Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
The first entry in this thread is a WikiPost. As such, it can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.
Historically speaking, trains are nearly always referred to as "she". But there is no right or wrong answer.
 
I mean there is some bad juju associated with using male pronouns for inanimate objects, especially when said objects are conveying people.

Case in point, The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald (the song and the actual wreck).

No coincidence that both the BC explosion and the shipwreck were caused by less than modern safety devices and practices, and both became catalysts for change in their respective spheres.
 
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: Mushroom and ..…
Oh, regarding the pronoun thing. I usually refer to American steam engines as females unless they have a male name and vice versa on British steam engines. Technically, where Balmoral Castle is based off of a British engine, I use male pronouns. It's confusing, but it's just how I do it. Didn't mean to cause a little stir.
 
Oh, regarding the pronoun thing. I usually refer to American steam engines as females unless they have a male name and vice versa on British steam engines. Technically, where Balmoral Castle is based off of a British engine, I use male pronouns. It's confusing, but it's just how I do it. Didn't mean to cause a little stir.


No worries, I was just curious since the standard for naming people movers tends to lean towards female. Thanks for clarifying!
 
Rode the Blue train tonight, twice all the way around actually. You could see the diffrence in the first passenger car and the last one as those were the two we rode. The last the speaker grills were dirty or rusty looking as the front car looked brand new. Paint on the first car looked great too, didnt look like it had 400 layers on it.
Then there was this family sitting behind us, the dad literally was holding the kid out the side of the train the whole way between festa and Caribou. He held him further so he could grab leaves as we past the roadway to the back of the Festhaus, then he was reaching out for the chain link fence by Invadr. Not once during this section even though we were in the last car so the attendant couldnt have missed it never said anything. When we got to Caribou they switched seats to the row in front of us but opposite side and he did the same thing so the kid could grab leaves off the bushes only this time an anouncemnet was made when we got to the Royal Palace to not grab the bushes.
And people wonder why and how kids get hurt doing something as simple as riding a train at Busch Gardens.
 
Hey... Maybe it's just me, but that's kinda creepy that you took a pic of people, including a minor, to post online?? Especially without them consenting to it?? Like what they're doing is 100% wrong, but like even if you censored their faces it comes across as creepy imo.

If there's an issue, then you prolly should have either said something to them, or said something to the employee, rather than taking their pic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
Consent is consent when it comes to making someone and their activity the central focus of your photo. Even if faces are hidden.

That said, blocking out faces does go a long way to (partially) remedy the issue. And I imagine we all have less sympathy for someone who is subjected to a creepshot while being an idiot.

I was most offended by the classic “dad finger” on the right edge of the photo. Even when time and opportunity are fleeting — know thy equipment!
 
It's also one of those things for me that while I will admit I've been that creep taking a pic of a stranger, when I didn't realize I was being creepy about it.

I've also been the focus of the shot too. And let me tell you it's 100% not fun to find a pic of you online that you didn't consent to while people are openly being negative about you. It's also not fun catching the person doing it while they're doing it and then having to deal with their denial that they did anything wrong, when you're minding your own business.

Even if the guy in the pic is wrong for what he's allowing the child to do, which he is and that is dangerous, just put yourself in his shoes. If you discovered that somebody had taken a creep shot of not only you but your child (or grandchild/niece/nephew), and posted it online to further the "hey look at these idiots", it's not a good look for anyone involved. Because yeah the man is doing wrong, but so is the person taking the pic.

Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the pic is censored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
Ok, the only reason I took the photo was because of the people on this site. Many times in my posts before ive been told that what I saw didnt really happen or I was making shit up. I posted about non members getting into member events, I was told even though I saw it that it didnt happen so now when I see unbelieveable things I guess I automatically feel like I need proof because of yall. Anyhow, I made some out loud comments about how stupid what they were doing was, probably why they changed seats. So as to not offend anyones feelings I will take the photo down, I still stand by taking it but I could give two craps less about them being shown in the photo because really they didnt care that they were disrupting others around them. Do you know how annoying it is to have someones arm flailing around out of the corner of your eye for the majority of the train ride and just be sitting there waiting to a elbow to the back of the head.
 
Status
The first entry in this thread is a WikiPost. As such, it can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad