'Condolences' are not suitable fare for public display
These are all good, logical replies, and I agree with some of the points. However, if you don't happen to agree with people expressing sympathy etc that's fine, but what I objected to was the time and the place of these recent "spleen ventings".
This is a forum for ideas and opinion and rumour - BUT, when it comes to people losing their lives, a little bit of tact goes a long way. Sometimes it is what you don't say that makes the biggest difference.
This is a forum for ideas and opinion and rumour - BUT, when it comes to people losing their lives, a little bit of tact goes a long way. Sometimes it is what you don't say that makes the biggest difference.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London FIR
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First and foremost, I seem to have put myself into the firing line and if I have offended anyone, anyone at all, especially anyone related to those lost in accidents then please accept my sincere apologies.
As usual in posts that are viewed in haste and heat on this forun there is a large amount of bullshine written without due regard to previous posts, and some good common sense too.
As an example of common sense read irlandes' post above.
I thought I had made it perfectly plain I was not being callous and had made my feelings for fallen colleagues clear, but sadly it seems that the forum moderator in particular saw fit to disregard this and to highlight my post in a most disparaging way without due regard to the way we do bereavement in the cold bits of the Northern Hemisphere.
I can only think to remind PRuNers of the old quote about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
Heliport, this is "absolutely" your trainset.
Bravo Zulu.
Over?
:o :o :o
As usual in posts that are viewed in haste and heat on this forun there is a large amount of bullshine written without due regard to previous posts, and some good common sense too.
As an example of common sense read irlandes' post above.
I thought I had made it perfectly plain I was not being callous and had made my feelings for fallen colleagues clear, but sadly it seems that the forum moderator in particular saw fit to disregard this and to highlight my post in a most disparaging way without due regard to the way we do bereavement in the cold bits of the Northern Hemisphere.
I can only think to remind PRuNers of the old quote about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
Heliport, this is "absolutely" your trainset.
Bravo Zulu.
Over?
:o :o :o
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Forward Fuel Tank
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your Compass
Come on chaps, this may be the place but it certainly isn't the time. Whatever your "gripes" - "opinions" etc and PWolf, please don't shout, - could it be we are starting to drift a tad off track.
Heliport : May I suggest a "Condolences Book" placed as a separate Topic. Then those that want to could and those that don't needn't.
I personally feel that these "thirst for info" / speculative threads are not the place for such sentiment. Thoughts of "Oh and by the way" spring to mind.
Heliport : May I suggest a "Condolences Book" placed as a separate Topic. Then those that want to could and those that don't needn't.
I personally feel that these "thirst for info" / speculative threads are not the place for such sentiment. Thoughts of "Oh and by the way" spring to mind.
Last edited by motionlotion; 19th Jul 2002 at 11:55.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport.........
Perhaps a special sand box in the corner for the minority....
That leaves the normal member to remember colleagues, and express their sympathies as they see fit, without having to answer for their quite normal human expressions........
Perhaps a special sand box in the corner for the minority....
That leaves the normal member to remember colleagues, and express their sympathies as they see fit, without having to answer for their quite normal human expressions........
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dun Laoghaire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must take this opportunity to thank Hoverman and Notsoneutral99. Both of you in your infinite wisdom are of course correct. I am not yet a professional pilot (as it states quite clealy in my profile) and as such who am I to have the audacity to give my opinion on such a matter! It doesn't matter of course that I'm studying for my CPL or that I've made a lot of sacrifices to have the opportunity to study for my CPL. No, you're right, that doesn't make me one of your oh so special 'club'. It is perfectly acceptable of you to be disdainful of anybody who might threaten your narrow way of looking at things. And no, don't worry about misrepresenting me, or what I have previously posted, or giving it a neanderthal interpretation that only serves to rest credibility from your own simplistic readings of other peoples' genuinely well intentioned ideas. And it's perfectly alright to attack me personally instead of simply dealing sensibly and intelligently with the issues. I understand it's an emotive issue and as such I understand perfectly your emotive responses. And of course being an emotive issue it's pefectly alright to leave intellect on the sidelines. I mean, that's what we as humans are good at as you both so cleverly demonstrate, is it not? And thanks for making posting on this forum such a positive experience. I mean, you guys in such a few lines have really taught me so much. I am truly humbled and quite firmly put in my place. I will of course thing more than twice before posting in the future. Keep up the good work!
Irlandés
P.S. The irony of my 'emotive' response does not escape me.
Irlandés
P.S. The irony of my 'emotive' response does not escape me.
Last edited by Irlandés; 19th Jul 2002 at 12:17.
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry felt the need to shout.
