Nope, not a schmick. There are changes that I am dealing with as a mod that leave me less than enthusiastic, too. Twice in the past four days I have moved threads that clearly needed moving, and when I clicked on the function, it hung up until I got a blue font oops message on the white background. Closed the browser, opened, found the site, checked the old location, and the thread is gone, moved. Something's weird and using my time in a way I don't appreciate. . I can't email anyone, nor can you, and now we can't edit PM's to each other. If I goof and don't see a doozie, or dispatch an intemperate composition, we are both stuck with it.
If this problem persists, please contact customer service. It has to be 40% of what they do, looking after problems of accessibility to the forums for several weeks after a new package is rolled out.
Also, Wade notified us that he and team have been busy on the other magazine fora dealing with their issues. I think they may be about to tackle some of the problems people have posted here.
-Crandell
selector True enough, CO, and I can understand that it invites a debate about the relative merits or value of what one person thinks we all 'should' do vs. what we are permitted and wish to do. It's like the matter of kneeling when/if we pray; all may, some should, none must. -Crandell
True enough, CO, and I can understand that it invites a debate about the relative merits or value of what one person thinks we all 'should' do vs. what we are permitted and wish to do. It's like the matter of kneeling when/if we pray; all may, some should, none must.
Frailey is a great writer, as evidenced by the interest stimulated by subject magazine article. I always look forward to his contributions.
off topic, but how come I have to log in twice now, under the new framework?
What I'm talking about is, suppose I am not logged on, and hit the [REPLY] button on a thread, I am immediately taken to a page headed with the words " You must be logged on to contribute" with a list box on the left margin for my e-mail address and password on the left margin, and a Red box on the right side sporting a sub heading that reads "Get our free e-mail newsletters"
So, I enter my e-mail addy and password, and when I try to log on I am kicked right back to the same page headed "You must be logged on to contribute", with the list boxes on the left side, and the same red box on the right, but now under that red box is a whitebox that contains my Avatar plus listed bullets reading :
Obviously, your system knows I've logged on or it wouldn't be displaying my avatar, yet I am required to log on a second time before I can access the customary text composition box to make the intended reply.
Any idea why?
schlimm Rather a long pause inn this thread, but maybe time for reflection after 1/2 year. Seems to me everyone should feel free to railfan in the way he/she wants to enjoy themselves, as long as their actions don't hurt or interfere with anyone else or others' properties.
Rather a long pause inn this thread, but maybe time for reflection after 1/2 year.
Seems to me everyone should feel free to railfan in the way he/she wants to enjoy themselves, as long as their actions don't hurt or interfere with anyone else or others' properties.
Wanted to give a couple of rising tempers a chance to simmer down
As far as freedom to pursue ones own destiny goes, Personally i'll agree with you, but this thread is about Mr Frailey's column editorializing on what (he evidently thinks) we SHOULD be doing.
I can't disagree, any more than I could if someone said this about photography in general, railroad modelling, and a myriad of other pursuits. If a person is reasonably in tune with others around them, and makes a conscious effort to refrain from interfering with another's enjoyment, but otherwise pursues her own way through a favourite pastime, what could the problem be? Each of us should be free to do as little or as much in the way of learning and evolvement, call it 'progess', as we wish to. To some, enjoyment comes largely out of discovery, and for others the discovery is fine only being incidental to other aspects of creating enjoyment, even if it is repeating the same old patterns of behaviour.
Rather a long pause inn this thread, but maybe time for reflection after 1/2 year. Seems to me everyone should feel free to railfan in the way he/she wants to enjoy themselves, as long as their actions don't hurt or interfere with anyone else or others' properties.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Perhaps what Fred was trying to convey was that by limiting ones self to too narrow a spectrum, we are depriving ouselves the full, robust experience that the hobby has to offer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edblysard wrote the following post on Thursday, February 25, 2010:
Which is why I was slightly put out at the Mr. Frailey's implied concept of there being a "Better" rail fan, which implies that those who don't follow his recommendations are part of a lesser type of rail fan.
oltmanndhenry6If I were a columnist like Fred Frailey or Don Phillips I would be thrilled to get the responses those two generate!I think they'd rather we react to their ideas than how they expressed them!
henry6If I were a columnist like Fred Frailey or Don Phillips I would be thrilled to get the responses those two generate!
