|
|
| Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL? (32971) | |
 |
|
| Home > The Reef | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||
|
| (33171) | |
Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:58:58 2008, in response to Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL?, posted by BMTLines on Thu Feb 21 12:57:08 2008. So the MTA doesn't actually own the tracks and platforms? I was under the impression AV only owned the station building. |
|
| (33172) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Feb 21 13:01:26 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:57:27 2008. and basic common sense.Something that is lacking in some people when it comes to flashes and how they take the picture. |
|
| (33173) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:02:34 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 12:48:29 2008. Both of those arguments are very hard to make with regards to the built in flash of a camera.With regards to the hazard argument, The MTA cannot reasonably consider small camera flashes to interfere with safe operation of trains while the third rail makes much brighter flashes when shoes arc. Furthermore, the MTA uses brighter flashing lights for wheel detector signals, which is obviously a conscious decision on their part. If the MTA thought bright flashing lights were unsafe, they wouldnt employ the use of them. The second argument is also clearly not referring to the use of a built in camera flash. It is referring to the use of external flashes, or as it says ANCILLARY equipment. Lights is a further clarification of that, not an addition. |
|
| (33174) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:03:04 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Railman718 on Thu Feb 21 10:38:30 2008. No, that's not an exception unless the platform is clearly marked as being closed to the public. Since AFAIK that doesn't normally happen, your situation is only hypothetical. |
|
| (33175) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:04:25 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:55:43 2008. "Lights and flashes are not the same thing"Yes, they are. A flash is considered within the Light category, and therefore prohibited by clearly posted MTA policy. "but the law doesn't specifically outlaw their usage." Yes it does. You are free to cite your own personal interpretation. You are also free to claim (with equal effectiveness) that the Constitution does not allow income taxes. Both these positions would generally label you as an idiot and if you violated them, a police officer would be happy to apply sanctions and nforcement. If you want to hire a lawyer to argue this, that's fine. I wouldn't waste my money on it, but you can do what you want. |
|
| (33176) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:04:42 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Railman718 on Thu Feb 21 10:56:06 2008. No, there is no gray area here. |
|
| (33177) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:06:49 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:02:34 2008. "The MTA cannot reasonably consider small camera flashes to interfere with safe operation of trains while the third rail makes much brighter flashes when shoes arc."False statement. The fact thsat one potential hazard exists does not excuse another. The arcing caused by the T/O's train will occur behind him, by the way. The arcing that does affect him will be caused by a train on an adjacent track ahead of him. |
|
| (33178) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:08:52 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:57:27 2008. Only for peiple who can't read English or want an ass-whipping by the police. I suggest you review Chris Rock's Yu Tube video. Show it to Lincoln too. He seems to be socially challenged... |
|
| (33179) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:08:58 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:06:49 2008. If the MTA believed such was a hazard, they would NOT PURPOSEFULLY CREATE SUCH A SITUATION with wheel detector signals. |
|
| (33180) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:11:04 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:08:58 2008. Do you even know how wheel detector signals work?Train Dude must enjoy reading your posts. Do your friends have "I'm with stupid" T-shirts to wear on their excursions with you? |
|
| (33181) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:12:39 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:08:52 2008. The rule states no such thing. Perhaps you should enroll in an ESL class...As you manage to prove yet again with your immature projection of you own personal failings onto others, not only are you autistic, but you are alsofunctionally illiterate. Not everyone is like you. It may be hard for you to realize it, but it is the truth. Some people actually ARE capable of acting normally in social situations. Unfortunately you cannot, but a majority of those around you can. |
|
| (33182) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:13:03 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Feb 21 10:52:21 2008. Oh please. Seriously. The MTAPD is in charge of enforcing the rules. They have clearly stated that there are no rules against photograpy in any areas the public is allowed to be. And the MTAPD are the only ones who could stop you from taking photos. So since they already say photography is allowed, where do you get the idea that anyone else's rules could even come into play here? If they did, it would have been noted in the memo!!!!! Also, something you and many others keep forgetting is that Nilet wasn't charged with taking unauthorized photos, he was charged with tresspassing. The legal photography is what started this, but he was charged with tresspassing as I suspect it relates to the signs posted about needing a ticket to be on the platforms. That's the special rule at GCT! It's not about photography, it's about access! And that special rule is easy to get around by just carrying a ticket with you at all times, or say you will be buying one on the train. |
|
| (33183) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Thu Feb 21 13:15:32 2008, in response to ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 20 20:45:31 2008. Why do cops always seem to come after you? I'm just curious. |
|
| (33184) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:15:36 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:02:34 2008. The third rail does NOT cause for operating distractions at the WORST case scenario, unless the arc happens to be in front of the train. Most locations we know which tracks have butt ends, or aprons where arcing can occur, by switches, or section breaks. The most troubles we have are when travelling from bright sunlight into unlit dark tunnels. Some tunnels have about 200 feet of bright flourescent to allow for quick adjustment from bright to tunnel. I have had trains where the number two shoe fuses were blown causing all arcing on the #1 end where you would barely see flickering from the corner of the eye from under the cab windows. A numbskull with a Strobe, flashing LED, or camera flash is doing more to ruin a T/Os trip. Bright flashing strobes are not designed to illuminate into ones eyes like the shitheads that point lasers into airplane cockpits and are used to gain our attention to flagmen detail. |
|
| (33185) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:16:55 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:15:36 2008. I am not saying it is right to do so-- I am just stating that the rules do not explicitly outlaw it. |
|
| (33186) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:17:54 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Feb 21 10:20:14 2008. Yes. Shouldn't that be obvious?? Management at many transit properties don't know their own rules. That's a given. This is nothing new. It's also obvious that the MNCR source is confusing the made up photography restriction with the signed platform access rule, the latter of which is really a non-issue with the right preparation. |
|
| (33187) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:19:08 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:11:04 2008. Actually, I do know the general idea about how a WD works, but that is rather irrellevant.What matters is that they are a bright flashing light with a lens on the front. |
|
| (33188) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:20:46 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Railman718 on Thu Feb 21 10:35:31 2008. No, it does not need to be looked at. The MTAPD enforces any and all rules in the station and they already said photography is fine. It's VERY clear. There is no question. |
|
| (33189) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:24:46 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:16:55 2008. If people used common sense, the 1050.9 code for flashes wouldn't be there in Subways |
|
| (33190) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 13:25:18 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 11:18:32 2008. Never seen the specific law you quote. The signs do not say that. It seems you made it up. |
|
| (33191) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:26:49 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:19:08 2008. A wheel detector is in the same category as a signal in terms of light. Signals are very bright too until enough steel dust has gathered on them to dim them a bit.A wheel detector is not a hazard. Flash used by photographers is. |
|
| (33192) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Thu Feb 21 13:26:58 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 00:22:23 2008. If you can buy a ticket on a MNRR train, how can it be trespassing? |
|
| (33193) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:27:57 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:16:55 2008. Yes, they do. Except for those immature enough not to understand... |
|
| (33194) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:28:59 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:27:57 2008. Only to those who cannot read do they outlaw such.EXTERNAL FLASHES are outlawed. INTERNAL FLASHES are not(although should not be used out of courtesy). |
|
| (33195) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:31:25 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:26:49 2008. A wheel detector is a type of signal. They just happen to be much brighter(they are bigger, brighter, and unfiltered) and flashing. |
|
| (33196) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:33:02 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by R PansePCC on Thu Feb 21 13:26:58 2008. If his train arrived and he was found to remain for an unreasonable amount of time, he will have a difficult time refuting the charge. His problem is he offered a receipt after getting off a train and went to another track. They have him by the balls as they know the train number, and the time of arrival now, and because he mouthed off to them, its their witnesses against him. Most of the foamers here don't understand the importance of being diplomatic. Its my right, its legal. At least one of those ringleaders was MIA at Grand Central this morning. |
|
| (33197) | |
Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 21 13:35:08 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 12:08:36 2008. Nilet says A, B, and C happened.Far Rock says well on one specific occasion (not the one described by Nilet) he saw Nilet use a flash. Ron then says Nilet is a liar. How about no one jumping to conclusions quite so quickly? Maybe Nilet's description is perfectly accurate, maybe not. No one here knows. There's still plenty to comment on without either assuming that a given post is the Lord's sacred word or assuming that someone is a liar just because there is some form of conflicting information. |
|
| (33198) | |
Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL? |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Feb 21 13:36:08 2008, in response to Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:58:58 2008. SourceI know it's the Post - but once in a while they do get things right... |
|
| (33199) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US? No, I don't use flash. |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Feb 21 13:37:15 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 12:26:35 2008.  No, I did not use flash. I never use flash. I even put on my fast lens (which I have to spend maybe 2 minutes focusing for a single shot) because even though that lens is giving me issues, it meant I could take the shot without flash. So far, this entire subthread seems to have spawned in my absence, assuming I used a flash and arguing about whether it was legal when, in fact, the issue of a flash is irrelevant. I did not use any additional lighting— just the lights that were already there and an f/1.4 lens. This whole side-issue about the flash seems to have stemmed entirely from FarRock claiming to have seen me using flash at Hoyt Street on some day at some time. |
|
| (33200) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 21 13:37:23 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 01:14:24 2008. Ahhh..but don't you see..?You cannot hold him responsible for his actions.. He's SPECIAL.. in a SPECIAL KIND OF WAY. You KNOW THIS. Now watch him continue his "your stupid" routine[just like in grade school] to try and get your "goat". Funny guy he is. |
|
