eolafan wrote: 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. 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.
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 see that I did misunderstand and mis-characterize what you said, and I'm sorry for that. I now see that you did not actually link P.C. with intrasigence, but rather, objected to both of them independently. When say you object to P.C., I would like to know what, if anything, in the creosote thread you considered to be P.C.
It's a valid point you raise, Dale, but I think we are trying to get this all behind us now. You see the same contradiction that I do. It's just that I'd like to take this elsewhere...with your help and permission, eolafan's, and everyone else's.
Bucyrus, you are of course correct....there's little point in any exchanges if we can't address pointedly what one person has said. Normally we quote, or use the person's name so that he/she understands the reply is directed to them. That's fine. I should have been more careful in my terms. I should have used the term "attacks"...as in personal and directed attacks.
I am also sensitive to the requirement to let a theme and subject get developed, to evolve naturally, and to yield a rich product for all who participate. Yet, there is little richness, or little of value, when the replies become acerbic or disrespectful because it makes the rest of us uneasy, and more likely to leave. So, what can we hope to gain in the way of richness when a thread's life is threatened by uninformed or abusive terms because onlookers are leaving in disgust and will decline to contribute what they can? Yelling at someone to get a life, or calling them "princess" as one newer member did in a thread not long ago, or telling someone to "butch up a bit" and other Grade 6 put-downs lend nothing of a redeemable nature to what the vast majority of readers here seek.
As for the political correctness and intransigence that you mention, it is not that a person has an intransigent approach or a strong opinion to which I object. It is that it is repeated ad nauseum, and that the tone in its repetition becomes abusive to the extent that when I privately ask the person to desist from using abusive terms, the person remains intransigent and ignores my off-line coaching. I cannot lock accounts; I haven't the authority. Eventually deleting posts becomes a lost cause....so I might as well stop the offensive behaviour by precluding it...I lock the thread, my final tactic, and the one I least favour.
If in a thread only one person is becoming loud and abusive, it is easy to send the person a no-nonsense warning off-line and to begin to delete or edit his posts. I can handle that. But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?
It's lonely over in this corner, you know?
-Crandell
One more thing, and I'll go away for a while....it's getting embarrassing all my posting here.
Leave the messy work to us....okay? If you would like to take some ownership of the forum, to provide it with some tightness and decorum from now on, maybe get a better sense of safety in it, use the "report abuse" links at the lower right of posts that you think need addressing for any number of reasons. Let us do our job. We'll take a look and act if it seems right, and we'll acknowledge your part in helping to keep the place clean and tidy.
You help to police this place by helping us, and we'll do the actual clean-up. Is that a deal?
selector wrote: But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?Crandell
But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?
Crandell
Well I am not sure what that obligation is since it seems to revolve around matters of tone and causing offense, which are quite subjective. The actual printed forum rules seem fairly objective, and the one that comes closest to being violated in the creosote thread is this one:
No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.
But even at that, the little personal tit-for-tat in the creosote thread pales compared to page after page of personal venom directed at morons who get killed while violating grade crossings. Why is that okay? Is it not counted as an ad hominem attack if the person being attacked is dead?
Bucyrus wrote: 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.
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.
selector wrote: It's a valid point you raise, Dale, but I think we are trying to get this all behind us now. You see the same contradiction that I do. It's just that I'd like to take this elsewhere...with your help and permission, eolafan's, and everyone else's.Bucyrus, you are of course correct....there's little point in any exchanges if we can't address pointedly what one person has said. Normally we quote, or use the person's name so that he/she understands the reply is directed to them. That's fine. I should have been more careful in my terms. I should have used the term "attacks"...as in personal and directed attacks.
And I appreciate how you have handled things. In that thread, an individual, who has an irresistable desire to post on threads that I post on, began posting with short, personally directed comments. He didn't get the response he wanted to the first one, so in the second one he completely fabricated an accusation that I referred to people that disagree with me as "morons." Completely false, but that's how he operates; if the truth doesn't work, make somethiing up. And he made that up.
When there was no response to that, he upped the ante, disagreeing with me on scientific grounds regarding stomach cancer. In the event that it was not clear as to his motive, he then went to the internet, gathered some fairly erroneous information, and then posted that, even though it was diametrically opposed to his first contention. And while you attempted, in your typical gentle fashion, to portray it as a concession, it was no such thing -- it was clearly a personalized attack for which he exhibited his usual carelessness, saying basically anything, whether it was factual or not, just to create a disagreement with me about ... something. He just happened, in that instance, to catch himself at his own factually false posting and it happened to be in public -- what else could he say?
He then began misusing data in what I consider a dishonest fashion -- selectively presenting one set of facts, while leaving out the important, indeed crucial, mitigating factors. And I readily concede, nothing gets me going more than outright dishonesty with facts and statistics. And particularly when he then conceded his whole purpose was not to examine the facts as available, but rather to use selected facts as necesssary to "prove" that the BN was "not at fault" even as he then tried to argue that he was not making any judgments about "fault" -- which was just an odd statement in any view.
While there may be an interesting spectacle in someone without any training or experience in any of the subject areas involved in the news item -- law, medicine, toxic waste, oncology, statistics -- deciding to undertake that he is going "prove" something conclusive about it, the reputation of the gentleman has been such that I could instantly see where the thread was going, and asked that it be locked. His final two posts before you locked pretty well confirmed where he was headed.
I put in some time on my comments on that thread, but I simply have no brook for people that choose to waste it for me. It was an interesting thread for a variety of reasons, and as I have said, I respect honest opinions; it's the dishonest ones that get me going -- and his came fully loaded with an announced agenda, cooking the facts as fast as he could to support it.
Solzrules, you had an interesting comment, but it was almost too big to get a handle on. Had the thread survived, I think we would have had an interesting discussion on it. On the other hand, I think you unfairly, and personally, attacked ATSF. While I doubt anyone that has never operated a train would try to tell a locomotive engineer how operating a train works, I think he was making the point that an awful lot of people sure try to offer their opinion on how the law works -- with about as much experience as they have operating a train, and offering their opinion on that. And I assure you, the law is more complicated than operating a train.
As I have mentioned off list, it has been, for four or five years now, the same four or five people that feel compelled to jump onto various threads typically without any particular expertise to offer, or even interest in the thread itself, but only because they didn't like the poster, and they run through these threads like a little bully pack. Futuremodal was a magnet for them; moths to a flame. Most of you know exactly who I am referring to.
I think the new approach is probably a better one; even if it suffers from the legacy of unrestrained cyberstalking that seemed to often characterize Trains forums. I frequently advocated that the poster, not the thread, needs to be moderated -- as it is often the good conversation that gets penalized, not the stalker, who then often achieves his purpose in shutting down a discussion he disagrees with, but cannot muster the reasonable argument to refute.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion, and thanks to all those who participated in a constructive manner. I have no doubt that, at the ATSF merger, BN looked carefully at the history of this plant and saw the problem, and made the appropriate financial adjustments. They knew this was coming years ago: they knew it had to be coming. BN is far too experienced in these matters to be caught by surprise on something like this and I can speak personally to the prodigous efforts that BN makes to identification and remediation in toxic waste situations. It is unfortunate that predecessor companies did not always exert the same efforts; but unfortunately, first of all, for the victims.
Santa Fe is a little more problematic. I don't know anything about the company or how they did things. I have to say I am extremely surprised by the sworn testimony of the railroad officials involved -- virtual concessions to the complaint allegations regarding negligence, and that is what convinced me -- the testimony of the company officers -- that the complaint filed is far from frivolous. However, the thread was also an object lesson in knee jerk reactions when railroads get sued by people and surely, if there is one, yet another lesson often learned that there are usually two sides to every story.
eolafan wrote: "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.
Speaking generally, reading for meaning here before going off on someone is a problem.
Sign me up, Jim. I can't stand political correctness at its apogee.
Bucyrus wrote: 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.
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.
Great points, Bucyrus. And now I'll add my thoughts, why I'm against political correctness.
In its most simple form, Political Correctness (PC) is a new generation's way of trashing the values of the previous (their parents) generation. It is an attempt that began in the 1980s to ban certain thoughts, ideals and words used by the generation that fought WW II -- to the point where people even spoke about making them crimininally illegal. People who were accused of not being PC were publicly and brutally ostracized by the social mob of the day.
PC is nothing more than an attempt to rein in freedom of choice and freedom of speech. The stated purpose of PC is to prevent people -- all people -- from being offended by ANYTHING. People who "aren't PC" are beaten into submission by the same social mob by being threatened with being labeled racist, sexist, unconventional, plus losing their jobs, their reputations, their status in the community, etc. By demanding every person become PC, the social mob is demanding all of us should please everyone all the time and behave like so many unopinionated fools. PC is a form of unnecessary control and restraint.
The more "PC" overall society becomes, special interest groups with personal agendas are forced to use higher-power microscopes to find things that they can claim offend them. Many predict the next arena to suffer the effects of PC is the clothing industry, an attempt to deny all choice in using garment styles as a form of self-expression. Intense social pressure will demand we all be dress exactly the same, a so that no one is offended, like they did in Orwellian times -- or in certain foreign countries.
PC also denies clear thinking. Those who demand PC at any cost seek to deny freedom of expression by foisting their selfishness and unrestrained morality on the rest of us. You think this generation's political correctness is restrictive, just wait until the next generation.
At its worst, political correctness is as intolerant as the very intolerance it strives to constrain.
Ooohh....the irony is delicious.....don't you think?
edbenton wrote:... Also just look at what happened to Don Imus.
You have me at a loss here, Ed....what is this about...or do we need to flesh it out?
Maybe it will suffice if you accept that the new user mods will try hard to respond to your timely reports of abuse/complaints in a timely manner. My pledge, on their behalfs, is that as soon as one of us logs on and sees the complaint in the forum that only the admin types can see (to which your observations go), we will read them and deal with them as expeditiously as possible. Note that in some really unusual or sticky instances, we may have to wait for Bergie to see it and tell us what he wants done. Normally we will address your complaint quickly....one way or the other.
.....It must be that I missed a happening on here along the line...Maybe Selector can update me a bit. What has changed with the way this forum is now being moderated....?
Quentin
Not familiar with the Don Imus incident? Selector, you need to get out more.
CBS Radio's Imus accused of being politically incorrect
Well...perhaps my place of residence leaves me out of much of this news. I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada. I don't watch much TV.
Dan
Modelcar wrote: .....It must be that I missed a happening on here along the line...Maybe Selector can update me a bit. What has changed with the way this forum is now being moderated....?
selector wrote: I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada.
North east ? I'm glad they tought us PPCLI types how to read a map.
nanaimo73 wrote: selector wrote: I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada. North east ? I'm glad they tought us PPCLI types how to read a map.
The only mass of land North EAST of Vancouver, I would call a "Continent".
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
....Selector:
Thanks for the input. I've just been wondering what all the fuss of back and forth has been about.
PS: Imus was my "must see" morning TV program too. Now, it's turned into Morning Joe....Can't get Imus on his new program. Neither radio or TV. Imus has been a crusty "different programer" but really doing a bunch of good in the background. Of course I liked his show too.
It's being "moderated" to the point of blandness and tediousness. It's become unexciting and monotonous. When it has gotten to the point of locking or deleting threads just because they are getting a bit "spirited", then the heart of the forum has been diminished.
Are so many of you so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate anyone with a different slant on things, or cannot tolerate a little 'real-world' type of discussion? It is becoming so saccharine around here that I might as well go to Disney World for the same type of formulated entertainment.
No insults. No arguments. No dissention. No way to really express how we feel about a particular subject. Just plain boring text, suitable for publishing in your average grade-school book. And heaven help the rest of us when the realization hits that the world does not owe them something. To see and learn that bit of wisdom, they will have to watch tv; tv: the great social educator, constantly presenting viewers with a such distorted resemblance of reality, and its sheeple sitting there passively absorbing all of its falsehoods.
I can't help but wonder just who these protectors (moderators) are protecting. And what, exactly, are they protecting them from?
And who will protect us from our "protectors"?
eolafan wrote:Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?
The issue lies, in my opinion, in the fact that most of the threads here deal with some level of speculation. Inherent within that style of debate is the lack of facts. Previous experiences (my basis for this opinion post) and similar situations provides the basis for some opinions, statistics for others, nothing for some. The list goes on, but they all share the common theme of being not a fact.
Experience is specific to the person and in many cases you may find conflicting experience. Statistics are nothing more than probabilities based on previous similar situations and always allow for the exception case. Opinions based on nothing, well obviously they can't contain fact except by accident.
The problem then rears its head when someone vehemently pursues their opinion using one of these bases. They dump words upon words and and never budge or even admit that there is a possibility that the opposing view could be correct, even if the opposing view is simply based in devil's advocacy. This problem is rampant in online forums, which is generally the reasoning behind banning religion and politics. I admit, especially on those two topics, I can be a mule.
The last resort of a losing debator is personal attacks. I find myself erasing many a response before posting after finding that it contains attacks that are not against the opposing opinion, but the one that holds the opinion. Whether or not they are true does not matter, the attack is irrelevant to the debate. Passive-aggressive attacks are more common than straight up flaming in my experience, but still amounts to the same thing.
On a related theme, misunderstanding and interpretations seem to be an issue. Nothing gets my goat more than someone telling me what I meant in a post. I suspect that there are just those out there that always look for hidden meanings or, going back to the original thought of the thread, look for ways to twist words to make the opposition look in the wrong. If you can refute what is written, then counter-point (or counter-counter-counter-point). If not, then find something in your own argument that can counter it. If the meaning is unclear, then ask for clarification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above opinions are unique to the poster and not to be attributed to any other member, moderator, staff, owner, or anyone else at all, ever, period. The end.
This forum has explained a lot to me, I often wondered when I posted a comment I would get some really strange reply(usually sarcastic or very pointed) then the comment would seem to veer off to a personal attack, It made me wonder if I was going nuts, then I felt as if I was being baited(and I was) I have kept my eye on this forum and one of these "snipers" has not responded to this forum (have any of you noticed a particular absence of certain people????) this forum has explained a lot to me and I'm on guard for these ***** Some replies above are of excellent quality and it's nice to see intelligent conversation and input and constructive information, If I have any (intelligent) comments to make that are MY opinion, I feel a little better writing them and welcome (intelligent) response in return. thanks
gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .
Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.
No. It's just you.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
How nice to see the wide oppinion that is spoken. Pogo seems to be getting into better company. I think?
PL
It's not an issue. I have had strong commentary regarding some of my postings...but I'm not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. At the end of the day I'm here for light hearted discussion with others who enjoy trains and maybe to learn something (which I have)...if you have opinions that differ from mine that's cool with me. About insults in posts...I usually consider the source and just let it go...or I respond in kind if a funny or clever response comes to mind... Relax..it's only cyberspace...it's not as if someone's in your face and shouting you down..
There seems to be allot of this going on in the forum. Deleting of post unanswered post, and the eternal debates & opinions. Opinions will very from form to form, some good , some bad.
The memeber that had started this thread did speak up about how things are going in the forums in his eyes. I, myself did not have to try to read between the lines to understand what he was saying, its simple if you really think about it. People have thoughts and ideas, and there are going to be opinions, but the opinions that read between the lines searching for a debate, with using capy and past as ammo, then show the other members what he is "really saying" in their own words not the posters. Well! What is that then I ask myself?
Good conversation shouldn't have to come from this. When a member ask a question to the members and others point out to him about his spelling, or the way he arranged his sentence, what does that have to do with the question? Or a poster puts up a picture of his scratch built structure and ask everyone what they think, then gets replies like; Looks Good, Great, Nice work, or love it! He is happy then right? Until a poster puts up a comment like; Boring, I would not have wasted my time, or I've seen better! What kind of opinion is that? It seems very rude to put it forward to the builder that way I think, and yes it is just a opinion, but it starts a war then that never ends it seems like, and the followers of the rude opinion seem to jump on the band wagon then to help drive the builders work into the ground. What ever happen to being nice I ask you?
Its easy to sit at a computer and cut someone up because it makes them feel good inside. I have had some of this happen and take it in stride. I have even been sent person messages by these type of members who just cannot seem to let it go, been called all kinds of names in these PM by them to, but I just delete them.
IMHO I think the forum has had a shift in its day to day posting, this goes back over a year ago when this was gaining speed again. Opinions will always differ, that is a fact of life. The good questions or post out there seem to be getting very little response because of the shift towards debating and opinions. I choose to stay out of these topics unless it calls for some kind of backing from other members when it gets out of hand. The word "idiot & moron" seem to be the word of choice for the members seeking arguements. There are seasoned vets, and new people to MR, so we need to think just a bit before we type. Opinions are good things to listen to, some are right, others are dead wrong.
Gentlemen:
A few years ago Mark Hemphill and I would engage I discussion on our favortie topics in the forum that preceeded this one. As the editor of the mag. (with all due respect to Bergie) he and I would from time to time say that enough had been spoken or should we not try to stay on topic. I aplaud many in the forum for keeping this tradition going and I look to being back with you soon.
PS: Lest I forget, respects to she known to the breatheren (and sisterine) as Kitty - PL
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.