I was reading the article “Rough Ride on the PRR” in the latest edition, and I was just wondering if Kalmbach really thinks that profanity enhances the quality of its product? The author clearly had a negative experience riding a pennsey passenger train from Fort Wayne to Chicago, but chose to elaborate on his need to complain in a manner that seems…“unprofessional” to say the least. (the “b” word)
I think youy are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I found nothing offensive in the issue.
What I find more offensive is having to click on the “Return to thread” button to get back to the forum. How about complaining about that stupid move!
The language used by the author’s brother served to really paint a vivid portrait of the guy. Seemed like quite a character! In this case I think it made sense to include. Just my $0.02.
–Reed
In this case I got the impression that big brother “Diet Smith” was exagerating and picking on his little brother, a PRR employee. He was quoting from the letter and used such to expose his brother playing the part of the “big time operator”. It was all in jest and not so harsh as to take offense.
Long Live Barney Fife.
I didn’t find the piece offensive…it was done in the vernacular and how people actually speak…there was nothing contrived. Compare that to TV and movies where scripts are written expressly to utilize vulgarities, euphamisims, and other profanities to tittilate and amuse, where the dialogue is forced, and the writers/procducers see how many times that can say certain words befor the censors cut them off. Note the newest word to be used this season (l***) and compare it to the “b***” word you argue about here which was the darling of dialogue just a few seasons ago; it is missing in place of the new word. Can’t wait til next TV season to see what the new transgressive word will be. The the l*** word will be forgotten. At least neither Classic Trains nor Trains are inventing new dialogue except to maybe stay away from how railroaders really talk…then you’d be very upset!
What about all the goobers who might complain “hey I (used to) let my kids read that magazine, but don’t want them picking up bad habits!!”? and stuff like that.
Would the magazine be content if we posted like that on their message boards?
You cannot hide from society and the social environment. I’ve know people who have moved from the city to the “country” to get away from whatever: music with lyrics, drugs being sold in the neighborhood, women and other undesirable people around the area. What they don’t realize is that you can’t hide from any of it. The drug dealers come out to the country to buy the stuff from your next door neighbor, women are women, men are men and either can be undesirable and it don’t matter where! If words scare us so much why do we have a language to communicate with? I work in offices, visit many other offices and businesses, walk streets of small towns and cities and even big cities; I watch TV, read newspapers and the internet and magazines, even have been known to take in a movie; I talk with so many people from so many different walks of life. In short, what is the use of hiding yourself or shielding others from what is real? It is totally unrealistic in this day and age. So if kids were to pick something up in the pages of these magazines they might know what others are saying in the real and open world. And what was in that article is nothing compared to what I’ve heard from men, women, and children for many years.
I hear what you’re saying, but I’ll be honest with you, as the parent of a six and three year old I would almost be relieved if the language in that article is the worst thing they read or hear in a given day. I’ve heard much worse from other kids their age out on the playground not to mention adults in public at stores and restaurants. I look forward to the day when they might want to read “daddy’s train books”.
–Reed
My two cents: If the forums and magazine are about equally appealing to a broad demographic, and if the forum rules are what they are for the reasons stated, why would/should the magazine be any different? And yet, at what point do you allow boys and girls to eavesdrop on adult language and adult subjects? We all get “polluted” in various ways as we go through life, some at a most tender age. What to do?
Crandell
The author, Mr. Ralph S. Podas, a World War II veteran! and his late wife Ann.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e390/MikeMacDonald/RSP.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e390/MikeMacDonald/RSP2.jpg
Mike
Shy of referring to a female dog, I think it’s kind of sad that people don’t find the word offensive. Do we really have to lower ourselves to the lowest level of language? We see stuff about gangs, rape, murder, child porn, and drugs everyday, should we accept those as the normal ways of life? Using the line of logic that “We see worse every day, so what’s the big deal” would mean that we have to take those as acceptable too. You can bleep your own words and people will know what you are saying when it’s a quote, Beyond that, if you can’t get a sentence out without profanity to explain something, then you really need lessons in the English (or any other) language. We’ve fallen into the habit of accepting every bit of slang and screwed up meaning for a word that it’s getting harder and harder to get a straight meaning out of a simple sentence or conversation. As to how kids talk, for most, the use of profanity is kind of the “forbidden fruit” they use the latest words that shock people until they no longer shock anybody, then those become commonplace and they search for the next big shocker. By saying it’s okay to talk that way you just encourage them to screw up the language and their education even more.
