British Crash...

[Sean F (F2)]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html

[Eric Munk]

At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>

That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.

[Gilbert Smith[_2_]]

Eric Munk > wrote:

>At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>>
>
>That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.
I do hope you are right, but the date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
correct.

[Alexander Johnson[_2_]]

At 22:53 10 February 2014, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>Eric Munk wrote:
>
>>At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>>>
>>
>>That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.
>I do hope you are right, but the date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
>2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
>correct.
>

This is very definitely the 2004 accident. The End.

[Geoff Brown]

At 22:53 10 February 2014, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>Eric Munk wrote:
>
>>At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>>>
>>
>>That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.
>I do hope you are right, but the date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
>2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
>correct.
>

And today the same page carries the date of Friday 14th 2014 - i.e. today's
date. This is normal for most web sites that want you to think they keep
them up-to-date.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-7, Geoff Brown wrote:
> At 22:53 10 February 2014, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>
> >Eric Munk wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.
>
> >I do hope you are right, but the date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
>
> >2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
>
> >correct.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And today the same page carries the date of Friday 14th 2014 - i.e. today's
>
> date. This is normal for most web sites that want you to think they keep
>
> them up-to-date.

That is simply bad web design and poor composition. The Internet is full of web articles that lack posting dates or carry the wrong (in this case) current date. Authors should date their own bylines.

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 14/02/14 16:12, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:10:02 AM UTC-7, Geoff Brown wrote:
>> At 22:53 10 February 2014, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Munk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> At 20:38 09 February 2014, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206159/Two-die-glider-crash.html
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> That refers to a 2004 accident. Not recent.
>>
>>> I do hope you are right, but the date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
>>
>>> 2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
>>
>>> correct.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And today the same page carries the date of Friday 14th 2014 - i.e. today's
>>
>> date. This is normal for most web sites that want you to think they keep
>>
>> them up-to-date.
>
> That is simply bad web design and poor composition. The Internet is full of web articles that lack posting dates or carry the wrong (in this case) current date. Authors should date their own bylines.

Another good reason for using the "no-script" browser plugin.

The Daily Wail never lets facts get in the way of a good
scare story. Their audience is middle-aged women with too
much time on their hand - the so-called "worried well"

Typical article (described by Ben Goldacre, IIRC) was about
a dangerous chemical in food, saying they should ban it.
They /had/ banned it, 5 years earlier!

[Dan Marotta]

<snip>
>
> The Daily Wail never lets facts get in the way of a good
> scare story. Their audience is middle-aged women with too
> much time on their hand - the so-called "worried well"
>
> Typical article (described by Ben Goldacre, IIRC) was about
> a dangerous chemical in food, saying they should ban it.
> They /had/ banned it, 5 years earlier!

Which reminds me of a story I heard recently at Moriarty. Our pattern entry
point is over the water tower at a trailer park south of the airport. One
day an elderly lady who lives there contacted the airport manager to
complain about all those airplanes that turn off their engines over the
trailerpark (glider releases on a pattern tow and tug throttles back) on
their way to the airport.
>

[Eric Munk]

>The date in the header (Monday, Feb 10
>2014) - the only date on the page - is very misleading if you are
>correct.

That may be so, but I know a few people gliding at the airfield in
question, and it gave me (and doubtless others) just short of a heart
attack.

In such instances please check before posting. It would not be the first
time a club got worried phone calls from members, press and parents because
of a forum discussion or tweet that for whatever reason turned out to be
(thankfully) wrong...

Thank you.