simon1966,My point wasn't to imply that a hobby is unimportant (WRT "just a hobby"). What I was trying to point out with emphasis is that there are no qualifications to have a hobby, while there are qualifications to having a job (as in, someone has to hire you even if it's yourself).
IOW, you can't be a military veteran without serving in the armed forces. Likewise, you can't be a doctor without getting your degree, nor can you be a Professional Engineer without first passing the EIT exam, spending several years in the industry, then passing the PE's exam. And so on. These are jobs, they are not hobbies.
OTOH, you can be Civil War buff and not be a re-enactor. You can be a sports fan without ever playing ball. You can be a Disney afficianado without having to work for the Mouse.
You sure as heck can be a model railroader without ever owning a single piece of model railroading equipment.
Dave Vollmer,In addition to "Lighten up", I would also amend the ever popular, "Get a life!" These are the words used by those who can't stand the desire for accuracy in modeling. When I have pointed out in the past the flaws of a new model, this phrase is what seems to be posted with some regularity. My favorite was when I complained that a certain NH $1500 brass model had the wrong font on the tender, and the replies ranged from "Get a life!" to "If you keep complaining, they'll stop making New Haven models!" Yeah, right. The same company has now offered 3 more brass NH models since.
So maybe the fourth "mantra" should be called, "Lighten up and get a life!" ? Whaddaya think? Too wordy?
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
I would like to preface these statements by saying that I hope that my words are not taken with any offense. I'm not a skilled writer so I might convey a tone that wasn't intended.
Selector tells us that security is often the foundation for conflict. I would suggest that security (or more likely, insecurity) is what leads people to come up with arbitrary classifications such as "railroad modeller" as opposed to "model railroader".
I don't know anything about Selector or what he models, but I would guess that he considers himself to be a "railroad modeller" as usually the people who establish or promote these arbitrary classifications are those who consider themselves members of the more superior group. Also I would think that in Selector's field of ethno-political conflict, he would be familiar with cases of arbitrary classifications as a cause of conflict.
The need to establish these classifications stems, I believe, from insecurity. After all, if there aren't lines drawn then what's to separate us modellers from, say, Thomas the Tank. It's a common insecurity found throughout the hobby that I've experienced as well. We want to deferentiate what we do from toy trains. By calling themselves "railroad modellers" and not "model railroaders" they are addressing this insecurity by placing a buffer between themselves and the toy trains, this buffer being the middle of the road "model railroader".
Myself, by these definitions, would be a model railroader because, even though I model a real railroad, the CPR, I model a fictional line. I don't have the time or resources to model an accurate protypical railroad although I wish that I did. I have a great deal of respect for those who accurately model prototype railroads, even the so called rivet counters. They give me something to aspire to.
But, I don't think that it benefits the hobby in any way to create divisions. I could decide that I was going to model a prototypical railroad and call myself a "railroad modeller" but my work would pale beside that of many great "model railroaders" because the skill level isn't there. (I only returned to the hobby a couple of years ago after about 20 years.)
The important thing is that I love model railroading and I enjoy learning more about both the hobby and about real railroads. I don't need to be nor do I want to be classified. And, if I'm worried about people associating my work with toy trains then it's up to me to make sure that the quality of my work is good enough that it doesn't look like a toy.
Well said, NNeil! Very well said from someone who purports to be only modestly skilled with words.
It turns out that you are incorrect. I don't consider myself a railroad modeler because I don't do it. If you recall from an earlier post of mine, I don't have any current aspirations to such lofty heights. It just isn't what my model railroading, the more apt characterization of my skills and interest, is all about.
You seem to be quite perspicacious. Insecurity about one's own place in the hobby undoubtedly inspires some of us to behave the way we do when we interact here. However, a good many members are quite secure, thanks very much, and this sometimes is the problem, I think. They are somewhat more rigidified in their approach, thinking that they have little left to learn, and their replies come across as such.
