Hurrifan has offered up the tired old tactic of shifting attention to side issues. The two posts complained of were direct personal remarks. A member’s race, colour, creed, politics or gender are no-one’s business but their own.

The two posts had stood already for some time. Left to stand unremarked they served only to encourage the sort of ill-tempered exchange that the boards have been trying (with only modest success) to rise above.

As for Gallipoli, I take it Hurrifan is not claiming, himself, to have recently recovered compete remains there. Though he has chosen to see a reflection on his honesty, his recall of the recovery of WWI remains in 2006 is wrong, in fact and in supposed result: http://minister.dva.gov.au/media_releases/2006/02_feb/va003.htm
http://minister.dva.gov.au/media_releases/2006/07_July/va067.htm.

Remains at Gallipoli found in 2005 roadworks were fragmentary and -according to the Turkish authorities and the Australian Minister – may not have been human at all. Either way, the Turks, the CWGC and the Australian Dept of Veterans Affairs are of one mind: the recovery of complete remains at Gallipoli is unlikely, but the appearance of fragmentary remains is to be expected from time to time and the respectful course is to return them to the earth from whence they came: http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/anzac/gallipoli01.htm and http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/anzac/gallipoli_remains.pdf (1 mb!)

Although he talked only obliquely about “recent” Gallipoli finds, it seems that Hurrifan may have been referring only to the 2001 case of apparently Turkish remains. This he could have made plain.

The Gallipoli peninsula and battlefield is Turkish soil. As the DVA/CWGC document points out, Turkish customs in all these matters are very different from ours, they have no individual cemeteries or memorials, and they consider the entire battlefield to be a sacred repository.

Yet the Turks have always given – and continue to give – every respect and assistance to our own customs and observations. In which case, we would do well to accord them the same respect. Turkish treatment of Turkish war dead is not a matter for the CWGC. However, we are straying far from Historic Aviation -and addressing personal attacks- here.

Sense of humour: mine’s just fine, thanks. Ms Johnston chose to start her thread by offering up a nice little bit of gee-up “Are we all going to sit here and talk about it and let the thread just vanish into the archives or are we going to do something about it?”, followed up by dressing up her position as just asking for information -when in fact she was calling for volunteers- and then proceeding to push her own thread downhill with swearing, offers to kick people, assorted swipes about socks and sandals, and the final uncalled for personal remark.

ALL members are entitled to their opinion. Ms Johnson can dress it up as banter if she likes, but NO member is entitled to reflect upon the race, colour, creed, politics or gender of another, nor are they entitled to swear.

Lecturing, “blubbing”, “fair play”, “sense of humour” “banter” – all water off a duck’s back to me. There’s no point in having a go at me when the offending posts are clearly theirs. Hurrifan and Ms Johnson can apologise, delete the personal remarks and move on or not. Up to them.

I’m not going to comment on this.

Ali

:p =joke
🙂 Fun too