Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

It's one thing to poke the fire but please remind yourself about who lit the fire.

And lets be honest with ourselves, the fire was lit with the clear intention that it would be poked. That was it's sole purpose.

A polemic?

 

A polemic (/pəˈlɛmɪk/) is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is called a polemicist.^[1] The word is derived from Ancient Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning 'warlike, hostile',^[1][2] from πόλεμος (polemos), meaning 'war'.^[3]

Polemics often concern issues in religion or politics. A polemic style of writing was common in Ancient Greece, as in the writings of the historian Polybius. Polemic again became common in medieval and early modern times. Since then, famous polemicists have included the satirist Jonathan Swift, Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy, the socialist philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the novelist George Orwell, the psycholinguist Noam Chomsky, the social critic Christopher Hitchens, the existential philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche, author of On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic.

[grahame]

It's one thing to poke the fire but please remind yourself about who lit the fire.

And lets be honest with ourselves, the fire was lit with the clear intention that it would be poked. That was it's sole purpose.

 

I think you are missing the point I raise. It's not about who lit that fire but why is it that people respond so aggressively (and name call in a childish playground manner) even in response to the TW article where it was designed for thoughtful response rather than a flame war. Those type of responses are poking and fanning the fire. A calm and measure reply with a 'plausible counter-argument' (as TW mentioned earlier) would be a better approach IMO.

 

Besides, I wasn't talking specifically about the TW article but that in general and very often it seems that people overreact and get unpleasant on forums and social media. I have witnessed such fires (and quite recently on another forum) when someone helpfully and politely suggested that a kit of XYZ was available in reply to someone who posted that the couldn't find a RTR model of it. The thread got out of hand with many other pilling in to add their fuel to the fire. 

 

G 

[Bucoops]

I can imagine the conversation between the editor and Tony - 

 

"Tony, we need an article to gee up some interest and debate in the hobby. Do you think you can rustle something up?"

 

"Hold my beer, this won't take long."

[t-b-g]

Yes, but the snag is that many of these people don’t want to do any constructive modelling, say they can’t, won’t and are not prepared to put in any time learning and developing modelling skills. For them railway modelling is not about trying to replicate the real railway and make things, but is more about un-packing boxes and playing. And that’s fair enough if they enjoy it.

 

For me the problem is how they unpleasantly round upon anyone who has the temerity to suggest that, when they moan that something they want is not available RTR, that they could build a kit of it that is available. Often, they denigrate and vilify those that do make things usually accompanied by unpleasant name calling like ‘rivet counter’, ‘purist’ and ‘elitist’ or, as I noted on that facebook thread something new to me, ‘grass blade counter’.  

 

And, of course, there is the round of excuses or reasons, often expressed aggressively, as to why they won’t do some constructive modelling, like a lack of time, inability, failing eyesight and so on. There are many people on this thread who use and modify RTR products in their efforts to build a model railway or as a short cut to achieving what they want, but generally they don’t cause a conflagration about the differences and flame people who don’t. Perhaps it’s best not to poke the fire.

 

G

 

The other side of that coin is that there may be people who are quite happy with a good old traditional "train set" approach to their hobby.

 

They don't complain. They don't whinge. They enjoy themselves. They are very possibly RM readers.

 

I haven't read the article and so I am basing this on what others have written about it but I am guessing that they have all been told that they are doing it all wrong!

 

As RBAGE rightly says, the comments were very probably intended to stir up a controversy and they have.

 

I actually think it quite sad that magazines and writers feel the need to deliberately poke a stick into the ribs of the bear and create some aggro in our rather gentle and usually calm hobby.

[RBAGE]

 

I think this reflects the situation perfectly.

 

Do you suppose that P4 modellers who scratch build all their stock look down on kit building modellers who run their kits on a 4mm narrow gauge railway.

The kit building narrow gauge modeller looks down on the RTR modeller because it "must" be more than just RTR.

The RTR modeller is the only one who is happy with what he is doing and "knows his place". 

[petrovich]

Perhaps we should be careful how we use this expression in future!

 

Chris

All my talks ( I give about four a month during various work phases) start with "Good morning / afternoon ladies, gentlemen, boys, girls and those who are not sure" have not had a complaint so far.........

[t-b-g]

 

I think this reflects the situation perfectly.

