Funny History

smd4 posted:

Moonson posted:

And where exactly would you, OVERLANDFLYER, recommend going for "truth"? Which resources specifically ?

I'm serious in my inquiry, and am not trying to be argumentative, but practical.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/horses-pass/

Thank you, Steve, for the concrete, helpful answer.

FrankM

overlandflyer posted:

Moonson posted:

And where exactly would you, OVERLANDFLYER, recommend going for "truth"? Which resources specifically ?

I'm serious in my inquiry, and am not trying to be argumentative, but practical.

FrankM

when i wasassembling information on an early Empire Builder i tapped many different sources of information from books likethe PFM/ Woods text and even joining the GNRHS to purchase back issues of The Goat  for further dates, car names and data.  comparing this to the Wikipedia listing, i could see their mistake(s) and my correction even took that into consideration.

not that i really cared, but as i said, my changes lasted a day or two.

in other cases i have inserted either an alternate opinion based on published material or added a completely new entry (typically under the heading of Cultural References) and have often had those deleted, too.

as a writer i strive to choose my words carefully.  if you had read more carefully, you will note that the "truth" i am speaking of is only that dictated by narrow minds.

cheers...gary

Apparently, I was not clear in my request. Or perhaps, you did not read more carefully what I had written. I was asking for some practical suggestions of profound resources where one could go to search for facts, reliable information, and information upon which one could depend, legitimate enough to allow oneself to quote it elsewhere.  I wasn't interested in the machinations of your assembly of information on an early Empire Builder. It was the sources that interested me, sources that were legitimate enough for you to trust in your intellectual exercise.

Thanks, anyways, though, for the conversation.

FrankM

Budkole posted:....

 ...maybe try actual documents/books at your local the library.   Amazon has a great book selection.

Like OverlandFlyer paraphrased, google/web info/wiki is most often useless.  

Im still amazed at how many subject matter experts are made in just a few minutes with the almighty google search feature!  

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Books I have aplenty, a room full. I was hoping for some suggestions of Internet resources.

You have just regarded as useless resources you do not believe or accept as legitimate. That I have heard previously, but thank you for your input about them. Where else would - or do - you go for dependable information?

FrankM

Hot Water posted:

Well, you "toy train guys" may play your little "jokes" on the other forum, but generally more serious, technical, and accurate subjects are discussed here on the Real Trains Forum.

lolol

Hot Water posted:

david1 posted:

Guys, it was a joke, get over it. Can't we laugh anymore?

Dave

Well, you "toy train guys" may play your little "jokes" on the other forum, but generally more serious, technical, and accurate subjects are discussed here on the Real Trains Forum.

Well Hot Water it seems us "toy train guys" don't take anything serious according to you but taking somebody to task for a funny story he said was most likely not true that you think is inappropriate in the real trains forum is just picking nits. 

You didn't have to respond to it but you do tend to be over argumentative to people like me who may not have your depth of knowledge when it comes to real trains. Time for you and guys like you to grow up and realize we are all different and may know other things besides our toy trains.

Dave

FrankM - Wiki is reasonably accurate as long as the subject is technical and doesn't have to worry about ax grinders.  For example, the sections on statistical methods are well done and, as a statistician, I've found their pages a good starting point for those occasions where I've run into a reference to a method I've either not tried or not been aware of.  The same holds true for the pages on physics and chemistry.

  Another good source for information are the open access peer reviewed journals in almost any field.  The thing to bear in mind with articles from these journals is you have to have some sense of the kind of articles they accept.  For example, if the journal is one with an applied focus in areas which have seen a lot of research then there is a good chance that whatever you read is up to date and correct.  By "correct" I mean that the false positive rate for the papers is low. 

  On the other hand, if the journal is one that prints recent findings where the authors are just at the beginning of research in some area that hasn't been investigated then most likely the power of these papers is low (as it almost has to be because of time/money/effort issues) and the chances for false positives is high.  This isn't a shortcoming, rather it is a fact of the nature of initial investigations into almost anything, but it is something that needs to be remembered.

I'm not sure which I find funnier, the original post, or the reaction from that more serious, technical, and accurate fellow.

MartyE posted:

I'm not sure which I find funnier, the original post, or the reaction from that more serious, technical, and accurate fellow.

Marty, read the entire thread. There was more than one "fellow" that didn't find the story accurate, enlightening, historical or even "funny."

What's truly "funny" (read "strange")  is that some people apparently are unaware that this story has been floating around basically since the Internet came into existence.

smd4 posted:

MartyE posted:

I'm not sure which I find funnier, the original post, or the reaction from that more serious, technical, and accurate fellow.

Marty, read the entire thread. There was more than one "fellow" that didn't find the story accurate, enlightening, historical or even "funny."

What's truly "funny" (read "strange")  is that some people apparently are unaware that this story has been floating around basically since the Internet came into existence.

I did.  But the reaction was typical.  Whether funny or not the response was humorous.  But then again I didn't expect anything less.

MartyE posted:

smd4 posted:

MartyE posted:

I'm not sure which I find funnier, the original post, or the reaction from that more serious, technical, and accurate fellow.

Marty, read the entire thread. There was more than one "fellow" that didn't find the story accurate, enlightening, historical or even "funny."

What's truly "funny" (read "strange")  is that some people apparently are unaware that this story has been floating around basically since the Internet came into existence.

I did.  But the reaction was typical.  Whether funny or not the response was humorous.  But then again I didn't expect anything less.

I guess I'm wondering why you're picking on one "fellow," (and we all know who you mean), when there were others with similar reactions.

Probably because the other folks while reacted were less annoyed by it and did attempt to add to the post with some information.  I'll just move on.  I don't think it adds to the thread anymore than the "toy train guys" comment.  As stated in the original post "Might not be true, but a funny read." so I'll just move on and enjoy the thread.

Robert S. Butler posted:

FrankM - Wiki is reasonably accurate as long as the subject is technical and doesn't have to worry about ax grinders.  For example, thesections on statistical methods are well done and, as a statistician, I've foundtheir pages a good starting point for those occasions where I've run into a reference to a method I've either not tried or not been aware of.  The same holds true for the pages on physics and chemistry.

 Another good source for information are the open access peer reviewed journals in almost any field.  The thing to bear in mind with articles from these journals is you have tohave some sense of the kind of articles they accept.  For example,if the journal is one with an applied focus in areas which have seen a lot of research then there is a good chance that whatever you read is up to date and correct.  By "correct" I mean that the false positive rate for the papers is low. 

  On the other hand, if the journal is one that prints recent findings where the authors are just at the beginning of research in some area that hasn't been investigated then most likely the power of these papers is low (as it almost has to be because of time/money/effort issues) and the chances for false positives is high.  This isn't a shortcoming, rather it is a fact of the nature of initial investigations into almost anything, but it is something that needs to be remembered.

Thank you, so very much, Robert S. Butler, for the kindness of such a substantive, helpful, informative response. I much appreciate your kind assistance and focus on what I was requesting. I'll be reading your reply several more times and taking notes, that's for sure!

Respect and gratitude,   FrankM