Why not both? I'm sure they get all kinds of responses-----
I mean, if everyone agreed with them I'd be thinking they'd be finding it kind of boring--
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
oltmannd. What's really unfair is to pin Fred to a cross for having an opinion we don't particularly like or agree with.
If you ask me, it appears more like those here trying hardest to defend Fred are the ones who really have him 'up on the cross'... fwiw.
oltmanndThe second is what do we use in this case as the measure for better. With tennis, it's pretty easy, if you win more against the same level of opponent, then you are the better player. In this case, we have a pretty well connected guy within the industry laying out those things he thinks would make us "better".
I believe that Fred was crystal clear over the grounds and areas which he feels are most in need of improvement in order for us to qualify as 'better" under his sieve. Considering he began with a rant over why his industry buddies feel uncomfortable sharing online forums with 'un-better' railfans who might harbor an opinion thatconflicts with their preferred personal out look, and his 7 bullets that follow seem tailored towards creating a more "coco-and-marshmallows" type environment for their comfort and pleasure.
henry6But when you can't come up with a good arguement on the facts you always go for character asassination. It is the American way!
But when you can't come up with a good arguement on the facts you always go for character asassination. It is the American way!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
BucyrusWhy is it unfair for us to criticize Fred while it is not unfair for Fred to criticize us?
You can criticize what Fred said , but when you criticize Fred himself, it's personal. An example would be if one of the "seven ways" was"never jaywalk - a friend of mine was killed by a car while jaywaking". But, someone would argue, "what if it was an emergency?" , or "what if I'm very careful and it's 7 AM on a Sunday morning?", or even "I don't believe in crosswalks?" So, it would that make it wrong to write "never jaywalk?" Would you have to carefully word your statement around every possible argument for fear that someone may internalize your generality? You should write, "for some of you I would suggest that you don't jaywalk unless you are very careful, have a deeply held need to jaywalk or otherwise feel jay walking is a reasonable thing to do,at least some of the time."? No. I don't think so. "Never jaywalk" is a good succinct expression of the point you're trying to make. Should you be offended by someone writing "don't jaywalk"? No. it wasn't personal. But, if someone writes back, "I don't believe you know someone who was killed while jaywalking.", that's calling a specific person a liar and that's personal.
If I were a columnist like Fred Frailey or Don Phillips I would be thrilled to get the responses those two generate!
megh--I think that part of the problem may also be that there is a kind of relationship here between the writer (one who is currently having a column in a publication), and the reader--who is in a position usually seen as mainly passive.
This creates an uneasy situation wherein one has access to a media source( hence, has more influence) than a reader, who, most of the time can shrug his shoulders and carry on---in a somewhat less active position. I heard this termed a type of "power relationship". In that the columnist has a type of power--in this case he has access to print media---that others, ourselves, the reader---do not. Myself I'd rather stick with active/passive pairings here----
All in all, for a reader to criticize a columnist in his/her position will be seen, by some, as "unfair"... for me---not so much----if he can, then we can too....
oltmannd So, we are free to do what we chose to do and measure "better" anyway that we care to rationalize it in our heads. What's really unfair is to pin Fred to a cross for having an opinion we don't particularly like or agree with.
So, we are free to do what we chose to do and measure "better" anyway that we care to rationalize it in our heads. What's really unfair is to pin Fred to a cross for having an opinion we don't particularly like or agree with.
Don,
I generally agree with much of what you say except that I don’t understand this part:
Why is it unfair for us to criticize Fred while it is not unfair for Fred to criticize us?
You seem to be exaggerating our criticism of Fred (saying we are pinning Fred to a cross) while deemphasizing Fred’s criticism of railfan behavior that he does not prefer. I don’t think anything said here is any harsher than what Fred has said about certain fan behavior.
edblysardCould he be a "better" rail fan? ...Why, what's wrong with being the type of fan he currently is?