We classify things in a heuristic form of learning. It happens in all sciences, mine among them. It is an attempt to find common ground and language for joint discovery. On this and other forums, ego plays a role, and so does insecurity about one's own abilities, about how well received we may be, how well regarded, how we stack in the pecking order. It is only my opinion, but I think a lot of the resentment and bickering we see here is a result of these things.
My only purpose for this entire discussion was to foster discussion with a hope that we could remind ourselves to cut each other some slack and to refrain from taking personal affront so much. Call it naive, although I am not, it was an attempt to offer a service of debate about what it is that makes us neutral and non-targeted in our daily passages here, and why some of us seem to rankle. Recall that this came soon after a particularly tumultuous weekend where so many threads were sidelined with personal attacks and arguments about terminology and ideas, and ways of doing things. I had a thread deleted entirely because it was so inflammatory...it came at a time when folks were acting like a mob, in a frenzy, and wanting to pick on anybody who could be victimized. There seemed to be so much pent up anger!
I invite anyone who feels that my definitions have serious limitations to devise their own and to launch their own thread about what the various common terms mean in this forum, and why some of it pushes buttons in our discussions. In the absence of that, and as a courtesy to those who might want to contribute to fostering good relations on the forum, I offered what I thought were reasonable terms based on (my) readings over nearly two and a half years here.
I agree with you that this hobby should not be about creating divisions. The terms I listed are not my own, but predate my tenure in the hobby, and on this forum, by many years. I had hoped to stimulate a discussion about the terms, and that is why they appeared up front. Once we seemed to get to the nub of each of them, and I was never under any illusions about how easily that would be done, I had hoped to continue to talk about ways to improve our interpersonal relations here...to give Bergie and all of us a hand. It could still happen if enough folks decide they'd like to maintain the thread...even if out of idle curiosity.
One thing that never seems to be argued on these threads is that we all love model trains and railroading. You'd think something as innocuous as that would permit so much more attention and focus on these things. But, it doesn't. It is the written word that seems to get in the way here, and every one of them is selected by a sentient being at the keyboard.
Thanks, again, for your thoughtful reply.
Paul3 wrote:IOW, you can't be a military veteran without serving in the armed forces. Likewise, you can't be a doctor without getting your degree, nor can you be a Professional Engineer without first passing the EIT exam, spending several years in the industry, then passing the PE's exam. And so on. These are jobs, they are not hobbies. OTOH, you can be Civil War buff and not be a re-enactor. You can be a sports fan without ever playing ball. You can be a Disney afficianado without having to work for the Mouse.You sure as heck can be a model railroader without ever owning a single piece of model railroading equipment.
How can you "be" a model railroader without owning a single piece of model railroading equipment? Just by proclaiming you are one?
Midnight Railroader,Um, no. You missed my point. Being a model railroader is not a job, it's a hobby. There is a difference.
IMHO, any one at any time can proclaim themselves to be a hobbyist in any field of interest. Of course, they may not be a very good hobbyist, but that's a horse of a different color.
As to how one can "be a model railroader" without owning any models, that's simple. Say, for example, a fellow has an interest in model trains & joins a model railroad club. He works on the layout, sweeps floors and runs trains...yet doesn't own a single model himself. Is he not a model railroader?
Or even more basic, say someone simply has a subscription to MR. The classic "arm chair model railroader", if you will, who doesn't own a thing other than a bunch of magazines. Are you prepared to confront these subscribers and tell them they aren't model railroaders? I'm not.
The better question is, why do you feel these kinds of people are not model railroaders? What difference does it make if they are or aren't? As long as they don't falsely represent themselves as skilled modelers, it's no big deal if someone thinks they are a model railroader when they own no models.
This thread has gone off into a realm where even I'm uncomfortable.
I suppose I opened this all with my "three mantras" thread, but now we're bickering over who gets to call himself a model railroader. That's very thin ice. There's almost no way to define it without being all-inclusive such that no one will be offended. Even my last post on the subject probably crossed that line.
Honestly, I'd like to see more model railroaders do high-quality realistic work. But for all of my preaching, in the end I still know it's none of my business how others enjoy the hobby. My advice can be taken by some as cramming my way down their throats; that's not the effect I intend.
In the end none of us are the president of the hobby, or the Pope of Model Railroading, so that none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.
We have our differences (modern vs. period, east vs. west, HO vs. N), but in the end we all play for the same team. We're all in the model railroad hobby. Further subdivision is derisive. I admit much guilt in this area too.
All I can do is be the best model railroader I can be, and hope through shear inspiration I can help others achieve the same.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave,
I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it...
Train Geek.
That covers pretty much all of us, I think...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 wrote:Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee
ROFL! I've been dying to say that, but didn't have the guts. Tell your daughter one of the train geeks agrees with her!
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
SteamFreak wrote: wm3798 wrote: Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee ROFL! I've been dying to say that, but didn't have the guts. Tell your daughter one of the train geeks agrees with her!
wm3798 wrote: Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee
This is funny! I describe myself as a model railroad geek to my new students in my self-intro. I can live with that label.
Dave Vollmer wrote: none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.
If you claim you're an artist but you never produce any works, you're not an artist.
If you claim you're a Civil War re-enactor but you never re-enact Civil war events, you're not a Civil War re-enactor.
If you claim you're a fisherman but you never go fishing, you're not a fisherman.
If you claim you're a hunter but you never go hunting, you're not a hunter.
And if you claim you're a model railroader but you never model railroad (NOT "read about model railroading" or "think about" model railroading), then you're not a model railroader, any more than you're an artist if you read about arting.
There's no intended insult or derision; it's a simple definition, and while you can call yourself whatever you want (Hey, I'm an author, I just don't write!) , whether it is true or not is the issue. Words have specific meanings, and this feel-good philosophy of "You can be whatever you say you are" flies in the face of that.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.Sure we can.If you claim you're an artist but you never produce any works, you're not an artist.If you claim you're a Civil War re-enactor but you never re-enact Civil war events, you're not a Civil War re-enactor.If you claim you're a fisherman but you never go fishing, you're not a fisherman.If you claim you're a hunter but you never go hunting, you're not a hunter.And if you claim you're a model railroader but you never model railroad (NOT "read about model railroading" or "think about" model railroading), then you're not a model railroader, any more than you're an artist if you read about arting. There's no intended insult or derision; it's a simple definition, and while you can call yourself whatever you want (Hey, I'm an author, I just don't write!) , whether it is true or not is the issue. Words have specific meanings, and this feel-good philosophy of "You can be whatever you say you are" flies in the face of that.
It's pretty hard to argue with that!
I know, it seems so restrictive to have labels in this hobby. What I tried to show at the first is that, unless we all agree on the few words that comprise a particular definition, we exclude some, confuse many, and leave most of us generally feeling that the whole thing is arbitrary. Yet, the words, themselves, keep appearing here and some of us are only too glad to use them!
Robert, if....if...we were to stick to the definitions that I gave, I would say if you could even get 6" square on your entire layout that had about 90% of it "right", in scale, you would qualify as a railroad modeler...even if the rest of it was 1/2" birch ply. But that would be my opinion, while there would be others who would vociferiously disagree. Whom, then, do you please?
It is trite, but you really have to please yourself, or what are you doing it for? If you take your cues entirely from the urgings of others, I don't see that you'll ever get much delight from the hobby. We have to adopt a certain standard for ourselves and move to that. Usually that is a synthesis between what we take from examples and what we wish to apply for ourselves...for most of us, anyway.
I think you know what you are going to do, and I think you will be pleased with your best, tempered, efforts.
I'd like to see photos as you progress.
Thanks for your input.
-Crandell