N99, interesting points, but...
My first issue is the application of the word "bereave" which my dictionary defines as, "rob, disposess, leave desolate, deprive of a relation, wife, &c." As I said above surely none of us fail to regret the death of a fellow aviator, though why one should regret this over the death of a bricklayer or busdriver seems, as someone noted above a little like elitism. Even so, the definition of that word surely indicates the inappropriateness of "condolences for a bereavement" in the case of a stranger. Grief relates to the deep personal sense of loss one feels at the death of someone close. With all due respect I dispute the suggestion that you, I or anyone else feels a deep and personal sense of loss at the death of a person (fellow aviator or not) who is nor known to you. Please reconsider my statement re approaching stragers at a funeral and offering "condolences". You wouldn't dream of it, would you, even with your lack of interest in traditional behaviour and etiquette?
Sure, sometimes we do know the deceased in which case such sentiments are likely to be expressed, but I still feel it a bit ostentatious to post them on a public forum such as this. Unfortunately it is clear on most occasions when such postings are made that this is not so, and the "condolence" usually takes the form of a rather cheesy "RIP" style footnote, hence my possibly overstated "mawkish" remark which I do not, nonetheless, chose to retract.
And no, I am not "stuck in a time warp" as you so gratuitously suggest (see my remarks about hotheaded comment), I just have a traditional sense of decency and normality and am reluctant to rip up same for the sake of it. (You'll note I'm not a Blairist) Neither does that view make you "wrong" if you chose to disagree with it, it's just that it makes me uncomfortable, just as the recent fad for roadside shrines of flowers at accident sites does. It is simply the public display which sometimes appears overly theatrical - contrived is perhaps a beter word, that I object to. Perhaps its that in our non-religious society we have lost the ability, or the awareness of the traditional places for grief and the healing that follows it.
My objection to the moderator's action (inappropriate description really, when his actions seemed planned to inflame rather than moderate) was his statement that he had moved my post and started a new topic with it (without my say-so) in order that "people who objected to it could do so elsewhere". A partisan and thoroughly biased opinion that seems unworthy of a "moderator".
I have been most interested to see the generally neutral nature of most of the posts, and am indeed a little surprised that I have not taken more flak. I take that to be an indication that my views are not so very far from those of the majority. If I highlighted the posts of supporting views it seems a cheap shot to suggest this is somehow underhand, don't we all quote the posts of those who enhance our own views?
Over!