Could he be a "better" rail fan?
...Why, what's wrong with being the type of fan he currently is?
I think we are confusing a couple of things. First, is whether or not someone wants to get "better" or is happy with the status quo. I could be a better tennis player, but I'd have to be more motivated to practice, care about winning more and spend some money for lessons. However, I like where I am and enjoy tennis just fine. That does not invalidate those things that would make me better, just because I don't chose to do them.
The second is what do we use in this case as the measure for better. With tennis, it's pretty easy, if you win more against the same level of opponent, then you are the better player. In this case, we have a pretty well connected guy within the industry laying out those things he thinks would make us "better". This is his opinion and is no different than some newpaper columnist telling us "what's wrong with America" or why we should support some cause they hold near and dear. It's all their opinion based on a loose (usually) collection of facts and their value system and view of the issue.
Ed:
You stated it quite well. My interest in railroading has changed dramatically over the years. I will take an occassional photo, but find that being on or near railroad property is something which I am uncomfortable about. Just my personal view. The railroaders have a job to do. The last thing they need to worry about is an extra person near the tracks. Plus, there is danger involved.
I recall back in the 70's having absolutely no problems with marching up the steps to a tower and walking in and discussing the lineup....and hopefully staying around a bit.
Flash forward to earlier this decade when I did that at Lennox Tower near St. Louis and the glares from the occupants when I walked in with a camera around my neck. This was their property, their jobs, their responsibility. I quickly apologized and left. Since then I have been invited into a tower, but feel like I shouldnt be there. The operator is hospitable and has invited me in a couple of times, but still.
A few years ago a person got very intrusive into my job. It bugged me. He kept calling (made the mistake of giving him my card) and asking about the industry, my accounts, my employer, etc. It really bugged me when my boss said he was using me as a recommendation for a sales job.
So, sometimes we have to ask ourselves how would we like to be treated...on our jobs.
Even at times here on this forum I feel as if I am pushing a bit too hard for info. No doubt an outsider to this forum would scratch their heads and say...."why does this MP173 want to know about _______(HBD, grades, signals, etc)".
Probably the same reason I want to know why a major 7th chord sounds so different than a minor 7th, or why my 3.5mm ETX cannot resolve certain double stars on certain nights, but can on others, or why curling is so fascinating.
We all have interests, sometimes we are guilty of allowing those interests to cross the line. We all collect things, whether it is Official Guides, photos of locomotives (or cars), the ability to play a song on a guitar, Messier objects, miles on bicyles, or laps in a pool. At this point in my life, safety and consideration are critical for me.
Just my opinion.
Ed
edblysard My opinion only, not intended to be instructions on rail fanning nor intended to be taken any more seriously than my avatar. I really get tickled with the myth that all railroaders dislike or have no respect for railfans.
My opinion only, not intended to be instructions on rail fanning nor intended to be taken any more seriously than my avatar.
I really get tickled with the myth that all railroaders dislike or have no respect for railfans.
Johnny
Not so, in fact, most railroaders are closet fans themselves.
Trust me, you really have to like the equipment and attendant hardware to work around this stuff every day, if you didn't enjoy the sights, sounds, smells and feel of railroading, this stuff is really scary and frightening up close...it only takes a few seconds of being a foot away from a covered hopper rolling at 10 mph to realize how easy this stuff can kill you and how dangerous it is.
It really doesn't bother us that you are out there taking photos, or recording locomotive numbers in a notebook, as long as you follow the common sense rules...stay off the property and stay out of the way.
Don't take what isn't yours ( steal stuff), and don't interrupt me while I am working.
When you break these simple rules, you put yourself in danger, which in turn puts me and my crew in danger, because now we have the extra burden of watching out not only for our selves and fellow crew, but we have to make sure we don't kill you in the meantime.
