cx500 I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start. Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig. And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig. One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes. Nothing wrong with that. But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours. Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts. I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough John
I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start. Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig. And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.
One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes. Nothing wrong with that. But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours. Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.
I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough
John
Norm
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm cx500 I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start. Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig. And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig. One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes. Nothing wrong with that. But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours. Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts. I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough John And why can't you ignore rather than seek censorship or feel the need to ridicule the authors of posts that are repetitious, but basically innocuous? The threads and the author are clearly labeled.
So, why can't you just ignore cx500's post or is taking your own advice too difficult for you?
Norm48327 schlimm cx500 I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start. Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig. And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig. One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes. Nothing wrong with that. But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours. Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts. I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough John And why can't you ignore rather than seek censorship or feel the need to ridicule the authors of posts that are repetitious, but basically innocuous? The threads and the author are clearly labeled. So, why can't you just ignore cx500's post or is taking your own advice too difficult for you?
Why? This thread is a discussion about the forum and the posts such as the ones Euclid makes, which you also have a strong aversion to. If you have a positive contribution, why not make it on your own instead of merely parroting or ridiculing what others say?
Some folks who are rail employees do not like outsiders saying anything about their field because they feel we don't actually know anything. Some of us outsiders may regard comments made about our fields as displaying a lack of knowledge, but mostly we see no need to ridicule. it's better to just ignore them.
cx500I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.
And this has been a large part of the issue. Even though claims, concepts, and statements may be shown to be completely baseless (and this is not just in the realm of railroad issues), said claims and statements are simply restated, perhaps a little differently. Hence "yes, but..."
As for feeling that the real railroaders have a "my way or the highway" state of mind, oftimes the laws of physics are on their side, never mind the rules under which they operate and must be very familiar with. Sometimes there seems to be an issue with "and this is the way it is."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 cx500I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. And this has been a large part of the issue. Even though claims, concepts, and statements may be shown to be completely baseless (and this is not just in the realm of railroad issues), said claims and statements are simply restated, perhaps a little differently. Hence "yes, but..." As for feeling that the real railroaders have a "my way or the highway" state of mind, oftimes the laws of physics are on their side, never mind the rules under which they operate and must be very familiar with. Sometimes there seems to be an issue with "and this is the way it is."
A large part of the issue? Is that the issue that when person A says that person B’s claims, concepts, and statements are completely baseless, person A is right and Person B is wrong just because Person A says so; and that Person B should not have the audacity to doubt Person A? That is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.”
tree68
Larry: Sometimes it is best to just let the force of the argument stand on its own merits and let the other folks continue to restate, rephrase, repeat or even regurgitate. Why is it such an issue to merely ignore the thread at some point? What's the big deal? The alternative becomes exceedingly close monitoring by the moderators, and they are not about to do that because they really do not have the time.
One of those recurrent threads concerned the setting of handbrakes on parked trains. Now you may well think it is as clear as the laws of physics (which have changed a wee bit in the last 100 years, BTW) but anyone examining those threads (aside from becoming very fatigued) would note considerable disagreement among railroaders, as well as investigators. It isn't always so black and white as we might like to think.
EuclidThat is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.”
Alas, I'm not the one who presents the "yes, but" arguments.
Hmmmm.
I'd participate in this thread, but I don't have anything to throw.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tree68 EuclidThat is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.” Alas, I'm not the one who presents the "yes, but" arguments.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I don’t really see where there has been all this alleged disagreement between me and others in my threads. There is talk of me floating all these wild theories that people with practical experience know won’t work or have been tried before and found unworkable. And then I supposedly refuse to listen to their wisdom. Show me examples.
My sense is that very few people actually read most posts with enough care to fully understand them. A technical discussion requires a constant clarification of terms. To people who aren’t paying full attention, this may seem like arguing.
So, I think what develops is a sense of combat over the mere perception of disagreement that does not actually exist. Then lots of people join right into the imaginary battle without realizing what they are doing. People get offended because they perceive disrespect and insults were none actually exist.
From a neutral corner:
Reading this thread through, the one new thing to have occurred to me is how the more (*ahem*) "strident" personalities seem to be the staunchest defenders of using the report abuse feature.
This might suggest that control issues could be a driving factor. Just something to ponder.
As far as the mocking "yes but" scenario, Let me point out that such mocking is clearly fueled by a degree of contempt. And have to ask why someone would feel justified acting in a hostile manner towards another simply because they are (in the opinion of the mocker) "wrong"?
Perhaps the person being mocked has a different set of priorities than the person intent upon harassing them? Not every person is going to see every scenario with the same personal preferences and value sets. And it seems (to me) that this last point must be way over the heads of the so called "authorities" who allow themselves to become so angered when they bump heads with someone failing to embrace their POV.
To put it in a neutral context, have you ever had a friend who was in an abusive relationship that they just plain needed to get out of, yet reused to because they were in love with their tormenter? No matter how much you reason with them, no matter how much truth you expose them to, they simply refuse to act rationally? It's that old "objective vs subjective" issue rearing it's ugly head again.
And in such instances, sometimes you just have to let the person suffer in their own misery, let them be wrong...who cares? I suggest that it in no small part it might be insecurity on behalf of the "expert", rendering them incapable of just allowing the target of their contempt to simply be wrong, without having to start an argument over it.
