000 donation.

>We should not be cheering on mediocrity.

Who's cheering? The world isn't black and white, I can disagree with your assessment of the situation based on my own experience while also not being satisfied with how things are being handled.

> If you think testing is sufficient response, you don't truly understand the problem.

If you don't think testing is a necessary response do you understand what's actually at stake here? This is literally the water we drink and cook with, don't be a twat and downplay it because ou(R) representatives get to take credit for it. Testing is also only the beginning, we won't know what the extent of the actual response is for years.


OhioJeeper t1_j9kegzx wrote

I'd argue it means this is another item on a list non-issue bullshit details that this subreddit is making a fucking mountain out of and that the manufacturered outrage does more harm than good.

I'm near the effected area of this derailment and the only helpful bit of information I've gotten so far has been from a republican congressman (Mike Kelly, shared info on free water/air testing for people in the area). At this point republicans have literally done more to help Pennsylvanians than the daily threads about the derailment and bipartisan bullshit that get posted here on the Pennsylvania subreddit.


OhioJeeper t1_j6ngrwh wrote

Not necessarily into the passenger cabin, basically anything that someone could brush up against and get cut on is going to fail it according to my mechanic when I had a couple of quarter size holes in the bed sides of my truck. I threw some cheap fender flares on it to pass but was told metal duct tape would have also been sufficient.


OhioJeeper t1_j4qtp45 wrote

On what grounds do you believe that?

Privately owned tree farms can (and almost always are) be managed for conservation; they more than anyone else have an interested in being good stewards.


I'm really curious where you're checking, the line between what is conservation and what is preservation hasn't moved in over 100 years.



OhioJeeper t1_j4qf3bg wrote

By definition they don't, at least when I got my degree in forestry they didn't.

The simplest way to put it:

National Parks = Preservation

National Forests = Conservation.

I can't think of a single time I've heard of a harvest in an area that was marked for preservation, at least not one that was for commercial purposes, I could see some cutting being done to remove invasive species.


OhioJeeper t1_j38y4vg wrote

I'm not even joking when I say that, this is one of those things that is Appalachian in the sense that people in WV will cling to like it's a key part of their identity, but you can still get them at pretty much any gas station in rural SE Ohio. Beyond that you're either needing to go to Sheetz or you're stuck eating some weird midwest food like spaghetti with shitty chili on it.


OhioJeeper t1_j38v180 wrote

No, I grew up in the midwest. The only parts of PA that I'd consider part of the midwest are north of 80 and west of Meadville.

>People are the same though.

People tend to be the same across the entire US, the world even. Globalization kind of does that. My coworkers in Mexico shop at Costco more often than I do, so if we're going off of what "feels" like the midwest based off of just general US culture we should really be expanding our horizons.

>That's where people start saying pop.

It's not, and that's not uniquely midwest either:


>Now, if you asked me if the surrounding area feels like midwest, no. You drive 20 minutes and you're back in Appalachia, but the city itself feels more like a midwest town.

Okay now you're just being obtuse. Pittsburgh is the midwest, but places like Cranberry Township that are right outside of the city are back to being Appalachia? I wouldn't even say you're in the midwest if you drove straight across 70 into Ohio, those parts of the state aren't exactly the Midwest culturally, but the census lines aren't that precise.

>Columbus... that place always makes me feel like if you combined state college and Harrisburg. It's a weird outlier.

I mean it's the state capital plus home to one the of the largest universities in the country. The city is kind of split between downtown and where the university is, but I'd argue it's just what the midwest looks like. It's flat, laid out on a grid, culture is just kind of a basic "American" culture that's more tied to agriculture than the steel industry or mining.


OhioJeeper t1_j38l1tm wrote

>So you're talking physically and not culturally?

I was talking both because the two aren't unrelated, but responding to your comment saying that it's not part of "Appalachia proper" based on topography alone.

>but culturally it's the beginning of the Midwest.

