Jayteeto - I hear you and I can see how the tone is going to dictate the response, which very often ends as name calling or alternatively someone can't help pulling the logbook challenge (where the ATPL with 10000's of straight and level hrs assumes that gives him all the gen).
In answering my original post I suppose the biggest factor is a number of recent accidents (outside of airliners) haven't involved crew members alone but also random members of the public going about their daily lives or passengers. These guys are going to have people that care for and loved them too. Typically in these cases the number of non-aviation people affected vastly outweighs the crew.
So maybe in some cases there will naturally be these people who may not genuinely know any better, arriving here for guidance from those that do? OR maybe there are those who do have experience in related events and don't simply trot out the "lets wait for the report" line.
The problem is the official reporting which actually doesn't seem to follow any defined format, neither in content or timescale. Take two on-going AAIB investigations of differing maturity. The Glasgow helicopter and the Hunter airshow accidents.
Great that the AAIB have its independence and huge reputation for accuracy and integrity, but none of those qualities are degraded by having a better structure. Glasgow - why not provide a date for an update or final report and the reasons for delay or snags? Shoreham - why not provide the detail of what was trying to be achieved and how what was flown matched that? If only to give some real language and understanding to the media writing about loop-the-loops and stunts.
Currently in both cases we have no idea when you might next get word and in interim those directly affected can feel nobody cares and for pilots meaningful debate/learning can get trampled upon, especially if it involved human factors. I'd argue that the timing is important both for the sincerity of remorse and also the learning.