Musings on the the hobby and this forum

[BRAKIE]

Great, yet another esoteric topic destined for a padlock.

Oh, and a hobby is simply a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation (per Webster).  Seems like a few here are pursuing this hobby as though it IS their regular occupation.

Why is it when a deep thought discussion comes up some as to under mind it? Are they afraid others may give views they are not comfortable with and feel they must react with harsh words or click the report this post icon? What thrill do they get for doing this?

I bet if a simple topic came up on modeling a short line they will be those that would respond negatively with cries of its my layout,its my blah,blah,blah and yada,yada...Are they afraid they might learn something or that others may actually get some good thought provoking ideas?

Dang if I know.

Larry, you've been around this forum as long as I have and ought to know better.  A majority of these ‘thought provoking' topics tend to turn sour after a couple of pages and end badly.  I've seen it happen over and over again.  Yes - they don't have to, but they just do.  The reasons why could fill a book, but the results are usually predictable:  They only end up turning into yet another topic that draws moderator intervention.

(And no, I'm not the one who clicks the 'report this topic' icon on these topics.)

 

Bruce,I must agree those types of topic goes south..To bad that..There is a lot of thought provoking modeling ideas that would be nice to discuss.

Also,I never intended for you to think I am picking on you..I had to tie in some where..

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

Thanks selector (and others, too) for your thoughts.

I have little to add because I'm headed to my layout room for "a partially dissociative experience or emotion induced when excited, pleased, aroused, or when doing anything that is interesting and desirable. "

I'll let others handle the "arcane taxonomies" stuff.

Happy Model Railroading!

[Dave Vollmer]

And I'm cool with Dave V.!

Wow, this has gotten very, very deep...  even for me!  Huzzah, Crandell!  You are a philospher's philospher.

[selector]

" RAILROAD MODELLING

Defined: a hobby in which the person endeavours to replicate a scale example of a currently operational or an historical railroad"

Selector, I don't think railroad modelling requires trying to replicate a currently operational or a historical railroad.  Freelance railroad modelling, cleverly conceived, thoughtfully planned with context, and hewing to basic operational precepts of the prototype....it's lost in your definition.

It is a shame when high-level posts with interesting subjects like this turn into flamethrowing or ruminations about tone of the forum.  It's a turn-off. 

"But in this day and age of polarization - no sense agreeing on anything when we can fight to the death over some misunderstood principle - there are those who take umbrage when someone champions a view other than their own."    - Tony Koester

Shawnee, upon reflection, I will condede the point to you, but....I wanted to differentiate between the prototype, of which there are unique and real entities, and freelanced which may resemble aspects of one or all, but which are none-the-less imaginary or fanciful.  It may even be the difference between a John Allen and John Armstrong.  Each has an implied purpose and plausibility, but the one is surely more prototypical in its bent than the other.  So, for me to operationalize the discussion, railroad modelling is just that...a railroad that is modelled after a real railroad.  The freelanced one may have many characteristics of the/a prototype, but it is not a model of the prototype...therefore not modelling at all.

By introducing my definitions, I realize that I am wanting to impose a restriction on the thinking of all who wish to contribute, but we need to establish a frame of reference somewhere.  I strongly urge, and heartily invite, others who feel that they have a better definition to post it in their own thread...to which I will contribute gladly.

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

" RAILROAD MODELLING

Defined: a hobby in which the person endeavours to replicate a scale example of a currently operational or an historical railroad"

Selector, I don't think railroad modelling requires trying to replicate a currently operational or a historical railroad.  Freelance railroad modelling, cleverly conceived, thoughtfully planned with context, and hewing to basic operational precepts of the prototype....it's lost in your definition.

It is a shame when high-level posts with interesting subjects like this turn into flamethrowing or ruminations about tone of the forum.  It's a turn-off. 

"But in this day and age of polarization - no sense agreeing on anything when we can fight to the death over some misunderstood principle - there are those who take umbrage when someone champions a view other than their own."    - Tony Koester

Shawnee, upon reflection, I will condede the point to you, but....I wanted to differentiate between the prototype, of which there are unique and real entities, and freelanced which may resemble aspects of one or all, but which are none-the-less imaginary or fanciful.  It may even be the difference between a John Allen and John Armstrong.  Each has an implied purpose and plausibility, but the one is surely more prototypical in its bent than the other.  So, for me to operationalize the discussion, railroad modelling is just that...a railroad that is modelled after a real railroad.  The freelanced one may have many characteristics of the/a prototype, but it is not a model of the prototype...therefore not modelling at all.

