I recently posted a strong objection to a photographer pushing crash
videos on the newsgroups. I've pasted in below word for word the exact
quoted text of a post below addressed to me personally. Aside from the
personal comment the photographer makes to me, which is fine, and fully
within his right to do so in defense of his position, please note his
GENERAL FEELINGS about race pilots and airshow pilots, and after reading
his general comment about pilots like myself, ask yourself if this
person is, as he has said, involved in his hobby of crash photography
simply because he "loves" aviation? Ask yourself about his frame of
thinking as he's watching pilots like myself do a demonstration. Then
ask yourself how he feels about me as he's taking that video!
Thank you for your time,

From Iwan Bogels to me below;

>I don't have to put up with the opinion of some
hypocrite
> pilot who is involved in demonstration flights and air races, intended
to
> push flying to the limit. If it wasn't for guys like you, about 50% of
all
> crash videos would have never been shot because the crashes simply
didn't
> occur.
>
> Flying is relatively safe, but pushing flight to the limit for the fun
of it
> just isn't. Don't complain if something goes wrong when guys like you
are
> willingly taking more risk than necessary during air races and
demonstration
> flights. And stop pointing fingers at people who are interested to see
> thrilling aviation just because it simply exites them. Pilots like you
> provided it to them in the first place!

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I recently posted a strong objection to a photographer pushing crash
> videos on the newsgroups. I've pasted in below word for word the exact
> quoted text of a post below addressed to me personally. Aside from the
> personal comment the photographer makes to me, which is fine, and fully
> within his right to do so in defense of his position, please note his
> GENERAL FEELINGS about race pilots and airshow pilots, and after reading
> his general comment about pilots like myself, ask yourself if this
> person is, as he has said, involved in his hobby of crash photography
> simply because he "loves" aviation? Ask yourself about his frame of
> thinking as he's watching pilots like myself do a demonstration. Then
> ask yourself how he feels about me as he's taking that video!
> Thank you for your time,
>
> From Iwan Bogels to me below;
>
>>I don't have to put up with the opinion of some
> hypocrite
>> pilot who is involved in demonstration flights and air races, intended
> to
>> push flying to the limit. If it wasn't for guys like you, about 50% of
> all
>> crash videos would have never been shot because the crashes simply
> didn't
>> occur.
>>
>> Flying is relatively safe, but pushing flight to the limit for the fun
> of it
>> just isn't. Don't complain if something goes wrong when guys like you
> are
>> willingly taking more risk than necessary during air races and
> demonstration
>> flights. And stop pointing fingers at people who are interested to see
>> thrilling aviation just because it simply exites them. Pilots like you
>> provided it to them in the first place!

I read it just fine the first time around. What is your issue exactly?

John

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...

> I read it just fine the first time around. What is your issue exactly?
>
> John

Although I posted this in an obvious negative context, it isn't really
supposed to illicit feelings that favor my position per se. Actually, as
far as these groups are concerned, my position isn't all that relevant
anyway. You would have to be a member of the race or airshow community
to fully appreciate the impact of what the photographer has said here.
His statement has to be viewed in contrast to his prior stated views
that explained his reasons for engaging in crash photography.
I expect no particular favorable or unfavorable responses to my posting
his words here. Some will agree there is a problem with this guy and
some like yourself will see no problem at all with what he has said
here.
It's simply put out here in the "food for thought" department, and
perhaps to allow those of you who are not in our community to see why we
don't particularly like this kind of thing. Nothing more..nothing less,
and surely nothing expected in the way of positive return from those of
you outside our community.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:55:56 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>I recently posted a strong objection to a photographer pushing crash
>videos on the newsgroups. I've pasted in below word for word the exact
>quoted text of a post below addressed to me personally. Aside from the
>personal comment the photographer makes to me, which is fine, and fully
>within his right to do so in defense of his position, please note his
>GENERAL FEELINGS about race pilots and airshow pilots, and after reading
>his general comment about pilots like myself, ask yourself if this
>person is, as he has said, involved in his hobby of crash photography
>simply because he "loves" aviation? Ask yourself about his frame of
>thinking as he's watching pilots like myself do a demonstration. Then
>ask yourself how he feels about me as he's taking that video!
>Thank you for your time,


The question I have is "Who gives a ****?" If you don't want to see
it then don't go there.