No, you don't have to steal stuff...if you catch us when we are having a water break, and walk up and ask, "Hey, can I have one of those tie plates and a spike?"...well, odds are yes, we will makes jokes about you when we get back in the cab, but the odds are just as good that one of us will pick up a old tie plate and spike and walk it over to you, heck, we might even toss in a switch list or train sheet too, because while these things are nothing more than hardware and tools of the trade to us, we really do understand that to you, they are artifacts.
But most of us do get a little ego boost when you show up, its kinda neat to think that what we do as job elicits such a large amount of interest.
Sorta cool to realize what I consider a simple part of my daily routine seems to be such a enjoyable mystery to others.
Yup, some of us do vocalize a dislike of fans, because inside the culture of railroading that is what is expected...just like firefighters who spend their day putting out fires, when they also get a rush at the sheer power and energy the fire has, and they enjoy being near it...publicly, they tell you they hate what fire does, privately they get their groove on watching the show, and then gaining control over the monster.
You don't fight fires if you don't like fire, and you don't work for a railroad if you don't like trains.
As to this thread and Mr. Frailey's column.
Never knew there was a protocol about being a rail fan, I was under the impression they come in all different styles, shapes and flavors.
It seems to say that regardless of how your currently enjoy this hobby, you have to do something different to upgrade to being a better fan.
Discussed and derided here was the guy who spends a entire day at the end of a bridge taking the same basic photo of every train that crosses the bridge.
Maybe he should plug his ears with cotton balls and blindfold himself, and spend the day smelling the trains...or leave his camera at home and simply watch...maybe the blindfold along with hearing and smelling would make him a "better" fan...
Or....
Did it ever occur to anyone he may simply enjoy doing what he does more than any other aspect of rail fanning?
I know of a forum member who "collects" cars...not in the strict sense of actually buying the cars, but he collects the car number, he belongs to a group that tracks and catalogs cars in certain series, some rare cars, some old almost vanished cars, modern groups of new car types, they trade and swap the info and thoroughly enjoy what they do.
Are they weird, or bad rail fans?
No, they just have discovered a different way of enjoying trains and freight cars.
By the way, this same fan has co authored a few excellent books on freight cars, and is considered a expert in that field, if he can't answer your question about a particular car himself, he knows someone who can.
Why, what's wrong with being the type of fan he currently is?
I have read this thread, noticed that every thing from the semantics of the column to the intent and opinion of the author has been folded, bent, spindled and militated, cussed and discussed and pretty much turned inside out, in what appears to be an attempt to find or define the "basic model" of a "better" rail fan.
Good luck with that.
By the way, most of us who work for a railroad despise being called "rails"... which are the steel things the train wheels roll on.
We're railroaders, not rails.
23 17 46 11
Enuf!, methinks!!! Fred was only expressing his opinion. Don't get your 'panties-in-a-wad' so quickly. Let's revisit this subject in six months. After all, it did pass the 'censors' in Milwaukee.
Hays -- Nikon D50, three Sony Hi8s, and a Pentax filmer, none of which I really use. I'd rather watch, most of the time. Hmmm... I remember an XXX-Rated film by that.... 'Nuff said, before I get in trouble again! Out.
We all have egos. If we didn’t, we would not believe that we know who we are. Any ego that feels unjustly chastised by another ego will feel defensive and insecure. Insecurity is also a hallmark of egos that want others to believe what they believe.
oltmanndJayPotterIf my protecting-the-relationship theory is at all accurateInteresting idea. I'm more inclined to think it's about protecting ego. It's tied to an internal measure of self-worth.
JayPotterIf my protecting-the-relationship theory is at all accurate
It's tied to an internal measure of self-worth.
I agree entirely, at least in relation to myself.
I think that, with the exception of relationships with members of my family and people with whom I served in the military, all of my relationships involve ego. And I suspect that the relationship with the greatest ego factor is the one with CSXT because that's the relationship which I've made the greatest effort, over the longest period of time, to maintain.
