https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqYdXzRxlVk
Murray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqYdXzRxlVk
Was that the Perfessor in a past life?
The Professor at a recent meeting of the Trustees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29E6GbYdB1c
Murray The Professor at a recent meeting of the Trustees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29E6GbYdB1c
I bet the Trustees were against it too!
Euclid As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
Murphy SidingEuclidAs Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................ I think that's why the question was invented. It allows you to ask what someone meant, not tell someone what they meant.
EuclidAs Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
I think you are mistakenly paraphrasing what I meant when I explained my purpose of what I meant in the above quote.
Telling someone what they meant is not the point of paraphrasing what they said in order to seek clarification. “Telling someone what they meant” is only your erroneous perception of the point of paraphrasing to seek clarification. You suggest the use of a “question” to ask the person what they meant. Yet, the use of the question is right there in the paraphrasing. It implied in the paraphrase of what they said. The person who made the original statement is free to correct my paraphrase if they disagree with it. There is nothing sinister or illegal about paraphrasing for this purpose.
If someone says something, and I paraphrase it, my only purpose is to restate it because I don’t understand what it means as the original person stated it. I have not removed what that person said in order to rewrite it to counter their position.
If I disagreed with someone’s position, I would just say so and not get into some stupid game of a clever paraphrase of what they said in order to twist their words to make it look like they agree with me. I will leave that silly technique to others.
Norm
Murphy Siding schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said. I'll paraphrase you, rather than directly quoting you. What you're saying is, that it's common knowledge that many members of our forum actually do work for a railroad. Since we have no reason to believe that Bucyrus is an English professor, it seems unreasonable to let him paraphrase you.
Not even close. D+
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmMurphy Siding schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said. I'll paraphrase you, rather than directly quoting you. What you're saying is, that it's common knowledge that many members of our forum actually do work for a railroad. Since we have no reason to believe that Bucyrus is an English professor, it seems unreasonable to let him paraphrase you. Not even close. D+
I've been away from the forum for a while due to personal matters, and due to difficulties with the computer. I don't claim to know much about computers. However, I do know something about communication in the English language, and I take serious offense at Schlimm's and Euclid's insistence on the notion that my statements can be better understood if they inaccurately "paraphrase" those statements. I use quotation marks because the word carries with it an implication that the rephrasing ACCURATELY restates the ideas expressed in the original statement. Since Euclid's "paraphrase" did not do that, I reject it categorically. I stand by what I said, and not by his so-called paraphrase.
On July 26 at 10:05 PM, Euclid admitted that my comments were speculative; yet he insists that I expressed certainty about the events at Lac Megantic. I say again that I wasn't there and neither was he, so neither of us can be certain about those events.
Euclid, you said "If someone says something, and I paraphrase it, my only purpose is to restate it because I don't understand what it means...." If you don't understand it, what makes you think you're competent to restate (i.e., paraphrase) it?
As Tom Lehrer said on his album "That Was The Year That Was" (1965), "I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." That is an accurate quote; not a paraphrase.
Neither Schlimm nor Euclid has entered a biography. Therefore, I have no reason to suspect that either is a Professor in any scholarly field, even though others have used that term. Certainly, nothing I have read in their posts suggests any particular expertise in any field of study, nor any particularly high level of education, nor of intelligence. That's not a paraphrase; it's just a logical conclusion drawn from the (admittedly limited) available information. I have entered a bio because I have nothing to hide, no reason to dissemble, and nothing to apologize for.
I would like to quote (not paraphrase) Schlimm:
"It sees [sic] to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. [sic] It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said."
Let's see..... that would be a misspelling and an incomplete sentence in a single three-line paragraph. I didn't count the lack of a comma after "but" because I have no idea how to correctly punctuate a nonsense sentence. At my High School, Brother Harold would have certainly given you a poor grade for that one --- maybe a D+.
I don't think I am paraphrasing when I suggest that this paragraph is an affront to every railroad employee. We are "not in a position of expertise when it concerns language", huh? I guess you planned that comment as a dismissive, patronizing insult directed at me and presumably other railroaders on the forum. However, since our hosts at Kalmbach trade in language, have you considered that this statement is an insult to every railroader who reads or writes for Trains, as well as Kalmbach's other publications?
I am reminded of Victor Fleming's wonderful 1930's film Treasure Island. As Long John Silver (Wallace Beery) and Jim Hawkins (Jackie Cooper) leave the company of a motley group of pirates, Long John turns to Jim and says, "Will you join me in a bit of fresh air, Matey? There's so much XXXXXXXXX* in here that I can't breathe properly."
* I won't put the actual word in here. The moderators might think I'm insulting Schlimm and Euclid, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself.
You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education.
The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself.
Funny - you seem to be the angry one.
Your whole post was nothing but a thinly-veiled insult against railroaders. Yet you accuse us of lacking respect?
And because someone is a professor, does not mean they instantly deserve respect. Respect is something that is earned. Many with higher degrees have done nothing to earn it.
Zug
(yes, I have a college degree. whoop-dee-doo)
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Schlimm:
Your bio doesn't say you're a professional at anything. The evidence indicates perhaps professional troll. Whatever your profession or level of education, you certainly are no star when it comes to making logical statements:
"...at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications."
Even an ignorant railroader such as I can see that as nonsense. Railroaders, as a group, are some of the most matter-of-fact people I know. They don't dismiss the statements of non-railroaders because the speaker is a non-railroader. They dismiss the statements of people who are talking through their hat, whether that speaker is a railroader or not. The respect of most railroaders is not conferred by a fancy title, but by the quality of the speaker's ideas, so maybe that has something to do with the lack of respect you believe you're getting.
