I do agree. I think that we blokes – certainly this bloke – tend to invest WW2 aircraft with a romanticism that isn’t at all widely shared or understood, particularly with regard to the Spitfire, Hurricane and the Lancaster.

Women have a different slant and I see some reflection of this on TV with its tendency to describe the ‘human’ and social aspect of the period in question, which tends to feature female commentators.

Paul 1867 referred to his ‘communist principles’.

Missed that.

Not just women John. I’d rather preserve testimonies than countless spitfires. Luckily we can do both so everyone is happy.

A note on Johns Eastbourne comment.

Take this in isolation …

My wife isn’t interested in a world war 2 aircraft at an airshow. Not one bit. Doesn’t look up from her book. Or any other aircraft. Bored witless.

What conclusion?

Now take the above with the below.

Was fascinated by an exhibition on another WW2 subject that had interviews with veterans, artefacts and a story.

Now what conclusion?

My conclusion is that we are making the mistake in thinking that presenting a spitfire at an airshow should make everyone care. It’s a machine and some people are more interested in people than a lump of metal. the Spitfire IS a lump of metal which has significance because of those who designed, built, flew and preserved it. Without that context it may not appeal to everyone.

Some of course may never care but it doesn’t mean we should think them ignorant because of that.

You show me how to put the accent on the ‘e’ using my phone and it will be much appreciated 🙂

You are correct that it is your personal observation but it is also a cliche that the younger generation have shorter attention spans. