Thanks, Tom. I should have said, "It looks like WE bacame both..."

Shame about deleting the latest RAF Club thread. I guess I'm a usual suspect too?

Smudge I'm sure there is some Philosophical name for the analysis you have just used there to counter the proposition. I have no idea what it is though:ooh: But I agree and identify with your thoughts wholeheartedly. You have highlighted the value of the ex service membership, how it actually enriches the forum and in turn how the forum benefits the Duffers, old, practice or otherwise. I recall the posting about the American Spitfire (Recce) pilot who was traced by someone who had a 35mm film of his crash landing during the War. That posting and the movie reduced me to tears, as have others which tell a similar story of the character of the men and women who have served and continue to serve their country in the forces. Likewise the wee boy who only in the last few days or so wore a red flight suit and got to see the Red Arrows. You are absolutely correct this place is priceless and long may it continue. The banner may say or imply currently serving but as the saying goes - rules, obedience, fools and wise men. I invoked that, guess as we all did, frequently throughout my service, so why break the habit! So I guess unless the EU introduce some rule that bans me from the site I'm gonna stay - i'll get the Daily Mail on my side;)

There I am no longer feeling sensitive or in a lonely place. I'm still not old either:E

So, Tom. You can take the man out of the Service, but you can't take the Service out of the man?

Yeah I thought the RAF Club thread was fine to be honest. Maybe Beagle was feeling sensitive and in a lonely place too!

In a funny kind of way the travails of the RAF Club are relevant to this post. The club has been forced to cast its membership net wider as the Service shrinks; you can't fault it for that. In the same way this forum needs the ex service, civil service, associated service, industrial partner, occasional spotter, random poster with mil aviation interest, and to keep us on our toes even the odd troll, WALT and wanabee. God Bless us, everyone (as a small urchin once said). ;)

Why bother?
 

Looking back at all the threads on this board, it's obvious that the title of the board and all the threads have had only a vague effect on what's posted.

It's a "social network" - people post what they want to; always have done.

Change the title - won't make any difference.

Create a new differently titled board - won't make any difference.

Why get worked up? Why bother?

It's only a web-site.

Rgds SOS

I still don't know whether or not to be pleased about being thought of as 'one of the usual suspects'. :confused:
Are you in the same mental whirl, TTN?

Definitely - you can see that in the eyes of the old guard each Nov, especially if you get them talking as you stand around the memorial. I was never the military cabbage type but I took it seriously, did my best, had a laugh along the way. I was ready to leave though and while I don't miss it, I'm happy to say it has left me a better person. You are of course right Courtney, you can't take the Service out of the man. They take away the pay though - boy do I miss that :)

Hell's teeth I'm celebrating it. And if I'm not on the list I wan't to know why not. Anyway, where is the list?


ps.

I'm considering submitting an FOI request to have the list disclosed.:ok:

So, anyone care to research the number of posts/posters here are serving and how many are not?

I agree about the Club thread, Tom. And it goes further than that. It's an issue that crosses that ficticious boundary between serving and ex. Exactly the sort of thing that belongs here.

I would also point out that even the old duffers sometimes choose to discuss current issues.

And another thing! How many threads would even get started if Coff weren't here?

Anyway, must dash. Meals on Wheels are here. Hope it's pie tonight. I love pie.

Tom #62,

Thanks for that. Occasionally I get to write what I think. Anyway, this forum is open to all of the Service operators and it would be interesting to hear how our Canadian, American and other allies feel on the subject, or is this just a "Small local difficulty" ? Whilst it still exists lets make it an open forum at least.

Smudge

PS. It's a shame that Beags binned his RAF Club Website thread. It started on web site presentation and was developing to being a useful guide to service facilities available currently in London. Surely of use to current servicemen as well as us oldies.

Careful with the Zimmer you now fly Courtney, remember you're now behind what's happening, not ahead of the game :E




..

Oh, thanks a bunch, Nutty. You woke me up and made me spill my hot chocolate. Hang on. That's not hot choc. It must be Tuesday. I love Tuesdays.

Me ... I've always been suspect since I could walk ... well that's what my Headmaster once said :suspect:

Now let's all have a (metaphorical ... It's not the Navy you know) hug and Carry On :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4cc9b359.jpg

Courtney ... "I'm the Threadstarter" ... Wasn't that a track released by the Prodigy in 1996 :cool:

Best ...

Coff.

I'm the self inflicted, mind detonator.
Yeah, I'm the one infected, twisted animator. :eek:

Blimey! No wonder we Brits can't succeed at procuring sensible defence equipment. Here we are, four pages already of learned discussion about the basic specification and we still aren't any nearer to agreeing how many legs the camel should have.

I think the reason for that, Gen, is that the vast majority of us are quite happy with the design of camel we already have. One leg at each corner seems to work pretty well.

Courtney,

Your idea of throwing open PPrune to the floor is a good one.

However, I fear most of the current serving proliteriat have either stopped using the site or are infrequent visitors, for many reasons.

Yes, I know......therefore it would be a very quiet place until the habit grew again. What a shame.

When I leave the military, ill probably spend more time looking at Flight Global, Shepard et al.... And have the occasional glance back to see how things are. Indeed.....glancing back will have no benefit for the future...just make me reminisce, which will be nice.

My personal view on those involved is this:

If you are any way involved.......stores, clerk, pilot, engineer...you are in. Isn't that what our HF training says?

The views expressed about this topic are a reflection of the current members....as it should be..

This however, speaks volumes about the "mil" thread.

IMHO

Can't see what the problem is. If serving personnel want to start a topic what's stopping them?

Either that or if you want to be really pedantic change the forum title to 'serving and ex'

Such changes/innovations - like many others - have been suggested before. But whether it's the subjects of threads or the status of those who contribute you might wish to restrict, how on earth would you enforce/police it?

And the devil is in the detail. Could a retired person - who might now work for an arms manufacturer - not contribute to a "current ops" thread. Contrariwise, would a serving person not be "allowed" to contribute to a "nostalgia" thread??

Some threads have a long life - like it or not. As an example, a quick look tells me that BEag's first contribution to the WEBER thread was in Apr 2006, when IIRC he was still serving. His latest was last night! Should he have removed himself at some time to coincide with retirement?

I have always liked the comparison of this forum with a good Happy Hour. Many people - serving and retired - many conversations from the erudite to the frankly silly. But the random conversations have one thing in common. You are not obliged to join any of them!

I might listen to the current ops conversation and be impressed by the young lads and ladettes just back from the "sandpit". I would certainly listen - as I hope the youngsters would - to the 90 year old Polish Hon Mem telling us real war stories. I probably wouldn't listen to conversations about pensions or march-outs! That's my choice

But all the conversations are in the same bar! So we have here a one stop shop for diverse "conversation" - and fun! Why change?