Convicted One From a neutral corner: Reading this thread through, the one new thing to have occurred to me is how the more (*ahem*) "strident" personalities seem to be the staunchest defenders of using the report abuse feature. This might suggest that control issues could be a driving factor. Just something to ponder. As far as the mocking "yes but" scenario, Let me point out that such mocking is clearly fueled by a degree of contempt. And have to ask why someone would feel justified acting in a hostile manner towards another simply because they are (in the opinion of the mocker) "wrong"? Perhaps the person being mocked has a different set of priorities than the person intent upon harassing them? Not every person is going to see every scenario with the same personal preferences and value sets. And it seems (to me) that this last point must be way over the heads of the so called "authorities" who allow themselves to become so angered when they bump heads with someone failing to embrace their POV. To put it in a neutral context, have you ever had a friend who was in an abusive relationship that they just plain needed to get out of, yet reused to because they were in love with their tormenter? No matter how much you reason with them, no matter how much truth you expose them to, they simply refuse to act rationally? It's that old "objective vs subjective" issue rearing it's ugly head again. And in such instances, sometimes you just have to let the person suffer in their own misery, let them be wrong...who cares? I suggest that it in no small part it might be insecurity on behalf of the "expert", rendering them incapable of just allowing the target of their contempt to simply be wrong, without having to start an argument over it.
The heart of the problem is the divide between professional railroads and the amateurs on this forum. I think it fair to say that the pros are here to share between "equals", and also as a public service to help the amateurs come to a better understanding. Those professionals come from a variety of backgrounds, railroads and territories, so it is not surprising their input has different slants depending on the source. I like to think I have useful expertise in a number of aspects, but willingly stand back for the experts in many others. And sometimes we too make mistakes.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Incomplete knowledge can easily lead to errors, because assumptions become the base. The professionals attempt to insert a dose of reality, not to control the poster but to guide same into a deeper understanding. Usually in the past it was accepted quietly, probably gratefully. Convicted One mentions differing POVs. While perhaps several can be equally valid in fields like economics, when dealing with unforgiving metal objects and machinery there is often only one correct POV.
The obvious picture of railroads is that of large equipment and far flung tracks. Yet it is the tiny details, more or less invisible to the layman, that are so critical to routine operation. Speculation without that knowledge is usually of little value. And the pool of professionals on this forum share that knowledge.
Perhaps it has developed into somewhat of a control fight, and certain posters have been treated with contempt. However, brushing off helpful criticism provided freely by experts is showing contempt in return. It is not surprising the threads degenerate.
As a rule I just skip over anything by one or two specific posters as not worth my time reading. I don't need an ignore button.
Steve- What's the most difficult part about trying to moderate this forum?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I wouldn't be surprised if by now Steve feels like a schoolyard monitor trying to calm down a bunch of squabbling kids.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Convicted One,
You sure have got some words of wisdom there. It’s refreshing.
...
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The important thing to keep in mind is, that while a person may possess an immense collection of factual (and important) information, that is still no guarantee that their judgement be immaculate.
Judgement is frequently subject to emotion, and emotion varies drastically from individual to individual, for reasons that are too many to count. That is a flaw that we all share.
Paul of Covington I wouldn't be surprised if by now Steve feels like a schoolyard monitor trying to calm down a bunch of squabbling kids.
Mommy/Daddy type moderation generates what it seeks to end.
Convicted One Judgement is frequently subject to emotion, and emotion varies drastically from individual to individual, for reasons that are too many to count. That is a flaw that we all share.
"We do no end of feeling and call it thought." -- Mark Twain
cx500 As a rule I just skip over anything by one or two specific posters as not worth my time reading. I don't need an ignore button.
Does this mean you never read my posts?
I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread.
23 17 46 11
edblysard I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread.
He also specified a cut-off time. I don't think that it's that uncommon for a thread that has run it's course to start drifting once contextual contributions have dried up. I was very interested in this thread, the questions posed, and the answers we got. Along the way I witnessed a fair share of mud slinging. Rather than hitting the "report" button, I tried to volunteer some useful feedback that I thought might hit home with those sources.
Of course, that hope is probably folly on my part, since It appears that the biggest offenders don't think there is anything wrong with their "contributions"
Convicted One edblysard I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread. He also specified a cut-off time. I don't think that it's that uncommon for a thread that has run it's course to start drifting once contextual contributions have dried up. I was very interested in this thread, the questions posed, and the answers we got. Along the way I witnessed a fair share of mud slinging. Rather than hitting the "report" button, I tried to volunteer some useful feedback that I thought might hit home with those sources. Of course, that hope is probably folly on my part, since It appears that the biggest offenders don't think there is anything wrong with their "contributions"
Steve Sweeney: "Recent flame-outs and shouting matches push people away and lower the overall appeal of forums to existing posters and potential ones.
For the next few days, post your questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums and Ang and I will do our best to answer them and find ways to make things better for everyone. Please, keep it civil, but we will answer every question posed to us through 3 p.m. Central Time on Sept. 19."
Seems pretty clear it wasn't limited to buttons, physical mechanics and features.
Just out of curiosity (before the thread is locked Monday) what is the procedure for adding the red "Report Abuse" link next to the yellow triangle? Is there some sort of automated keyword or grammar/rhetoric analysis going on? (Consider the post just before this one, which has innocuous content but might 'scan' under some algorithm's criteria as if it were contentious in tone...) Or are there people in the moderating group who actively trigger the option when they read particular posts, or are following one of 'those' threads...
Or simply a software glitch? Is that what the old software looked like, before this one? I never saw it, so I don't know.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.