By introducing my definitions, I realize that I am wanting to impose a restriction on the thinking of all who wish to contribute, but we need to establish a frame of reference somewhere.  I strongly urge, and heartily invite, others who feel that they have a better definition to post it in their own thread...to which I will contribute gladly.

-Crandell

I have refrained from entering this thread - until now

I do not agree with the comment above (bold and enlarged).  Just because I do not try to "copy" a real railroad, does not mean that I do not engage in railroad modeling.  My fictional railroad models a time period and operating scheme in a defined geography.  Along with the "real" railroads; it "could" have existed.  My town of Hardspot could have been named Durango and Arock could have been named Silverton; however, this would have limited my artistic ability and would have "required" me to try and copy those towns instead of creating towns that actually fit in the space that I have available.

I have no problem with people that try to "copy" real railroads, or with those that try to make their models "rivet compatible" with the 1:1 stuff.  I do not agree that building a fictional railroad means that I am not modeling in the full sense of the term.

I believe that modeling "flavor" is just as valid as modeling "rivets".  I am having fun, are you ?

 

[selector]

Selector said...So, for me to operationalize the discussion, railroad modeling is just that...a railroad that is modelled after a real railroad.  The freelanced one may have many characteristics of the/a prototype, but it is not a model of the prototype...therefore not modelling at all.

...I have refrained from entering this thread - until now

I do not agree with the comment above (bold and enlarged).  Just because I do not try to "copy" a real railroad, does not mean that I do not engage in railroad modeling.  My fictional railroad models a time period and operating scheme in a defined geography.  Along with the "real" railroads; it "could" have existed.  My town of Hardspot could have been named Durango and Arock could have been named Silverton; however, this would have limited my artistic ability and would have "required" me to try and copy those towns instead of creating towns that actually fit in the space that I have available.

I have no problem with people that try to "copy" real railroads, or with those that try to make their models "rivet compatible" with the 1:1 stuff.  I do not agree that building a fictional railroad means that I am not modeling in the full sense of the term.

I believe that modeling "flavor" is just as valid as modeling "rivets".  I am having fun, are you ?

 

Thank-you, Alan, for modeling the diversity that this forum needs, and for also modeling the right way to disagree with someone!    You have demonstrated all that I am trying to get across in this thread, that there will necessarily be diversity in all that we talk about and do...and that we can voice our diversity and our divergent views without belittling, without invective, and without hurtful or spiteful words and tone directed to the person.

You have also raised, as did Shawnee, that there can be differences in definitions that make the discussion difficult, even frustrating when the choices of wording don't work.  That is why governments and regulatory bodies take so long to achieve anything worth publishing; they strike committees that debate even the smallest of articles, punctuation, and definitions of words before they can present a document for enactment into law. It is why we have judges who are arbiters when the differences are intractable, and when the resultant behaviours are unacceptable.  It is often why we on this forum have so many "issues" with what some of us claim to be fact.  We see the same thing differently, and our conclusions about them must naturally differ.

I'll ask you, then, how do you account for the disagreement between those who freelance, who dabble, who merely build intricate structures from scratch, with those who build elaborate and operational layouts that are amazingly accurate portrayals of real settings in time and place?  What is it about their several approaches to what they do that makes their acceptance of one another as worthy so problematic?

-Crandell

[jfugate]

True story:

An American explorer discovered an African village where all the huts were identical in every way, precise to the fraction of an inch. The explorer eventually learned it was taboo in that tribe to appear you were trying to better your neighbor or you were asking for a fight. It didn't matter how large your family was, your hut needed to look just like all the rest or your were asking for it. You didn't even hang your laundry outside because then if you had more clothes than your neighbor on the line, you were picking a fight.

To us Americans, this sounds silly. In America, you flaunt your success. Fancier car, bigger house, etc. In America, that's supposed to communicate, "Hey look, ain't it great? With hard work and some luck, maybe you can do this too!" or taking a more cynical view, "Hey, I'm a person of means, so treat me accordingly." But in the African village, doing this was tantamount to a slug in the nose ("Hey sucker, wanna fight?"). It's all in your assumptions about what you are trying to communicate.

Reality is we judge based on the amount of details in the input to determine what's being communicated. When communicating face-to-face we have not only the words, we have tonal inflections, facial expressions, gestures ... tons of details from which to judge.

Online, all we have are the words, with maybe a bit of inflection given using bold, italics, and maybe a smiley or two. But that's it. Far less detail from which to judge.

And like the huts example, we often may not know the underlying assumptions, so we guess at the assumptions and think the other guy's nuts for saying 2+2 = 6 when in fact he was saying 2+4 = 6. Since he wasn't explicit about his assumed second number, we assumed it was 2 and went ballistic. He thought everyone understood he was assuming the second number was 4 ... and then wonders what's the problem?

So cutting each other lots of slack online is prudent, because miscommunication is far too easy with the limited data we have. Probe for the assumptions, don't just go off on a rant.

What's the saying, "Even a fool is thought wise if he holds his tongue" ...

[Virginian]

Didn't Olivia Newton John play a muse in Xanadu?  Does she model RR too?

 

Mister-Know-It-All

A character in a segment on the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show wherein Mister-Know-It-All (played by Bullwinkle) gave advice on how to address various issues.  I believe several on the forum may model their online countenance on this sterling example.   So far no one is quite as entertaining as Bullwinkle was.

Maybe we take model railroading too seriously.... then again... maybe we don't take it seriously enough !

[Anonymous]

I'll ask you, then, how do you account for the disagreement between those who freelance, who dabble, who merely build intricate structures from scratch, with those who build elaborate and operational layouts that are amazingly accurate portrayals of real settings in time and place?  What is it about their several approaches to what they do that makes their acceptance of one another as worthy so problematic?

-Crandell

I am of the age, and general nature, that all opinions are valid; even those with which I do not agree.  Think of the kids playing with a ball.  There is always the one who states: "it is my ball and I say what the rules are, otherwise I go home with my ball".  Logic is not part of the discussion.

I spent many years building furniture and furniture quality cabinets.  For 13 years, I worked for a company that refaced kitchens (built new cabinets around the existing ones) [it paid the bills ].  I did a kitchen per week during that time.  We hired experienced woodworkers for open positions and simply showed them what the end product had to look like and what the quality requirements were (good looking and top notch quality).  Two weeks of training assured that they understood the requirements (plus field supervision to check on the work daily).

When I was in my mid 50's, I was given a 25 yr old carpenter to "train".  In the process of doing the work he told me: "don't do it that way, this is way it should be done.  I have been doing this all of my life."  I just looked at him and said: "there are 453 different ways to do this, and all of them work.  You do your way and I will do it mine.  The end product is the the important thing, not the process."

Model railroading is a hobby; not a way of life.  We don't have to agree on which real or fictional railroad to model or how the go about the process.  It is great to offer advice and help.  There is no "one way" of doing things, either as an end product or as a process.

It beats me as to why some people want to argue.  Just human nature at work, I guess.

 

[rayw46]

I read the, "Harmony," thread before I read this one, so I'll just post or paste, or whatever, what I posted there.

I've been thinking a little (you smelled something burning didn't you) about what Selector wrote about railroad modelers and model railroaders.  Maybe we should take another look at those who run unaltered RTR locomotives and rolling stock on track with ready-made roadbed surrounded by snap-together plastic building sitting on a grass mat.  Could be that they should really be classified as, "Collectors," who just want a place to occasionlly give their collection a little exercise.  That way no true, "modeler," should be offended by them.  In fact, the word, "modeler," "dabbler," "novice," or, "shake-the-box guy," wouldn't even enter into the equation where they're concerned.  Then the sun would suddenly appear from behind the clouds, the birds would sing again, the air would always be as fresh a spring....NAH!

[Dave Vollmer]

Since taxonomy is the natural inclination....

I disagree on the "railroad modelers" versus the "model railroaders" definition Crandell gives.  I see where he's going with this, but I'm not sure that's where the break should be (assuming there should be one).  There tends to be more of a continuous spectrum than discrete camps for the layout builders.

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the "model railroaders" versus "model railroad dabblers" distinction, with the former being more inclined toward unified-themed layouts with some measure of craftsmanship, with the later being more RTR and less "focused."  Unfortunately, those are labels.  Labels tend to become negative, no matter how positive we intend them.  The other issue goes back to the status idea.  We would naturally ascribe more status to the model railroader over the "dabbler," so who wants to be called a "dabbler?"  It becomes condescending.

Therefore, while I agree that a natural break seems to occur between the MRs and the "MR dabblers" I hesitate to use the terminology, because it will invariably lead to conflict and hurt feelings.  I doubt anyone would consider themselves a "dabbler."

[BRAKIE]

Dave V,There is a deference between a model railroader and railroad modeler.The model railroader is a casual modeler that has a laid back approach while a railroad modeler follows disciplines in modeling a given prototype that could include a given day and time. or follows strict free lance guide lines for believable freelance railroad.

The modeler chooses the path he wants to follow as he/she gains experience and knowledge.

Some choose not to advance in the hobby no farther then a casual while a advance modeler wants to model as realistically as he/she can.The railroad modeler usually has the layouts that we ooh and ahhh over..

Savvy?

 

As far as "MR dabblers" thats as bad as the term "rivet counter" IMHO.

[selector]

Thanks, Dave and Larry.  I think you two have illustrated one of the problems with communications in general.  We assign labels to things that, yet and once again, mean different things to different people.  I agree that the words "dilettante" and "dabbler" could easily be taken as the potentially pejorative "wanna be", "amateur", and similar terms.  Personally, I find "novice" to be quite acceptable, but at what point does one move past being a novice, and who gets to say?  Model railroader is a term I use incautiously, I guess, since I use it to label my interest in the hobby while also calling someone like Bob Boudreau or Aggro a model railroader.  By my own definitions, Joe, Aggro, DaveV, and Bob (who I believe doesn't even have a layout, but who contributes his considerable talent to one shared) are railroad modelers.  Neither of them has taken offence, yet, at my terms, but they may now appreciate the distinction.   If that serves to separate them from the works of others, they may be happy, but the distinction may not please others who feel they have a claim to the term.

Nope, you can't please everybody, so ya gotta please yerself.

[IRONROOSTER]

.. By my own definitions, Joe, Aggro, DaveV, and Bob (who I believe doesn't even have a layout, but who contributes his considerable talent to one shared) are railroad modelers. ...

Uh, actually not.  By your definition

... railroad modelling is just that...a railroad that is modelled after a real railroad.  The freelanced one may have many characteristics of the/a prototype, but it is not a model of the prototype...therefore not modelling at all.

-Crandell

Bob is not railroad modeler.  Personally, I think he is a very good one as a visit to his web site will attest.  But then neither are John Allen, John Armstrong, Frank Ellison, and many others by your definition. 

So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler".  In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. 

Enjoy

Paul 

[Canondale61]

For David B

The word tone is used in several different fields with different meanings.

Tone (literary), the mood or feeling of a literary work

Communications between humans is 90% body language,3% tone,pitch,volumn,and only7% the actual  words. So as humans when we come to the written language we are at a distinct disadvantage. We can not see or hear what the person is trying to saying. This then creates conflicts. I personally feel that this forum has drifted away from what I personally enjoyed that is the pics of everyones work and the shareing of knowledge and techniques, the philisophical posts while educational have overshadowed the posts that are about teaching or of those sharing there work. And the conflict has set that has arisen inside some of those posts has created a somber mood or tone.I have seen very little of Bob G work lately, I enjoy watching Art H progress, I have learned from Dave V and Dave B, Mark N and the other Aussie modelers have shown some work that is truly awesome, the work of our English and European friends is also truly awesome. I guess what I am trying to say is lets be respectful and share the pictures and knowledge.

Kevin

[Paul3]

Here's a better question: Why label people at all in what's supposed to be a fun past time?  What difference does it make if someone considers themselves a "Model Railroader" or a "Railroad Modeller"?  And why would anyone care?

Here's a thought: if you think you're a model railroader, you are one.  Period.  You may not be a particularly good one, or you may be a MMR.  Either way, you are still a model railroader/railroad modeller (which, BTW, there's no difference between). 

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Havenn
************

[Pruitt]

Dave V,There is a deference between a model railroader and railroad modeler.The model railroader is a casual modeler that has a laid back approach while a railroad modeler follows disciplines in modeling a given prototype that could include a given day and time. or follows strict free lance guide lines for believable freelance railroad.

I don't know for sure, Larry, but I'd bet there's a lot of folks in a big grey area (say about the size of the Grand Canyon) between the two.

I'd fall under the definition of "Railroad Modeler," I guess, but I'm still pretty casual and laid back, I think. I enjoy the research involved, but having all the details of a particular track layout in a particular town isn't a hard requirement (though I like it much better if I do). While I want places on the layout to be recognizable to anyone who has actually been there, my goal is more the overall atmosphere and sense of place, with a few specific exceptions.

[selector]

...So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler".  In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. 

Enjoy

Paul 

Paul, respectfully, your argument leans heavily towards solipsism.  I don't mean to imply that this relates to you in any way; it is only for illustrative purposes that I use this example- but is the same reasoning that criminals use to justify their actions...they do it because it is what they want to do.  They reason that even if another person would object or be considered victimized, it doesn't matter since it is what the criminal wants and that is what counts.

So, I disagree that just because you would like to be considered an astronaut, you are necessarily going to be taken for one by others.  That is to say, in order for us to have a meaningful conversation, we have to agree on terms.  If you elect to use your own, then we have no basis for discussion.  Picking apart definitions is not part of the thread since I operationalized them at the first.

Calling one's self a railroad modeler does not make it so.  For the term to have meaning, it must have a definition that makes it distinct, and that is what I attempted to do.  Some of the names you mention are known more for what I would agree are not railroad models, but are model railroads.  This is not to say that each of them had never achieved a railroad model at one time, or even subsequently.

[selector]

 

I don't know for sure, Larry, but I'd bet there's a lot of folks in a big grey area (say about the size of the Grand Canyon) between the two.

I'd fall under the definition of "Railroad Modeler," I guess, but I'm still pretty casual and laid back, I think. I enjoy the research involved, but having all the details of a particular track layout in a particular town isn't a hard requirement (though I like it much better if I do). While I want places on the layout to be recognizable to anyone who has actually been there, my goal is more the overall atmosphere and sense of place, with a few specific exceptions.

Mark, at this point I agree with you.  This is very much an "academic" exercise trying to parse the notion of who fits into the hobby where, as if we each have a key that only opens one door...through which the Big Finger hastens us, thence to slam it shut.  Yet, getting back to taxonomy, the terms "rivet counter"  and "dabbler", "armchair modeler", and others seem to satisfy a need for so many of us to characterize, to classify if you will, what a person does with most of their time in the hobby.

I'll say this at this point: this is one of the most judgmental bunch of folks I have met anywhere.  As a group, I mean, not individually, we tend to label things and want to isolate them...and we forget that a person has presented it.  Much like the phenomenon of road rage, we seem to lose our inhibitions when we type remarks that we know the other person will see.

[BRAKIE]

Mark,I agree there has to be a gray area between the 2.. Come to think of it I may fit in that gray area..I am not a true railroad modeler since I model close enough/good enough as long as there is believability in my freelance C&HV..I believe I have captured that goal quite well..

[IRONROOSTER]

...So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler".  In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. 

Enjoy

Paul 

Paul, respectfully, your argument leans heavily towards solipsism.  I don't mean to imply that this relates to you in any way; it is only for illustrative purposes that I use this example- but is the same reasoning that criminals use to justify their actions...they do it because it is what they want to do.  They reason that even if another person would object or be considered victimized, it doesn't matter since it is what the criminal wants and that is what counts.

Actually, this is totally out in left field and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Your argument is not illustrative or pertinent and is used only to be insulting by saying I have criminal mind - the word "respectfully" becomes irony here.  

 

So, I disagree that just because you would like to be considered an astronaut, you are necessarily going to be taken for one by others. 

Actually, this supports my argument - if you ride in a space craft you're an astronaut if you build or runs model trains you're a model railroader or railroad modeler.  In both cases you can so describe youself.

 

That is to say, in order for us to have a meaningful conversation, we have to agree on terms.  If you elect to use your own, then we have no basis for discussion.  Picking apart definitions is not part of the thread since I operationalized them at the first.

The problem here of course is that your definition is not generally accepted.  Second, this whole thread started off being about definitions so your belated attempt to limit it to your definition halfway through is pretty egotistical.

 

Calling one's self a railroad modeler does not make it so.  For the term to have meaning, it must have a definition that makes it distinct, and that is what I attempted to do.  Some of the names you mention are known more for what I would agree are not railroad models, but are model railroads.  This is not to say that each of them had never achieved a railroad model at one time, or even subsequently.

Again, many characteristics can be self described.  The term has meaning just not yours.  Your desire seems to be create an elite class that applies only to you so that you can say to everyone else who uses the term "No you're not.  Only I am". I would suggest you coin a new term for yourself such as "Miniature Laureate".

Paul

[selector]

Paul, we'll just have to disagree.  I thought I took pains to explain that my first point was for illustrative purposes and that I was not meaning to link criminality to you.  You have deliberately taken a combative stance and ignored my caveat, so you and I cannot have a meaningful discussion if you deliberately or naturally misconstrue my words and definitions.  In other words, if you won't play the game nicely, I won't play with you.

I do thank you, though, for replying.

-Crandell

[marknewton]

Joe Fugate made an interesting point in his post about assumptions, which is directly relevant to me. I assume that because I want to run my trains prototypically, in a prototypical context, so does everyone else. I reckon I assume this because I've worked for the railway since I was 15 - I'm now 48 - so I don't know any other way than to do it like the real railways do. And the railway modellers I know and associate with tend to think the same way as I do.

And yet, a post by Stein, one of our other contributors from overseas, says the opposite.

He wrote:

"Quite a few people are just interested in _running_ model trains. Not in running model trains in a prototype-like way. And only a relatively few people are involved deeply enough to care about both running trains in a somewhat prototypical-like way _and_ at the same time caring about having everything on the layout _look_correct/consistent for the place and time you model."

At first, I simply rejected that idea. Why would you want to do things that way? But then, I thought about a thread I'd read on a Usenet group, where a number of posters all stated that they had either never ridden on a train, or had only ridden trains once or twice in their lives. They have no personal experience of how passenger trains are run. That's something I can't even imagine.

I then thought about all the other posts I've read where the poster stated that they had never experienced in person any of the things they're trying to model - e.g. steam, other eras, other regions, other countries. I've been lucky, in that my career has taken me to many places, and given me many experiences that I take for granted, but would be unattainable for many of the people posting here. And that's something else I've also tended to assume - that the reasons I have knowledge and experience of specific aspects of railroading are self-evident, when of course they aren't, at least not to forum contributors who don't know me.

I also think about the number of modellers whose initial exposure to the hobby was a Christmas train set, not a real railway. And for many modellers, their only source of information and inspiration is other modellers, either via magazines or on the net. They also probably have had no experience or exposure to a prototype, so it's not of any great importance to them. What they know is model trains, and that's what they build and run.

So after thinking about all this for a while, I realise that Stein is more than likely right. That being the case, Joe's point about assumptions, and Simon's observation about being aware of cultural differences cuts both ways - it's something I'll also have to watch in future.

(And Simon, thanks for sticking up for me!)

Cheers,

Mark.

[jasperofzeal]

So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler".  In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. 

Enjoy

Paul 

I could not agree with you more.

I've noticed that these previous threads have a forceful undertone to them.  I saw it in the last reply to you (not mine) that said you're taking a combative stance.  What's the point of a discussion if you set the rules at: "only my definitions count."  What ever happened to: "to each his own"?

[selector]

So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler".  In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. 

Enjoy

Paul 

 

-Crandell

 

I could not agree with you more.

I've noticed that these previous threads have a forceful undertone to them.  I saw it in the last reply to you (not mine) that said you're taking a combative stance.  What's the point of a discussion if you set the rules at: "only my definitions count."  What ever happened to: "to each his own"?

And there-in lies the answer, I'm afraid.  As long as each of us approaches the hobby from a point of view of disinformation, education, experience, whimsy, or any other contributory factor that leads to what each of us can show another, we will disagree with one another about what is "right".  As long as our taxonomy and definitions and actual knowledge are as highly disparate as they seem to be among us, we can't expect anything less than frustration and confusion when we attempt to impose our view of things trains on other members.

So, Mark Newton has had an epiphany of sorts (sign of an open mind in my books), and I encourage others, in closing, to think about these things and how they impact our unidimensional communications on this forum.  All that labels us, that builds a reputation for us, are our words.  Once the post button is clicked at the bottom of the text box, we have painted pictures of ourselves, or at least added yet another brush stroke to the built-up image that we all form in our mind's eye.  Like all paintings that I know, sometimes they are better seen after backing off a bit, rather than trying to get up in their faces.

Thanks for all of your contributions, everyone.

[Paul3]

selector,
This is a hobby, for pete's sake.  Not a job (astronaut), not a social problem (crime)...it's just a hobby.  All you need to be a hobbyist is to have an interest in the subject matter.

OTOH, to be an astronaut (or a firefighter, or a cop, or whatever), you have to be employed to be one as part of your job description.  To be a criminal, you have to break the law.

But to be a model railroader (or a stamp collector, or a butterfly catcher, or a bird watcher, or any hobby), all you have to do is sit in your arm chair and dream.  For example, I am also a WWII warbird enthusiast.  Now, I don't own one, and I've never flown in one.  But I buy books, go to air shows, and travel to air museums to see them from time to time and take pictures.  None of that makes me a pilot (that's a job), but it's still my hobby.

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

[simon1966]

Paul, you are so right, it is just a hobby.  But, in my experience there are few things in a person's life that generate more passion than a hobby.  Just look at the passion that is stirred in the classic car movement, or on the golf course.  It just seems to be a fact of human nature that many do get very worked up over the chosen hobby.

Mark K, you are welcome, I have been very fortunate to have a job that has let me live on 2 continents and travel regularly to 3 more.  I have lived for 20 years in the UK, 10 in NY and 13 in the Mid West of the US.  That is like 3 different countries!!  There was nothing more pleasurable than our annual distributors conference when folks from all over the globe came together for training and some fun.  Picture an Aussie, an Englishman, a Canadian, a South African, a Belgian, a Japanese and a Scot sitting at a bar in a hotel in Scotland eying the single malts preparing to represent their nation!

[Dave Vollmer]

I'm noticing here in the forum, and also in Terry Thompson's July editorial, the rise of a fourth "mantra"...

"Lighten up."

Now, I know it's really meant to tame the rancor in some of these threads.  I assume it's meant to mean that it's OK to have your own opinion about an issue, but that one should respect other opinions equally.

However, I fear it may become a way of further denegrating those of us who take prototype fidelity very seriously.

I can see it now...  A member asks "Who makes replacement steps for XYZ caboose?  The model came with the wrong steps for my era."  The answer?  "You need to lighten up!"

I hope I'm wrong....

[wm3798]

Dang!  I thought railroad modeling was Heidi Klum dressing in striped bib overalls and strutting along the walk boards of an RS-3!

Look, I'm as philosophical as the next guy.  It seems that this forum has become a repository for such discussion, which is probably appropriate since the audience is very broad and diverse.  This is due to the fact that threads are all heaped on the same composter, rather than split up into different topic or scale categories.

We all bring our own biases and learned behaviors to the table, so we might benefit by just laying out the cards about the baggage we carry...  Here's mine.

I'm an N scaler.  So, by nature, I feel like the rest of the hobby doesn't expect much from my scale.  This comes from a life time of hearing from HO guys about my eyes going bad, about how superior their chosen scale is, etc.  I admit that this is a complex that I have to deal with.

I model an eastern road that isn't CSX, NS, PRR or Amtrak.  Until recently, much of what I wanted to model had to be improvised.  Despite the pride I take in those improvisations, I love the fact that I can now finally get a lot of stuff "off the rack."  Yet somehow this doesn't prevent me from criticising guys who want everything off the rack, RTR, built-up, plug and play, what have you.  Again, my baggage.

I tend to sell myself short, then I show off like a prima donna.  I like to present myself as a so-so modeler with only modest skills, yet I work like hell for hours to create a scene that I'm happy with, then spend another chunk of time staging it and photographing it so it looks really good.  I post the results with reckless abandon on all the forums I participate in, and then sit back and let the warm fuzzies wash over me as the compliments come rolling in.  What can I say, I'm a creature of ego just like everyone else. 

Outside of the hobby, I like the works of Twain, Mencken, and the various members of the Algonquin Round Table.  As such, I like to throw in ascerbic, cynical quips using obscure literary references that not everyone is going to "get".  Sometimes they work, sometimes they backfire, and I have a lot of 'splainin' to do.  What can I say... it's who I am.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, other than to secure my part of the bandwidth that's being expended on this lofty subject...

Carry on!

Lee 

 

[Anonymous]

Have you read some of the discourse on YouTube?

Unfortunately, some people are predisposed to argue. Egos are fragile and fuses are short. There are lot of angry folks in this world. It's pretty amusing to think that most people expect entire nations to coexist peacefully when they can't even get along with their own neighbors.

File that sad truth under "Nature: Human." 

Absolutely right, human nature sometimes just can't be changed.  As Gil Grisom (CSI producers discriminate against MR'ers but I think he respects them) said in the infamous Model Killer episode: 'It's so easy for things to get to you when you look at things so close all the time, sometimes you should look to see what's out there.'.  I personally think that's very well said.