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> > I read it just fine the first time around. What is your issue exactly?
> >
> > John
>
> Although I posted this in an obvious negative context, it isn't really
> supposed to illicit feelings that favor my position per se. Actually, as
> far as these groups are concerned, my position isn't all that relevant
> anyway. You would have to be a member of the race or airshow community
> to fully appreciate the impact of what the photographer has said here.
> His statement has to be viewed in contrast to his prior stated views
> that explained his reasons for engaging in crash photography.
> I expect no particular favorable or unfavorable responses to my posting
> his words here. Some will agree there is a problem with this guy and
> some like yourself will see no problem at all with what he has said
> here.
> It's simply put out here in the "food for thought" department, and
> perhaps to allow those of you who are not in our community to see why we
> don't particularly like this kind of thing.


You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of thing".



--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...

> You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of thing".
>
>
>
> --Mike

Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the beginning if
you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should be self
explanatory.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> > You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of thing".
> >

>
> Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the beginning if
> you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should be self
> explanatory.


I did read it, and it isn't self explanatory...so I'll ask you a second
time: what exactly is it you object to?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > > You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of
thing".
> > >
>
> >
> > Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the beginning
if
> > you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should be
self
> > explanatory.
>
>
> I did read it, and it isn't self explanatory...so I'll ask you a
second
> time: what exactly is it you object to?
>
>
> --Mike

Not interested. Either read it and comment, or take your shot without my
assistance. If it's a decent comment, I'll respond in kind. If it's a
cold unrelated to the issue personal shot, you can have it uncontested.
I'll only deal with it if it's on issue.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet


Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> > > > You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of
> thing".
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the beginning
> if
> > > you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should be
> self
> > > explanatory.
> >
> >
> > I did read it, and it isn't self explanatory...so I'll ask you a
> second
> > time: what exactly is it you object to?


> Not interested. Either read it and comment, or take your shot without my
> assistance. If it's a decent comment, I'll respond in kind. If it's a
> cold unrelated to the issue personal shot, you can have it uncontested.
> I'll only deal with it if it's on issue.


I see. So you're comfortable saying you don't like "this kind of thing,"
but for unknown reasons, you're not capable of stating why you don't
like this "this kind of thing" despite being directly asked twice? This
is out of character for you.

I have no personal shots to take one way or another...and I don't see
how anybody else would. I'm simply asking you to explain what you find
disagreeable about it. If you can't, then why bring it up in the first
place?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > > > > You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of
> > thing".
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the
beginning
> > if
> > > > you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should
be
> > self
> > > > explanatory.
> > >
> > >
> > > I did read it, and it isn't self explanatory...so I'll ask you a
> > second
> > > time: what exactly is it you object to?
>
>
> > Not interested. Either read it and comment, or take your shot
without my
> > assistance. If it's a decent comment, I'll respond in kind. If it's
a
> > cold unrelated to the issue personal shot, you can have it
uncontested.
> > I'll only deal with it if it's on issue.
>
>
> I see. So you're comfortable saying you don't like "this kind of
thing,"
> but for unknown reasons, you're not capable of stating why you don't
> like this "this kind of thing" despite being directly asked twice?
This
> is out of character for you.
>
> I have no personal shots to take one way or another...and I don't see
> how anybody else would. I'm simply asking you to explain what you find
> disagreeable about it. If you can't, then why bring it up in the first
> place?
>
>
> --Mike
This, and your other post to me asking continuously for an explanation
of my objections to the specific context of crash videos being discussed
in this thread are a perfect example of why I don't answer posts like
yours.
The answer has been plainly stated in other posts and is clear to anyone
with reasonable intelligence. Your constant demand that I repeat these
reasons because you "can't find the answer" isn't enough incentive for
me to repost an entire thought process for your personal convenience.
That being said, I've pasted in below the EXACT answer to your constant
requests for that answer. If you can't get what I'm saying from this,
I'm sorry, I can't help you any further.

From a prior post by me and quite clear on the "why's";
The "ethics" that I was attacking and will always continue to attack are
not as clearly cut as you would like to have them. The physical act of
taking a picture at an air show disaster is only the tip of a large
iceberg. The REASON for taking that picture, and what the photographer
does with the picture after it's been taken is the area of my concern,
NOT the fact that the picture was taken per se, which seems to be the
crux of everything you have been attempting to "explain" to me.
There is nothing improper about taking photographs or filming a video
during an air race or air show disaster IF the reason for taking these
pictures isn't prurient. A video shot as a record of the event or to be
used as news of the event is one thing. That's ethical. A video of a
crash used in a safety program designed to help prevent the same
accident from happening again is more than ethical. It's advisable!
On the other hand, there are those who take these photographs and film
these videos for no other reason than their own prurient interest; a
record for them personally to "enjoy" watching and to pass on to others
in the public forum as their " the thrill of the day". Photographers who
use these photographs in their "hobby" and present them to the public
seeking only acclaim for their skill as photographers are completely
unethical to us in the airshow community. These people, displaying an
aspect of human nature that will unfortunately always be with us, are in
my opinion unethical. On the airshow circuit we think of them as human
leeches standing there with their cameras waiting for one of us to die
so they can catch the moment on film to later be released by them for
their own purpose unrelated to anything but their own amusement or
profit.
The only ethics involved with this issue are the ethics involved for the
reasons the camera shutter clicks. There are good reasons and there are
bad reasons. The photographers I have so strongly objected to are the
one's with the "bad" reasons; the thrill seekers; the "hobbyists".
Any race or airshow pilot will tell you that the existence of crash
video is a given, and we understand that there will be pictures if
something goes wrong for us. In a way, we welcome it, because it might
help save another pilot's life, but none of us accept the leech
photographers, the paparazzi type, who come to exploit us when something
goes wrong.
These "hobby" video people fit into the unethical category for us, and
yes, we detest them!
As for people outside the airshow community discussing an issue like
this one with us; everyone of course has the right to an opinion, but
it's better that you ASK, rather than TELL when you get into something
as close to the show community as this issue. That's just a friendly
suggestion. Pilots from the community don't mind opposing viewpoint. We
do however, like a pilot to have some actual experience with what we do
before expressing that opinion too loudly :-)

If this doesn't answer what you keep "demanding" than you will just have
to get by on whatever floats your boat.

I fail to see what it is about this that is so hard to understand.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
ey Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > You have thus far not stated why you don't like "this kind of
> > > thing".
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply read the thread "aviation videos on line" from the
> beginning
> > > if
> > > > > you're at all interested. If not, simply pass on it. It should
> be
> > > self
> > > > > explanatory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I did read it, and it isn't self explanatory...so I'll ask you a
> > > second
> > > > time: what exactly is it you object to?
> >
> >
> > > Not interested. Either read it and comment, or take your shot
> without my
> > > assistance. If it's a decent comment, I'll respond in kind. If it's
> a
> > > cold unrelated to the issue personal shot, you can have it
> uncontested.
> > > I'll only deal with it if it's on issue.
> >
> >
> > I see. So you're comfortable saying you don't like "this kind of
> thing,"
> > but for unknown reasons, you're not capable of stating why you don't
> > like this "this kind of thing" despite being directly asked twice?
> This
> > is out of character for you.
> >
> > I have no personal shots to take one way or another...and I don't see
> > how anybody else would. I'm simply asking you to explain what you find
> > disagreeable about it. If you can't, then why bring it up in the first
> > place?
> >
> >
> > --Mike
> This, and your other post to me asking continuously for an explanation
> of my objections to the specific context of crash videos being discussed
> in this thread are a perfect example of why I don't answer posts like
> yours.
> The answer has been plainly stated in other posts and is clear to anyone
> with reasonable intelligence. Your constant demand that I repeat these
> reasons because you "can't find the answer" isn't enough incentive for
> me to repost an entire thought process for your personal convenience.
> That being said, I've pasted in below the EXACT answer to your constant
> requests for that answer. If you can't get what I'm saying from this,
> I'm sorry, I can't help you any further.
>
> From a prior post by me and quite clear on the "why's";
> The "ethics" that I was attacking and will always continue to attack are
> not as clearly cut as you would like to have them. The physical act of
> taking a picture at an air show disaster is only the tip of a large
> iceberg. The REASON for taking that picture, and what the photographer
> does with the picture after it's been taken is the area of my concern,
> NOT the fact that the picture was taken per se, which seems to be the
> crux of everything you have been attempting to "explain" to me.
> There is nothing improper about taking photographs or filming a video
> during an air race or air show disaster IF the reason for taking these
> pictures isn't prurient. A video shot as a record of the event or to be
> used as news of the event is one thing. That's ethical. A video of a
> crash used in a safety program designed to help prevent the same
> accident from happening again is more than ethical. It's advisable!
> On the other hand, there are those who take these photographs and film
> these videos for no other reason than their own prurient interest; a
> record for them personally to "enjoy" watching and to pass on to others
> in the public forum as their " the thrill of the day". Photographers who
> use these photographs in their "hobby" and present them to the public
> seeking only acclaim for their skill as photographers are completely
> unethical to us in the airshow community. These people, displaying an
> aspect of human nature that will unfortunately always be with us, are in
> my opinion unethical. On the airshow circuit we think of them as human
> leeches standing there with their cameras waiting for one of us to die
> so they can catch the moment on film to later be released by them for
> their own purpose unrelated to anything but their own amusement or
> profit.
> The only ethics involved with this issue are the ethics involved for the
> reasons the camera shutter clicks. There are good reasons and there are
> bad reasons. The photographers I have so strongly objected to are the
> one's with the "bad" reasons; the thrill seekers; the "hobbyists".
> Any race or airshow pilot will tell you that the existence of crash
> video is a given, and we understand that there will be pictures if
> something goes wrong for us. In a way, we welcome it, because it might
> help save another pilot's life, but none of us accept the leech
> photographers, the paparazzi type, who come to exploit us when something
> goes wrong.
> These "hobby" video people fit into the unethical category for us, and
> yes, we detest them!
> As for people outside the airshow community discussing an issue like
> this one with us; everyone of course has the right to an opinion, but
> it's better that you ASK, rather than TELL when you get into something
> as close to the show community as this issue. That's just a friendly
> suggestion. Pilots from the community don't mind opposing viewpoint. We
> do however, like a pilot to have some actual experience with what we do
> before expressing that opinion too loudly :-)
>
> If this doesn't answer what you keep "demanding" than you will just have
> to get by on whatever floats your boat.
>
> I fail to see what it is about this that is so hard to understand.


It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving nothing
to understand.

It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn question
initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.



--Mike

P.S. Do you have any issues with hobbyists filming airshows for
thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content does not contain a
crash?

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...

> It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving
nothing
> to understand.

Whatever this means :-)


>
> It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn question
> initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.

I don't "demand" that people "guess" my reasoning in any post I make on
Usenet. I don't give a rat's ass who reads what into any reasoning I
might or might not have. Opinion is opinion on Usenet. I don't have to
justify my opinion to you any more than you have to justify yours to me.
There are people out here who will agree with what a particular person
has to say, and most certainly those who won't. I'm not in a popularity
context out here. I say what I want to say for the reasons I have in
saying it. The responses will be both pro and con at any given time on
any given topic.
If you're looking for a detailed account for the reasoning behind
everything someone says out here you're going to become very frustrated.
In this case, the man was pushing crash video outside the boundries of
what I (obviously from my cogent comment) consider to be in bad taste.
My reaction to that was a simple one line comment that expressed my
displeasure. "I detest people like you". It really doesn't take any
intelligence to ascertain that I don't like this person. That's all you
need to know. My reasons for disliking him are personal to me. You can
of course comment as you have, expressing whatever countering opinion
you choose. But don't sit there and tell me that I owe YOU an
explanation for the comments I make on Usenet. You've noted your opinion
as I've made my comment. That's all there is pal. Welcome to Usenet!
Now, that being said, had you come back at me with a post I felt was a
neutral request for additional information on my reasoning, I would have
more than glad to enter into an intelligent discourse with you and go
much deeper into that reasoning; but you didn't. This "I'll ask you a
second time" crap is better used on someone else. No hard feelings old
buddy, but I just don't respond to this approach! No biggie really, and
since we already know from this type of approach that you have some
"issues" with any reasoning I might have, why bother? :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet


> P.S. Do you have any issues with hobbyists filming airshows for
> thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content does not contain a
> crash?

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...

> P.S. Do you have any issues with hobbyists filming airshows for
> thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content does not contain a
> crash?

I'll deal with this question directly.

Generally, in the race and air show community, we have no objection to
crash video and photography shot generally when the purpose of this work
is either associated with a safety context or a news context. As for
the "hobbyist" photographer; this is a complicated issue for us, as
there are very distinct differences between the good and bad side of
this coin.
Naturally, there will be photographers present at a show site who have
come simply to watch and enjoy the show. These I might add are
considered by us generally to comprise the larger percentage of the
hobby photographers. What these people want is to record what is taking
place simply for their love of aviation and their desire to create a
beautiful image that can be enjoyed by others. We have no problem at all
with these people. In fact, we work actively with these photographers on
many occasions to help them.
Now we get into the gray area of crash photography; that being what
happens when the crash occurs and how that relates to the photographer.
Before a crash occurs, you will have on the field several types of
personalities with a camera in hand. You will have the legitimate
photographer taking pictures as the crash occurs. Then on the bad side,
you will have those with camera in hand, WAITING for something to
happen. These photographers are the ones we object to so strongly.
In our world of flying high performance airplanes, we only have one real
way to judge when a photographer is ethical or unethical, and that
happens AFTER the crash has been filmed. We watch as the film comes in
to see what is being done with it. The legitimate private video people
bring the film immediately to the investigation teams for use in aiding
the investigation. If there are news photographers on site, they usually
take their film for use by their news departments. This is acceptable to
us, and these films are almost always made available to the accident
investigation teams after use by the news departments.
Then we have the hobbyists! The good ones make their film available at
no cost to the investigation teams; later to be returned to them. The
bad ones are the object of our scorn. These people wait for the accident
to happen, film it as it's happening, and consider the film private
property to be used in any way they see fit. This usually means private
viewings within their peer group and releasing of the film on the net
for various reasons; some financial; some image enhancing. Either way,
these are the photographers we have no use for in the demonstration and
race communities.
I said what I said to the photographer involved with this thread because
he cross posted to five different newsgroups pushing crash video without
any safety or news aspect whatsoever. This is what we in the community
refer to as prurient action since no reason other than entertainment is
insinuated by the venue of presentation.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

In article t>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving
> nothing
> > to understand.
>
> Whatever this means :-)
>
>
> >
> > It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn question
> > initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.
>
> I don't "demand" that people "guess" my reasoning in any post I make on
> Usenet. I don't give a rat's ass who reads what into any reasoning I
> might or might not have. Opinion is opinion on Usenet.

Indeed. Usenet is also generally not considered a one-way medium. If one
states an opinion in a public forum, its not unreasonable for that
person to be asked the reasoning for that opinion.

> I don't have to
> justify my opinion to you any more than you have to justify yours to me.
> There are people out here who will agree with what a particular person
> has to say, and most certainly those who won't.


And there are still others who will withhold any notions of agreement or
disagreement until they have heard/read the basis for one's opinion.


> I'm not in a popularity
> context out here. I say what I want to say for the reasons I have in
> saying it. The responses will be both pro and con at any given time on
> any given topic.
> If you're looking for a detailed account for the reasoning behind
> everything someone says out here you're going to become very frustrated.
> In this case, the man was pushing crash video outside the boundries of
> what I (obviously from my cogent comment) consider to be in bad taste.
> My reaction to that was a simple one line comment that expressed my
> displeasure. "I detest people like you". It really doesn't take any
> intelligence to ascertain that I don't like this person. That's all you
> need to know. My reasons for disliking him are personal to me. You can
> of course comment as you have, expressing whatever countering opinion
> you choose. But don't sit there and tell me that I owe YOU an
> explanation for the comments I make on Usenet. You've noted your opinion
> as I've made my comment. That's all there is pal. Welcome to Usenet!


Thanks for the Usenet lecture, but given that I've been doing the Usenet
thing a good ten years longer than you, I think I have a pretty good
handle on Usenet discussion dynamics.


I did not read other threads on this aviation disasters topic. I simply
asked for further clarification on one statement you made. Not sure why
you would feel all defensive about it. Not every question in this n.g.
is partisan baiting. Sometimes a question is just a question.



> Now, that being said, had you come back at me with a post I felt was a
> neutral request for additional information on my reasoning, I would have
> more than glad to enter into an intelligent discourse with you and go
> much deeper into that reasoning; but you didn't. This "I'll ask you a
> second time" crap is better used on someone else.


Then maybe you should try answering the question the first time.


BTW, I'm still curious to know if you have any issues with hobbyists
filming airshows for thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content
does not contain a crash?



--Mike

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:


> I said what I said to the photographer involved with this thread because
> he cross posted to five different newsgroups pushing crash video without
> any safety or news aspect whatsoever. This is what we in the community
> refer to as prurient action since no reason other than entertainment is
> insinuated by the venue of presentation.


Got it.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > It's hard to understand when the question isn't answered leaving
> > nothing
> > > to understand.
> >
> > Whatever this means :-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It probably would have been simpler to just answer the damn
question
> > > initially instead demanding people guess your reasoning.
> >
> > I don't "demand" that people "guess" my reasoning in any post I make
on
> > Usenet. I don't give a rat's ass who reads what into any reasoning I
> > might or might not have. Opinion is opinion on Usenet.
>
> Indeed. Usenet is also generally not considered a one-way medium. If
one
> states an opinion in a public forum, its not unreasonable for that
> person to be asked the reasoning for that opinion.

You asked for clarification and I referred you to the thread for the
answer. If you're too lazy to go read it, that's not my problem, it's
yours!
>
> > I don't have to
> > justify my opinion to you any more than you have to justify yours to
me.
> > There are people out here who will agree with what a particular
person
> > has to say, and most certainly those who won't.
>
>
> And there are still others who will withhold any notions of agreement
or
> disagreement until they have heard/read the basis for one's opinion.

The statement "I detest people like you" requires no agreement or
disagreement unless someone wants to comment. If they don't wish to
comment, that's their perogative. Do you actually believe that every
post out here requires your definition of "reasoning"? Get real! You
asked for the reasoning, I told you to go read the thread. Do your own
damn homework. Quit bothering me for your own remedial education! :-)

>
>
> > I'm not in a popularity
> > context out here. I say what I want to say for the reasons I have in
> > saying it. The responses will be both pro and con at any given time
on
> > any given topic.
> > If you're looking for a detailed account for the reasoning behind
> > everything someone says out here you're going to become very
frustrated.
> > In this case, the man was pushing crash video outside the boundries
of
> > what I (obviously from my cogent comment) consider to be in bad
taste.
> > My reaction to that was a simple one line comment that expressed my
> > displeasure. "I detest people like you". It really doesn't take any
> > intelligence to ascertain that I don't like this person. That's all
you
> > need to know. My reasons for disliking him are personal to me. You
can
> > of course comment as you have, expressing whatever countering
opinion
> > you choose. But don't sit there and tell me that I owe YOU an
> > explanation for the comments I make on Usenet. You've noted your
opinion
> > as I've made my comment. That's all there is pal. Welcome to Usenet!
>
>
> Thanks for the Usenet lecture, but given that I've been doing the
Usenet
> thing a good ten years longer than you, I think I have a pretty good
> handle on Usenet discussion dynamics.

