Text only | Text with Images

THeBlueCashew

General Discussion => The Flea Trap => Topic started by: Anonymous on July 10, 2013, 08:34:37 PM

Title: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 10, 2013, 08:34:37 PM
I have read extremists claim it was all the big bad company's fault while other equally clueless ideologues say it is all the fault of one lazy unionized conductor who also wore the locomotive engineer's hat. As usual they are both wrong.



Let's look at the train itself first. The head end had 5 locomotives while the consist had 72 cars. CROR(Canadian Rail Operating Rules) Rule 112(a) states a.When equipment is left at any point a sufficient number of hand brakes must be applied to prevent it from moving.For both of Canada's two class 1 railways their GOI(General Operating Instructions) state something like this in the application of Rule 112, unless otherwise specified by special instruction, sufficient number of handbrakes shall be a minimum of one, with one additional handbrake for every 10 cars to a maximum of 5* in total.

e.g.

1 car - 1 handbrake,

2 cars - 1 handbrake,

10 cars - 2 handbrakes.

* Note: If the results of the testing of the effectiveness of the handbrakes applied indicate additional handbrakes are required, additional handbrakes are to be applied as needed.



That would at least 7 handbrakes would be required on the train plus one for each locomotive on the head end. That would be a minimum of 12 brakes for the entire consist. Now, the units became separated from train, but if rule 112(a) had been followed then neither the units, nor the train would have rolled.



CROR rule 112(b) on securing equipment requires that the hand brake application be tested. The rule states

Before relying on the retarding force of the hand brake(s), whether leaving equipment or riding equipment to rest, the effectiveness of the hand brakes(s) must be tested by fully applying the hand brake(s) and moving the cut of cars slightly to ensure sufficient retarding force is present to prevent the equipment from moving. When leaving a cut of cars secured, and after completion of this test, the cut should be observed while pulling away to ensure slack action has settled and that the cars remain in place.



This focus on the effectiveness of the airbrakes is distraction used by people with an an agenda who know zero about the rail industry. Clearly rules 112(a) and (b) were either not followed or there was sabotage(highly unlikely). If the Conductor/Hoghead had applied the legal minimum handbrakes on the entire consist nothing would have moved. Because the lone train operator broke CROR rule 112(a) there was no need to folow rule112(b) either...push/pull test.



It seems pretty clear this is a case of criminal negligence on the part of the trainman. However, MMA as a short line railway got permission to run trains with only one crew member which is rare. How can a train do switching with only one person? How is it possible to do coupling with only one body? How do they do air checks with one person? Unless all switching is done in the yards with a rules qualified person on the ground and the train is just hook and haul it seems impossible.



The trainman probably "cut corners" due to exhaustion from doing two jobs.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 10, 2013, 09:27:10 PM
Update, the conductor/hoghead has been suspended by his company. He was also involved in a previous derailment. I will post more details as they emerge.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Obvious Li on July 10, 2013, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"Update, the conductor/hoghead has been suspended by his company. He was also involved in a previous derailment. I will post more details as they emerge.




good for you..i am torn between my normal contempt for this union slug and my respect for the situation......i suspect the death toll will continue to rise....many of those bar goers simply evaporated from the intense heat......no one will ever know what happened to some of them.....the conductor may have fucked up but no train carrying explosive materials should have a one man crew.....
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 10, 2013, 09:57:45 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Shen Li"Update, the conductor/hoghead has been suspended by his company. He was also involved in a previous derailment. I will post more details as they emerge.




good for you..i am torn between my normal contempt for this union slug and my respect for the situation......i suspect the death toll will continue to rise....many of those bar goers simply evaporated from the intense heat......no one will ever know what happened to some of them.....the conductor may have fucked up but no train carrying explosive materials should have a one man crew.....

No train period should have a one man crew. It violates several CROR communication rules alone nevermind the ones related to safety. MMA is a short line railway and was able to set of a train on the main instead of a siding as class 1 railways like CN or CP do. Short line railways may not have daily scheducled traffic, so leaving equipment on the main is not an uncommon practice.



I am not bragging, but I know a bit about freight railroading and I cannot see for the life of me how they can run an entire consist with one person wearing both the conductor and hoghead hats. I think you will see that rare deal between MMA and the feds reexamined. I sure hope so.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Obvious Li on July 10, 2013, 10:25:34 PM
i love the name "Hoghead"...if i was a hoghead, i would swagger around town challenging every tough guy wannabe to a throw down......spit a big wad of tobaccy on the toes of their boots and fuck em............. :ugeek:
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 10, 2013, 10:28:00 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"i love the name "Hoghead"...if i was a hoghead, i would swagger around town challenging every tough guy wannabe to a throw down......spit a big wad of tobaccy on the toes of their boots and fuck em............. :ugeek:

A hogger holding a road pool at CN can make about $180k/annum. Not a bad wage for only moving forward and reverse.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 11, 2013, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"i love the name "Hoghead"...if i was a hoghead, i would swagger around town challenging every tough guy wannabe to a throw down......spit a big wad of tobaccy on the toes of their boots and fuck em............. :ugeek:

A hogger holding a road pool at CN can make about $180k/annum. Not a bad wage for only moving forward and reverse.

What is a hogger? Do you work for CN?
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 11, 2013, 07:38:41 PM
I was horrified when I heard about this tragedy..



I will pray for the town's healing.

 :(
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 14, 2013, 12:42:21 PM
The Hoghead/Conductor's name is Tom Harding and he was fired by CN for a minor derailment he was responsible for last year.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Obvious Li on July 14, 2013, 08:36:39 PM
the Chairman (forget his name) did such a piss poor PR job when he went to speak to the locals....probably is a good guy , but came across as an old school hard ass corporate boss....not appropriate in the circumstances
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 14, 2013, 08:39:25 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"the Chairman (forget his name) did such a piss poor PR job when he went to speak to the locals....probably is a good guy , but came across as an old school hard ass corporate boss....not appropriate in the circumstances

It looked like he had a friggin smirk on his face.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 14, 2013, 09:52:18 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"the Chairman (forget his name) did such a piss poor PR job when he went to speak to the locals....probably is a good guy , but came across as an old school hard ass corporate boss....not appropriate in the circumstances

It looked like he had a friggin smirk on his face.


Yes it does appear that way.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Odinson on July 14, 2013, 11:03:00 PM
The man did not know shit.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 14, 2013, 11:08:14 PM
Quote from: "Odinson"The man did not know shit.

I don't know anything about that derailment either Odie.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Odinson on July 14, 2013, 11:16:19 PM
He is a manager. Press conferences like these are totally useless.



We are being taught that the bossman always has the answers and there is no I don´t know.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 14, 2013, 11:18:20 PM
Quote from: "Odinson"He is a manager. Press conferences like these are totally useless.



We are being taught that the bossman always has the answers and there is no I don´t know.

He should be able to answer most questions.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2013, 10:08:14 PM
Quote from: "Odinson"The man did not know shit.

Some of the questions he was being asked were so bloody stupid. "How much money is he worth"? :roll:
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Romero on July 19, 2013, 02:24:44 PM
QuoteThe runaway Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway train that plowed through a small Quebec town killing 50 people on July 6 had one engineer assigned to it.



The American union of railway workers representing most of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway workers thinks the practice is dangerous, and has fought that work condition unsuccessfully since it began several years ago, its representatives say.



"We have always been and continue to be opposed to one-man trains," said Mike Twombly, vice president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, on Monday. "We have opposed it and tried to negotiate it out [of union contracts] but Mr. Burkhardt was equally vehement."



Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway has a long history of accidents in Canada, according to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, which shows 129 accidents, including 77 derailments — some of them minor — since 2003. It is one of only two rail companies in Canada, both of them small, that is allowed to operate trains manned by a single engineer, Canadian authorities told Reuters.



On the American side of the border, when Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway formed in 2003, the company's formation eliminated the union contract held by the century-old Bangor and Aroostook Railroad when that company was purchased by rail conglomerate Rail World Inc. and renamed, Twombly said. That contract mandated two-man crews.



In 2005, the company held a demonstration of the remote-control system by which one engineer could control an automated locomotive for the coupling and decoupling of cars. By 2010, the system was being installed company-wide.



Union workers believe the system is unsafe because it leaves trains often carrying volatile materials in the hands of one person who could suffer a medical problem or encounter other issues that could cause problems, Twombly said.