 

Do you suppose that P4 modellers who scratch build all their stock look down on kit building modellers who run their kits on a 4mm narrow gauge railway.

The kit building narrow gauge modeller looks down on the RTR modeller because it "must" be more than just RTR.

The RTR modeller is the only one who is happy with what he is doing and "knows his place". 

 

I hope some of us are happy in our model building, finer scale world but yes, that is quite apt!

[John Isherwood]

The other side of that coin is that there may be people who are quite happy with a good old traditional "train set" approach to their hobby.

 

 

... and good luck to them.

 

What winds up the 'active modellers' amongst us is when we get comments like 'Very nice - but I need one without painted axleboxes; when are Bachby going to release one'?

 

Or, 'Very nice, but in 190? they didn't have that lubricator on the running plate'.

 

If an 'active modeller' decides to model an obscure branchline with antedeluvian stock, it is accepted that some considerable kit-bashing / scratchbuilding will be necessary.

 

Yet 'non-active modellers' seem to think that they should be able to pick a non-mainstream era, and have Bachby provide suitable stock.

 

It is inevitable, and good business practice, that the manufacturers will choose subjects which will appeal to mainstream customers; it was ever thus. Only recently has a small body of 'non-modellers' sprung up who wish to 'non-model' the obscure, and yet complain that the trade doesn't support them.

 

That is why the scalpel-wielders amongst us occasionally loose patience!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[RBAGE]

I hope some of us are happy in our model building, finer scale world but yes, that is quite apt!

 

 

I scratch build where appropriate, kit build where necessary but have a large stock of ready to run because I haven't got time or ability to do everything. Consequently, I have absolutely no idea what category I fall into, nor do I wish to be categorised.

I'm happy with every aspect of modelling (some more than others). If I wasn't, I wouldn't do it.

What is unhelpful is when it is suggested that some part of the hobby must do more.

[grahame]

 

I think this reflects the situation perfectly.

 

Do you suppose that P4 modellers who scratch build all their stock look down on kit building modellers who run their kits on a 4mm narrow gauge railway.

The kit building narrow gauge modeller looks down on the RTR modeller because it "must" be more than just RTR.

The RTR modeller is the only one who is happy with what he is doing and "knows his place". 

 

I'm not so sure that I like the analogy that some people 'look down' on others in the hobby. And even more worrying is the trend for those in the defined lower levels to get unpleasant when others encourage and suggest how they can improve, have more products and move up with a constructive approach. If that is not for them then why bother to respond and get so aggressive? 

 

G.

[RBAGE]

I'm not so sure that I like the analogy that some people 'look down' on others in the hobby. And even more worrying is the trend for those in the defined lower levels to get unpleasant when others encourage and suggest how they can improve, have more products and move up with a constructive approach. If that is not for them then why bother to respond and get so aggressive? 

 

G.

Aggression is never justified but I am sure the article was written with the express intention of generating some emotion.

 

Unless I have completely misunderstood the situation and what is expected is a one sided approval of anything the author produces.

 

No, I expect the strategy was to get the juices going of everyone in the hobby and the expectation would have been to have responses from gushing approbation to downright hostility. That's Tony's MO.

[RBAGE]

PS. MO is not a reference to 'er indoors, the little woman, she who shall be obeyed.

[johnarcher]

Aggression is never justified but I am sure the article was written with the express intention of generating some emotion.

 

Unless I have completely misunderstood the situation and what is expected is a one sided approval of anything the author produces.

 

No, I expect the strategy was to get the juices going of everyone in the hobby and the expectation would have been to have responses from gushing approbation to downright hostility. That's Tony's MO.

I dare say the article was written with the intention of generating some debate, even argument, but that doesn't necessarily involve the sort of hostility that seems to have arisen (I haven't seen the discussions myself).

[Captain Kernow]

Having read the article last night, I can't personally find anything in it that offends me, nor do I disagree with anything Tony has said.

 

I don't see his comments as condemning those who wish to follow a 'non-finescale' approach, surely we are all different and have an equal right in this world to pursue our hobby as we wish, without treading on anyone else's toes.

 

There are literally so many different ways of undertaking this hobby, so many 'nuances', so many potential possibilities and permutations with regards to the degree of scratchbuilding, kit-building, RTR-modification, pure RTR or collecting and displaying.

[Captain Kernow]

I dare say the article was written with the intention of generating some debate, even argument, but that doesn't necessarily involve the sort of hostility that seems to have arisen (I haven't seen the discussions myself).

