Bachmann Deltic Review.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Guthrie" Newsgroups: uk.rec.models.rail Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 12:38 PM Subject: Re: Bachmann Deltic Review.

I have an irritating habit of calling a spade a spade whenever the need arises, and I have been known to be equally critical of some of my customers' opinions.

For your edification Steve Jones is not even a current member of Demod, let alone owner of the group

That's a matter of opinion. I certainly reposted Ian's original findings on the Deltic (I believe after asking his permission first) because I thought it was a worthy piece. It certainly was not done with the itention of it being used as an Aunt Sally. I've also posted pieces from Demod onto here. Once items are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright claims I don't see any problem with some free exchange of opinions.

John.

The postings are still on the server, all I did was go back along the tree. Quite easy really.

Not nit picking at all John. You made a factually incorrect statement which beggared belief. Your factually incorrect statement was aimed at me. All I did was point out that you were wrong and therefore your argument had no merit whatsoever.

Good point about the waste of time though. If you cannot make the effort to ensure that what you say is reasonably correct, then you are wating everyone's time and needlessly offending people.

It is rapidly becomming apparent from your own posts and a couple of recent ones from others that you are either afraid to criticise Mr Jones or alternatively are prepared to be his apologist no matter what. A bit sad really.

Jim Guthrie wrote ">

I think you are right here. To be honest I cannot blame him. All I find contentious is that he seeks to have a go at others without including his immediate circle of friends in his wrath.

Be interesting to see what happens with Demod. Do you think they will let me join :-)

John, what has any of this to do with you, other than the fact that you have identified yourself as the person who contacted SJ on behalf of several people.....not just myself. You stated quite clearly, and recently, that you were having nothing further to do with any of it.....

The two groups in question were, on each occasion, being run/moderated by Steve Jones and, as *John Smith* points out both clearly and categorically, why should you, personally feel the need to interfere in matters which relate to Steve Jones and not you.....you passed-on an e-mail, that's all and end of story.

**>>It would be churlish of course to point out *why* I'd made representation to Steve Jones on his behalf on this and on one previous occasion when his membership of two Yahoo groups (ModMod & Demod if I recall correctly) had been, let's say *interrupted*.

"John Smith" wrote

I'm sorry but they are *not* on mine (news.theplane.net) as I'm sure you're aware different newservers have different retention times. Theplanet seem to hold non-binary postings for a maximum of seven days. The earliest one currently still appearing on this thread, for example, is the one posted by "Ian" at 23.22 on 29/12/03.

I was simply referring to the comments you made a little earlier in this thread which stated:-

and my comments were based purely and simply on that.

I'm certainly believe that at times Steve uses terminology which is insensitive and appears to be uncalled for, but having seen samples of some of the inane personal attacks which have appeared in his email Inbox, it becomes easy to understand why he doesn't suffer fools gladly, and is one reason why in the past *some* people have been ejected from his former Yahoo groups and been blocked from his email Inbox.

This is not to say for one moment that I regarded Ian's original posting as anything other than interesting. I think he took the trouble to do a significant amount of analysis on the Bachmann *Deltic* and that is why I reposted his findings on demod. If the following comments which you have attributed to Steve Jones do indeed refer to this review by "Ian" (and I've no easy way of checking but accept what you say to be true)

then I personally dislike the way it was phrased and the inuendo. I think it could have been put more sensitively and would have received more credibility as a result. Equally so, I still maintain that your comments

is still a case of *kettle calling pan*.

John.

"Colin" wrote

categorically,

You're the one who chose to publish the contents of a private email which I sent to you, and which enclosed private comments from a third party.

John.

Typical, only reply to the parts which may fail to incriminate and avoid the issues.

You identified YOURSELF..... I didn't, nor would I have done. The contents were published for the reason(s) that so many have complained about....and neither you nor SJ have answered the questions asked, WHY????? You can't, between you, give me an honest and straight-forward answer.....WHY????? There is no answer, on behalf of the prosecution, which would stand-up in any Court in the land....the Defence rests.

