The universe according to MMM

[Scott5114]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Maybe we should quit trying to rebut his constant posts about bootleg I-90, and just start reporting them as spam. He's posting the same thing over and over - isn't that the definition of spam?

The forum rules don't mention "spamming" by name at all. The closest thing to spamming that they come to is:

Advertising commercial products or web sites, unless they are related to a forum's main topic. Discretion should apply.

Which isn't what he does. He's just being wrong, repeatedly, which isn't against the forum rules. So if you were to report all of his posts the only thing it would do is send me annoying emails I'd have to delete.

[SectorZ]

So if you were to report all of his posts the only thing it would do is send me annoying emails I'd have to delete.

Challenge accepted???

[Scott5114]

So if you were to report all of his posts the only thing it would do is send me annoying emails I'd have to delete.

Challenge accepted???

Disabling the report feature on a per-user basis isn't much of a challenge.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

[kalvado]

So if you were to report all of his posts the only thing it would do is send me annoying emails I'd have to delete.

Challenge accepted???

Disabling the report feature on a per-user basis isn't much of a challenge.

So no troll breeding... I still want to find out what it would take to make a real bridge troll. MMM needs to be crossed with someone else, or what?

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's a summary of why I-90 has to be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

No
No
No
No
No

[vdeane]

Here's a summary of why I-90 has to be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

3. Straight?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE9oOHrRMJI

5. Tell that to Louisiana and I-10.

[MultiMillionMiler]

The link you posted is in Indiana, not Louisiana, I don't get your point?

[vdeane]

The link you posted is in Indiana, not Louisiana, I don't get your point?

The link was in response to your assertion that I-80 is straighter on that overlap.  Clearly it isn't.  Louisiana was posted in response to your assertion that 2dis must always take the shortest route.  Check the numbers next time.

[kkt]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

[Roadgeekteen]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

[Max Rockatansky]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

Mr. Diesel Sabb and Crash_It had way more in common.  Draw your own conclusions if they both fell into FIB territory.

[kkt]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

No way to tell.  I did notice that FritzOwl's postings seems to have dropped when MMM came on - but that doesn't prove anything, his life could have just gotten busier or he realized that his side of the street was already being covered.

[Flint1979]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

[Flint1979]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

They must be related somehow.

[roadman65]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

They must be related somehow.

More like Ethanman and his I-366 at 85 mph.

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

We've tried already. He won't budge.

[Flint1979]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

We've tried already. He won't budge.

Yeah almost like with fritzowl just going around in circles and getting nowhere

[Roadgeekteen]

At least FritzOwl puts in some effort to his posts. MMM does not.

[Max Rockatansky]

They are closer to the same level than you are giving Fritz credit for.  Don't forget, he proposed these Interstates:

-  The Bering Strait
-  The Nevada Test Site
-  Numerous glacial fields in Alaska
-  Glacier Point to Yosemite Valley (in a direct line)

[Roadgeekteen]

They are closer to the same level than you are giving Fritz credit for.  Don't forget, he proposed these Interstates:

-  The Bering Strait
-  The Nevada Test Site
-  Numerous glacial fields in Alaska
-  Glacier Point to Yosemite Valley (in a direct line)

But at least FritzOwl makes maps and doesn't just ramble on.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

I-80 is less windy-weavy over its length than I-90, that's why it higher quality.

[Roadgeekteen]

At least FritzOwl puts in some effort to his posts. MMM does not.

Fritzowl never explains or defends his ideas though. At least I try to give logical and consistent reasons for why my plans actually are needed, like those 5 points above.

Sometimes no logic is better than bad logic.

[GaryV]

It's 121 miles shorter than I-90. Since 300 of those I-90 miles are bootleg, I-80 is the longest interstate.

That corridor between Cleveland and Chicago is I-80 just as much as it is I-90 and I-90 just as much as it is I-80.

Again, why does it matter if I-80 is longer than I-90? Both are fine as is.

All together now:

I Think This Is Needed.

Is MMM related to FritzOwl at all? Or the crazy Illinois hypontnuse dude?

They must be related somehow.

More like Ethanman and his I-366 at 85 mph.

What's that?

Maybe you could search for it, instead of asking others to do your homework for you.

[kphoger]

The only states that issue an EDL are MI MN NY VT and WA. So for most people that's not an option.

In a lot of red states, even getting a REAL ID-compliant license (thus suitable for federal purposes) is a major chore. In Oklahoma, it involves booking an appointment at the tag agency in advance, and presenting all kinds of rare documents. Most Oklahomans only bother with it if they have a specific reason for doing so. I haven't yet because the last time my license was due all of the tag agencies in my area were booked for months after my license would have expired, whereas for a regular license I could get it done online in a matter of minutes. And now I don't feel like spending money to replace an unexpired license that is perfectly serviceable for my needs, since I don't ever fly anywhere.

Similar story here.  Last time I renewed my license, I intended to get a REAL-compliant license, but apparently I had neglected to grab some document or another before heading there.  So I just got a regular DL instead.

But I don't see any pressing need for one, considering I have a passport.