It sometimes seems to me that some select folks who participate in these forums (some on a regular basis and others sporadically) seem to have a particular axe to grind? One very recent (and now locked) thread was dominated (at least in the verbose length of his postings) by one person who (to me at least) sounds like someone who may be either a lawyer or perhaps may have some sort of vested interests in the success and pursuits of lawyers. While I am sure none of us "regular" posters have any problem at all with the frequent and strong expressions of passion some show in their posts, I have a problem with posters who will not bend at all on any subject whatsoever.
I personally could be described as a "regular kind of guy" who is professionally aligned with the sales of building products through wholesalers to contractors and builders so I have no axe to grind on virtually any subject but I DO have my opinions. There have been numerous times where my personal take or slant on a subject have been proven wrong and I (normally) admit to my mistake and we move on (as do the majority of my fellow posters), but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.
Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?
eolafan wrote: ... but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?
... but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.
Is that why the thread you are referring to was locked? Do threads get locked because someone refuses to give up their position in a debate? I did not think that was against forum rules. Maybe somebody could explain why the thread was locked. It would help everybody know where the line that is not to be crossed is located.
There was a situation like this on another forum I am a member of (the username and forum will remain nameless) where one member was trying to convince everyone he had decalled a model locomotive, where it was quite obviously a photoshop. This poster kept denying it was a photoshop, eventually getting mad and saying he would kill himself, and on and on...
Next time I went on, the post was deleted and the user was banned. I don't think this is a particularly rare case, but I know for a fact this person wasn't a lawyer.
You can be well assured, regardless of the topic, you will receive a response the opposite of your view, there does seem to be an element in these posts that lurk around seeking any subject they may comment on in a negative manner, they never seem to offer any positve critique and feel they are like a vigilante that has the right to demean every topic, some of them do get caught up in their own web and it backfires on them.(and that's kind of fun too) It's best to completely ignore these responses and get on with the subject, One comment I have is the amount of readers(a lot) to a post and the very, very few comments on the subject, so I guess many have nothing to say and let it go at that. I must agree with eolafan that it seems you should not offer your opinion on any subject as you will surely be criticised for your slant on the subject. I never respond to these meaningless spiteful posts. keep on trainin'
Tatans' advice is useful, I think. Most of us learn early to pick our battles, while others won't miss the slightest suggestion of a difference of opinion, even when the one is substantiable.
A thread where two opposing, highly polarized, and unyielding positions are being championed by two sets of arguers is going nowhere. It becomes a macabre draw for curious onlookers to see who is going to say what in an attempt to score the next point. If it were a game or a boxing match, it would make some sense, but when it is mere verbiage, and when none of it is supportable with credible information, it is just two sets of opinions that get reblended in the grinder and fed out as another lump of the same pap.
Opinion is just fine, and most welcome....once. If it is countered with another opinion, which one is to prevail as it morphs into The Great Truth? Who is to say? Is to be the one on Side A, or the one on Side B? Will it be determined by reorganizing the same words, or by substituting a couple of synonyms, and then offering it instead of one's first attempt at clarity? Or should it be a supporting follow-on where something tangible and verifiable lends credence to the opinion? Should the logic be, "Well, once again, this is what I think, so I am right." We call that solipsism in logic.
And, while we are on the topic of logic, there are what are known as informal fallacies in discourse that are designed to create an advantage in the argument. One of them is the ad hominem fallacy where the person who wishes to prevail creates a diversion by drawing attention to some characteristic of the other person opposite, and thereby ignoring the specifics of the arguement. It is designed to appeal to unsuspecting onlookers.
Ad hominem means "to the person/man", or "taking it to the man." It is a tried and true technique, but it is nevertheless a fallacy. Who uses it is in "foul" territory. It is in foul territory because such a technique is an error in relevance. Whether a person is Jewish, Danish, male or female, unemployed or working, physically disadvantaged or fully capable, happy or sad, ugly or pretty, degreed in the subject or a dropout, has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or wrongness of what that person is saying. You must address what is said, not by whom, not how (unless the words are cross, boorish, rude, and so on), not when, not even where or why. What is important in an argument is the what. If the what is incorrect, and you can prove it, do so by all means.
If you attempt to counter the assertion with anecdotal or experiential information, I don't see that as a problem. Just don't repeat it. Let it stand as an example, either supporting or non-supporting.
