Convicted One Euclid Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see? Well, just in illustration, when you earlier posted " He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. " one of the other members here replied to you that evidently at least one person thought so,...I actually suspected they were talking about themself.
Euclid Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see?
Well, just in illustration, when you earlier posted " He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. " one of the other members here replied to you that evidently at least one person thought so,...I actually suspected they were talking about themself.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Here's a theory where it might be viewed as "malicious". JT states that he had a prior history with this conductor. Could it be that after the first incident, JT decided to mess with the conductor and just keep following him? After all, how much time is a local on NS really worth? It wasn't a rare locomotive or shortline that runs once a week.
EuclidIf malice is required, it must be knowable. Somebody merely stating that they feel like someone was treating them with malice does not establish that they were treated with malice. A lot of people take offense when none was intended. Nothing can be done about that.
Tell that to the people who now insist that the "OK" hand gesture is a symbol of hate.
YouTube Community Guidelines prohibit:
“Maliciously recording someone without their consent”
But they have other rules that may actually be the reason for removing the video. The malice rule may not have had anything to do with the discipline.
Convicted One Euclid Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see? Well, just in illustration, when you earlier posted " He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. " one of the other members here replied to you that evidently at least one person thought so,...I actually suspected they were talking about themself. But, more to the point, there are members here who clearly side with the conductor, and if provoking the outcome of the alleged conflict between the tuber and the conductor, in favor of that conductor,... requires that malice be established on the part of the tuber, then I believe these members will in fact see that malice....as part of their dedicated support of the conductor's cause. All from the comfort of their armchair, thousands of miles away.
But, more to the point, there are members here who clearly side with the conductor, and if provoking the outcome of the alleged conflict between the tuber and the conductor, in favor of that conductor,... requires that malice be established on the part of the tuber, then I believe these members will in fact see that malice....as part of their dedicated support of the conductor's cause.
All from the comfort of their armchair, thousands of miles away.
While you pose as the paragon of objectivity, nobody, not you, not Bucky, not Tree, not Zugmann, not Murphy nor I know, with any degree of certitude, whether anyone involved in the video had malice aforethought.
tree68This is something we see in the fire service on a regular basis. They're referred to as "keyboard incident commanders."
Thanks, I'm glad that someone see's the point that I'm getting at...I was starting to fear I may have experienced a stroke and had lost my compass....
Perception is a funny thing, and often rules the day, inspite of reality.
I frequently am vexxed when after making a vague or otherwise innocuous comment, some other person will read unintended meaning in my words, usually giving me credit for the most hostile possible interpretation you could possibly infer.
Really belaboring the point, but I wonder what kind of verification YouTube requires from people objecting to their likeness being in targeted content, that it is in fact themself in the video?
I mean can I just e-mail an objection in claiming I'm depicted in any video and get the video culled? Or what kind of verifiable proof of claim is required?
Convicted OneThe point I was trying to make with the "guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away" concept, is that to a motivated observer, often what they see is what they decide they want to see.
This is something we see in the fire service on a regular basis. They're referred to as "keyboard incident commanders."
Using a single point of observation (ie, one video), they are quick to comment on how the incident was being run incorrectly, how improper techniques were being used, etc.
While it may look like nothing is being done to combat a fire, in reality there may be a lot going on that the camera isn't seeing.
One such critique pointed out that "the" incident commander/fire chief was directing traffic when he should have been running the incident. Lost in the translation was that the firefighter in the white hat may have been assisting as mutual aid - the incident commander was elsewhere doing his job.
Another involved a firefighter taking pictures of an active scene. The assumption the KICs made was that he was free-lancing, out for a "joy ride" taking pictures, when, in fact, he was probably documenting the scene at the request of the incident commander, and/or may have been a fire investigator gathering evidence.
The camera only looks in one direction...
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...
Euclid Convicted One Euclid Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all. While I agree with you strictly on merit, the values of our society seem to increasingly be warped in favor of the nominal "victim". It matters not so much what you actually intended to say, for example, as does matter the motivated will of the self declared victim to construe an implied offense. Hand gestures, dog whistles, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how a guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away can KNOW what a guy's words were meant to say even better than the guy who said them. And yes, I believe that applies here to the assumption that malice was intended,. I have not seen any assumption here that malice was intended. YouTube may have beleived it was intended, but we don't know that because they offer no reason for taking down the video. In any case, I don't think that JT was acting with malice toward the Conductor. I have no way of knowing what the Conductor thought.
