Chugalug,
I find myself in something of a quandary here. On the one hand, I can fully understand the way in which you view the question, can see the logic of your analysis and must therfore respect your conclusion.
There is no reason to doubt that Cliff set up this Thread in 2008 with a very limited purpose in view: to enable those of us who went through pilot training between '39 and '45 to tell our stories of that training - and then bow out and give place to the next man. He therefore gave it a restrictive Title, which would limit it to the old-timers who qualified in its terms.
It must be remembered that six years ago, the war had ended 63 years before: a young man of 20 in '45 might well have completed flying training (at least to Wings stage), he would be 83 when Cliff opened the Thread. Gentlemen of that age were (and are) by no means uncommon. Cliff could reasonably expect that there would be a small, but significant number of old RAF pilots on the internet who would be attracted by this opportunity to tell the stories of their RAF training.
And so it proved - at first ! And then the Law of Unintended Consequencies stepped in. Comments and questions flowed onto the Thread. The tales of training led inevitably into What Came After (often still more enthralling than the training story); that produced yet more spin-offs; our Moderators must have hesitated.
Clearly the Thread was going out of control. Should they lower the boom and rule out all Posts except those which directly related to wartime flying training ?
But look at what was happening. Before their eyes was developing a true, vibrant Forum. It was proving intensely popular, and spreading its net wider. First other aircrew came in, then ground trades, sons and grandsons of veterans still living and whose stories they could relay or (sadly) derive only from their logbooks, notes and diaries, and remembered tales. And yet others with something to add !
The concept of what I call the "Crewroom in Cyberspace" was taking shape. It must have beena tricky decision for our Moderators. They decided to "let lt rip" - and the rest you know. Over the last eight pages of "Military Aircrew/Aviation", the Thread has never (
AFAIK) dropped below Page 1 or 2, it has the most numerous Posts and "hits" of all except "Caption Competition (which is a special case, anyway,
and the Thread has 213 "hits" per Post against 125 for "CapCom").
The Moderators must be congratulating themseves (and deserve our hearty congratulations) on a very wise choice indeed. Of course, there has throughout been a tenuous connection to the Title - maintained (as a "fig-leaf") in the form of always having a genuine WW2 brevet-gainer on board; our problem now is that these are running out and we cannot realistically hope for any more. So what to do ?
In my mind the choice is stark. Either the Thread has to be expanded to bring in the next generation of Pilots, or it must be closed down. Should this be a decision of the Old Brigade ? No, it should
not. I intend to approach PPRuNe Pop (if I can reach him) to examine (
but no more at this stage) the
possibility of amending the Title to read: "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII and the Cold War" (or something to that effect). Then I bow out - it's no longer my concern (although I'v enjoyed reading it, and been grateful for the chance to contribute to it).
In any case, we are being overtaken by events.
Fareastdriver has been warmly (and rightly) welcomed aboard for his wonderful Chinese stories.
Chugalug, I'm sure you have as valuable a store of memories as his, and you have every much as right as he to Post here. As we've told diffident new entrants so many times: "Come on in - the water's fine !"
Cliff's original intention (to my mind) is no longer relevant. Circumstances alter cases.
He could afford to restrict
his "Crewroom" to the WWII brigade. We had them then. Now we don't.
Chugalug, old chap, your reticence does you credit - but many might regard it as quixotic. Please reconsider, and let us have your reminiscences ! Let the title of "our" Thread go to suit the content,
not the other way round.
Danny.
PS: Pity about your Pension. Strangely enough, I got caught by the small print in a very similar way (detail in Part II of my "Addendum" coming soon).
You're right - it
was Kenneth Williams !