If you merely endlessly repeat and chip away at the other person with new words and old opinions, you serve no one any purpose here, except to see your own words posted. When you attempt to use fallacies of relevance, I and others who know better, and who can recognize them, will not be happy. When you direct our comments in a churlish, nasty, gotcha kind of manner, you can expect others to report you if what you have said offends their sensibilities. That becomes my summons. Once I am aware of a problem thread, I tend to work it to see if it can be repaired. When my efforts fall short, and the objectionable prose and logic/illogic continue, the thread is a waste of bandwidth. In that case, the thread gets locked.
I hope this post explains how I think. I am obliged to act in my best judgment when I see things getting no better that are already of no discernible value, or getting worse.
Jim,
I think it's just a natural part of forum dynamics just as any any grouping of people will have its cast of characters. As an example, back when I lived your way I looked into joining a model railroad club but decided the club politics were far too great of a headache to justify any enjoyment that would be derived from such an enterprise.
While the forum isn't exactly the same, there still is a very large group of people present here, so it's fair to reason that a great number of personality types will be present and that inevitably some disagreements will arise because of difference of opinion. I think it's also fair to reason that some individuals will go to greater lengths than others to defend their positions.
I will say this, though: Some cases of disagreement are far more productive than others. I didn't comment (apart from posting a link to a humorous bit of litigation) because I simply could not have added anything productive to the discussion. However, I did read it and enjoyed the thread, particularly because there were a lot of facts presented in that thread. What a refreshing change from the constant outbreaks of unfounded CSX bashing and such.
I think most, if not all of the established members here behave in a fairly predictable manner. I know that I've formed opinions about a great number of the forum dwellers here. And I also know that there are threads that I will not follow very closely because of the individual(s) who are posting in such threads. If that style of thread irks you, I would probably just avoid it. As for me, I'm delighted when individuals who are a lot smarter than I am choose to participate in good discussions and back up their positions with good data and I think that if the lock button is going to be pushed in such threads that it should also be pushed on some other quite pointless threads.
Just my on the matter.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
The 'axe to grind' folks are certainly present hereabouts. No matter what the discussion, they often try to bring it around to their favored argument, and once it's there expound ad infinitum. Of course, that attracts the other camp, and once they exhaust genuine debate they begin another round of ad hominum posts (as detailed above).
Eventually some of them apparently reach a point where "you people are just stupid" because folks aren't buying into their position and then they just go away.
As CopCar points out, there are threads I just don't bother with, unless I'm really bored and want to see what's garnered so much attention.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Jim, you are on to something.
An "expensive model collector"
Bucyrus wrote: eolafan wrote: ... but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?Is that why the thread you are referring to was locked? Do threads get locked because someone refuses to give up their position in a debate? I did not think that was against forum rules. Maybe somebody could explain why the thread was locked. It would help everybody know where the line that is not to be crossed is located.
I agree. These threads were previously moderated by Bergie and Bob and a few other Kalmbach stalwarts and most of us got used to where the line was. We now have a couple of "user-moderators" and while their standards for what is "acceptable" may be similar, they cannot be identical because their decisions -- while trying to remain objective -- require personal judgment and are therefore subjective.
In other words, the plug is being pulled quicker because there are more eyes policing the forums.
So like Bucyrus, I too would like to see locked threads ended with a full explanation from the "locker". I don't think that's asking too much.
However, a handful of people complaining about a thread should mean nothing. Maybe that would call for an evaluation, but nothing more. There are over 46,500 members here and I would hope a few complaints would not be sufficient to cause a thread to be locked. A measly one percent of members is 465 complaints, hardly a representative group.
If "conserving" bandwidth is a goal and reason to lock, why not delete some of the achived posts deemed to be useless or no longer salient? Plenty of room there.
There always have to be some rules. As a moderator on another train forum, I've always felt if you rein too tightly you risk stifling expression. While it has been recently stated here that standoffs will be locked at a certain point, I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them.
Of course, libel, defamation, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (Re: obscenity, there are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)
There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe. But I don't advocate their censorship -- Baskin-Robbins offers 33 flavors because everyone doesn't like Rocky Road.
If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.
Poppa_Zit wrote:[....I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them. Of course, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (There are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe.If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.
....I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them.
Of course, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (There are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)
There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe.
All good points, Poppa Zit, and I don't discount any of them in the slightest. Yet, in view of my specialty, which I believe you understand, I know that arguments that degenerate into nothing more than t.its for tats and posturing inevitably escalate to the point where any single observer could send me a pm and say, "See?"