Convicted OneJust as an illustration, where he claims in #3 that "no-one is interested in your opinion" it was just plain foolish for him to write the way he did, claiming that not one other person has any such interest. Any reader can immediately invalidate such a spansive claim, if through no other means than the knowing of just one other friend who might have such an interest. I enjoy debating current events with friends while waiting between trains, and frequently those topics include political topics.So, Fred has clearly made a mis-statement here, one that was too easy to invalidate ...perhaps what he was hoping to achieve was to inject a little insecurity into the more outspoken with his over the top summation, but made it so poorly that it's easy to disqualify. Now perhaps if he had worded a little smarter with a comment such as "You'd might be surprised to learn that MOST of the rest of us are not that interested in what your opinion is" (or wording to that effect) it still delivers the same message, without the easy to assail flaw in logic.
Just as an illustration, where he claims in #3 that "no-one is interested in your opinion" it was just plain foolish for him to write the way he did, claiming that not one other person has any such interest. Any reader can immediately invalidate such a spansive claim, if through no other means than the knowing of just one other friend who might have such an interest. I enjoy debating current events with friends while waiting between trains, and frequently those topics include political topics.
So, Fred has clearly made a mis-statement here, one that was too easy to invalidate ...perhaps what he was hoping to achieve was to inject a little insecurity into the more outspoken with his over the top summation, but made it so poorly that it's easy to disqualify. Now perhaps if he had worded a little smarter with a comment such as "You'd might be surprised to learn that MOST of the rest of us are not that interested in what your opinion is" (or wording to that effect) it still delivers the same message, without the easy to assail flaw in logic.
timzschlimmalready have done so."Contemptuous and condescending", you said. Show us an example of that, and show us how you'd rewrite it. No one has done any of that.
schlimmalready have done so.
While I don't feel Fred Frailey has to be defended, I do think his views have to. I have organized and operated train trips (500+ passenger, etc.) on several occasions; I have worked with a museum group; I have been member and officer of several railfan clubs. And I have tried to shy away from railfans for the very problems Frailey discusses and states in his column and because of a lot of remarks seen on these threads. Fans can be difficult to deal with in a real railroad situation, they have to be told what to do and what not to do (told because asking them brings on an arguement) about everything from behavior for safety, propriety in front of railroaders (from the lowest ranks to the President!), and in front of a public which reaches conclusions about railroads and railfans. I've had member wanting to pirate and dupe commercial tapes and sell them, I've seen newpaper letters undercutting the relataionships of the clubs and the railroads because the fan didn't think. I have been a fan, too. But I think, at least hope, that I've been respectiful of those whose property I have been on and whose business I have monitored and whose employees I have made friends with. If no one understands that this is what Frailey's remarks are all about, then railfans are in big trouble. I know I have pulled back from many so called railfan activities, not gotten invloved with several organizations, and have chosen my "railfan buddies" carefully so as to avoid the bores Frailey addresses.
oltmanndThat's what I don't get. Why are some so piqued over the tone used to state an opinion?!
I obviously have no way of knowing why others feel the way that they do; but I suspect that it has something to do with a tendency of railfans to be protective, for lack of a better term, of whatever relationships we have with the industry. My interest in the industry is focused on CSXT. If I worked for CSXT, my relationship to it would be relatively well defined; and I presumably would have some idea of, and control over, the factors that could effect that relationship. But because I don't work for CSXT, my relationship to it is not well defined; and so I pay particularly close attention to factors that might effect that relationship. Nothing that Frailey wrote fit within that category, so I had no more than a passing interest in what he wrote. But if -- as may have been the case with other people -- he phrased some statement in a way that I felt might have an adverse effect on whatever relationship I had with some segment of the industry, I expect that I would have been troubled by that statement.
If my protecting-the-relationship theory is at all accurate, the reason that comments about Frailey's statements and/or tone vary so much is that each of the commentators has a different relationship with the industry. For example, if (1) my activities as a railfan brought me into contact with railroaders who knew me only as as an unfamiliar visiting railfan and (2) I felt that what Frailey said, or how he said it, portrayed railfans in general unfavorably, then I might feel that even this very general relationship might have been weakened. I don't know if it would be realistic for me to feel that way; but I still might feel that way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.