//http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/17/news/penobscot/railroad-union-negotiating-with-montreal-maine-and-atlantic-says-one-man-train-crews-unsafe/
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 19, 2013, 04:17:23 PM
Yep, MMA should not have been given the rare exception of operating a train with one person wearing both the hoghead and conductor hats. I have said that before that that was wrong. However, he broke CROR rule 112 a and b and that is what caused that tragedy. If those rules were followed 40+ people would be alive today.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: EU on July 21, 2013, 11:37:25 AM
Interesting the CEO came off as a heartless cad...did he go to the same Burger Joint management school as you







[size=150]Current and former locomotive engineers say oneperson freight-train crews are accidents waiting to happen.[/size]



One person - locomotive engineer Tom Harding - was responsible for operating and securing the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway oil-bearing train that crashed in Lac-Mégantic, killing approximately 50 people, on July 6. It's unclear what, if any, the one-man-crew role that played in the disaster, but the revelation that some freight trains carrying dangerous materials through populated areas are being operated by one person in Canada has sparked concern.



Transport Canada gave MMA and one other small railway permission to operate with only one employee on board. Now, the use of solo train operators is part of the Transportation Safety Board investigation into the Lac-Mégantic derailment.



Last week, MMA chairman Ed Burkhardt said: "We actually think that one-man crews are safer than twoman crews because there's less exposure for employee injury and less distraction (for operators)."



Some industry observers disagree.



Normally, at least two people work on freight trains.



When trains are being parked, the engineer sets the air brake (a train's primary brake) and the conductor leaves the cabin to set the hand brakes, noted Wayne Benedict, a former locomotive engineer who worked at CP Rail and B.C. Rail.



The air brake can be unintentionally released, he noted.



"If that one guy who is operating the train is off tying hand brakes, there's a potential for a runaway train between when he leaves the locomotive and when he applies the hand brakes."



If there's "an unintentional release of the (air brake) before he applies sufficient hand brakes to hold the train in place, there's no one at the front end to put the train in emergency and there's no way he could get in a position" to stop the train.



James Goodrich, a former locomotive engineer for a predecessor company of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, said he can't imagine doing the two jobs MMA expected one-person crews to fulfill.



Normally, an engineer is responsible for operating the locomotives "He's watching for signals, keeping track of where he's at if he's in dark territory and he's looking out for things on the rail and problems in the rail," Goodrich said.



"You have to know where you are, what the grades are, what the requirements are, what the dangers are - every detail of it - because you have to keep the train in one piece. Part of the train may be going uphill and part of it may be going downhill at any given time and if you don't handle your train correctly you could cause an accident. It's not rocket science, but it's also not a UPS truck."



The engineer, he noted, has "a lot to do without worrying about all the things that a conductor worries about."



Among other things, the conductor is responsible for the cargo, keeping track of the schedule, determining whether a relief crew will be needed and looking ahead at how and where the train will have to be parked.



Another potential risk for one-person crews: The sole employee could be injured while setting brakes or fulfilling other duties outside the train.



When walking along train tracks, railway employees may be walking along uneven ground or embankments, Goodrich said. "It's very possible to slip and now you've got a broken leg or a broken back somewhere down there in the bush," he said.



A current locomotive engineer, who works for a major Canadian railway and did not want to be identified, said one-person crews can be particularly dangerous at small, lower-cost railways such as MMA.



There's more chance employees of those railways will have to contend with track or locomotive problems on trips, adding further burdens to their work day, he noted.



Big railways tend to better maintain tracks and locomotives and have sensors that can detect problems with wheels and brakes, the engineer said.



"The other thing is fatigue," he added. "That's a big problem on the railways - with two guys, you're watching each other's back."



Having a second person on board is a relatively inexpensive precaution that can pay for itself many times over in the long run, he said.



"You can live in your house for 30 years without a smoke detector and never have a problem. But if your house burns down because you didn't spend $20 on a smoke detector, then you look pretty stupid."
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 21, 2013, 10:25:37 PM
EU, your posts are so immature.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 21, 2013, 11:12:38 PM
EU, EU, we know one crews are far from ideal, but what does that have to do with Tom Harding violated CROR rules about securing equipment?  



106. Crew Responsibilities

[size=150]All crew members are responsible for the safe operation of movements and equipment in their charge and for the observance of the rules. Under conditions not provided for by the rules, they must take every precaution for protection. [/size]

A utility employee becomes a crew member when working with any movement.



112. Securing Equipment

(a) [size=150]When equipment is left at any point a sufficient number of hand brakes must be applied to prevent it from moving.[/size] Special instructions will indicate the minimum hand brake requirements for all locations where equipment is left. If equipment is left on a siding, it must be coupled to other equipment if any on such track unless it is necessary to provide separation at a public crossing at grade or elsewhere.