I wish the new moderator well with his post. I just hope he, with all due respects, isn't of the type who likes to flick switches, move goal-posts and tell lies to suit himself whenever the mood may take him.

Colin.

Hooray! I think we are just about there. Well done that man.

That is your opinion and I fully understand why you think so. I think we will both disagree with each other on this point so let us agree to disagree. But I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from attacking myself unless you have attacked the originator of all the fun first for he is the true villain of the piece.

For those that also do not have access to the orig I don't normally comment on the more stupid posts on usenet, but this one is more incompetent than most and I suspect a hidden agenda. Bachmann employee? Or just somebody who now realises his verbose "review" rather embarassingly missed the models most obvious defects?

Utter rubbish. Are you too stupid to read what I've written? I

*specifically* direct people to try it themselves and to select appropriate photos - read it again, idiot. You've decided to allege that I've put my photo comparison on my site, whilst in reality I've compared dozens of photos, although obviously for copyright reasons I can't steal them and put them online. I chose instead to explain the technique so folk can see for themselves. The benefit of this is it's useful with other recent products such as the woeful Class 44.

Not really, the two photos are actually taken from very similar angles as far as the top of the nose is concerned - other parts of the image are of no relevance. As I've said, I can only put an image online for which I own copyright, and that's the closest I've got, but even looking at the thumbnails any *unbiased* observer can see a huge discrepancy - not one that you can explain away with any amount of spin. And talking of spin, try rotating my less than perfect prototype image until the bonnet top matches the model - we're talking scary angles!

Utter rubbish again, I'm afraid. Whilst that certainly is *one* valid tool in your arsenal, it is but one of many. If a model is correct it must be correct at all distances and from all angles, not just one. I've taken over

100 shots of the model from all sorts of angles and distances, using a variety of different lenses. In every case the model is seriously wrong when compared with a similar protoype shot. The model photo on my site was the single sample chosen for the simple reason the viewpoint compared to the bonnet top is similar to the real photo - it's deliberately not aligned with the top of the bonnet but with the same 'horizon' (or whatever the word should be) on the curve of the bonnet. The model has compound errors in it's basic shape, not just one.

You can't explain the profile error away no matter what perspective-based argument you use - the error is just too large. Your upper limit for any perspective error on that vertical line through the photo would be the slight angle of distortion introduced either at the bottom of the loco or the top of the nose grilles. Even if you factor in this maximum error it doesn't wipe out the error in the model's nose. Or have you discovered a new optical theory where the lens selectively distorts the top of the nose far more than the top of the grilles underneath and the bottom of the loco body far below? Perhaps they'll name it after you.

Works for you but not for me, eh? And rather conveniently can't quote your sources either...

Bullshit! It's out by a country mile and completely alters the character of the model.

Now how do you know that, I wonder? A vested interest here, perhaps?

Before putting my findings online the matter had been checked by an awful lot of people who seem to know an awful lot more about Deltics than you do. There was a phenomenal amount of discussion about the subject with a variety of knowledgable folk (including quite a few well-known 'names' within the hobby) all of whom quoted their sources. Strangely, you do not.

The Bachmann Deltic has a very badly modelled nose - this is already a well known fact and you're coming to the party too late to alter that, no matter how much you squirm. There are too many published works out there, too many photos, too many people that know what a Deltic looks like, I'm afraid. So come on, what are your sources? I'll give you a head start, if you like, and stick with my admittedly inadequate image

or even the similar - you can pick any half a dozen published images of your chosing. Put up or shut up.

Finally, although it's bad form to quote yourself, the line "Sit back and watch people trying to convince you it's correct, secure in the knowledge that they're talking complete and utter b*ll*cks..." was put there for a specific reason.....

-- Regards,

Steve Jones, Shropshire, England

My reply to a reply from JT may be somewhat more blunt than that from yourselves.....

Colin.

"Colin" wrote

I'm sorry Colin, but I responded to the bit that offended me - that you chose to publish comments from a private email, without checking with the sender (me) that it was ok to do so. That is contrary to accepted internet etiquette.