Convicted One Euclid Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all. While I agree with you strictly on merit, the values of our society seem to increasingly be warped in favor of the nominal "victim". It matters not so much what you actually intended to say, for example, as does matter the motivated will of the self declared victim to construe an implied offense. Hand gestures, dog whistles, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how a guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away can KNOW what a guy's words were meant to say even better than the guy who said them. And yes, I believe that applies here to the assumption that malice was intended,.
Euclid Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
While I agree with you strictly on merit, the values of our society seem to increasingly be warped in favor of the nominal "victim". It matters not so much what you actually intended to say, for example, as does matter the motivated will of the self declared victim to construe an implied offense. Hand gestures, dog whistles, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how a guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away can KNOW what a guy's words were meant to say even better than the guy who said them.
And yes, I believe that applies here to the assumption that malice was intended,.
I have not seen any assumption here that malice was intended. YouTube may have beleived it was intended, but we don't know that because they offer no reason for taking down the video. In any case, I don't think that JT was acting with malice toward the Conductor. I have no way of knowing what the Conductor thought.
zugmann I want to know how to get on the take? No railfan ever offered me money to yell at them. C'mon guys, step it up!
I want to know how to get on the take? No railfan ever offered me money to yell at them. C'mon guys, step it up!
Convicted One Euclid I have not seen any assumption here that malice was intended. You mean "here" as in -here on this forum-? Or "here" as in -here in this video-? The point I was trying to make with the "guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away" concept, is that to a motivated observer, often what they see is what they decide they want to see.
Euclid I have not seen any assumption here that malice was intended.
You mean "here" as in -here on this forum-? Or "here" as in -here in this video-?
The point I was trying to make with the "guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away" concept, is that to a motivated observer, often what they see is what they decide they want to see.
I mean here on this forum in this thread. I don't understand what you are getting at when you refer to "guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away", and people seeing what they want to see. I think that happens all the time, but I am just not sure what you are tying it to in relation to the discussion of JT filming the Conductor. Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see?
EuclidI have not seen any assumption here that malice was intended.
And if it's going to end bad, why not have some fun in the meantime?
I've thought the same thing a little differently for a long while, and even had to manufacture the fun when times looked grim.
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
rixflixWha' hoppened Zug? Rick
I got bored.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Sorry, I've taken parts in these discussions before and it never ends well. I'll pass. Wha' hoppened Zug? Rick
Sorry, I've taken parts in these discussions before and it never ends well.
I'll pass.
Wha' hoppened Zug?
Backshop Ulrich Well, I love BTO.. It's required...you're Canadian! I much prefer their predecessor, The Guess Who.
Ulrich Well, I love BTO..
Well, I love BTO..
It's required...you're Canadian! I much prefer their predecessor, The Guess Who.
A railfan is someone who likes trains because they're trains. We can try to explain it all we want but like many hobbies there doesn't have to be a logical reason behind our interest.
A foamer is someone who gets excited to the point of losing situational awareness, and in doing so allows themselves to fall into harm's way. Or they make themselves part of the 'action' and become a distraction or interference to the actual professionals who are at work.
Relatively few railfans are foamers, and not all foamers are railfans. Overly enthusiastic sports fans and wildlife photographers who get dangerously close to their chosen 'action' come to mind.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I believe he was referring mostly to foamers. Every hobby has them, but they stand out more in the railfan world.
Lithonia Operator BLS53 Anyone who observes any mundane day to day activity as a hobby has issues. This includes all modes of transportation. If it's that much an important part of your life, get a job in the industry. That's completely offensive to many people here. Lots of us like to watch trains. I don't do it a lot, but I thoroughly enjoy it. Sometimes I take photos. None of this indicates an "issue." I have many other interests. I play music, write songs, sing, and perform in public. I sail my sailboat up and down the Maine coast; most summers we do a month-long cruise. And I've sailed offshore. I passionately follow F1 and IndyCar auto racing. I follow politics. I paint. I have a beautiful wife of 48 years. We've fixed up a house built in 1785. We have lots of great friends. We travel, have been as far as the Greek islands; and many other European countries, including East Germany and Yugoslavia when they were still communist. I can't speak for others, but I'm sure the vast majority here are multi-faceted, interesting people. I did once work in the industry, briefly. I'm 71, and I doubt they want me back now. Besides being an amateur psychologist with an Illinois Central logo, what makes you so special that you feel entitled to typecast people you don't know?
BLS53 Anyone who observes any mundane day to day activity as a hobby has issues. This includes all modes of transportation. If it's that much an important part of your life, get a job in the industry.
Anyone who observes any mundane day to day activity as a hobby has issues. This includes all modes of transportation. If it's that much an important part of your life, get a job in the industry.
That's completely offensive to many people here.
Lots of us like to watch trains. I don't do it a lot, but I thoroughly enjoy it. Sometimes I take photos. None of this indicates an "issue."
I have many other interests. I play music, write songs, sing, and perform in public. I sail my sailboat up and down the Maine coast; most summers we do a month-long cruise. And I've sailed offshore. I passionately follow F1 and IndyCar auto racing. I follow politics. I paint. I have a beautiful wife of 48 years. We've fixed up a house built in 1785. We have lots of great friends. We travel, have been as far as the Greek islands; and many other European countries, including East Germany and Yugoslavia when they were still communist.
I can't speak for others, but I'm sure the vast majority here are multi-faceted, interesting people.
I did once work in the industry, briefly. I'm 71, and I doubt they want me back now.
Besides being an amateur psychologist with an Illinois Central logo, what makes you so special that you feel entitled to typecast people you don't know?
One, I also write songs and play music- we should meet up in Maine sometime during my family vacation there. But that's getting OT. I agree with what you say and I too was slightly offended by the previous statement. 208 people are subscribed to me on YouTube, and another 80 or so on my blog. Do all those people have an "issue"?
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
That's greatly insulting to many people here.
I have many other interests. I play music, write songs, sing, and perform in public. I sail my sailboat up and down the Maine coast; most summers we do a month-long cruise. And I've sailed offshore. We've restored three old sailboats. I passionately follow F1 and IndyCar auto racing. I follow politics. I paint. I have a beautiful wife of 48 years. We've fixed up a house built in 1785. We have lots of great friends. We travel, have been as far as the Greek islands; and many other European countries, including East Germany and Yugoslavia when they were still communist.
Still in training.
Ulrich BLS53 CMStPnP I don't know...... Some railfans are pretty creepy as far as social behavior and social skills are concerned. I would not want any to film me, especially today with the internet. Anyone who observes any mundane day to day activity as a hobby has issues. This includes all modes of transportation. If it's that much an important part of your life, get a job in the industry. What kind of issues? I prefer people who can find some delight in the mundane to the majority who sleepwalk through life without developing any kind of interest in anything other than overeating and porn.
BLS53 CMStPnP I don't know...... Some railfans are pretty creepy as far as social behavior and social skills are concerned. I would not want any to film me, especially today with the internet. Anyone who observes any mundane day to day activity as a hobby has issues. This includes all modes of transportation. If it's that much an important part of your life, get a job in the industry.
CMStPnP I don't know...... Some railfans are pretty creepy as far as social behavior and social skills are concerned. I would not want any to film me, especially today with the internet.
I don't know......
Some railfans are pretty creepy as far as social behavior and social skills are concerned. I would not want any to film me, especially today with the internet.
What kind of issues? I prefer people who can find some delight in the mundane to the majority who sleepwalk through life without developing any kind of interest in anything other than overeating and porn.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy Siding Lithonia Operator Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all. Euclid is correct. That formatted weird. You have me quoted in there somewhere, but not saying anything. End result is it looks like Euclid is agreeing with himself.
Lithonia Operator Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all. Euclid is correct.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously.
Community Guidelines prohibit:
He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously.
Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Euclid is correct.
That formatted weird. You have me quoted in there somewhere, but not saying anything. End result is it looks like Euclid is agreeing with himself.
Situation normal in so many ways
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.