Breaking news from the internet.

Mainline of course.... Andrew Barclay from Paddington, driven by a bear.

 

Just be very careful pronouncing the driver's name - bears can be very easily offended if you get it wrong like Lord Grantham seemed to!



(Seeing passing clips on TV can be very confusing too - couldn't quite work out why there as a FGW HST in Downton Abbey, where the nearest station I believe is Thirsk!)

Steven

 

I thought the Snigger in the woodpile had something to do with lighting up.

 

This Facebook buy/build group has regenerated more times than Dr Who, new build Dalek next I reckon.

 

Are they fighting for tank engine preservation?

 

You could argue that such schemes that have no hope and just waste time and irritate many do more harm to preservation than good, mention of a Mr Roberts and Asbestos being a good example.

 

What does more harm...

a Facebook page that no one sees - considering there is something of an obsession with Mr Reeder on here the fact that the page was going from August until today and no one noticed suggests he isn't getting a big audience.

Or the bitchy clique responses on these threads that will be read by people who may be interested in getting involved in the movement but will realise that if you are not part of the group you will just be laughed at behind your back.

Thought this forum was better than this but obviously not.....

 

I'm speaking more in general than specifically aimed at Mr Reeder, going back to my point about a Mr Roberts and asbestos, that's some pretty dangerous stuff in the wrong hands, people taking on tasks they are not qualified/suitable for can have all sorts of nasty repercussions.

Alternatively, if someone donates money in good faith to a J39 new build, never to be seen again, that may put them off donating to help restore a 28XX that actually exists by a group with a proven track record.

 

I think most of us are just worried, either that someone will foolishly donate where the money could have gone to a better cause, or just disappointed that the obvious enthusiasm isn't being channelled somewhere worthwhile.

 

But by publicising his page isn't everyone just perpetuating the problem. This topic has had c.900 views, I imagine c.90% then clicked on the Facebook page. Sudden spike in traffic, they decide there is interest in project and here we go again.

I do wonder if Mr Reeder sits at home and laughs at the froth he creates on here - or if he has any sense sets up an ad clicks system and waits!

 

I wholeheartedly agree with both of these posts.

The thing with the internet is that it has radically democratised communication. Now every Tom, Dick and Harriet has a potentially global audience for just a few seconds work. And it's the nature of that that an awful lot of chaff is spewed out.

The irony is that, now the Internet is so universal and there is so much chaff out there, it's proportionally harder for the nuggets of wheat to get noticed.

I have a very simple 'test'. If I question a scheme and the protagonist comes back with a sensible, informed and constructive answer, or is willing to enter into a measured debate, then I afford them the respect and support that they deserve.

However, if the response is to get defensive, to not attempt to answer the questions (thereby showing how little they've really thought the idea through), in some cases rude and, in many, to then stomp off the forum like a five year old without even attempting to justify the reasoning behind the latest big idea, then IMO frankly they deserve the short shrift they get.

The recent (and latest) Folkestone Harbour thread was a classic example, we were told that the poster was a 'real' preservationist yet, instead of working to win the sceptics over, he immediately defaulted to name calling and then ran away off the forum to sulk, without even attempting to answer the entirely reasonable questions being asked!

And this guy wants to be taken seriously?

And then of course, as mentioned by Sidmouth, you get the serial offenders who seem to think that in a few months everyone will have miraculously completely forgotten their last flurry of publicly-expressed fantasy and the whole cycle starts again.

Some may regard these people as harmless. However, in my view these people actively damage railway preservation, because they express their ludicrous plans loudly, often waste the time of public bodies with endless communication (stand up Alfred) about clearly unworkable plans and said bodies will only too readily tar all railway preservationists with the brush dipped in loony paint.

Someone later comes along with a viable scheme and their first reaction is "Oh no, not another one... Next?"

 

PMSL!

 

I think there is some mileage in the laughing at us theory. I can't really think why otherwise he would keep using the same name

 

I still don't buy that theory though, who'd enjoy watching people insult you and telling you how stupid you are?

 

Never underestimate how strange some people can be.

 

I don't, which is why I'm perfectly able to believe all this at face value!

 

There's always the possibility it was one person doing it to laugh at our responses.

(Some people say Alfred is John Titor).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

 

The queasiness I feel is that we don't actually know the metal state of the person(s?) putting these pages up. They could be having an elaborate hoax at our expense; equally they could have some kind of mental or psychological problem that causes them to keep doing the same illogical thing. In the circumstances, the endless threads on NP feel a bit like "laughing at the afflicted".

As for "do such FB pages cause any harm?": I suspect not really. Face it, how many people commenting on this thread would even have known about this page, had it not been given the oxygen of publicity here? I suspect precious few. So instead of a FB page that was probably viewed by about half a dozen of the originator's FaceBook friends, it has now been seen by hundreds of people. I think we would do better to ignore such proposals and let them die a natural death. Equally, (and assuming they all originate from the same hand), calls for the originator to "go and join a well-established local scheme" are clearly falling on deaf ears: that gets trotted out every time, and presumably never happens. Not much point in keeping on banging that drum.

So my feeling is that such pages are probably harmless; would certainly be harmless if we didn't keep discussing them at length; and without any of us having first-hand knowledge about the mental state of the person behind them, the dividing line between "having laugh" and "cyber-bullying" is a fine one.

Tom