In what way? Have you ever been to a midwest city like Indianapolis, Columbus, or Chicago?

>Where does the Midwest begin to you?

Same place it begins for everyone else. "Midwest" is a census term, not something that changes based on our own perceptions and feelings of the area.


Appalachia is a cultural region that's literally defined by the topography, and Pittsburgh is a part of it:



OhioJeeper t1_j387ka7 wrote

Not maybe, Pittsburgh is 100% for sure built in the Apalachian foothills. Look at a topo map of western PA (minus the far NW part where Erie is) compared to the Midwest and the terrain differences are fairly obvious.

Pittsburgh has steep hills that basically limit how and where things can be built, you don't really see that in other Midwestern cities.


OhioJeeper t1_j37cq6s wrote

More like Cleveland (or Youngstown/Warren if you want to get really precise). Pittsburgh still has too much in common with Appalachia to be considered the midwest IMO. Most maps I've seen have it starting in Ohio, but even the south eastern part of that state is more Appalachia than midwest if you're looking at the area's history/economy/culture.


OhioJeeper t1_j21ar8r wrote

>Stay classy - you elevate the dialogue that way. Profanity is always a nice touch.

You're right and I'm sorry, I should have realized there was a child present.

>People like you always get tweaked when you can’t make an argument without insulting the other party. Every time.

Calling you out on being wrong isn't an insult when you're wrong.

>What “NHTSA research?”

>Where is it? Link? Point it out, for God’s sake. Is that asking too much? Support your argument.

🖕I linked you to their site directly, I'm not your mom/teacher/librarian/whoever it was that failed to teach you how to research something on your own. But because I'm in the Christmas spirit, here's a Wikipedia article to get you started.


>Being impaired is just as relevant in a self-driving vehicle as in a regular vehicle. That was my point.

Not when we're talking about technology that would provent drunks from plowing into pedestrians. Police are either responding to accidents or hopefully cathing the person before they kill someone. Self driving tech is always there.

>The msn article is one event. As I’ve repeatedly stated, there are numerous NHTSA safety investigations into accidents involving technology-assisted vehicles - and I provided a link - which you completely ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

I don't have an agenda, but it's starting to make sense why you thought a souce offering up the opinions of politicians on NHTSA research was the same as a source that's directly from NHTSA.

>As far as your make-believe anecdote, a story can be relayed without divulging any personal information. You chose not to do that.

I'm sure more details from my personal anecdote were all it's going to take to convince someone that's arguing against NHTSA based on the opinions of politicians.

>That’s supposed to either impress or intimidate.

The intention was to provide context for the anecdote but it's absolutely hilarious that you think that can be used to intimidate. Don't let those stupid science bitches make you more smarter.

>It didn’t work.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ can't save everyone from themselves.


OhioJeeper t1_j1zw1ys wrote

>My points about DUI and distracted driving are relevant as they would directly affect the operation of technology-assisted vehicles, from both a safety and law-enforcement standpoint.

What are you even talking about? What about being drunk is relevant to the operation of a "self driving vehicle" that wouldn't be with a regular vehicle?

>Both things can’t be true.

multiple things can absolutely be true at the same time and I see no point in continuing this conversation as it seems you struggle with that concept, especially if you'd so quickly reject NHTSA research as not being sufficient so quickly without offering up some credible counterpoints. That MSN article you linked is a single data point, not a definitive source.

>A personal anecdote has no validity unless you can provide some specifics or documentation.

Fucking peak irony right here, I'm not about to post up one of my former classmate's personal information for you to tear apart their story because you'd rather steer conversations toward your own shitty misguided view of the world than broaden your perspective. I offered that to give some context to how long this "debate" has been going on.


OhioJeeper t1_j1z9h21 wrote

Unknowingly based.

Being reductive works on children but in the context of getting rid of a law that effects PA residents on r/EDC more than actual criminals maybe they have a point? There's something like 1000 stabbings across the entire US every year. I'm pretty sure blunt objects are used in more frequently in homicides.