(b) Before relying on the retarding force of the hand brake(s), whether leaving equipment or riding equipment to rest, [size=150]the effectiveness of the hand brake(s) must be tested by fully applying the hand brake(s) and moving the cut of cars slightly to ensure sufficient retarding force is present to prevent the equipment from moving. When leaving a cut of cars secured, and after completion of this test, the cut should be observed while pulling away to ensure slack action has settled and that the cars remain in place[/size]



Are you saying that Harding is exempt from CROR rules on securing equipment because he is a one-man show? There is no such special exemption in the rules.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2013, 06:57:18 AM
EU lacks imagination with the same tired pathetic insults. It almost makes me wonder if he and Green_Hornet are the same person.



Whatever, his article did not explain what exactly caused the runaway train.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: EU on July 22, 2013, 08:59:20 AM
wtf
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2013, 09:12:12 PM
Quote from: "seoulbro"EU lacks imagination with the same tired pathetic insults. It almost makes me wonder if he and Green_Hornet are the same person.



Whatever, his article did not explain what exactly caused the runaway train.

Green_Hornet and EU are not the same person seoulbro..



I see that EU is on moderation queue..



Shen Li must have done that when she was still a moderator.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 27, 2013, 02:45:18 PM
Faulty handbrakes need to be fixed. However, the rules now are sufficient. If the train is able to move on the push/pull test then apply more handbrakes until it can't move. This announcement by CP is about optics.
QuoteMONTREAL - Nineteen Canadian Pacific trains failed internal compliance tests in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, QMI Agency has learned.

The Calgary-based rail giant admitted to the failures in a memorandum dated Tuesday.



The tests were conducted after another company's crude-oil train derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, QC, on July 6, killing 47 people.



In all, CP carried out 322 tests on 70 trains this month in Brooks, AB, Mactier, ON, as well as three communities in Saskatchewan: Maple Creek, Sutherland and Swift Current.



The CP memo refers to a 5.9% failure rate. One of the failures was hand brakes that didn't meet company standards.CP announced last week that it will impose tougher rules on setting the brakes that hold a stationary train in place.



Freight train safety has been a major concern in Canada and the US since a runaway train crashed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, incinerating a large section of downtown.



The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has said there weren't enough brakes applied on the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway train when it was parked 12 km away in the town of Nantes.

CP's internal memorandum says some of its trains fell short on braking checks as well as tests that assessed radio communication between crews.



The memorandum was sent to CP engineers, mechanics and switching co-ordinators.



CP spokeswoman Breanne Feigel told QMI Agency that internal checks are routine.



"We do checks every day," she said. "The company does even more than what Transport Canada regulations require."



Staff that don't respect safety rules are docked points, which Feigel says is a common industry practice.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130726-115405.html
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 28, 2013, 01:46:40 PM
A few hours earlier a tanker truck spilled 35,000 litres of jet fuel into a creek in BC's Kootenay region. About 800 homes were evacuated. Pipelines are the safest way to transport bulk fuels.
QuoteA locomotive and seven tank cars carrying oil derailed in Lloydminster, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, on Friday afternoon.



The derailment occurred around 5 p.m. while the train was moving cars out of the railyard.



The tank cars were carrying oil but none of it spilled. Some diesel fuel was released from the locomotive but contained by the fire department.



CP Rail spokesman Ed Greenberg says the cars are on the side of the track.



"We have crews on scene going through our strict protocols and procedures when it comes to ensuring that the site is safe and secure," he said.



"A full investigation is being conducted to determine what took place — not just the cause, but the circumstances that led to the cause."



No one was hurt and the area didn't have to be evacuated.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/07/27/edmonton-train-derailment-lloydminster.html
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on July 28, 2013, 01:54:12 PM
QuoteEmergency crews are cleaning up following a train derailment near the Alberta-Montana border.



A total of 19 cars left the tracks in a rural area, roughly five kilometres north of Coutts, AB.



According to Canadian Pacific, there were no injuries sustained in the derailment, which happened late Friday afternoon.



The train was carrying coal, however CP has no environmental concerns, as all of the cars remained upright.



"We take the necessary steps for proper environmental remediation once the initial cleanup stage has been completed," said Ed Greenberg, a CP spokesperson.



Greenberg told Global News that as of Saturday evening, only four cars had yet to be back on the rail line.



Once the track is repaired and inspected, the line is expected to re-open on Sunday morning.