Why would any moderator choose to ignore experience and learning that does a good job predicting an outcome? As you all have said, you know the various lions by their various signatures. We don't change much in terms of personality or likes and dislikes as time goes on; in fact, we tend to change less as time goes on. You say yourselves that you have learned whom to pass by. Well, my hand is up also....I learn, and when I see the same people going toe-to-toe, what should I conclude, and when? I choose to let it go a bit, try to offer a repair, and if it is an intractable group, the thread gets gashed...often to reappear in a clone of some sort.
I am loath, let me say, to interfere. It isn't "my" forum; not by ownership and not hugely by interest. So, I dislike having to interfere here. But even a dolt can figure out when things are going south by the terms used. Eventually, the dolt improves in that capacity, and I hope to do the same.
Next, your suggestion that false or questionnable posts should be deleted. Well, that can only be apparent after a minimum of discussion. It is in this process that the shrillness factor begins to impose itself. Just about the time an interloper like myself can deduce which contributions are fatuous or simply false, the shrill voices have gotten their wind up and there's no stopping them. Also, I don't like to force discussions one way or the other, as long as what is being offered is sensible, civil, focused, humorous and/or in good taste, and if it seems to contribute to the resolution of the central differences in the argument. It is when the contribution attempts to leave the topic behind and try to embarrass or belittle the person(s) opposite that I feel compelled to restore some order. That is what I understand from my instructions, and from what other mods tell me, chiefly Bergie.
Conciliation is an art. I wish more people could suppress their egos and feel warmer and more interested in those who frequently disagree with them. The Great Truth, such as it is, is very rarely comfortable sleeping under one tent very long. It moves around, so I don't often like to place it. That is why I try to repair the process and not interfere with the settlement of the points of discussion by stating what I think is correct about it, or who is correct, and then locking it. I try to get folks talking like civlized humans...the process. When that fails, so does the thread.
Thanks for taking your time to contribute. If I may be forgiven for saying it, I take your voice to be that of one of the elders here, and I suspect that people have learned to think about what you say....so, thanks for saying it.
-Crandell
selector wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:[....I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them. Of course, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (There are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe.If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.All good points, Poppa Zit, and I don't discount any of them in the slightest. Yet, in view of my specialty, which I believe you understand, I know that arguments that degenerate into nothing more than t.its for tats and posturing inevitably escalate to the point where any single observer could send me a pm and say, "See?" Why would any moderator choose to ignore experience and learning that does a good job predicting an outcome? As you all have said, you know the various lions by their various signatures. We don't change much in terms of personality or likes and dislikes as time goes on; in fact, we tend to change less as time goes on. You say yourselves that you have learned whom to pass by. Well, my hand is up also....I learn, and when I see the same people going toe-to-toe, what should I conclude, and when? I chose to let it go a bit, try to offer a repair, and if it is an intractable group, the thread gets gashed...often to reappear in a clone of some sort.I am loath, let me say, to interfere. It isn't "my" forum; not by ownership and not hugely by interest. So, I dislike having to interfere here. But even a dolt can figure out when things are going south by the terms used. Eventually, the dolt improves in that capacity, and I hope to do the same. Next, your suggestion that false or questionnable posts should be deleted. Well, that can only be apparent after a minimum of discussion. It is in this process that the shrillness factor begins to impose itself. Just about the time an interloper like myself can deduce which contributions are fatuous or simply false, the shrill voices have gotten their wind up and there's no stopping them. Also, I don't like to force discussions one way or the other, as long as what is being offered is sensible, civil, focused, humorous and/or in good taste, and if it seems to contribute to the resolution of the central differences in the argument. It is when the contribution attempts to leave the topic behind and try to embarrass or belittle the person(s) opposite that I feel compelled to restore some order. That is what I understand from my instructions, and from what other mods tell me, chiefly Bergie.Conciliation is an art. I wish more people could suppress their egos and feel warmer and more interested in those who frequently disagree with them. The Great Truth, such as it is, is very rarely comfortable sleeping under one tent very long. It moves around, so I don't often like to place it. That is why I try to repair the process and not interfere with the settlement of the points of discussion by stating what I think is correct about it, or who is correct, and then locking it. I try to get folks talking like civlized humans...the process. When that fails, so does the thread.Thanks for taking your time to contribute. If I may be forgiven for saying it, I take your voice to be that of one of the elders here, and I suspect that people have learned to think about what you say....so, thanks for saying it.-Crandell
Why would any moderator choose to ignore experience and learning that does a good job predicting an outcome? As you all have said, you know the various lions by their various signatures. We don't change much in terms of personality or likes and dislikes as time goes on; in fact, we tend to change less as time goes on. You say yourselves that you have learned whom to pass by. Well, my hand is up also....I learn, and when I see the same people going toe-to-toe, what should I conclude, and when? I chose to let it go a bit, try to offer a repair, and if it is an intractable group, the thread gets gashed...often to reappear in a clone of some sort.