..thats what you have to do to naughty children who squabble amongst themselves.
In my opinion thats whats happening and getting off the subject.
Sorry if you don't agree.
..thats what you have to do to naughty children who squabble amongst themselves.
In my opinion thats whats happening and getting off the subject.
Sorry if you don't agree.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman, you said - ".......I'm no republican, but 'the Queen sends condolences' has to be the worst argument for saying it's OK. And HM's not exactly the best advert for the helicopter industry - good thing her loyal subjects don't follow her example there or lots of us would be out of work!":o :o
It is reported that the Queen and DofE were in an S-76 on the evening of the incident, flying from London to Norfolk. The day afterwards they made a further flight, from Sandringham to Ipswich.
It is reported that the Queen and DofE were in an S-76 on the evening of the incident, flying from London to Norfolk. The day afterwards they made a further flight, from Sandringham to Ipswich.
Last edited by newswatcher; 19th Jul 2002 at 15:07.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
motionlotion,
Have no wish to sidetrack this thread, but understood that the mechanics - engines, drives etc. were not very different between a modified S-76A+, which I believe the Bristows was, and the QF S-76C+? Would most of the differences be in the interior fittings, plus some additional safety devices because it is used by HRH?
Have no wish to sidetrack this thread, but understood that the mechanics - engines, drives etc. were not very different between a modified S-76A+, which I believe the Bristows was, and the QF S-76C+? Would most of the differences be in the interior fittings, plus some additional safety devices because it is used by HRH?
Last edited by newswatcher; 19th Jul 2002 at 15:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London FIR
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CapT W,
Your understanding of the "lack of flak" seems to make you think your views are shared by most, Not me chum, as I have stated earlier on another post "get real" if we cannot as individual's make a comment as to the passing however it happens of a fellow aviator, racing driver, rugby player , cricket player or just an all round good egg of a man or woman, then this world is going to be populated by Tony Clones and people who care for nowt but themselves, look into the mirror, which one are you!
Your understanding of the "lack of flak" seems to make you think your views are shared by most, Not me chum, as I have stated earlier on another post "get real" if we cannot as individual's make a comment as to the passing however it happens of a fellow aviator, racing driver, rugby player , cricket player or just an all round good egg of a man or woman, then this world is going to be populated by Tony Clones and people who care for nowt but themselves, look into the mirror, which one are you!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I try to take the heat out of this.
Irlandes
You've misunderstood Hoverman's point. He didn't suggest that it was audacious of you or any other PPL to give your opinion on this matter. He didn't suggest that professional helicopter pilots belonged to some "oh so special 'club'." Nor was he disdainful of you.
He explained that professional helicopter pilots are a small sector of the industry, that they feel a bond or cameraderie with each other and, although it might seem illogical to people outside that community, when one of their number is killed in a flying accident, they identify with him and feel it personally even if they've never met him. Somebody else described it as 'kinship'.
Surely that's understandable? And not unreasonable?
He suspected you weren't a professional helicopter pilot because your views were so out of line with the 'norm'; the inference being if you were, you'd understand. I wonder if you'll hold the same views when you become a professional pilot and have spent a few years in the industry.
Hoverman wasn't rude to you. Shame you felt the need to be quite so rude in response.
newswatcher
The point was "HM's not exactly the best advert for the helicopter industry." I think you'll find if you speak to those in a position to know these things that the Queen doesn't like flying in helicopters. It's probably a tribute to the S-76 that HM has modified her views (slightly) in recent years, but she is still not keen on the idea and uses alternative transport whenever possible.
Capt Waffoo
I respect your absolute right not to express condolences when you feel they are inapprpriate, but still can't see why you disapprove of others doing so.
Perhaps the fault is mine, but I can't follow why the definition of 'bereave' indicates the inappropriateness of "condolences for a bereavement" in the case of a stranger? Those who choose to do so aren't grieving, they are merely expressing sympathy for those who have been left 'desolate', or have been 'deprived of a relation'?
Even though the pilot and his family may be 'strangers', many people clearly feel a bond through belonging to the same small sector of the industry.
If I may offer an answer to the question you've asked twice, I don't think it would be in the slightest inappropriate for someone to express condolences to a bereaved family who are strangers, saying something like: "I never worked with your husband/father, but I'm a helicopter pilot myself and I'd just like to say how sorry I was to hear about the accident and to express my sympathy to you in your loss. We all face the same dangers and we feel it when one of us loses his life flying." I think it would be a very odd bereaved family who considered that "inappropriate".
