Pprune is well up to strength on this! Irrelevences galore.
Apologies for the thread drift.
MikeJ, that raises an interesting issue. However, please don’t take my comments here as a personal attack as I can assure you they’re not intended as such.
Frequently when a thread here broadens from the original post, there’s a queue of people ready to step in to criticise. But why, and for what purpose? Generally speaking, the broadening of a topic allows it to be more thoroughly explored and that, quite often, can be truly educational. Surely that’s a plus? In any event, doesn’t the ‘expanding discussion’ process merely follow normal real-life human intercourse … or are these forums (which in their entirety could be described as ‘irrelevances’ with about as much justification) supposed to create a virtual interplay that’s quite different from established social norms?
Closely related to this is the desire of posters here to close down threads that, presumably, espouse views that differ either from their own or from the accepted norm. A classic example in the last couple of days has been the ‘RT at the hold’ debate. Yes it got heated, and yes maybe one or more of the protagonists portrayed themselves as a cross between a playground bully and a foul-mouthed lout. But, close the thread down because some posters were questioning whether an ATCO’s views and CAP413 had considered all the possibilities? Why? Some of those doing the questioning combine powerful intellect with considerable flying experience. What is it that compels people to step in and attempt to ‘control’ those contributions? Indeed, in the case of the RT thread, what is it that motivated those people actually to PM BRL urging him to cull the thread?
Not normally one for psychology, yet on PPrune I’m increasingly finding these questions interesting!