Musings on the the hobby and this forum

[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

[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 

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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!

[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.

 

[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 !

[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" ...

[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

[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]

" 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

[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.

[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!

[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..

[selector]

...

CONFLICT

All conflict can be  attested to one thing: status.  Conflict arrises if someone is trying to raise their status, or someone is trying to lower someone else's status.  I challange anyone to come up with an example that nullifies this statement.  The most intense conflicts come with 2 or more people with 'high' status have different opinions.  As a personal example, I had in my signature "Guru of DCC sound"(mearly to say that I was well informed on the new development in the hobby and would be happy to teach others about it.....Guru means teacher).  There were lots of people who tried (and succeded) to knock down this percieved mark of high status and hence created conflict to achieve this.  I inturn removed the label (hence lowering my status) to allow others to raise their status.

Just some food for thought.

David

 

David, in the context of this thread, I think you are on to something.  Conflict is based on a need for security.  Needs and interests are what generate conflict when the attainment of either is retarded or prevented entirely by someone or by circumstances.   In this and other forums, the desire for acceptance is a search for security.  When someone challenges us and rebuffs us, worse when they attempt to belittle us, it hurts and causes us to lash out in reply.  Later, when our acceptance is assured, we attempt to improve our position by changing our focus to one of establishing status. 

In my case, I look back to Bob Boudreau's reply.  He apparently feels that I spend too much time here pondering the hobby.  You'll notice that my reply was neutral and accepting of his premise...not necessarily because I agree with him, but because I willed myself to consider his message and to overlook what could easily be taken as a slight or a slam.   His understanding of my circumstances can only be based on his own relevant circumstances, and in that respect someone who has as many posts as I do must have little esle going on in his life.  The logic is faultless, but his conclusion is wrong.  It is nothing I need to address, and if it helps him to believe that about me, I commend him to his belief.  Belief is convenient.

I do agree that the attainment of status is something that drives most of us.  The more comfortable we get here, the more posts we mark up, the more learning and doing in the hobby, the more confident we get about our specialties.  In your case, you are about to establish yourself as a DCC guru.  Perhaps the membership thought you needed to spend some time in a sort of probationary period first. 

A pecking order is an artifact of all societies, and this is a microcosm.  That artefact of socialization is often not pleasant, but is certainly is a reality.

Thanks for your observations.

[shawnee]

" 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

[One Track Mind]

Full Moon.  May 31st.

Werewolves of London again....

 

and he went to Lee "H.O." Fooks......and his model railroad was perfect!

sorry. one of my favorite songs.

[selector]

Well put David...

...Anyway, Selector, my Canadian friend, thought provoking as usual, lets hope that this one does not degenerate.

 

Simon, thanks, for both comments. 

I agree with Dave to an extent.  As part of my learning, cultural differences mean a great deal.  Mark Newton has attempted to explain his style, but it grates on folks this side of Hawaii.   I had to turn off my own "harrumph!" filter when reading his replies because I know he is entirely willing to communicate with us...but as an equal, not as a sycophant who wants desperately to fit in....am I right, Mark?  So, if he is to be an equal, he has a duty to be as forthright as we all claim to be.   No more, no less.  So folks, get past his apparent style, and deal with his message...not the tone if David's message has any value. 

Just for the record, though, as a former staff officer in the Canadian Forces, the written discourse most definitely has tone.  That is why writing is an acquired and studied skill, since you have to learn how to tell a senior officer how to pee up a rope...nicely.  It is one of the reasons that some of us get irritated with others here.  Writing has style, and inset in the style is tone.  Words strung together can stroke or they can sting.  Just ask David.   (We're "okay", the two of us.)

Thanks for championing the acerbic MK, Simon.  It is a proper thing to do when you know it will serve a good purpose.

As for this thread degenerating, it doesn't need to, sure, but it may very well, sure.  If every one of us wills not to take a directed comment personally, and works very hard to counter with facts or solid arguments instead of invective and personal attacks (fallacies of relevance in logic), this thread may help to make us tolerate one another a bit more.  A lofty goal?  Sure.  What goal worth reaching was ever easy?

-Crandell

[simon1966]

Well put David B .

I was struggling on contributing to this thread and your description of tone, or rather the loss of it, in this written format perfectly states what I was struggling to say.

I consider myself somewhat of an old-hand on this forum, yet have found myself contributing less-and-less and drifting away.  I'm not particularly sure why, perhaps it is a phase I am in?  Certainly my interests have shifted more towards scratch-building and structures, but I also think that the atmosphere has changed here as well.

I want to comment on the issue of cultural differences that have been mentioned before.  Our friend Mark K illustrates well some differences in approach from one nation to another.  Mark, I enjoy your approach and find myself smiling often at your posts.  I have a dear friend from Australia who has a wonderfully pointed acerbic wit.  He lives in the US and seems to be on a single handed mission to counter the political correctness that is so prevalent here.  Your direct approach reminds me a lot of him.  I tend to read your posts with his Aussie drawl in my mind.  If you are not expecting it, it can be easy to feel challenged and threatened by this approach, especially in the written form.

Anyway, Selector, my Canadian friend, thought provoking as usual, lets hope that this one does not degenerate.

 

[MAbruce]

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.)

 

[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.

[marknewton]

A general question - why do people participate in a "philosophy" thread that invites opinions, if they are uncomfortable reading opinions that don't agree with the consensus?

A specific question, directed to Brunton, et al - why do you automatically assume that a poster whose writing/posting style differs from yours is being "rude and bombastic"?

My posting style is a product of my background, education and culture, no different to yours. Right or wrong, as an Australian I can't easily emulate the "attaboys" and what I perceive as the faux bonhomie that US posters typically display a facility with. I believe in saying what I think, and getting to my point without waffling. I'm a little sad that you regard that as being antagonistic, because for the most part that's the last thing I intend to be.

I enjoy an honest exchange of views about modelling philosophy as much as the next bloke, so I'll be buggered if I'm going to adopt a particular view or opinion just to avoid giving offense to others who hold that opinion.

Mark.

[selector]

 

 

What is it about these threads that is unlike others that make some of us angry with one another? 

Maybe they don't attract the folks who seem to revel in antagonizing someone just because they have opportunity.  

Aha, there's a sage among us.  That could be it, exactly, Mark.  A thread that invites opinion also seems to invite the pugnacious personality.  When we gill burgers, expect hornets.

[selector]

Perhaps the OP with over 8200 posts on this forum spends too much time musing and not enough time modeling?   To each his own I guess!

When you're right, you're right, Bob; to each his own.

Thanks for your contribution.

-Crandell

[selector]

Selector,

I read your definitions with interest... I believe that it is a common human trait to want to "win people over" to your point of view.  People with strongly held views (political, religious, and yes even model railroading) cannot resist the temptation / opportunity to preach their version of the gospel.  Unfortunately, they often fail to promote their own views without simultaneously denigrating others'.

Civilities all too often go out the window for several reasons:

1. some people feel compelled to preach their gospel
2. most people rankle at being preached to
3. the relative anonymity of the medium allows people to abandon the rules of civil discourse that they would probably follow were they face-to-face.

Generally speaking, the threads that are most likely to degenerate into flamethrowing spectacles are the ones that invite subjective "philosophical" responses (like this one ), rather than technical details.  I wonder if the forum might be well served by a separate Debating Area where people can (civilly) engage in whatever topic is chosen for that week...let a topic run for a specified period of time, then shut it down and pick another.  Just a thought.  I don't know if it would work.

At the end of the day however, the problem is virtually impossible to fix.  You can ask for civility and tolerance all you want, but I suspect that you won't get it. There will always be a few individuals who can't temper their enthusiasm.    When things get out of control the only remedies that remain are thread-locking or banishment of individuals by the powers that be.

As is the nature of threads like this one, I've provided a lot of commentary but unfortunately, no answers. I share your hope that people will think twice before hitting the SEND button when they've composed a nasty comment in haste and anger.  Cheers.

Well said, fellow Beaver Tail connoisseur. 

Yes, to your first point, and this hearkens back to egoism.  We want to belong, but we want to be the first among equals.  We crave the worshipping masses, and the power that they promise us.  And, true, in the absence of substance, most will resort to deprecating the achievements of their rivals in order to aggrandize themselves.

These threads must...they must...sound to many onlookers as an attempt to preach or to compel uniformity in thinking and in effect.  I wish I could dispel that notion, but the way some threads get around to full-blown rancor and personal attacks, little wonder that the whole theme seems to take on the aura of a threat.  I can see why these more philosophical discussions threaten some folks, but I wish I could convince them that there is much to gain by seeing them through to the second half-life....not the first.  Bergie axes them at the first, although I can see where he's coming from, and can hardly blame him.

I disagree with your statement about the matter being impossible to fix.  Just as there are referees in most sports, certainly where things count for more than just bragging rights, there should be referees in this forum.  I wish, oh, how I wish, that we could police ourselves in gentlemanly fashion, but the history tells us otherwise.  So, we need a system of moderation that, at the very least, takes the pressure off Bergie and that allows us to keep civility and tolerance to the fore during the...ummm...."quiet" hours.   Just my opinion, but there is support amongst the membership for that idea.

I am not looking for answers, per se, but perhaps the way to them.  In that respect, you have done admirably.  Next beaver tail is on me.

-Crandell

[selector]

Have you read some of the discourse on YouTube?

Unfortunately, some people are predisposed to argue. Egos are fragile and fuses are short...

Nelson, I do not frequent the widely popular spaces on the internet due to my desire to avoid the angst I would feel for what goes on there.  Ignorance is bliss.  I only venture to youtube when someone posts a MRR or RR related video that promises something worthwile watching.  I have almost always been pleasantly surprised in that regard.

Egos are highly fragile, mine among them.  My fuse is usually quite damp and hard to light, but it is about at long as the quick on my little finger.

[selector]

...

Fun:  I would stop after the first sentence.

Conflict:I would add that it also occurs when there is greed or desire to dominate...

Paul 

 

Paul, thanks for your thougtful reply.  Fun is such a personal experience that it means different things to different people.  Some of us, like my father, defines fun as success in a year's crops in his garden.  Although he enjoys gardening and is quite accomplished, he does it more out of character than for pleasure.  His father raised him through the Depression and into the War.  it was a time where people chipped-in and workede harder to get things done with less.  What you didn't have you made or grew.  When I asked him a while back why he didn't have toys or a hobby, he replied that he grew up during those times when such things were frivolous...unthinkable.  Now, he could not enjoy the expense, nor could he justify it.  His pleasure, such as it is, is in growing his own vegetables.  Yet, it is a duty.  He must.

Not so with a hobby.  We do what we will, not what is required by custom or convention...at the risk of bearing the brunt of the critics among us.  So, fun is tied to personal choice, and personal choice rests on the interests that one has in the dimensions that I list under that section...power, status, advancement, and so on.  Note that interests may be tied to something as base (not basic) as security.  I don't want to get into academic discussions, but this is my field.  My specialty is in conflict analysis and management, with a concentration in third party intervention in ethno-political conflict.  In a nutshell, that is building trust between factions that have been at war, often within the confines of a nation.

If we don't understand what the opposition's interest are, we are not likely to say the things that will make them want to work with us instead of against us.  So, I agree that the bones of contention are often due to differences in semantics.  But in this sense, interests are not what appeals to us, what amuses us, but what makes us feel secure about ourselves in the emotional, physical, and philosophical realities that we face and that define us.

[Dave Vollmer]

MABruce,

Then you're gonna LOVE the thread I just started!

Seriously, if the philosophy ain't for you, I get it.  There are plenty of threads to go around.

Seems most of my hands-on project threads end up sinking to the bottom - too specific.  At least these threads touch a broad audience.

[MisterBeasley]

Hey, you're missing a thread which is discussing HO and N scale elephants.  Now there's something you don't get to talk about every day.