| (33201) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:38:32 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 21 13:37:23 2008. I can't hold him to his actions. That is the task for the MTA police force.Going your way. |
|
| (33202) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Feb 21 13:39:50 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by FarRock on Thu Feb 21 11:36:05 2008. At Hoyt? When? What day? What time? What platform? I assume you mean Hoyt-Schermerhorn, and not Hoyt on the IRT, although you *could* have had a RFW there too, if you were lucky. |
|
| (33203) | |
Re: OK, then No flash. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:40:03 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US? No, I don't use flash., posted by Nilet on Thu Feb 21 13:37:15 2008. OK,mthen I reinstate my position from before - I wish you luck in your lawsuit. |
|
| (33204) | |
Re: Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:40:59 2008, in response to Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 21 13:35:08 2008. That's why the queston mark was there.But you're right. It was too aggressive of me. I apologize. |
|
| (33205) | |
Re: Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:41:15 2008, in response to Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 21 13:35:08 2008. Nevermind the fact that the law ron quoted isnt even applicable to the agency this occurred on... |
|
| (33206) | |
Re: NILET Did not use flash. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:41:49 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:28:59 2008. Your second statement is false.Grow up, please. |
|
| (33207) | |
Re: NILET Did not use flash. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 21 13:45:11 2008, in response to Re: NILET Did not use flash., posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 21 13:41:49 2008. Read the law. It clearly states that it is referring to ANCILLARY equipment. Internal flashes are NOT ANCILLARY equipment.Regardless of that, the rule doesnt even apply to the agency. |
|
| (33208) | |
Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:12:11 2008, in response to Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 12:31:54 2008. not applicable.as r30a noted, those are nyct rules and this is mncr. |
|
| (33209) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:13:49 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 21 11:20:27 2008. You're a moron, but you're half right. There's no law against photographing on the platform. |
|
| (33210) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Thu Feb 21 14:14:10 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by R PansePCC on Thu Feb 21 06:51:24 2008. That's exactly what I was told by my friend at MNRR. I've been telling that to Terrapin that but he is thinking otherwise. There's no way of getting it through to him and he will not go there for himself to try and prove our points. Thank you very much for posting that info Rich. |
|
| (33211) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Thu Feb 21 14:15:15 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by SMAZ on Thu Feb 21 03:27:26 2008. I doubt it was the NYPD. More likely the MTAPD. |
|
| (33212) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:19:46 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 21 12:36:29 2008. the posted signs are old. they are not enforced unless someone gives them a good reason to. and it seems to me that in many situations, it is easy to get around. |
|
| (33213) | |
Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:21:30 2008, in response to Re:WHO OWNS GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL?, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 21 12:43:20 2008. it doesn't matter who owns it. |
|
| (33214) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:23:08 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 21 12:51:20 2008. no, the rules on mncr do not prohibit flash photography.also, the rest of your post is wrong as well. i hope you apologize. |
|
| (33215) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:24:23 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Feb 21 13:33:02 2008. I see you're still being stupid. |
|
| (33216) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:26:15 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 21 13:37:23 2008. ah, but i've seen your stupidity since you started posting here. |
|
| (33217) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:31:39 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Thu Feb 21 14:14:10 2008. That's exactly what I was told by my friend at MNRR.Your friend is wrong. I'm sure he's not so sure of himself that he'd be willing to state such for the record. I've been telling that to Terrapin that but he is thinking otherwise. lol, thinking otherwise. I, and many others in this thread, KNOW OTHERWISE. YOU are the one in the minority. I see you are conveniently ignoring that. You're also ignoring the PROFF that was posted. and he will not go there for himself to try and prove our points. Wow, now you're just as stupid as BLE? How do you know what I won't do??? Where do you get off saying this? You're freaking nuts. And you expect others to believe you and take you seriously? With these kinds of posts, for all we know your friend at MNCR might really only be inside your head. Thank you very much for posting that info Rich. did it ever occur to you that the guy Rich spoke to was just as wrong as your friend???? No, must not have. |
|
| (33218) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 21 14:33:58 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Thu Feb 21 14:15:15 2008. And what is the MTAPD's official opinion on photography in Grand Central? Come on now. You can do it. |
|
| (33219) | |
Re: National Guard and Photo Rules: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Feb 21 15:06:51 2008, in response to ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 20 20:45:31 2008. Here is a thread on photo.net about someone who was harassed by National Guard troops in GCT. Granted the circumstances were a bit different in that he was not at track level yet he did get a response from the National Guard which may address some of your concerns and gives two contacts at the bottom. You may wish to write to them as well... |
|
| (33220) | |
Re: National Guard and Photo Rules: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Feb 21 15:16:35 2008, in response to Re: National Guard and Photo Rules: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BMTLines on Thu Feb 21 15:06:51 2008. Excellent!"...there are no restrictions on photography in public places." "...no New York City ordnance or regulation banning amateur photography in rail hubs." |
|
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||