Your suggestion that it is "elitist" of professional helicopter pilots to feel more when they hear another professional has been killed in a flying accident than when they hear of the death of a bricklayer or busdriver is a terrible distortion of what people have said. It's nothing to do with elitism.
Is it so unreasonable of people to identify more with someone in their own sphere being killed doing the same job, than with (for example) someone in a completely different industry being killed - whether he's a worker on the shop floor or a captain of industry. Isn't simply a product of there being a bond? And identifying with someone in the same job being being killed whilst doing that same job?
"rather cheesy "RIP" style footnotes"
It's often difficult to find the right words to use on such occasions. Some people are better at expressing themselves than others. Aren't 'RIP style' condolences just a convenient, and universally understood, way of saying "I'm sorry this chap lost his life. I feel sorry for his family."?
(Edited to say I didn't realise how long this post had become until I saw it 'in print'. Lawyers do tend to go on a little once they start. Sorry.)
Irlandes
You've misunderstood Hoverman's point. He didn't suggest that it was audacious of you or any other PPL to give your opinion on this matter. He didn't suggest that professional helicopter pilots belonged to some "oh so special 'club'." Nor was he disdainful of you.
He explained that professional helicopter pilots are a small sector of the industry, that they feel a bond or cameraderie with each other and, although it might seem illogical to people outside that community, when one of their number is killed in a flying accident, they identify with him and feel it personally even if they've never met him. Somebody else described it as 'kinship'.
Surely that's understandable? And not unreasonable?
He suspected you weren't a professional helicopter pilot because your views were so out of line with the 'norm'; the inference being if you were, you'd understand. I wonder if you'll hold the same views when you become a professional pilot and have spent a few years in the industry.
Hoverman wasn't rude to you. Shame you felt the need to be quite so rude in response.
newswatcher
The point was "HM's not exactly the best advert for the helicopter industry." I think you'll find if you speak to those in a position to know these things that the Queen doesn't like flying in helicopters. It's probably a tribute to the S-76 that HM has modified her views (slightly) in recent years, but she is still not keen on the idea and uses alternative transport whenever possible.
Capt Waffoo
I respect your absolute right not to express condolences when you feel they are inapprpriate, but still can't see why you disapprove of others doing so.
Perhaps the fault is mine, but I can't follow why the definition of 'bereave' indicates the inappropriateness of "condolences for a bereavement" in the case of a stranger? Those who choose to do so aren't grieving, they are merely expressing sympathy for those who have been left 'desolate', or have been 'deprived of a relation'?
Even though the pilot and his family may be 'strangers', many people clearly feel a bond through belonging to the same small sector of the industry.
If I may offer an answer to the question you've asked twice, I don't think it would be in the slightest inappropriate for someone to express condolences to a bereaved family who are strangers, saying something like: "I never worked with your husband/father, but I'm a helicopter pilot myself and I'd just like to say how sorry I was to hear about the accident and to express my sympathy to you in your loss. We all face the same dangers and we feel it when one of us loses his life flying." I think it would be a very odd bereaved family who considered that "inappropriate".
Your suggestion that it is "elitist" of professional helicopter pilots to feel more when they hear another professional has been killed in a flying accident than when they hear of the death of a bricklayer or busdriver is a terrible distortion of what people have said. It's nothing to do with elitism.
Is it so unreasonable of people to identify more with someone in their own sphere being killed doing the same job, than with (for example) someone in a completely different industry being killed - whether he's a worker on the shop floor or a captain of industry. Isn't simply a product of there being a bond? And identifying with someone in the same job being being killed whilst doing that same job?
"rather cheesy "RIP" style footnotes"
It's often difficult to find the right words to use on such occasions. Some people are better at expressing themselves than others. Aren't 'RIP style' condolences just a convenient, and universally understood, way of saying "I'm sorry this chap lost his life. I feel sorry for his family."?
(Edited to say I didn't realise how long this post had become until I saw it 'in print'. Lawyers do tend to go on a little once they start. Sorry.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 19th Jul 2002 at 18:10.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capt waffoo wrote:
I've also noted that the moderator sometimes does this. And yes, it does sometimes seem rather intended to inflame. I guess that's the privilege one enjoys when one is empowered. Oh well. I guess I could go start my own rumor message board and be the dictat-..umm, moderator. Hmm, at least then I'd be able to prohibit Robbo drivers from coming aboard!
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've also noted that the moderator sometimes does this. And yes, it does sometimes seem rather intended to inflame. I guess that's the privilege one enjoys when one is empowered. Oh well. I guess I could go start my own rumor message board and be the dictat-..umm, moderator. Hmm, at least then I'd be able to prohibit Robbo drivers from coming aboard!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best you do then, flare. Last time I looked, Pprune wasn't a dictatorship. I believe the moderator was correct in moving the non-normal human responses to another thread. Sorry if you get bored with the way of the aviation game or maybe you have no understanding? Whatever.