Just my three cents/sense worth.
Where does one draw the line? should we be able to post pictures here where rail cars have been defaced with grafitti depicting sexual or racist materials (why not, afterall, THEY ARE EVERYWHERE, etc)
I think that Selector is on the same wavelength I am here. If the Mag is going to set rules for the rest of us, then the same rules ought to be good enough for the master, as well.
I one is comfortable with his own morality, intellegence, and education and if one is comfortable with the morals, intellegence, and education passed on to offspring, if one is comfortable as to how one lives, who he knows and who knows him, then, what is there to be afraid of?
Should I not rely on my own sense of morality and propriety in not posting what I feel is offensive to me or my fellows? And should I not feel the same about the moral sense and propriety of those who are my fellows to do the same? And when either of the two exeeds the limits, he should be reminded of such, maybe repremanded where necessary, but certainly the thoughts and material should not be kept secret.
I first read this about 40 hours ago, right after it was first posted, and I just couldn’t form an opinion on this issue.
I read the article in question a few weeks ago, and really didn’t even pay any notice to the “profanity” used in the article. After the OP posted his objection, however, I went back and re-read the article.
As has been noted, the language in question was taken verbatim from a 63 year old letter. True, the author of the article could have omitted that brief portion of the letter or edited it by noting “expletive deleted”. Kalmbach could have chosen to do the same thing.
As Crandell pointed out, profane language is barred from this website, so consistency would dictate that the same language be barred from the magazine. However, having said that, I started a Conversation with myself as a test, and the B word was permitted although the D word (used several times in the article) was barred.
My first inclination was that this thread was much ado about nothing. But, after reflecting on it for two days, I am going to side with the Convicted One, the OP of this thread. As he queried, where does one draw the line? If I have a letter from my brother about railroading, and it is filled with worse profanities than the words in question here, would Kalmbach print it? Should Kalmbach print it? I think not.
I am by no means a prude. I can cuss with the best of them and sometimes do. But Classic Trains magazine is not an adult magazine per se. It can be read by kids and probably often is read by youngsters. If the author chooses not to use discretion, then the publisher should.
Rich
[quote user=“Convicted One”]
“Where does one draw the line? should we be able to post pictures here where rail cars have been defaced with grafitti depicting sexual or racist materials (why not, afterall, THEY ARE EVERYWHERE, etc)”
Sexual or racist material is a very different senario compared to language that today is even common place on prime time television. Lets just hope that in the future the magazine is consious of the concerns of its readers and does not cross a more critical line. If they do not set rules for forums or blogs such as this can you imagine how far some people will go? We have all seen it, offensive language and outright disrespect toward people, their profession, their hobby, and doing such without regard to what the forum is really all about.
Some people need to get a life. With all the bad things happening in the world today a grown man gets red-faced over a few unseemly words? Grow up.
Classic Trains, keep up the excellent work.
I read thge article a week or two ago, and honestly, I had forgotten that there was anything in there, that I wouldn’t say in front of my Mother-in-Law. There definitely was nothing in there that offended me so much that I was amazed it was in print, or that I felt compelled to complain to the publisher about. I Enjoyed the article, and it did not affect my opinion of the magazine at all.
Doug
This is only your second post in 4 1/2 years, and this is it?
I imagine that your first post was just as substantive as this one. LOL
Well actually the “b” word that was used was “bitching” which means complaining. AFAIK it’s not considered “profanity”?? It’s used pretty commonly in TV, movies and everyday life. In another part of the story he uses the common “s.o.b.” abbreviation instead of spelling out the “b” word you’re thinking of, rather than actually using it.
He uses “damn” several times, which has been in common use in primetime television for several decades, and for a long time before that in movies (at least back to 1939’s “Gone With the Wind”). It’s so common now that it’s not generally considered that big a deal. Even as far back as George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” it wasn’t one of the seven words.
Today, even Disney no longer follow’s Thumper’s advice that “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”! Or if you ‘can’t say anything in a nice way, don’t say it’. Today’s language both in common use as well as written or otherwise published, just isn’t the way it was 10 or more years ago. Language and society change in concert whether we like it or not. The part of the arguement being taken up here was fought years ago; the use of many terms in print, in moveis, TV, and music today are far beyond the simple words used in this article. We want to reverse so much in our society today, including language and that percieved to be offensive by definition. How practical is that in view of progress needed to move on. There may be more important things to deal with than a few words and their meanings.