I quite agree. There's nothing wrong with debate or reasoned argument, but there's no place for hostility and the level of antagonism sometimes seen, no matter what the provocation.

 

It was Isaac Asimov who coined the expression (in his 'Foundation' series of novels, I believe), 'violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'.

[johnarcher]

Having read the article last night, I can't personally find anything in it that offends me, nor do I disagree with anything Tony has said.

 

I don't see his comments as condemning those who wish to follow a 'non-finescale' approach, surely we are all different and have an equal right in this world to pursue our hobby as we wish, without treading on anyone else's toes.

 

There are literally so many different ways of undertaking this hobby, so many 'nuances', so many potential possibilities and permutations with regards to the degree of scratchbuilding, kit-building, RTR-modification, pure RTR or collecting and displaying.

Yes, I once got involved in a similar argument (on another modelling forum), generating all the 'elitist' nonsense mentioned here, for daring to say that, for me, models made by someone's care and skill  are more interesting than those bought, which seemed to be read as a suggestion that anyone who used only rtr/rtp should be immediately executed.

[RBAGE]

I quite agree. There's nothing wrong with debate or reasoned argument, but there's no place for hostility and the level of antagonism sometimes seen, no matter what the provocation.

 

It was Isaac Asimov who coined the expression (in his 'Foundation' series of novels, I believe), 'violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'.

Has there been hostility or antagonism?

Anyhow:

Oxford English Dictionary.

Hostility: Showing or feeling opposition or dislike.

Antagonism: Active hostility or opposition.

 

Nothing wrong with showing opposition or dislike. Why have you then linked this to violence?

To take your logic a step further, some might assume that because you have made this link, you are suggesting that those who show opposition or dislike of anything on this topic are incompetent.

 

See how easy it is to misinterpret words to suggest that those who don't agree with you are unreasonable.

There's a lot of it about. 

[Craigw]

Has there been hostility or antagonism?

Anyhow:

Oxford English Dictionary.

Hostility: Showing or feeling opposition or dislike.

Antagonism: Active hostility or opposition.

 

Nothing wrong with showing opposition or dislike. Why have you then linked this to violence?

To take your logic a step further, some might assume that because you have made this link, you are suggesting that those who show opposition or dislike of anything on this topic are incompetent.

 

See how easy it is to misinterpret words to suggest that those who don't agree with you are unreasonable.

There's a lot of it about. 

 

 

Straws....clutching.......

 

Craig W

[t-b-g]

I don't have a lot of time for people who say things like "I can't build the layout I want because Hornby have only done the loco in a later livery, with the wrong chimney."

 

But the person who is happy with their layout, all RTR, on a 6x4 board?

 

I don't have a problem with that at all and in many ways, it takes me back to a simpler, easier time when the model railway was something I did with my Dad and a Hornby Dublo A4 on 2 carriages was more than adequate for our "express". The trainset where each circuit was called 5 miles and the only station became Doncaster, York or Darlington depending on how many times the train had gone round. It was great fun!

 

Now it has to be the Diagram XYZ modified with the extra toilet, as running on 23rd September 1957 or it is simply not good enough.

 

I wonder if some of us may just have lost something of the joy of the hobby along the way.

[Captain Kernow]

Has there been hostility or antagonism?

Anyhow:

Oxford English Dictionary.

Hostility: Showing or feeling opposition or dislike.

Antagonism: Active hostility or opposition.

 

Nothing wrong with showing opposition or dislike. Why have you then linked this to violence?

To take your logic a step further, some might assume that because you have made this link, you are suggesting that those who show opposition or dislike of anything on this topic are incompetent.

 

See how easy it is to misinterpret words to suggest that those who don't agree with you are unreasonable.

There's a lot of it about. 

Well, OK, let's consider this, then.

 

I haven't seen the comments on the Facebook group, because I don't 'do' Facebook, but my references to 'hostility' and 'antagonism' were intended to be taken as a general observation on the way discussion on 'contentious' topics on the internet can sometimes degenerate into hostility and antagonism. We've seen plenty of exactly that kind of thing on this very forum over the years and certainly enough to keep Andy Y and the Moderators busy and I doubt that there are many, who have been on RMWeb for any length of time, who would disagree with that.

