Old 06-19-2013, 01:12 AM   #76
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoydie17 View Post
Because there is no difference... you said it yourself when you tried to differentiate the two. By letter of the law they are both trespassing.
Get of your f'in high horse man...

Quote:
Even so, trespassing in and of itself isn't the issue here. I think that I've stated that numerous times because EVERYBODY has done it, either accidentally or intentionally. It's the proclamation that if you're putting yourself in a perceived "dangerous position" that a photo is rejectable on those grounds. . . .ok, fine. Let's run with that.

So go back through the database, for the last month, and I'll bet without trying very hard you can find several photos that you could personally interpret as being in a "dangerous position" as it relates to the railroad. Interesting, they're in the database... I wonder why they were accepted?
You have too much time on your hands

Quote:
I do not mean falling off a cliff, or out of a tree, but being stricken by dragging equipment, shifted load, or any one of hundreds of risks that a railroader faces every day. Many of those photos will NOT say anywhere in their caption data "taken with permission"... but they were still accepted. In the case of the OP's photo, yeah, I can also see that he was pretty close to the tracks. Even though the rejection reason in question was high sun, it was a screener that came out and said they would have rejected it for the "dangerous position" reasoning.
Everyone who has been trackside, legally or not could have at some point subjected themselves to a shifted load, or in the case of my super close call, a MOW train where a tie strap was sticking out of a gon and dragging and whipping around, missed me by a few feet. It's part of the warrior spirit that makes us railfans invincible. If I was a mere mortal, or "plane watcher", I would have been decapitated. Every day a lot of us are out there writing checks our body cant cash, one of these days we may pay with it in blood. Maybe our own. But it's a decision we make out of our own free will.

Quote:
So if screeners can assume that one guy took proper steps to ensure their safety in spite of their surroundings, why can't they assume that for everyone? What makes Chase, You or Travis different from Davis?
Maybe because they play favorites
Maybe because screeners and certain other people are above the rules
Maybe because they arent thinking about trespassing that day
Maybe because some of them dont care
Maybe because it's because they just ate a McDonalds Habanero Bacon Quarter Pounder and have some of the worst gas ever and just want to finish screening so they can take a quality dump

The truth is, we will never know, and most of here dont care, we deal with it. I suggest you do the same. All of probably have had some sort of legitimate gripe with the screeners and/or site owners, most of us just move deal with it.

Quote:
I'm an educated man, but I don't know how to more clearly illustrate the double-standard than that.
Since the beginning of time, there have been favorites, double standards, nepotism, whatever you want to call it. Just ask Abel.

If it REALLY bugs you that much, quit posting your pictures here, maybe even go a step further and remove your photos.

I think this is 100% manufactured outrage on your part.

Last edited by troy12n; 06-19-2013 at 01:14 AM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:14 AM   #77
hoydie17
We Own The Night...
 
hoydie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 799
Send a message via AIM to hoydie17 Send a message via Yahoo to hoydie17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
And my whole point, which you continue to and are welcome to reject, is that represents a difference of consequence.
So, the penalty for standing in engine pits outside the yard office without permission of the railroad taking photos is going to be different than standing in the gauge of a yard track taking photos of the engines? (Yes, I'm giving you a hairy eyeball right now.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Because some screener doing 15-30 seconds per shot didn't see the danger in the position or deemed it to be within some (unstated, and varying across screeners) standard as to what that means. What's so hard about that to accept, different from your view as it is?
It's not hard to accept, it's hard to accept it as FAIR. Again, why is your picture of a switch stand in the middle of Hancock Yard any less dangerous than Davis standing on the middle of a bridge? If the screener can assume that you had permission to do so, then why can't they also assume Davis obtained the same permission? What's the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Not just "pretty close", in the middle of a girder bridge with nowhere to go. Safe only because track 2 was OOS. RP chooses (I presume), in this case, not to encourage people to go out in the middle of an active RR bridge to get a shot, or one screener would have in this particular case.
When did they close Hancock Yard? You mean to tell me that you might not be standing with your back to another track, within reach of a piece of shifted lumber, or an object that an exhausted crewmember left behind, that could knock you down? What if the handbrakes on a car weren't set tightly enough, and a car begins to roll without you taking notice while your face is buried in a viewfinder? Same questions one could be arguing about Davis standing on a bridge, the screener doesn't know if there was track inspector that told Davis, "Go ahead, track is out of service." Sure, it is unlikely, but in a world of ambiguity as you claim to live in, it certainly is plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Seems a laudable intent, no matter the degree of difficulty or inconsistency in enforcement generally. Sure, your view that this isn't RP's responsibility, and/or your view that a rule that is enforceable only with error and that's not acceptable, is valid, but so is RP's view otherwise. I see a difference of view here, not a clear error on the part of RP.
Didn't say it was an error, I said it's a bad policy, because it is next to impossible to enforce in a fair manner. How many times have you, and several members of these very forums lamented about how unfair (and unevenly) the acceptance standards are upheld?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
They choose to avoid the appearance of impropriety in a particular case, perhaps in a class of cases. They could do what you suggest, and they choose not to.
Good for them, and like any choices, they are open to criticism. I don't like Obamacare, but does that mean it's going away? Not likely, doesn't mean I'm not going to let my voice on the matter be heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
The "double-standard" to you seems to me to be instead a finer split of circumstances than you are comfortable with. I think you substantially miss-characterize it as a double standard. Or rather, I simply disagree with your view.
I think you're trying to diminish the argument by changing your position so subtly, that it prevents you from looking like you're stepping back from your originally inferred belief that there is some sort of difference between "track trespass" and "property trespass". You've since gone 180 degrees, and acknowledged that there is no difference.

A standard enforced for one, and not for another is a double-standard. It doesn't get any clearer than that. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but based on the PM's I'm getting about it here and on Facebook, I'd say that I'm far from the only person who's noticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I also wonder why you are so passionate about your views in this case. It's a website, for goodness sake, not an arbiter of moral certainly. That is what is so interesting to me, that is why I continue with this (if anyone was wondering).
Then again, I'm not the one who came out and said that a photo should be rejected merely for the APPEARANCE that a person was in a "dangerous position" when nobody can conclusively prove that the photographer was in a dangerous position. If he had railroad assistance to do so, where is the danger? Just because he didn't say he had railroad assistance, doesn't mean that he didn't have it. Davis has built up quite a list of friends who work the local railroads, especially CSX, and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that he did have a track inspector or foreman standing over his shoulder.

Chris Kilroy himself said that he accepts no responsibility for "stupid is, stupid does", so the argument about not wanting to encourage someone else from doing the same photo without permission is moot.
__________________
See my work on FLICKR: Night Stalker Photo Works on FLICKR

Or if you want to see my work here at RP.net? Click here.

"It's just a damn train son!"
hoydie17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:21 AM   #78
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

You probably would have had a heart attack if they accepted this, eh?

troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:28 AM   #79
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Maybe because it's because they just ate a McDonalds Habanero Bacon Quarter Pounder and have some of the worst gas ever and just want to finish screening so they can take a quality dump.


Funniest thing I've read this week.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 01:40 AM   #80
hoydie17
We Own The Night...
 
hoydie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 799
Send a message via AIM to hoydie17 Send a message via Yahoo to hoydie17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
You probably would have had a heart attack if they accepted this, eh?

You're a funny guy Troy.

But I'll give you your just desserts, why would I reject that photo for other than the technical nuances involved? For starters, bad cropping since you have allot of unnecessary riverbank on the left hand side, and bad motive, as in what was the point of uploading the photo in the first place?

Note that I didn't say what was the point of the photo in general? Who am I to question what your thought process was when taking the shot? That's your business, I would question what your motive was in uploading it to the website.

As for the trespassing piece? How do I know you don't have a railroad employee standing behind you? Or that you have all the necessary PPE (Personal Protective Equipiment) and a track authority from the dispatcher to be on the bridge? I don't, because I'm not going to ask. It's beyond the scope of a railroad photography website.

In any case, I'm done haggling... I've made my point several times, and now this is just getting boring.
__________________
See my work on FLICKR: Night Stalker Photo Works on FLICKR

Or if you want to see my work here at RP.net? Click here.

"It's just a damn train son!"

Last edited by hoydie17; 06-19-2013 at 01:57 AM.
hoydie17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 02:01 AM   #81
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoydie17 View Post
But I'll give you your just desserts, why would I reject that photo for other than the technical nuances involved? For starters, bad cropping since you have allot of unnecessary riverbank on the left hand side, and bad motive, as in what was the point of uploading the photo in the first place?
You seriously need to get a life if you just seriously spent effort critiquing that photo.

Quote:
Note that I didn't say what was the point of the photo in general? Who am I to question what your thought process was when taking the shot?
If you must know, I just missed a NS heritage unit's rare venture into the NRV, and could not take the burden of failure, and was walking out on the bridge to end it all. I had to take a picture to document my last moments. At the last minute, I heard a horn, and the familiar sound of an ultra rare CSX YN3 AC GEVO, and reconsidered it. I think I made the right choice.

Quote:
That's your business, I would question what your motive was in uploading it to the website.
You really think I submitted that? Joke's on you then...

Quote:
As for the trespassing piece? How do I know you don't have a railroad employee standing behind you? Or that you have all the necessary PPE (Personal Protective Equipiment) and a track authority from the dispatcher to be on the bridge? I don't, because I'm not going to ask. It's beyond the scope of a railroad photography website.
I dont need PPE or track authority because I am a railfan warrior, didnt you read my last post? Maybe one day you will ascend to my level and a wave of clarity and peace will flow through your every pore. But until that, you can continue to be a curmudgeon and the forum's self appointed trespassing police.

Last edited by troy12n; 06-19-2013 at 02:04 AM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 03:02 AM   #82
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I might post a response sometime, I might not. Just want to point out to Sean that I'm not even the one or one of the ones saying that the shot should get kicked. I'm just pushing back because I don't understand the passion and absolutism in your view. Your most recent post did not help, oh well.

And the notion that RP can be "unfair" in choosing not to accept certain types of shots, just because the determination of their relevant feature (photographer positioning relative to the RoW and permission) is fraught with error, that just seems weird to me. I don't differentiate that from RP's determination as to what constitutes a correct crop. Equally fraught with error, no? Equally unfair? RP owes us something different, in either respect? Huh?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 06:53 AM   #83
Insert_Name_Here
Member
 
Insert_Name_Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
This thread is useless without the best picture of railfan trespassing of all time...

Calling Bill... link it up for us!
Oh, you mean this?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 427087_10152017477245637_737216030_n.jpg (92.5 KB, 48 views)
Insert_Name_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 07:12 PM   #84
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Done some dumb things I'm not proud of in my life involving trespass... have never, ever... not once, stood in the gauge of a main line while taking a photo (or while distracted in any way, shape, or form).
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:43 PM   #85
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I'd like to offer some additional thoughts, but I'm not sure what to say... (unusual for me!).

If this "trespass" thing were taken to the absolute extreme, you could illuminate 90 percent or more of the shots from RP.net. Time to put my Nikon on eBay and start collecting stamps or something else...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:48 PM   #86
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
Done some dumb things I'm not proud of in my life involving trespass... have never, ever... not once, stood in the gauge of a main line while taking a photo (or while distracted in any way, shape, or form).
I took a photo from a signal once when I was 16 years old. I see I posted one of the shots back in 2006, but in the description I also note I stated what I used for my perch. I guess that statute of limitations expired on that little act of irresponsible picture-taking.

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 160107
Photograph © Ron Flanary


Like Charles, I never, ever took a shot while standing in the gauge of an active main line (maybe an unused siding or spur).
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 03:46 AM   #87
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I took a photo from a signal once when I was 16 years old.
Did someone mention a photo from a signal (bridge)?

Image © Drew Jacksich
PhotoID: 176529
Photograph © Drew Jacksich


Yeah, the statute of limitations was definitely expired on that one.

Another view of the signal bridge (taken from 40 feet up in a tree):

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 291872
Photograph © Jim Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.