Frank, you have nothing to be angry at.

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.

Many roads exist on a profit or loss basis. They often show up as losses on city governments‘ profit/loss statements.

Some roads won’t be constructed unless the proposal passes a “financial feasibility study” to determine whether or not it will “profitable for a private company to operate”.

There are even road corporations that operate on a profit and loss basis.

Roads around the world, including roads in China, exist on a profit and loss basis:

“Heading into 2012, our priorities are to ensure that we manage our business well, grow the toll road business and its profitability and increase shareholder value. At the same time, we continue to lookout for quality toll road projects to enlarge our toll road portfolio,” Mr Dong added.

You can now stop repeating this assertion over and over and over. Saying it a million times won’t make it so.

You NEVER link to any evidence (we still remember your failed attempts to use HTML tags) and you repeat the same gibberish day in and out.

It is time to STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD highwayman.

I’m tired of your mischaracterizations (I’m not “right-wing”) and your attacks. I’m tired of YEARS of the highwayman persona saying the same stuff over and over and over. Fact is you and Dan and highwayman have stifled the discussion here with your repeated personal attacks, appeals to ridicule, and in the highwayman’s case, non-sequiturs and libelous accusations against The Antiplanner, whom I respect.

Criticism is great. All you offer are profanity-laced, emotion-based attacks.

/ignore

As he said, yes, there are some toll roads, but there a lot more that are lot more that aren’t evaluated on that basis–but maybe they should. Wouldn’t come out favorably to the biases of Metrosucks and Frank, something I’d look forward to. For statement of such an obvious fact, there is no need for a reference.

Perhaps a strategy to even flummox guys like Metrosucks and Frank is to quote the big facts that blow their arguments out of the water–of which there’s a never-ending supply. Have you notice that I’ve cited a lot of facts here over the years complete with links, but I have YET to have an intellectually sound response, and usually with teethknashing and name-calling, if any response at all.

Should frustrate them even more–though when it clear to any reasonable reader that they’re running their keyboards like idiots, don’t hesitate to call them out. It is also fun and entertaining.

“Roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.”

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.

Many roads exist on a profit or loss basis. They often show up as losses on city governments‘ profit/loss statements.

Some roads won’t be constructed unless the proposal passes a “financial feasibility study” to determine whether or not it will “profitable for a private company to operate”.

There are even road corporations that operate on a profit and loss basis.

Roads around the world, including roads in China, exist on a profit and loss basis:

“Heading into 2012, our priorities are to ensure that we manage our business well, grow the toll road business and its profitability and increase shareholder value. At the same time, we continue to lookout for quality toll road projects to enlarge our toll road portfolio,” Mr Dong added.

You can now stop repeating this assertion over and over and over. Saying it a million times won’t make it so.

You NEVER link to any evidence (we still remember your failed attempts to use HTML tags) and you repeat the same gibberish day in and out.

It is time to STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD highwayman.