Return of Lionel Strang

Yes, he's back in Model Railroader again!

This month, his genius contribution is...

You can plug up tubes of caulk and Liquid Nails-type stuff with a drywall screw so it won't dry out!

Ta-da!

Honestly, this guy has been a laugingstock for years. Everything he writes about (breathlessly, I might add, as if he's discovered something incredible) is a simple concept that's been around for years.

I don't understand why MR continues to pay him.

 

Well...I need someone to remind me of all the stuff I've forgotten or never caught on to in the first place !!! Makes me wonder how I got this far ! :tb-wink: Thanks, Lionel ! Bob C.

 

Has he been away then? I hadn't noticed

I think you are being a bit hard; it's the nature of jounalism to try and talk everything up as new and exciting, even if it's not. Try watching the TV news sometime, or the weather forecast

And MR needs to cater for newcomers to the hobby as well as the old lags (in fact probably more for the new because the experienced ones often don't need/read MR anyway), so basic information does get recycled periodically. You'd be amazed at how much 'simple' stuff people just don't know, or forget ... :embarassed:

 

I agree with Midnight RR.

 

Well, ta-da. Since I don't use "Liquid Nails" or caulk - that's no use to me.

However, with almost 50 years in the hobby, and using CA glues since they became available, perhaps some small dry-wall screws could have saved me a few tubes(?) of same. It's something I didn't know and might be able to use.

 

Yes, I do agree that it is important for the trade publications of any subject to review the basics as if they were brand new. There was an article in Cosmo about the "Latest new! guaranteed to work technique", (irrelevant what the subject was). Um, what? Interesting to note this "new" technique was recorded in book over 2000 years ago. Still to the youth of today I am sure it many were very glad to be made aware of it and a large quantity that thought the article was ludicrous.


Edit: No longer relevant to the discussion.

 

In the world of Model Railroading, Strang has made himself a public figure. That means his writing is open to criticism.

As for the rest, okay, but you'd better never have an opinion on a film, a song, a book, or a restaurant meal unless you can produce a better film, song, book, or meal...right?

 

Simple.

Because I don't want to.

I have every right to criticize a professionally-published magazine (for which I pay, by the way) even if I don't contribute to it.

 

Like I said, if that's your attitude, then unless you "do" a film, song, book, or meal, you'd better not have an opinion about someone else's efforts in those endeavors.

Because if you don't, then you're just "griping."

I've never understood the idea that you're not allowed to express a negative opinion of a paid product unless you somehow validate your opinion by duplicating the effort, only better. I don't need to write an article for MR to have an opinion on one of its writers.

 

I will agree with Midnight. He ought to have the right to criticize. However, he doesn't have such rights in all places where they are not extended to him. This forum, judging by the few coaching posts he has received from people highly placed here, is not one of them.

He might find more fertile ground elsewhere.

I could be wrong, but that is what I have gleaned in the few responses thus far....

 

Folks-

We should NOT be getting into a First Amendment debate here. We should all remember that our members span the globe and that what one person views as a "right" may also be viewed by others, even in the US, as something short of appropriate for a forum.

 

Ok, let's not make a pond out of this piddling contest. Most authors (and editors) grow very used to criticism and occasional ridicule. I've published hundreds of articles, though only four on model railroading topics. A few have drawn harsh criticism and ridicule. I'm just glad to have a check. As an editor, I've found few articles that were truly new: we've been recycling topics for thousands of years.

Members of this forum have a right to criticize a published article. I think that a writer's personality should not be part of the critique process, and will edit this thread accordingly.

 

Dang. I've been using drywall screws for years to close tubes. Wonder if I could have made some $$$ off that...

 

You may have missed the boat on $$$ for closing tubes with screws. But I'm sure there are thousands of other totally obvious "tips" that MRR is willing to publish.



Here are some ideas:

• Using Ziplock bags to store model parts.
• Using tape to secure lights to building interiors
• Using a toothbrush to clean small parts

I better stop before I reveal too many of my totally unique and innovative techniques.

 

No Crandell, your right on target.

 

Midnight Railroader has every right to express his opinion. However, what I find distasteful is his need to denigrate Strang by calling him a "laughingstock". Was this necessary, Midnight Railroader? If you find his work obvious and of no help then say so. If you think Model Railroader could print more innovative and cutting edge techniques, then say so. But I think we all lose a little when we start to insult each other. Whether it's about someone who has had an article published or not, the ad hominem argument is always hollow.

 

What I find objectionable about the OP's sentiment is the overall tone and the meta-message. I read, "Hey, I hate Strange....anyone else back me up?" It seems to me to be in poor taste to slag someone who is not here to defend his stance or his image.

If I were to find Strang's message wanting, I would state the following:

"I see that L. Strang is once again included in (the publication), and this time he in discussing (whatever he is discussing). I believe I understand his premise, but I think that premise is flawed/invalid because (and you state your reason...not that you find Strang to be a thorn in your side, silly, uninformed, a liberal, leftist, right wing, a bachelor, married, gay...you know...all those irrelevant/wrong details)."

It seems that there must be an objection on the basis of relevance or in fact/validity. Is Strang wrong is what he says? No. Does MR already know what Strang is talking about? It would seem so. The conclusion that Strang is silly, however, is a non-sequitur, and it doubles as an ad hominem fallacy. Please, debate the merits of his statement or argument, don't attack the man.

If we all go back and read MR's opening statement, I think it needs some work in objectivity and in reason. MR's "failure to understand" should perhaps remain his burden, and not ours.

But, I am just one voice.