Cause of the derailment is still under investigation.

http://www.zimbio.com/Railroad+Worker+News/articles/xAlId-ZIgku/Investigation+continues+train+derailment+near
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Romero on August 19, 2014, 03:19:22 PM
QuoteLac-Megantic Report Released By Transportation Safety Board



Many factors contributed to the Lac-Megantic train derailment in 2013, including lax safety measures at the company that owned the runaway train, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said Tuesday.



The agency targeted Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway and Transport Canada in its final report.



"We now know why the situation developed over time," TSB chair Wendy Tadros told a news conference in Lac-Megantic. "A weak safety culture at MMA, poor training of employees, tanker cars that didn't offer enough protection.



"And then Transport Canada didn't audit railways often enough and thoroughly enough to know how those companies were really managing, or not managing, risk."



"Accidents never come down to a single individual, a single action or a single factor," she said. "You have to look at the whole context. In our investigation, we found 18 factors played a role in this accident."



One of them was the fact that about one-third of the derailed tanker cars had large breaches which rapidly released vast quantities of highly volatile petroleum crude oil.



Brake issues also played a role in the accident.



"The seven hand brakes that were applied to secure the train were insufficient to hold the train without the additional braking force provided by the locomotive's independent brakes," the TSB said.



The federal agency is making two additional recommendations: that additional "physical defences" be set up to prevent runaway trains, and that there be more thorough audits to ensure railways are effectively managing safety.



Last January, the TSB called on Ottawa to take urgent action to pull outdated and unsafe rail cars from Canada's tracks, as well as reassess the safety of all potential routes used to transport dangerous goods.



Transport Canada issued directives on July 23, 2013, that at least two crew members must work on trains that carry dangerous goods and that no locomotive attached to one or more tank cars carrying dangerous goods can be left unattended on a main track.



The TSB said last year as its investigation progressed that the crude oil carried by the train was as volatile as gasoline but had been labelled as a less-dangerous product similar to diesel or bunker crude.



//http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/19/lac-megantic-tsb_n_5690253.html
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on August 19, 2014, 06:33:41 PM
QuoteThe seven hand brakes that were applied to secure the train were insufficient to hold the train without the additional braking force provided by the locomotive's independent brakes," the TSB said.

Any railroader knew exactly why that train rolled away after being tied down. I understand the Hoghead/Conductor wanted to get to the hotel for some deserved rest, but cutting corners by not applying enough handbrakes is not only a violation of CROR rules, it's also extremely dangerous as we saw.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Lance Leftardashian on March 05, 2015, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: "Fashionista"EU, your posts are so immature.

EU is very wise and knows so much about industry and commerce he must be a scientist an economist or a Nobel Laureate.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on March 05, 2015, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: "Lance Leftardashian"
Quote from: "Fashionista"EU, your posts are so immature.

EU is very wise and knows so much about industry and commerce he must be a scientist an economist or a Nobel Laureate.

I can see why you like him Joak considering how both of you sit at the back of the class with the other unruly brats making farting sounds with your armpits while the teacher speaks. EU's only contribution was stupid personal attacks and a peculiar obsession with Shen Li. Another thing both of you idiots have in common.
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on March 05, 2015, 03:07:34 PM
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Lance Leftardashian"
Quote from: "Fashionista"EU, your posts are so immature.

EU is very wise and knows so much about industry and commerce he must be a scientist an economist or a Nobel Laureate.

I can see why you like him Joak considering how both of you sit at the back of the class with the other unruly brats making farting sounds with your armpits while the teacher speaks. EU's only contribution was stupid personal attacks and a peculiar obsession with Shen Li. Another thing both of you idiots have in common.

Oh whatever, EU is completely harmless and intelligent grown ups pay him little attention. To be honest, I thought he was a catty school girl at first and I'm still not convinced he/she isn't. His obssession with myself and CC is perfectly understandable. It's quite simple actually; we are successful, well-rounded grown ups and he is not.



He cannot post about his university classes because he never took any. He can't approach issues from a professional POV because he doesn't have a profession. He can't talk about his apprenticeship because he doesn't have a journeyman trade. He can't even talk about his kids because he never had a family. The only thing left are jealous puerile insults.



It's cute though how The Iron Chink has celebrity-like status. Little boys like Gary Oak want to do me when he grows up. Little girls like EU want to be like me when she puts away the Barbies and grows up. Haha, they can both dream I suppose. That's as close as either of them will ever get though. ac_gumpop  ac_dance
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Obvious Li on March 05, 2015, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Lance Leftardashian"
EU is very wise and knows so much about industry and commerce he must be a scientist an economist or a Nobel Laureate.

I can see why you like him Joak considering how both of you sit at the back of the class with the other unruly brats making farting sounds with your armpits while the teacher speaks. EU's only contribution was stupid personal attacks and a peculiar obsession with Shen Li. Another thing both of you idiots have in common.

Oh whatever, EU is completely harmless and intelligent adults pay him little attention. To be honest, I thought he was a catty school girl at first and I'm still not convinced he/she isn't. His obssession with myself and CC is perfectly understandable. It's quite simple actually; we are successful, well-rounded grown-ups and he is not.



He cannot post about his university classes because he never took any. He can't approach issues from a professional POV because he doesn't have a profession. He can't talk about his apprenticeship because he doesn't have a journeyman trade. He can't even talk about his kids because he never had a family. The only thing left are jealous puerile insults.



It's cute though how The Iron Chink has celebrity-like status. Little boys like Gary Oak want to do me when he grows up. Little girls like EU want to be like me when she puts away the Barbies and grows up. Haha, they can both dream I suppose. That's as close as either of them will ever get though. ac_gumpop  ac_dance




us older more mature guys wanna do you too.....but we are more circumspect about it.... ac_wub did i just say that...oh lordy...... acc_devil  acc_devil  ac_dance
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on March 05, 2015, 06:37:05 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
I can see why you like him Joak considering how both of you sit at the back of the class with the other unruly brats making farting sounds with your armpits while the teacher speaks. EU's only contribution was stupid personal attacks and a peculiar obsession with Shen Li. Another thing both of you idiots have in common.

Oh whatever, EU is completely harmless and intelligent adults pay him little attention. To be honest, I thought he was a catty school girl at first and I'm still not convinced he/she isn't. His obssession with myself and CC is perfectly understandable. It's quite simple actually; we are successful, well-rounded grown-ups and he is not.



He cannot post about his university classes because he never took any. He can't approach issues from a professional POV because he doesn't have a profession. He can't talk about his apprenticeship because he doesn't have a journeyman trade. He can't even talk about his kids because he never had a family. The only thing left are jealous puerile insults.



It's cute though how The Iron Chink has celebrity-like status. Little boys like Gary Oak want to do me when he grows up. Little girls like EU want to be like me when she puts away the Barbies and grows up. Haha, they can both dream I suppose. That's as close as either of them will ever get though. ac_gumpop  ac_dance




us older more mature guys wanna do you too.....but we are more circumspect about it.... ac_wub did i just say that...oh lordy...... acc_devil  acc_devil  ac_dance

I like older, wiser and cautious.....OH AND MONEY TOO!!  ac_lovestruck  acc_hugz
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Obvious Li on March 05, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Oh whatever, EU is completely harmless and intelligent adults pay him little attention. To be honest, I thought he was a catty school girl at first and I'm still not convinced he/she isn't. His obssession with myself and CC is perfectly understandable. It's quite simple actually; we are successful, well-rounded grown-ups and he is not.



He cannot post about his university classes because he never took any. He can't approach issues from a professional POV because he doesn't have a profession. He can't talk about his apprenticeship because he doesn't have a journeyman trade. He can't even talk about his kids because he never had a family. The only thing left are jealous puerile insults.



It's cute though how The Iron Chink has celebrity-like status. Little boys like Gary Oak want to do me when he grows up. Little girls like EU want to be like me when she puts away the Barbies and grows up. Haha, they can both dream I suppose. That's as close as either of them will ever get though. ac_gumpop  ac_dance




us older more mature guys wanna do you too.....but we are more circumspect about it.... ac_wub did i just say that...oh lordy...... acc_devil  acc_devil  ac_dance

I like older, wiser and cautious.....OH AND MONEY TOO!!  ac_lovestruck  acc_hugz




i'll grab my checkbook and be right over.....do you like your chicken crispy or regular.. ac_wub  ac_wub  acc_devil
Title: Re: The Most Likely Reason(s) For Lac Megantic Tragedy
Post by: Anonymous on March 05, 2015, 07:12:23 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
i'll grab my checkbook and be right over.....do you like your chicken crispy or regular.. ac_wub  ac_wub  acc_devil

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://mindbodydisc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/homer_drool.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://mindbodydisc.com/wp-content/uplo%20...%20_drool.jpg%22%3Ehttp://mindbodydisc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/homer_drool.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Text only | Text with Images