 

My intention to illustrate the use of 'hostility' and 'antagonism' as a general observation is partly indicated by my use of the word 'sometimes' in that sentence.

 

My quotation from Isaac Asimov is not intended to convey that actual 'physical violence' would be involved. I did consider expanding on why I had used that quotation, which did (and still does) seem apposite to me, but I felt that folk would get the meaning and I didn't want to come across as patronising or condescending.

 

But, if you would like me to explain why I think the Asimov quotation has relevance, then I will happily do so.

 

Asimov was using it in a quasi-military and science fiction context, but with regard to the context of my post, the term 'violence' is intended to be a substitute for 'unreasonable and unnecessary hostility and antagonistic language' in an internet context.

 

The use of the term 'incompetent' does not have the meaning of incompetence in the field of modelling. It means that those who resort to 'violent language' (ie. antagonism, abusive expressions etc.) in these internet contexts do not have the competence to make their point in a more rational, measured way.

 

It further implies that such individuals may not even want to have a reasoned argument, possibly because they know that their viewpoint doesn't really stand up to rational scrutiny and so they would prefer, therefore, to bully and steamroller their viewpoint to those who don't agree with them.

 

I hope that this has explained why I used the Asimov quotation.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Captain Kernow

[RBAGE]

Well, OK, let's consider this, then.

 

I haven't seen the comments on the Facebook group, because I don't 'do' Facebook, but my references to 'hostility' and 'antagonism' were intended to be taken as a general observation on the way discussion on 'contentious' topics on the internet can sometimes degenerate into hostility and antagonism. We've seen plenty of exactly that kind of thing on this very forum over the years and certainly enough to keep Andy Y and the Moderators busy and I doubt that there are many, who have been on RMWeb for any length of time, who would disagree with that.

 

My intention to illustrate the use of 'hostility' and 'antagonism' as a general observation is partly indicated by my use of the word 'sometimes' in that sentence.

 

My quotation from Isaac Asimov is not intended to convey that actual 'physical violence' would be involved. I did consider expanding on why I had used that quotation, which did (and still does) seem apposite to me, but I felt that folk would get the meaning and I didn't want to come across as patronising or condescending.

 

But, if you would like me to explain why I think the Asimov quotation has relevance, then I will happily do so.

 

Asimov was using it in a quasi-military and science fiction context, but with regard to the context of my post, the term 'violence' is intended to be a substitute for 'unreasonable and unnecessary hostility and antagonistic language' in an internet context.

 

The use of the term 'incompetent' does not have the meaning of incompetence in the field of modelling. It means that those who resort to 'violent language' (ie. antagonism, abusive expressions etc.) in these internet contexts do not have the competence to make their point in a more rational, measured way.

 

It further implies that such individuals may not even want to have a reasoned argument, possibly because they know that their viewpoint doesn't really stand up to rational scrutiny and so they would prefer, therefore, to bully and steamroller their viewpoint to those who don't agree with them.

 

I hope that this has explained why I used the Asimov quotation.

I had hoped you would realise that I understood your intended meaning and also that I was simply demonstrating how easily it is to manipulate words and meanings (deliberately or otherwise).

I think in many cases, that's what is happening in the exchanges on this subject, here and elsewhere.

I have read some of the Farcebook comments and they are,frankly, dull and repetitive. 

I have read some of the RM article and I find it uninformative.

One good point raise in the article is that you should be sceptical of advice given by self proclaimed experts.

[Porcy Mane]

I had a quick glance at some of the comments..people need to get a life and do some modelling is all I would say...

 

Baz

 

I can imagine that people "over there" could be looking "over here" and making the identical statement.   

 

P

[t-b-g]

However did we manage to get all this stuff off our collective chests before RMWeb, Facebook and the internet?

 

There must have been so much pent up angst around.

 

Or perhaps we just got on with things in our own way and didn't let what others do bother us so much.

[Headstock]

 

Now it has to be the Diagram XYZ modified with the extra toilet, as running on 23rd September 1957 or it is simply not good enough.

 

I wonder if some of us may just have lost something of the joy of the hobby along the way.

 

It dosn't have to be anything of the sort, but if I personaly get joy from constructing Diagram XYZ modified with the extra toilet I shouldn't be critisised for it!

Edited January 12, 2019 by Headstock

[Headstock]

I would of liked to have posted some modelling today, I think that I may come back next week.