The reasons why you were booted firstly off ModMod and then moderated to

*read-only* on Demod are between you and the then group owner/moderator, and has absolutely nothing to do with me, except you invited me to contact Steve Jones on your behalf on the first occasion - because you told me he was not replying to your emails. I understand that was because he had added you to his blocked senders list.

John.

Methinks the Plonkfile approacheth!

-- If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you asked for not what you want

Nice to see you are capable of reasoned argument. Methinks you might be better in the file you suggest than I.

But it shouldn't have offended you as your name wasn't mentioned and it related to what Steve Jones did state, by e-mail, to another party....... I should be the person who is and has been offended.

I don't recall asking you or anybody else....I do remember that you said something to the effect that you would attempt to find-out what had happened. I appreciated your reply at the time.

The irresponsibility of words and/or actions does not state: "Booted Off"...... by your words, you are only trying to emphasise and condone the churlish actions of SJ and we can all add people to our *Blocked Senders* list as and when the mood suits, that's the cowards way-out of not having the responsibility of their actions. Strange how you always seem to want to get involved with any SJ retaliation but then say that it's nothing to do with you and try to back-out.....it's not just me saying that either, is it...??

With regards to your last sentence, I'm not asking you but have merely stated the facts in relation to the truth and your comments of defence in relation to yourself and/or Steve Jones. You may recall suggesting that a certain person's actions were those of a "Strange Guy".....to which I replied, "No, not strange but sad" ...sad that he could act, as moderator, in the manner in which he has, not just to me, but to other's too.

Colin.

At in news:3ff6f04d$0$7011$ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com, John Smith driveled:

You starting on me?

-- If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you asked for not what you want

Many of us have been at the hands of Mr Jones' somewhat heavy- handed treatment, myself included.

However, we should not forget (and this is in no way in his defence), he is not around now to "stand up for himself".

Cheers,

AK.

PS - He has just removed his 'photo site from the web- completely. Yet "electricnose" still functions, from which he still swipes and stabs... some things just don't change!!

retaliation

treatment, myself included.

John,

I'm not saying that you can't, but having the moderator restrict your posting ability wouldn't do much for your ability to express your views.

I had done a search through the members list of the group and hadn't found him, but I wasn't sure if he might have changed his user name.

I was referring to instances like "Moaning About New Models" which appeared some three or four weeks ago.

I can appreciate that you might be a friend of Steve Jones and that you feel obliged to defend him, but it would have been much better if he had defended his stance himself and not left it to you to (possibly) defend the indefensible.

It's interesting to note that in the concurrent discussions going on at the time about the Bachmann Deltic nose shape in this newsgroup and in DEMOD, it was this the subscribers to this newsgroup who actually produced data you could assess and discuss (like Ian's and Francis' detailed messages). Nothing similar appeared on DEMOD except when you posted Ian's message there, and that seemed to spark off Steve's appearance on this group with his (now) infamous message. You might have expected otherwise - where the specialist D&E mailing list would have generated such data.

Jim.

"Jim Guthrie" wrote

I don't disagree with some of what you say, but look back through the records of Demod and suss out where much of the learned comments on recent releases has come from.

It was the loss of a significant part of that font of knowledge & research which suggested to me that "Ian's" original posting would be a useful starting point to a discussion on Demod.

I know many people regarded Steve Jones as fanatical about the quality of new releases, but that was only because he genuinely wanted the UK market to drag itself into the 21st Century and produce models on a par with the North Americans and Europeans.

Is that two much to hope for when we are now being asked to pay up to GBP30.00 for a new OO-scale coach (with dodgy coupling and underscale wheels) and in some instances over GBP100.00 for model steam loco's?

I could answer some of your other points, but I'm afraid I've reached the point where I feel the whole exercise has become a severe waste of time. If anyone is intent on prolonging this matter further they can do it without me.

John.

Is there any possibility that further off-topic discussion within this thread could have the subject line changed to reflect it's content? Personally I'm more interested in reading something about Bachmann Deltics! Thank you.

John.