Steve Otte was right to lock that thread on “federal dispatching.”
I propose a simple code of conduct: State any fact, pseudo-fact, or opinion. Just do not impugn others. If you think another person is wrong, or not even qualified to comment on a subject, you are within your rights to think that. But it serves no useful purpose to personally challenge, malign or otherwise confront another member.
In fact these attacks and snarky moments often have the opposite effect than intended anyway. One of the more opinionated posters recently remarked that I seem to know very little based upon how much I was following a particular issue. Now, this person has the right to think that, just as I had the right to think he is full of bull in those bodily parts where he is not full of himself. But I did not respond. What is gained by these pi$$ing contests? Nothing, that’s what. However, what it did result in is that I now have much less respect for the individual, and will value his opinions less, and more readily be wary of his supposed facts.
Please just say your piece about the subject. And let others say theirs. But do not engage others in a negative way, period. It’s simple.
That only works in a perfect world. As long as you have two different people, you’re going to have two different opinions on things. To say that I can type anything I want as being the truth and have you nobody question my “truth” causes problems.
Let’s say I post that steam locomotives are actually dragons, and that all modern locomotives use marshmallows for wheels. I’ve said it, therefore it must be true. If I repeat this nonsense over and over, eventually you’re going to lose patience and say something.
I’m happier if someone does challenge things so that I can learn more. It’s all in how that challenge is presented. If you say “No you dummy! Those wheels aren’t marshmallows!!!”, well, we’re headed to the sandbox to throw sand at each other. If you say “No, I think the wheels are really made out of peppermint patties”, then we’ve got a discussion going.
And asking me for my source ranks right up there with be the grammer police. (Yes- I know).
Well said. However, I realize this is not academia or a research forum. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely appropriate to ask the poster for a source for his assertion that the locomotive is a dragon: actual published source or just his opinion. Such is not a personal attack and should not be construed as such in the marketplace of ideas.
Again, it’s all in how it’s presented. “Sources?” usually comes off about as polite as “Oh yeah? Says who?”. A more informal approach that would encourage discussion over arguement would be something like “Where are you seeing that? Most articles I’ve read in Dragon Owner’s Digest magazine say that steam engines are really dragons”.
I worked with a guy how had way of suggesting that something was BS: “Well, I don’t know if that’s necessarily true…”. That got the point accross in a nice way without any fightin’ words.
I agree. There are those who seem to love to challenge something that has been written, but are loathe to actually contribute on the topic. As noted, “Source?” does often come across as more of a challenge than a request for more information.
Worse is telling someone they are essentially stupid, but not pointing out the error of their line of thought.
I missed the mentioned thread. Sounds like it got “interesting.”
It was my impression that the thread was heading for “Jane, you ignorant sl**” territory. If we can keep that sentiment in our heads and speak to a poster’s idea or opinion politely we’ll be OK. And maybe we won’t need a thread like this one.
One of the Chinese inscriptions on the Boone & Scenic Valley’s steam engine (Last one built at the Datong works.) translated reads something like, “The engine is like a dragon that bounds through the valley.”
I think it’s fine to disagree, say “I don’t see it that way. This is my opinion.” Or “what I’ve read runs counter to that.”
But what I’m against is even the slightest hint of insult to the other poster. It’s not necessary to characterize the individual in any way. All one needs to do is state one’s own view and leave it at that. One’s personal opinion of someone else has no place here. For example, there are people here whose politics run very different than my own. So I might have some vague impression/opinion of those folks regarding that one aspect. But that doesn’t mean we can’t talk trains without insulting each other.
I just don’t want the snark, the mud-slinging, and the insults to the intelligence, experience, education or knowledge-base of others.
Put another way: Sometime you just know you’re right. (For this example let’s assume your are actually objectively correct.) And you know the other guy is wrong. All you have to do is state what you know is right, and back it up if you can. But you do not need to point out in any personal way that the other fellow is wrong.
Honestly, there are folks on here that tend to rub me the wrong way sometimes. But