Wow, my two black eyes just got opened.

[thenurserycryme]

Yes, I’ll admit it, I do have two black eyes. They are sort of yellow. Ok very very yellow. With green on the inside, right near the bridge of my nose and sort of purple lines extending from the green underneath below my eyes. It’s like I was going to put on drag makeup and somehow got turned upside down. And I’m still a bit swollen, but my face

Comments

[anonymous]

They already use trains! They've been using them since at least the late 1800s. I have to check my figures on that. Looking at convenience, trains deliver goods from station to station, but trucks can access almost any building thanks to raods. Roads outnumber rails. When shipping by train you need loads of cargo, by truck you only need up to one full truck. For trains you need at least 5 trucks or so. Small shipments = truck, Gargantuan shipments = train. 10,000 automobiles = ship.
Can I hear more about your train idea,post a comment or two.

problem

[thenurserycryme]

You see, there is an issue with this. I'm not proposing that companies stop using trucks altogether. Because yes. Trucks do get thing from place to place. Locally, and that's effective. Sure, trucks are great, but use trains to ship things from some factory to halfway across the country. And think about it. Most comapanies, Coke-a-cola, computer people, they really don't use trains. They use trucks. To ship things (alot, a ton, an obscene number) half way across the country. Or to some packaging place. Think about really, how much mercandice your avearage factory produces. Many many trains full. Don't argue about how much stuff a factory makes. It's way more than 5 truck loads of stuff that they have to get packaged or sent away to Utah. Frito Lay makes more chips in a day than you could probably imagine. Enough so that a train to get them from Michigan to Kentucky would be smart. And cost and fuel friendly and friendly also on nature. But they use trucks. Using trains would be SO MUCH more effective. Alot. Muchos. And then, say have

[akisawana]

Trains bad for passengers. Fill them up, yes yes yes we should my precious...
And that is why LOTR is not to be watched while typing.

[hurricanes_eye]

Oh I heard about that movie before it came out. It's just like JFK however. I talker to my history teacher ( who is awesome by the way) about the movie a while back, and he said Michael Moore always mixes in a lot of non-truths and MAJOR-exaggerations (etc...) in his movies. According to him he's just a conspiracy theorist.

I think you're teacher is wrong

[thenurserycryme]

Reasons I think he's wrong. Well, I've read books from major publishing companies that are widely considered to be factually acurate. And they supported facts that Michael Moore used in his movie. Secondly, the news couldn't really find anything wrong with it. And professors from both Western and Eastern University told the Detroit Free Press that they couldn't find anything wrong with the film factually either. So ha. Ê

Re: I think you're teacher is wrong

[hurricanes_eye]

lol. You're funny. I like the mature little "ha" at the end. Well, I guess we just have opposing views. It's ok, I respect yours. I just thought I'd get that out to make sure you were not one of those people who go see any film and thinks it's factual. You know? They let the media decide their opinion for them. It's so stupid.

...

[anonymous]

You do realize that trains haven't been used in decades, and as a result, most major cities do not have train tracks that go through them. This also speaks nothing of the difficulties that would lie in getting goods to rural areas by train. Add that to the fact that most trains actually have worse emission ratings than trucks, and I think you've got the makings of a really bad idea.

Re: ...

[thenurserycryme]

Ok, so I looked up some facts. And can cite sources. And I have the makings of a really good idea, and you have the makings of an irrational arguer. I know, per one engine a train gives off way more fuel emmissions than one truck engine. But a train can haul WAY WAY WAY more than a truck. Trains get 1.13 and 1.2 gallons to the mile, but they can haul 100 cars of 100 tons a car. And Trucks get 5.5 or 6 miles to the gallon. One truck engine can haul 25 tons. So say we are going 120 miles. A train will use 144 gallons and a truck will use 20. But then divide that 144 gallons by the 10,000 tons that train is hauling. that's .0144. Now a truck divide that 20 gallons by the 25 tons it's hauling. that's .8. Now. .8 /.0144 is 55. so a train is 55 times more effective than a truck per ton. I know that this is not an adequate real life model. Seems a bit, you know, far fetched. But say, that the train has more than one engine, as they often do. So... maybe three. But that still leaves your train at 18.3 times more effective fuel wise than a

[bukkake_party]

the train is idea is revolutionary, i promise

merci, merci

[thenurserycryme]

Thank you very much for backing me on the train thing against that Anonymous person. But I don't know who you are... which leads to the question, who are you?