Rubbing a bird's feathers the wrong way!

[Anonymous]

On occasions I have run across people's posts on this forum that I find insensitive, callous and irksome. I have, at times, locked horns with these folks over how I feel they are presenting themselves. Why I do this is a fault in my personality! I have this idea in my head that we all should be able to get along (especially since we all have this same interest).

In the end, because we are all different, we will never all be able to get along! It's just not in the cards. Some of us take things way to seriously. Some of us feel our opinions are the only ones that matter. Some of us feel that everyone else is stupid. Some of us feel that respect is demanded and not earned, some of us feel respect is earned and not demanded. And, the list goes on and on.

If I have caused hard feelings by what I have said, I am sorry. That was not my intentions. I simply like a good discussion.

[Fergmiester]

Hi Mark

I gotta ask the following

"Where's this coming from?"

As far as I am concerned as long as an opinion is well formed, constructive, respectful and positive I will listen to it and if applicable learn by it. However if it is none of the above and malicious the person deserves to be put in there place. I can't say that I have taken offence to anything you've you've posted. If I have I don't remember them and please don't remind me.

Marine surveyor eh. Boy you guys can cause me grief[:-,]

[Anonymous]

I too like a good, clean discussion. I feel sorry for those that post insensitive, callous and irksome replies. With the attitute they reflect I wonder how they enjoy life? I for one, try not respond to those types of posts. However I'm sad to say, the [}:)] makes me do it now and again.

I post humor now and again on the forum in an effort to lighten up the "stiff shirt" feeling I sometimes get when reading various posts. I hope that my humor doesn't offend anyone.

[n2mopac]

I have little respect or patience for rude, insensitive posts as well. But I have to say that I don't see this here much on this forum. Sometimes someone will get a little carried away about something that they feel strongly about, but I rarely see the extremes I have seen elsewhere on the web. People here do disagree, but that is the nature of discussion. As long as we can disagree and discuss out opinions with respect and not condescention I'm in.
Ron

[AntonioFP45]

Hey guys!

Good points. One thing I've noticed though is that since February it seems that the number of "Flaming" replies or posts is "Way Down". This forum is still enjoyable. Deschane, you've had some great posts, keep em coming! [swg][tup]

[Anonymous]

It comes from the discussion about David Barrow's layout in MRP. CNJ831 and I got into it and he called me an "infantile ranter" because I was objecting to his strident position on sectional/modular/dominos. You know, at almost 54, I took the "infantile" as a complement and I don't recall ranting, but may have!

Being almost 54, it is likely a good idea to just appologize every now and then, anyway! I've found this works well with my wife of 30 years (what was she thinking?!?)

[Jacktal]

When I post or reply to one,I always have in mind that sometimes I may be wrong,giving out an erroneous information(it has happened),although I do take care not to do so.So I very well know that when ever this happens,I stand to be corrected and this is fine with me.

We mostly are lone wolves out there,each working on his own layout with his own tooling,and,most important,his own techniques thus creating a wealth of knowledge that,thanks to this forum,we can all share.I always have in mind that when I get involved on the forum with a solution of my own,it probably will not be suitable for everybody,as everyone has a different environment,a different skill level,a different budget or...simply doesn't have the same goals.

This thinking applies just as well when I read posts,as I feel I don't have to agree to one's particular solution as being suitable for me,but I always respect the fact that the same solution has indeed worked right for the model railroader whom I thank for sharing it with me.

We all have our ways,dictated by experience,opinions and...... character,meaning that we all react differently to different situations.Some will try to impose their way while others won't even care to try to help,some will reply crudely to posts they don't like while others will simply ignore disrespectful comments.Some will kindly apologize to offended readers while others will never give it a thought.

I feel I don't have the right to give out misleading information but I do have the right to my opinion,and just as I will gladly apologize for a misleading info,I never will for my opinions.It's just a matter of respect....isn't it?

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

It comes from the discussion about David Barrow's layout in MRP. CNJ831 and I got into it and he called me an "infantile ranter" because I was objecting to his strident position on sectional/modular/dominos. You know, at almost 54, I took the "infantile" as a complement and I don't recall ranting, but may have!

Being almost 54, it is likely a good idea to just appologize every now and then, anyway! I've found this works well with my wife of 30 years (what was she thinking?!?)

I went back and read through the Barrow's thread.

Before I go on, I really have no idea who "deschane" or "CNJ831" are. I'm just acting as a neutral observer.

The exchange started when CNJ831 expressed an opinion (maybe more of an observation) about Barrow’s concept:

QUOTE:
Orsonroy is absolutely correct, there in nothing revolutionary, new, nor original about the so-called Barrows "domino" concept for HO model railroading. In fact, it is very old-hat as the design had fully evolved long, long before David Barrows ever came on the scene. The idea of domino construction dates back to Ntrak's modules more than 30 years ago and was adapted for HO scale by HOtrak (and related groups) at least as far back as 1980. I had built several such 6' sections by 1984 to use in conjunction with a modular club I belonged to.

While very useful for portable public display layouts, the concept really has little logical advantage for layouts intended to be permanent and can actually prove very limiting. As orsnroy so clearly indicates, there are definite drawbacks in using "dominoes" in such an application.

“deschane” then made the following reply to CNJ831’s comments:

QUOTE:
Wow, CNJ831, Your venomous opinions of Mr. Barrows fairly oozes drippingly from the electronic letters of your post! I just don't get it?

So I don’t get it. This topic is about ruffling feathers. So when you come out and call someone’s comments “venomous” (which I didn’t see BTW), how would you expect someone to react? Was this intended to generate a “good discussion”?

I think we all need to be careful about taking anything here too seriously. It’s only a hobby and not worth getting upset over.

[Fergmiester]

The electronic medium will always have one main disadvantage. It's strictly "verbal". And believe it or not verbal only makes up 10 to 15% of our communicating with others. Approximately 80% is non-verbal (body language) and the remainder is the tone in our voices. And no I'm not a PhD, just someone with first hand experience with Non Verbal Learning Disabilities.

[Roadtrp]

MAbruce,

It gets complicated. I believe deschane was reacting to a post from CNJ that was found on an earlier thread:

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

vsmith - I suggest you take a look in MR, RMC, RMJ,MRing, or any of the other magazines out there and give me a count of the number of totally unscenicked/track on bare plywood layouts that you find presented therein. Obviously none of the magazines (save MRPin this one instance) considers anything like Barrow's Senility Central as acceptable practice nowadays. Likewise, you will find no model railroading guides that suggest the building of a layout should, for any reason whatever, stop at the tracks-laid-on-bare-plywood stage. If Barrow's concept was maginally accepted by even a few percent of modelers today then certainly other examples would have appeared in the literature - and they simply haven't for decades.

So, if the magazines don't accept it, and the author's of modeling railroading how-to books don't accept it, doesn't that begin to suggest to you that nearly all the modelers today are going to regard this minimalist idea as an absurdity? My reference to layouts from the 1940's implied that they were pitiful and totally unrealistic, just as Barrow's is, even by comparison to today's most mediocre layouts. If he wants a layout like that, fine, but please don't try to pass it off as a viable or innovative concept for other modelers to follow today. I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

Deschane has apologized, so none of this makes much difference. But he was in fact responding to a post that in my opinion could be considered "venomous".

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

MAbruce,

It gets complicated. I believe deschane was reacting to a post from CNJ that was found on an earlier thread:

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

vsmith - I suggest you take a look in MR, RMC, RMJ,MRing, or any of the other magazines out there and give me a count of the number of totally unscenicked/track on bare plywood layouts that you find presented therein. Obviously none of the magazines (save MRPin this one instance) considers anything like Barrow's Senility Central as acceptable practice nowadays. Likewise, you will find no model railroading guides that suggest the building of a layout should, for any reason whatever, stop at the tracks-laid-on-bare-plywood stage. If Barrow's concept was maginally accepted by even a few percent of modelers today then certainly other examples would have appeared in the literature - and they simply haven't for decades.

So, if the magazines don't accept it, and the author's of modeling railroading how-to books don't accept it, doesn't that begin to suggest to you that nearly all the modelers today are going to regard this minimalist idea as an absurdity? My reference to layouts from the 1940's implied that they were pitiful and totally unrealistic, just as Barrow's is, even by comparison to today's most mediocre layouts. If he wants a layout like that, fine, but please don't try to pass it off as a viable or innovative concept for other modelers to follow today. I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

Deschane has apologized, so none of this makes much difference. But he was in fact responding to a post that in my opinion could be considered "venomous".

Thanks for the background Roadtrip. Point taken. I should have realized there was much more behind this than what was on the surface. [sigh]

[brothaslide]

deschane,

Thanks for your honesty and thoughtfulness.

Internet message boards are notorious for people making really negative, hurtful, and racist comments. It's easy to "take a poke" at somebody sitting safely and anonymously behind a keyboard. I personally have the conviction that I won't say anything to someone on a message board that I would not be willing to say to their face. Besides, I have enough issues in my life that raise my blood pressure; I'm not going to get into it with somebody over weather or not UP had dynamic brakes on their SD what evers’ . . . You get the point.

Take care,

Sean

[Anonymous]

One thing worth noting is that in various articles and in the Allen Keller video on the CTSF David Barrow (NOT BarrowS) states that the concept was adapted from "the modular people" as he refers to Ntrack, etc. I don't think he claims to be a pioneer, although a number of his concepts have greatly influenced a large number of today's layouts. Mr. Barrow will also tell you that his layout building concepts were changed dramatically by meeting and visiting with Allen McCelland.

I liked the "old" Cat Mountain layout better than the new one, but it's Mr. Barrow's layout. He had apparently done all he thought he could with the old one and wanted to move on.

Cheers,

Ed

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

On occasions I have run across people's posts on this forum that I find insensitive, callous and irksome. I have, at times, locked horns with these folks over how I feel they are presenting themselves. Why I do this is a fault in my personality! I have this idea in my head that we all should be able to get along (especially since we all have this same interest).

Have you met Jim Six?

[Anonymous]

I try to be as nice as I can on topics but it doesn't always turn out that way.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

MAbruce,

It gets complicated. I believe deschane was reacting to a post from CNJ that was found on an earlier thread:

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

vsmith - I suggest you take a look in MR, RMC, RMJ,MRing, or any of the other magazines out there and give me a count of the number of totally unscenicked/track on bare plywood layouts that you find presented therein. Obviously none of the magazines (save MRPin this one instance) considers anything like Barrow's Senility Central as acceptable practice nowadays. Likewise, you will find no model railroading guides that suggest the building of a layout should, for any reason whatever, stop at the tracks-laid-on-bare-plywood stage. If Barrow's concept was maginally accepted by even a few percent of modelers today then certainly other examples would have appeared in the literature - and they simply haven't for decades.

So, if the magazines don't accept it, and the author's of modeling railroading how-to books don't accept it, doesn't that begin to suggest to you that nearly all the modelers today are going to regard this minimalist idea as an absurdity? My reference to layouts from the 1940's implied that they were pitiful and totally unrealistic, just as Barrow's is, even by comparison to today's most mediocre layouts. If he wants a layout like that, fine, but please don't try to pass it off as a viable or innovative concept for other modelers to follow today. I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

Deschane has apologized, so none of this makes much difference. But he was in fact responding to a post that in my opinion could be considered "venomous".

As the author of the post above that illicited the reply from CNJ I just want to say that I also replied to CNJ for the above post by basicly pointing out that even though CNJ has a pallitable dislike for this approach, that just beacause HE does like it, doesnt mean EVERYONE ELSE dislikes it. Almost all of the posts about this layout by Dave Barrows were either positive or neutral, only a very few, CNJ's among then were openly negative with CNJ's being visable hostile. I felt I had to remind him that even if he was peeved by it, others were enlightened by it. It is sometimes very hard to remember that we are all different people think all think differently. Thats why MR published it, to give the modeler another way to approach building a layout. Thats also why I always say there's no wrong way to build a model RR, the only right way is the way your happiest with.

[Anonymous]

Mark:

By and large I think this forum is exceptionally civil. Certainly we do have our lapses but I do not recall, with one or two exceptions, anything being posted here which would not have been said over coffee or a pitcher of beer without hurtful result.

As mentioned above, the greatest shortcoming of any internet forum is the lack of a method for nuance or ironic tone. Lacking one we, or at least I, occasionally miss a humorous turn.

On your point of "respect", I am definitely of the view that it is earned in the text of each post. Admittedly we all, from time to time, make silly or ill-considered statements, I allow myself permission to comment as I think the post warrants. The reader should consider the reply in that context. In instances where I have posted some bit of twittery I take the replies in just that way and don't recall having been damaged from reading justified pointed criticism.

Randy

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark, I think sometimes people will post a response that he or she wouldn't normally post, because of the way that person feels or their state of mind. What I means is this, take me for instance, ordinarily, I'm pretty much laid back and not much bothers me, I enjoy responding on the forum and I like to read others responses, but once in while, a nerve is touched the wrong way and I respond in kind. This can lead to some slippery ice developing and once started, it's hard to thaw. Sometimes the best thing to do is drop off for a few days and let the dust settle. Other times if one can look ahead taking into account his or her state of mind, they don't put themselves in that situation to begin with. They do the right thing and remain off the forum until they feel better.