It may appear to be a regular occurance but it still doesn't make it routine when one of our fellow aviators 'buys the farm'.
It may appear to be a regular occurance but it still doesn't make it routine when one of our fellow aviators 'buys the farm'.
Flying Lawyer,
Your post was very well put together as most of yours are. The paragraph, way down towards the bottom of the page, seemed to hit the mark. I read the paragraph to state you supported the concept of total strangers offering condolences to those who have suffered a loss. I support that completely. I also interpreted it to mean "in person", " face to face."..".toes to toes."...fashion. I also support that completely. Is that an accurate interpretation I arrived at?
Was that the message you wished to get across?
Is it also your personal opinion that impersonal, offerings of such condolences , in public forums, from anonymous sources, with the vague hope that some time in the future, some one might read them and be somehow comforted from that reading , is really a valid effort to comfort the bereaved next-of-kin?
Or.....is it somehow a well intentioned method of some anonymous individual to record the fact of some pour soul's passing through a tragic event and in some way salve the contributor's internal need.
Is it, in your view the correct thing to do socially, ethically, and morally, that is, to anonymously post a condolence message or would a more personal approach better meet the dictates of standards of etiquette, ethics, and morality.
The internet and computers have led us to have more contact with other people but at the same time , fosters a more impersonal method of communicating.
Is this debate we are having, more a debate on that , rather than who is right and who is wrong.....those like myself who are opposed to these anonymous offers and those who support them?
Should we all not take that famous step back, reconsider what we are saying, and determine if we have allowed ourselves to slide over to the impersonal and abandon the more correct and proper method of rendering condolences.
Your post was very well put together as most of yours are. The paragraph, way down towards the bottom of the page, seemed to hit the mark. I read the paragraph to state you supported the concept of total strangers offering condolences to those who have suffered a loss. I support that completely. I also interpreted it to mean "in person", " face to face."..".toes to toes."...fashion. I also support that completely. Is that an accurate interpretation I arrived at?
Was that the message you wished to get across?
Is it also your personal opinion that impersonal, offerings of such condolences , in public forums, from anonymous sources, with the vague hope that some time in the future, some one might read them and be somehow comforted from that reading , is really a valid effort to comfort the bereaved next-of-kin?
Or.....is it somehow a well intentioned method of some anonymous individual to record the fact of some pour soul's passing through a tragic event and in some way salve the contributor's internal need.
Is it, in your view the correct thing to do socially, ethically, and morally, that is, to anonymously post a condolence message or would a more personal approach better meet the dictates of standards of etiquette, ethics, and morality.
The internet and computers have led us to have more contact with other people but at the same time , fosters a more impersonal method of communicating.
Is this debate we are having, more a debate on that , rather than who is right and who is wrong.....those like myself who are opposed to these anonymous offers and those who support them?
Should we all not take that famous step back, reconsider what we are saying, and determine if we have allowed ourselves to slide over to the impersonal and abandon the more correct and proper method of rendering condolences.
Perhaps yet another perspective?
The internet is a relatively new form of interaction which is continuing to evolve accepted methods, norms, and etiquette of that type of communication. Whilst those norms are develping, there will always be a diverse view on the direction and magnitude of the changes.
An example: When I were a lad (
) we used to throw beer at people who were so rude that they answered, and then spoke, on their mobile 'phone near the bar. Nowadays, it is becomming the norm for your friend to interupt your conversation with them to answer and speak on his mobile.
The second point about this evolution of norms relates to the persistant point that it is such a "public display" that offends. If it WAS so public, surely we would all use our real names? I think the internet has allowed people to communicate with a large degree of privacy and intamacy, whilst also being able to communicate widely - something that just is not possible to achieve with our previous mass communication methods. So I am not convinced we can use our thoughts about the norms of traditional communication methods to apply to something so different (although those norms are the necessary starting point).
Lastly, we are skirting around the issue of "tribalisim". It is human nature to identify with a group of people, and to bring out the similarities within that group when referring to them. Rugby is a good example here. If you play for your school, you dislike all the other schools. Once you make the Combined Schools team, all those previously disliked people are in your group now, and collectively, you are against the other combined schools team. Then you make the Counties team, etc, etc, on to the National team where you dislike all the other national teams. Finally, to top it off, ALL rugby players can dislike the players of other sports (especially football which, as we all know, is for poofs
).
