|
|
| Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her (531344) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 03:01:12 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 01:36:36 2007.  "No, she added "...of me" while I was talking after stating that I couldn't take pics, that she wouldn't move the train, and after she'd gotten out of the cab and was out in the car and the doorway reporting me on the radio." Dude, you're nitpicking to defend yourself. Oh? You were there? You saw what happened and can verify that I'm "nitpicking?" From your reaction and hers, it was clear she was pissed about something... Oh, sure, she seemed pretty upset about something. I think that's pretty obvious. The question is about whether or not she acted improperly. If she was pissed that I was about to take pics or vid through the railfan window, then that's her problem but I have every right to do it. If she's pissed that I took pictures of her, then she's mistaken, since I didn't. ...and that she told her "of me" later in the conversation just means she didn't articulate it well. Didn't articulate it well? Articulated it pretty damn poorly, I'd say! She said: "He's taking pictures of the tracks. That's something terrorists do," and told passengers that "rules and regulations" require her to wait for the cops. When I argued the point, she stated twice: "You can't take a picture," then added "...of me," once, briefly, after I gave her a copy of 1050.9(c). How, exactly, can you justify the claim that one briefly mentioned thing was actually the "poorly articulated" cause of the entire encounter? Once again, I'd just like to remind you that I was there, and you have pretty much nothing but a rough transcript of the footage of the incident, which starts well after the start of the encounter. Your first reaction when she came out of the cab upset should have been to put the camera away and talk to her non-defensively. She came out of the cab and said photography was not allowed. I said that it was. She proceeded to call over the radio, where everyone could hear, and insinuate that I was a "terrorist." Any suggestions for what I "should" have done that don't involve me being inconvenienced or giving up my right to take pictures? Be relaxed, apologize, kiss a little ass, be solicitous and charming and nice. I was as relaxed as I get, I had nothing to apologize for, and there's no way that I'm going to kiss any ass to be "allowed" to do something I have every right to do. "Charming" and "nice" are generally in short supply when I can only speak to someone for a couple seconds before she declares I'm a terrorist over the radio and in front of lots of people. Getting off the train and waiting for another is an option too. In theory, yes. Getting off, however, is an option that delays me, reinforces the T/O's belief that photography is illegal, reinforces the passengers' beliefs that photography is "suspicious" and should be reported, and may not help at all, since the T/O may very well have described me as a "terrorist" anyway. What you have to remember is if she's upset, the passegers' safety can be at issue, since she drives that 100 ton monster down the tracks, not you. If my taking videos, an activity which is specifically authorized by the law, makes her so upset that she can't operate safely, then she should not be a T/O. No one should be a T/O if the mere existence of railfans on their train causes them to operate unsafely. You might also look at it this way: How many times have you seen that scenery? Can't recall. How many times have you filmed it, or something like it? Zero. If you don't get to film it today, the world isn't going to end. No, but I'd have to go out of my way some other time, and this is well out of my way. There are probably quite a few things you really want to do which are out of your way, and if you were prevented from doing them when it was convenient, you wouldn't like it very much. You could even find something else to do, like something that has nothing to do with trains. Then come back tomorrow. I was out railfanning some distance from home, in a neighborhood through which I've never walked. Doing "something that has nothing to do with trains" and then "coming back tomorrow" would have entailed a long trip home or back to familiar territory (the means of my travel being uncertain, given her order to leave the train), followed by a long trip back the next day. Which was a Saturday. And the only reason to stop doing it then was because someone was illegally coercing me. If this happened to you, I'm sure you'd be less than happy to follow your own advice. I'm not saying she was right. No, but you're apparently saying that I should have acted on the assumption that she was. I'm saying you had options that can work better, but you're not practiced at using them. You haven't suggested any options that work better. You've suggested options that range from causing me inconvenience to demanding that I spend several hours on a Saturday doing something I had every right to do right there, all while causing further annoyance to all railfans in the future by implying, through my actions, that photography is illegal, suspicious, and/or "something that terrorists do." If I suggest that you get your drinking water from a well, your refusal to do as such is likely not because you're "not practiced at using" that method of getting water. Do you know what a lifecoach is? Yep. It's bullshit! Unfortunately, that Penn and Teller episode seems to have been pulled from YouTube, though, so I can't link to it. Maybe I should put it back up and then hand you a link. |
|
|
|