02-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Selector Wrote:Russ, the last words in the opening statement were, "...maybe I'm too much of a purist." The inference, whether intended or not, is clear...unless one builds (an arbitrary, subjective, and as yet undefined) percentage of all that comes together to yield a functioning layout, the efforts of anyone not complying will fall short. They do not possess the "requisite" extent of "purity". It smacks purely of elitism. Elitism by definition means a setting apart. Setting apart, by definition, is exclusive. QED.
Words are important, and should not be bandied about carelessly when that is all any of us has by which to judge their intent and meaning. Those of us who have commented, as the invitation requested, have stated that we don't find fault with the article necessarily, pointing out that just because something is availed by paying someone else to provide it does not, and ought not, preclude anyone from participation in a hobby with many guises. Model Railroader Magazine presented yet another commercially produced layout. As far as I can tell, the heavy majority of all their layout articles feature commercial products, some more, some less. I won't dispute that it will not be more than interesting to the majority of readers, but people should still have an appreciation for what these outfits can do. Their product, after all, is made by mere mortals like the two of us. Whether a person gets paid to erect a layout or does it for their own pleasure or satisfaction is no different between the two "camps", really...none of us has a gun to our heads. Similarly, last I checked, there is no guideline from a source I would recognize as my judge saying that a person must build an entire layout, including rolling objects, from raw materials. There are gradients in several factors that come together in any human undertaking.
I have not set out to be contrary or obstructive, but the tenor of these types of judgemental, opinionated, threads is invariably divisive. It seems to get people to walk to either side of a line. The line, as I suggested a minute ago, is entirely arbitrary to my way of thinking. The line says those who have paid to have a layout should not be featured in a hobby magazine. Nonsense! Otherwise, who would pay for the subscriptions that would necessarily climb to $750 per year if nothing commercially produced could be featured? That would include advertising.
Once again, I reluctantly get dragged into these, truly knowing better, but still doing it of my own free will...which this hobby offers all of us as meets our needs and interests.
It was said a few posts back...if that type of article offends any one reader, they can take it up with the Corporation, send a letter, or just decline to read it. But the author of an opening remark about discomfort, and then seeking feedback, should be able to withstand contrary opinion, including observations that are relevant to the nature of the discussion. In that respect, I don't see how it has gone off topic at all.
Respectfully,
-Crandell
Words are also the means by which we attempt to express ourselves, without prior expectation of promise of absolute precision in the eye of the beholder.
"Reluctantly dragged into these"? No -Crandell - you came willingly.