It is this tribalism we see expressed. It is not elitism. When we look at it in a wider perspective, they were helicopter pilots just like us. I am sure that even those fixed wing pilots will express sympathy too - for they can identify as aviators. I think the condolences are merely an expression of that connection/identification.
The internet is a relatively new form of interaction which is continuing to evolve accepted methods, norms, and etiquette of that type of communication. Whilst those norms are develping, there will always be a diverse view on the direction and magnitude of the changes.
An example: When I were a lad (
) we used to throw beer at people who were so rude that they answered, and then spoke, on their mobile 'phone near the bar. Nowadays, it is becomming the norm for your friend to interupt your conversation with them to answer and speak on his mobile.The second point about this evolution of norms relates to the persistant point that it is such a "public display" that offends. If it WAS so public, surely we would all use our real names? I think the internet has allowed people to communicate with a large degree of privacy and intamacy, whilst also being able to communicate widely - something that just is not possible to achieve with our previous mass communication methods. So I am not convinced we can use our thoughts about the norms of traditional communication methods to apply to something so different (although those norms are the necessary starting point).
Lastly, we are skirting around the issue of "tribalisim". It is human nature to identify with a group of people, and to bring out the similarities within that group when referring to them. Rugby is a good example here. If you play for your school, you dislike all the other schools. Once you make the Combined Schools team, all those previously disliked people are in your group now, and collectively, you are against the other combined schools team. Then you make the Counties team, etc, etc, on to the National team where you dislike all the other national teams. Finally, to top it off, ALL rugby players can dislike the players of other sports (especially football which, as we all know, is for poofs
).It is this tribalism we see expressed. It is not elitism. When we look at it in a wider perspective, they were helicopter pilots just like us. I am sure that even those fixed wing pilots will express sympathy too - for they can identify as aviators. I think the condolences are merely an expression of that connection/identification.
Helmet, very eloquent post. Nicely put.
To dumb it down a little (as Homer says), I think there are three groups of people in this forum:
1. Those that explicitly express their sympathy,
2. Those that don't and find it objectionable to do so, and
3. Those that don't explicitly express sympathy, but can understand the motivation behind such posts, and the value that it may have for other people involved.
No particuar "species" of poster is right (flying lawyer?); and to argue that one is, is akin to arguing for Hinduism against Shintoism - completely subjective and endless.
To dumb it down a little (as Homer says), I think there are three groups of people in this forum:
1. Those that explicitly express their sympathy,
2. Those that don't and find it objectionable to do so, and
3. Those that don't explicitly express sympathy, but can understand the motivation behind such posts, and the value that it may have for other people involved.
No particuar "species" of poster is right (flying lawyer?); and to argue that one is, is akin to arguing for Hinduism against Shintoism - completely subjective and endless.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada/around
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will add my 2 bits. I'll try to keep emotion out of it as much as possible.
So many leave anonymous condolences on the long threads about the most publicized crashes.
If you are truly that moved, a name would mean so much more.
It especially hits home as this week, for both the fatal accidents that are close to me.
Wade Pelly
So many leave anonymous condolences on the long threads about the most publicized crashes.
If you are truly that moved, a name would mean so much more.
It especially hits home as this week, for both the fatal accidents that are close to me.
Wade Pelly
Last edited by HeloTeacher; 21st Jul 2002 at 05:31.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The issue of condolences on the pprune site is compelling. I feel that we post condolences because we are all of the same ilk, and the same need to communicate our experiences drives us to communicate our fears.
Few of us fly because it is a job, or that we are compelled to by outside forces. We fly because we love it, we like its challenge, its rarity. We like to tell people that we fly. Perhaps we fly helicopters because they are even more difficult, more unusual.
We are in the same club.
We like to fly because it is an uncompromising endevour, one that brooks few errors, that embarasses, maims and even kills for cause and sometimes almost in a whim. We are not fools, we know that this danger makes the sauce spicier. With the cost of failure so high, the pride of success is that much greater, and we welcome it. When one of ours dies while flying, we know that there is a chance, under odds that we control, that it could have been us.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne
Few of us fly because it is a job, or that we are compelled to by outside forces. We fly because we love it, we like its challenge, its rarity. We like to tell people that we fly. Perhaps we fly helicopters because they are even more difficult, more unusual.
We are in the same club.
We like to fly because it is an uncompromising endevour, one that brooks few errors, that embarasses, maims and even kills for cause and sometimes almost in a whim. We are not fools, we know that this danger makes the sauce spicier. With the cost of failure so high, the pride of success is that much greater, and we welcome it. When one of ours dies while flying, we know that there is a chance, under odds that we control, that it could have been us.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne