Accounting for Steam Locomotives (ex Flying Scotsman thread)

Welcome back, here's silly me thinking you'd left us.

 

The fact that not all his comments are actually offensive is no excuse for repeated baiting and ill- chosen sarcasm.

We are in danger of losing a most valuable contributor to this forum. He can be sharp, I've been at the receiving end once, but that is because of the academic rigour he brings to discussion.

This forum is a valuable source of information, record of events & photos/videos, as well as enjoyable bar-room discussion.

IMHO, it is diminished by the tone of recent contributions in this thread by yourself and RAB3L.
Questions can be asked without giving offence or provocation.

 

I agree with this.

But I think @S.A.C. Martin 's research although interesting is not that rigorous and that when he is asked reasonable questions, he is too often evasive. I am not by the way referring only to this recent spat with @RAB3L , but to discussions going back several years.

If you think my mildly mordant comments, which are intended humorously, to be out of place in a bar, then you should visit my local.

 

What's not true?

 

Enterprise said:
I entirely agree. Such an analysis plays to his strengths rather more than trying to extract data from an analogue record that cannot contain anything else worthwhile other than that already established.
Reply from S.A.C. Martin:
That really is a most ridiculous statement, and couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

So you are in fact saying some are personal swipes…! Thank you for the confirmation.

Please retract this as it simply isn’t true. I have fifteen years of records here to prove this.

Cite one example in the last fifteen years on this forum. I’ll wait. I always try and respond respectfully and with evidence/citations. I cannot say the same for all who post @ me.

Then you should have a body of evidence then.

It was a ridiculous statement. I did not personally attack the individual: I very much defended my character from an appalling accusation. That is my right to do so.

One is allowed to read the forum, Victor. I haven’t been banned.

 

For which you have my sincere apologies. I do not remember that in question, but if I was sharp, it was not intended. Nevertheless, you have my apologies for that.

Thank you, I appreciate these words greatly.

Gents, the whole personal/not personal/whatever stuff really should be put to one side. We’re five days into 2026. Life is too damn short.

For what it is worth looking back at this thread, did I need to repeat the “same old, same old” comment - probably not. I could have left it alone. I was exasperated by the original comment. It wasn’t necessary.

I do think this thread is - yet another - example of why I go away, leave the forum, and then even if trying to be helpful, I feel I have to go again based on the responses.

I’m not welcome here, really, from some members. And some members take delight in reminding me so.

@Big Al - maybe it’s time I drop you a line to ask you to remove my account and my threads from public view. No one needs the additional stress and quite frankly I do have better things I can do with my time now.

 

Can you tell me why that is a 'personal swipe'? Or is that the way you wish to interpret it? As you will have noticed (?) in the same comment, I was actually trying to be helpful. A frankly ludicrous comment. What is exactly wrong with being an only child? It's not exactly something that you can do much about, is it! For your information, only-children tend to have less developed skills of argumentation.

 

So you are saying that the two sentences mean the same? If that is the case, I won't waste my time, and your's, arguing with you.

 

I am saying the difference in meaning is so slight as not to stand the construction that was being put on it.

 

Can you tell me why this is sarcasm or is it that you just wish to interpret it in that way? I was actually attempting to be helpful. What exactly is wrong with being an only-child? It's not exactly something that you can do much about! Perhaps you (and others) are betraying your own prejudices?

 

You didn't look too hard, did you?

 

It's the relevance to the discussion that's in question. I read it as sarcastic, but also as unnecessary and gratuitous - not least because the stereotype is in my experience very misleading.

@S.A.C. Martin and I have had robust discussions in the past, on which we have disagreed profoundly and, to some extent, emotionally. I can't recall (and he may correct me) ever resorting to playing the man rather than the ball in our debates, or him doing so against me.

 

So to be clear - no, I don’t think you’ve done enough reading.

If you think the tone was off - fine - you have my apologies for that.

However I think you should be reading more broadly and not focusing on just one aspect of the overall story. Railways as a business are incredibly complex in terms of their interfaces and factors, but from a financial standpoint it is with reading quite simple to see where the business’ aims are.

 

I put it to you 35B that we - always - played the ball, rather than the man. Sometimes forcefully, for sure, and if you felt upset by anything I said: you have my sincere apologies for that.

Robust discussion with evidence and citations is good. That’s playing the ball. I have no issue with that.

 

It's very few members indeed. It would be a tragedy for the forum if we lost someone who contributes as much as you do to our common interest, just because of a provocative and unrepentent one or two who can't seem to see how they come over.

 

As a normally silent and reluctant observer of off-topic spats, I hope no-one will be offended if I make a quiet plea that this thread return to the topic of "Accounting for Steam Locomotives".

 

Hear hear!