Lastly, I don't see any reason that you have any need or qualifications to analyze me or anybody else. In fact, I am generally very happy and easy-going. However, a person who changes my words and their meaning, and then presents the inaccurate "paraphrase" as a correct interpretation of my sentiments, is either ignorant or a liar. I have tried unsuccessfully to get you and your pal to accept my original meaning, but have had no success. I think you're both full of yourselves, but I don't think either of you is ignorant. So I resent the lie.
I can imagine a Japanese diplomat, late on December 7, 1941, saying "Mr. Roosevelt, you appear to be an angry person."
I am not a railroader. I am a retired veteran, and am now a working as a Senior Consultant.
The bottom line is that you demeanor does not fit well in this forum. You have absolutely no respect for your fellow posters. You are acerbic in your comments, and you seem to take great pleasure in how you mock the men and women of the railroad industry,
You really have no conception of how little you on regarded on this forum. If that is your desire, then so be it. But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
If you could perhaps interact in a more positive way, you posts would be received much more positively.
I'm sure you'll dismiss my comments, as well as the others that have immediately preceded me. But I wanted to get on the record (speaking as a non-railroader) to point out how wrong your perceptions of our professional railroaders.
Murray schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself. Schlimm: ...But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
...But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
You have got to be kidding.
EuclidYou have got to be kidding.
What is your profession, Euclid?
Euclid You have got to be kidding.
zugmann EuclidYou have got to be kidding. What is your profession, Euclid?
What difference does it make what my profession is? I certainly don’t go around with a big chip on my shoulder believing that everybody who is not in my profession has no right to question my work. Of course maybe all my fans believe that.
Well, since you like to discuss so many railroad issues at great length, I think it is only fair you tell us what you do for a living, since you like to criticize us so much (e.g. the big chip comment). I could sit here and give a lecture on nuclear fission, but I'd be making up 99.99+% of it. So yeah, context helps.
I ask again - what is your profession? Or at the very least - what is your field?
PS. I know you are not going to answer. And I know schlimm is going to respond with more insults. And some more of us stupid railroaders will respond to that if we can gather enough brainpower to figure out how to use our computer machines and remember what that one letter is called... (you know, the one that looks like a man wearing a hat). Eventually a mod will drop by and ask everybody to play nice, then a padlock will appear on the thread. And time marches on.
Oh don’t be offended by my big chip comment. I don’t think you or most have one. My point was that anyone who believes outsiders have no right to question what they do in their profession have a big chip on their shoulder. In fact I am sure that most railroaders do not feel that nobody has a right to question what they do or know. But Murray apparently believes that.
Murray schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself. Schlimm: I am not a railroader. I am a retired veteran, and am now a working as a Senior Consultant. The bottom line is that you demeanor does not fit well in this forum. You have absolutely no respect for your fellow posters. You are acerbic in your comments, and you seem to take great pleasure in how you mock the men and women of the railroad industry, You really have no conception of how little you on regarded on this forum. If that is your desire, then so be it. But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out. If you could perhaps interact in a more positive way, you posts would be received much more positively. I'm sure you'll dismiss my comments, as well as the others that have immediately preceded me. But I wanted to get on the record (speaking as a non-railroader) to point out how wrong your perceptions of our professional railroaders.
Euclid:
Your fans? Yep. Both of them.
If you can't answer the question, could you just pipe down while the adults are trying to have a conversation?
Thanks ever so much.
Tom
schlimmThese would include, but not be limited to folks like Jeff Hergert, Carl (retired) BaltACD, and Don Oltmann. They are open to discussion, probably because they feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
You forgot me on that list!
schlimm They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
Unlike yourself and Euclid.
The both of you are too insecure (perhaps ashamed) to even say what you do for a "profession."
Citations? This is not the defense of a Masters Thesis....
zugmann schlimmThese would include, but not be limited to folks like Jeff Hergert, Carl (retired) BaltACD, and Don Oltmann. They are open to discussion, probably because they feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers. You forgot me on that list!
He forgot RRKen too.
Murray schlimm They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers. Unlike yourself and Euclid. The both of you are too insecure (perhaps ashamed) to even say what you do for a "profession." Citations? This is not the defense of a Masters Thesis....
Murray,
You are getting awfully serious. What happened to all that good time rock and roll humor?
Hmmmm. The original topic had something to do with Unions, I think. It's been so long ago that the memory is a bit hazy.
If you'd tell us something about your background, that might help us understand your point of view regarding the original topic. I believe most of us can respect anybody who does good, productive, honest work. Since you've shown no willingness to give us this potentially useful information, I can only conclude that your work involves something illegal or in some way disreputable. Using your own methodology, of course.
Thanks for helping us to unravel this mystery. Enquiring minds want to know.
ACY I believe most of us can respect anybody who does good, productive, honest work. Since you've shown no willingness to give us this potentially useful information, I can only conclude that your work involves something illegal or in some way disreputable. Using your own methodology, of course.
Mr. ACY; Some of us see no useful reason to discuss our backgrounds. Since they are not in the railroad industry, it adds nothing to the forum, only puffery. And given the utterly shameful contempt with which some of your "pals" (not you) treated "Dwight Branch" when he was nice enough share his academic background, a person would be naive to do so since that time. I might note that most of you do not use your actual names, either. That sounds no alarms or whistles because I do understand how some employers operate. If I worked for your railroads, given the current emphasis on the short term buck and the weakness of your unions, I would be cautious as well.
Just checking... I thought it was my real name, I was right
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.