Crandell, I'm sure some here accuse me of being an instigator because I've jumped right into some of these back-and-forths. Some people think challenging a broad statement or asking a poster for documentation of his statements or questioning sources is being obstinate. That's just good debating.
Some posters spout their blather and take it personally and attack if someone's opinion differs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion -- if well-placed, and as long as it is based on facts and truisms, and if challenged they should be forthcoming. But allowing expression of hit-and-run opinions like "the government stinks and taxes are too high" should be clipped. There are other forums where that is welcome.
I also am guilty of making an occasional sarcastic post. For which I have no remorse.
It's a gift.
Thanks to all of you who have responded to my original post, your contributions have been logical and without excessive passion or any malice at all. Like PZ, I too am sometimes prone to a little (sometimes more than a little) sarcasm. What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind.
I appreciate the healthy exchanges of ideas, espeicially on the subject of railroading (but not limited to railroading) on this forum and participating in it is one of the things I take virtually daily pleasure in...let's keep it rolling right along.
Again, thanks to all.
n012944 wrote: Jim, you are on to something.
No, he isn't; it's just him.
Nudge, nudge; wink, wink.
Just remember the old saying....Sticks and Stones
Russell
Unfortunately, or fortunately, opinons are like elbows.....everyone has a couple. That being said, nothing aggravates me more that the forum participant can't have a reasonable discussion. I moderate/administer a photo site, and we are constantly on patrol against those who try to hi-jack threads to forward their agenda, whatever it is.
It is also about "picking one's battles" as well. I can't tell you how many times I went to reply to a thread, only to erase my reply, because I thought better of getting involved. I asked my self that age old question: "is this the hill I want to die on?"
I like intelligent, and informative discourse, but, one a thread degenerates into name calling, or other such bashing..... I don't bother with it.
For me though I am a member of mutiple boards and here at least the Mods all of them will pull the trigger and lock it faster. Some of them I am a member of people will take what you say change it and then make it look like you said something else and then ridacule you on that and the mods do nothing at all. Also here I have gotten PMs and told back it down or my acct will be locked for a week then banned. However when one person refuses to even look at another persons point of view and attacks any person that has data that shows that their view is wrong then then that thread needs to be locked down ASAP. Furtemodal was great about that and would come hard and long if you opposed Open Access with real Data that showed it would not work here in the US he would then attack you personally any way he could and drove off quite a few people.
selector wrote: Once I am aware of a problem thread, I tend to work it to see if it can be repaired. When my efforts fall short, and the objectionable prose and logic/illogic continue, the thread is a waste of bandwidth. In that case, the thread gets locked.
Crandell,
As long as we're on the subjects of bandwidth wasting and axe-grinding, I would like to know why some threads get the lock button fairly quickly (as in the case of the thread referenced above which may have been degenerating into a shouting mach but which I thought was still providing some good discussion) and others are allowed to survive.
In particular, I'd like to refer to the Diner thread. In a rather infamous thread (that deserved the lock button a lot sooner than on the 23rd page, IMHO), the diner thread was brought into the mix and Bergie voiced his opinion on the matter:
Bergie wrote:That's the reasoning for my call for all parties, both diner and non-diner participants, to come closer to the middle. For diner members, continue on with your personal discussions that allow all of us to become friends, but lighten up on the off-topic (if not off the wall) discussions about what's for breakfast. In the same vein, I'd ask all non-diner participants to stop caring if others choose to use the diner as a way to get to know one another. Again, if both sides come closer to the middle, we'll all be better off.
I think the non-diner crowd has complied very well with Bergie's request but we still see three posts a day featuring breakfast, lunch and dinner "menus" and countless other posts about how good the cybermeals of the day were.
I completely understand the need for an thread with a lighter side to it - I in fact participate in the Trackside Lounge thread quite a bit. Still, if bandwidth is an issue and the lock button is going to be pushed, I don't understand why we are still seeing posts about the "spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam" for breakfast despite Bergie's sensible compromise. It just seems like a little bit of a double standard to me.
I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
Well, I wasnt going to say anything but if we agree to disagree then I dont have trouble with it.
I am hard headed, stubborn and hard to budge sometimes. Dont let that bother you too much. Old dogs like me can and do sometimes learn new tricks or something new everyday.
Take Kadee couplers as an example. If Someone was to say: "My plastic couplers break" I would lean on the thread and allow Kadee thier moment of glory. If a third person tells me that horn and hooks are good enough... wal... we dont know where the thread will end up.
I'll quiet down now. Ive said enough.
Yes and you are all onto something.
squeeze wrote:I happen to be the one that started the locked thread. In my opinion it got way out of hand. Had I known it would have gone that far, I would have never started it. I will be very discriminatory in my future posts, as I am here to learn more about my interests, than see individuals banter back and forth. That is the first posting I have ever had locked on me, and I will do all I can to make that the last. Thanks for a GREAT FORUM. Jim
Jim, don't beat yourself up about this. Your original post was on a valid subject and the reason the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter. It had everything to do with "issues" totally not related to either the post subject or to either one of us...as I have recently found out...and that is all I can and will say about that subject.
CopCarSS wrote: ...I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
...I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
Not at all, Chris. For one thing, the question was carefully articulated, but first carefully considered. That means you have offered to show me, and others looking in, a measure of respect. I don't know that I am due it for any particular reason (let's leave my power as a mod out of it...it's an artifact for the purposes of our discussion here), but I hope onlookers appreciate the tone and the gentle and reasonable words. I try to do the same when I communicate with anyone, whether in my private life or here.
Therefore, you need fear no recriminations, either from my role as a user-mod or due to my sensibilities being offended by your thinking and their utterance. Truly. And I thank you for doing it as you have done.
To address your question, the diner threads, as long as what transpires within their confines doesn't spill out into other threads, or into Reports of Abuse (it does happen, and not just on this particular forum...trust me), I think Bergie is tolerant. If nothing else, that thread serves as a clubhouse of sorts where the guys can fart and tell silly jokes. ( I use that characterization as an illustration, not as a deprecation to the content or its contributors...it's just to paint a picture comparing the content to what is likely to appear in other threads).
We can all pass that thread by easily because it is self-contained. Its proliferation is confined, in other words. None of us has to deal with it except to skip our eyes over it when we come to it.
Also, you seem to suggest that perhaps one of us should axe the thread since it rarely has much to do with trains...or much less often has much to do with trains. We inherited this thread which had been left in place by Bergie. So, as much as we are now the guys with the badges, so to speak, we don't want, nor are we asked, to impose ourselves unduly. We are meant to blend in as fellow users, and to act only when our judgment says it's right to do.
Let's look at this another way: we are a new feature. So, there is a certain saliency attached to our new presence here. Old timers will perhaps be a bit miffed that some of their own unknowns are suddenly riding down main street and flashing badges. That is understandable...if it had been up to me, I would have announced the change/introduction with an....uh...introduction posted in each forum..a heads-up about new deputies. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. No matter, we are here, and we are beginning to assert ourselves in an effort to change the culture, even if slightly. So, we stand out, and we knew to expect, eventually, some inquiries and tests. We get that. We also know that it isn't about us....it's about you. We need to establish some harmony between what the members would like from this forum and what Kalmbach requires on the basis of rules and policy.
It is an iterative process, and it will take time. We hope that the user-mods and the membership can co-exist in mutual respect and positive regard. We should all be friends...first. But, that isn't always be the case, and Bergie can't always be here to sort out the inevitable tensions....so he has asked a few volunteers who pestered him over the past summer to take us on board because the model railroader forum had become a trolls' fishing barrell. So, if the idea finally had a currency, why limit the service to just the one forum? Use the service for all of them! And here we are.
I welcome inquiries, personal contact, and challenges to my decisions or other overt behaviour, including my tone and choice of words since you should also be able to police us in a way since we are human. Just, please, use measured words and tone in your message to me of the nature that this gentleman modelled when he asked me the question. Be respectful to me, and to each other, and we'll all get along. You can count on me to do the same because it is my upbringing, my nature, my learning, and my intent.
Thanks for the question.
Thanks for the post. I'm not ready call for the axe to fall on the diner. It was more a matter of curiosity in the matter. You mentioned in your previous post in this thread that the litigation thread had been frozen because of a waste of bandwidth.
I know that the diner type threads are social gathering areas and that they can be an integral part of the forum (as I said, I like to frequent the Trackside Lounge where the goal is general discussion without the interruption of imaginary meals and such). I guess I'm just at a loss why, despite past requests from Bergie, the whole "cyber kitchen" as it were continues to use as much, if not more bandwidth than the argumentative threads.
As I mentioned in my initial response to Jim, there are threads I generally avoid. The diner thread happens to be one of those threads; so it's existence, or even the evening menu of cyber-pizza doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the disregard of Bergie's requests to keep the chat a little more grounded in reality, especially if the issue of bandwidth use is brought up as it was for the litigation thread.
It's just my take on the matter. Thanks again for your thoughts above and a little inside knowledge of your thought process as regards the fora, the members and the threads.
In the creosote post, you said, "But the personal and directed comments have no place here, for the record, and I won't let them pass."
Sometimes comments become personal and directed because one needs to respond to something that one specific person has said. Even if it is done with a little pointed sarcasm, I don't see that kind of personal response as a personal or ad hominem attack.
I agree that debates can sometimes shift from being fueled by the object of the debate to be motivated by the desire to keep the debate going. It then becomes a contest to achieve the longest running debate. But these things are self-correcting, so they run their course and the conversation changes. I don't understand the worry that somehow a thread will spin out of control and become a self-perpetuating macabre spectacle.
If the worry is that a thread is likely to turn into a macabre spectacle, why not give the thread the benefit of the doubt, by waiting to see if it does turn into a macabre spectacle before locking it? I sure did not see anything macabre about the creosote thread as far as it went.
Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent. Political correctness is a collective demand that all persons accept certain beliefs about a certain specific issues. By definition, one person being intransigent is not political correctness. However, the intolerance of one person's intransigence is a perfect example of political correctness.
This is because political correctness has also come to include intolerance of having strong opinions, regardless of what they are about. Having strong opinions is seen as a mark of judgmentalism, anther P.C. taboo. It is also very P.C. to believe that if an argument is occurring, the problem is the argument itself rather than the substance of the argument and the merit of the positions that comprise it. Therefore political correctness punishes all participants of an argument equally, regardless of their positions, by forcing an end to the argument.
Bucyrus wrote: Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent.
Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent.
Bucyrus, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, please let's get it right... I did not say (see above quote from you) that a person "is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion."...rather what I said was:
"What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind."...and that I still hold to that opinion.
There is a real difference in how you interpreted what I said, and what I REALLY said.
Thanks.
I think a lot of the back and forth has a lot to do with relative ages and stages of growth. The NY Times covered a meeting of "older folks" in Oklahoma. In it, moderates- middle of the roaders- complained that "we live in a country where people can no longer work together towards solving a problem- rather, the emphasis in problem solution seemed to be on 'getting the other guy'".
That's a perfect description of some of the threads I see, not only on this forum, but pretty much every other Net site I look at on a regular basis.
(The Times article jumped to the immediate conclusion that the Oklahoma folks were getting ready to form a third party, which is probably a WRONG assumption.)
Currently, we have 45,000 plus people who took the time to register as members. They are from different ages, backgrounds, cultures and countries. The only commonality we all share is that we are fascintated by large objects requiring a set of steel rails to travel. If we can accept that commonality, we will also accept that there will be differences of opinion, with more than a dash of pride thrown in.
There is value in passionate debate, but little value in scoring personal points. Some people are not going to be convinced by reason or fact. That's why we have folks out there posting stuff about shackle cars, GE vs. EMD, or bringing back steam locomotives. Nothing will derail a passionate debate on trying to solve a problem than what I call the "Jane, you ignorant slot" offense. If you have watched Saturday Night Live forever, there was a weekly Point/Counterpoint parody that was run between Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtain. During one of these debates, Ackroyd made the infamous statement I quoted above to lead off his argument. The result was nothing more than focus on how Jane Curtain reacted- rather than the subject being debated.
The same thing applies here. That's why we have moderators- to recognize when the conversation has gone beyond Patriots vs. Chargers and devolved into a bar brawl. The moderators job is to break up the fight.
How I deal with this is a bit of personal honesty- accepting that someone out there might just have fact and reason behind their argument, rather than personal feeling. Then it's a matter of just stepping back, or, better, acknowledging that they may be right.
eolafan wrote: the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter.
You're innocent ?
eolafan wrote:GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!
nanaimo73 wrote: eolafan wrote: the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter. You're innocent ? eolafan wrote:GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!
Yes, I believe I am and I also believe you would agree if you knew all the facts. Please don't ask as I don't feel it would be at all ethical to be specific so let's let it drop right here, shall we?
I must admit the red quote shown is accurately attributed to me and it was posted in a moment of frustration and anger...so for it I apologize, but for the rest of what I said I do not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.