Oh....the old I've been at this longer than YOU thing huh? Well, then
let's consider that since I've been involved in airshow demonstration
safety longer than you have, I don't owe you the reasons for my opinions
:-)
>
>
> I did not read other threads on this aviation disasters topic. I
simply
> asked for further clarification on one statement you made.

Well then...since that was exactly what I asked you to do when you asked
for this "clarification", I'd say you simply weren't following the path
I gave you to the answer you were seeking :-)


Not sure why
> you would feel all defensive about it.

I see you need some remedial education on the old offensive/defensive
thing. I've been offensive with you since that little "I'll ask you a
second time" thing back there, or haven't you noticed? As you can see,
you come at me with that crap and this is what you get in return.
And to think you could have had a quiet intelligent discussion with a
guy who messes with Fermat's last theorem for kicks. What a waste!! :-)

Not every question in this n.g.
> is partisan baiting. Sometimes a question is just a question.


Brilliant!!! But you WERE engaged in baiting.That's the not so subtle
little
"I'll ask you again for the second time" thing you threw back at me.
You want to talk to me about my reasoning for something related directly
to my area of expertise Mike, you come at me with something a bit less
sarcastic than this little tidbit...or at least something not quite so
damn obvious. :-)

>
>
>
> > Now, that being said, had you come back at me with a post I felt was
a
> > neutral request for additional information on my reasoning, I would
have
> > more than glad to enter into an intelligent discourse with you and
go
> > much deeper into that reasoning; but you didn't. This "I'll ask you
a
> > second time" crap is better used on someone else.
>
>
> Then maybe you should try answering the question the first time.

Maybe you should learn to follow directions and read the thread like I
asked you to do. The answer was there!
>
>
> BTW, I'm still curious to know if you have any issues with hobbyists
> filming airshows for thrill-seeking prurient reasons when the content
> does not contain a crash?

Answered already. See other post.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

>>>>> "Dudley" == Dudley Henriques > writes:

Dudley> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
Dudley> ...

>> I read it just fine the first time around. What is your issue
>> exactly?
>>
>> John

Dudley> Although I posted this in an obvious negative context, it
Dudley> isn't really supposed to illicit feelings that favor my
Dudley> position per se. Actually, as far as these groups are
Dudley> concerned, my position isn't all that relevant anyway. You
Dudley> would have to be a member of the race or airshow community
Dudley> to fully appreciate the impact of what the photographer
Dudley> has said here. His statement has to be viewed in contrast
Dudley> to his prior stated views that explained his reasons for
Dudley> engaging in crash photography. I expect no particular
Dudley> favorable or unfavorable responses to my posting his words
Dudley> here. Some will agree there is a problem with this guy and
Dudley> some like yourself will see no problem at all with what he
Dudley> has said here. It's simply put out here in the "food for
Dudley> thought" department, and perhaps to allow those of you who
Dudley> are not in our community to see why we don't particularly
Dudley> like this kind of thing. Nothing more..nothing less, and
Dudley> surely nothing expected in the way of positive return from
Dudley> those of you outside our community. Dudley Henriques
Dudley> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/
Dudley> CFI Retired

I hope there is no silly fued brewing (I can't make head or tail of
this discussion or lack thereof). As far as I'm concerned, people are
interested in aviation for different reasons - here are a bunch or
people interested in military aviation which is basically about
killing people and destroying things for the good of .... what? (It
depends on your beliefs I suppose) For someone to be interested in
crashes is really a minor issue I think. As far as I can assess,
Mr. Bogels is a fine photographer who travels around the world meeting
and interacting with other aviation photographers and airshow buffs,
and makes his photos available on an excellent website (he also offers
a wonderful photodeveloping service for buffs that really makes the
hobby cheaper).

As for Dudley, from previous posts I have seen great stuff on topics I
know nothing about, giving me great insight into flying and what
drives people to it (I don't have a flying licence). That you two do
not agree on something that for some reason or other you feel strongly
about should not make a dent in the wonderful resource that is this
newsgroup.

Let's not get into a firefight about this.

Best regards, Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan