Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
With reference to the unremarked steam loco minus 1/2 of its frame
depicted in a critique , Dennis comments-
The broadside photo of the steam loco is what makes it an honestFrom one narrow view, you are correct. Most editors do use the artful
3/4 view to hide such defects. (Is this deception by another name?)
However, from another more likely view IMHO, the telltale broadside
photo is more likely to expose to a knowledgeable reader the editor's
deficient knowledge of accuracy and attention to detail, not to
mention a condescending lack of respect for all readers- any or all of
which indeed may, or may not know better.
Spen Kellogg said it better than I. Critiques and reviews should be
sober efforts to evaluate and *educate* and improve the hobby. Where's
the received education or "improvement" when a reading audience is
shown a shiny new car ad with no explanation for a wheel or a fender
that is obviously missing?
The skating over of these great defects does not advance the hobby in
any way, especially when in this vacuum of silence serious defects are
soon judged to be "OK" by those who have not bothered to lift up the
rug; and then out of the blue these egregious errors are suddenly
perpetuated by molds planned to last for the next 20 years.
Conformance Warrants: To clarify, yes, my proposal would be to boldly
retire ASAP that entire Conformance program, NOT the relevant
Standards and RPs.
IMHO, just retiring the Conformance program alone would give a huge
and much needed lift to the NMRA's credibility, respect, and sense of
seriousness within the entire standards development community.
Denny S. Anspach MD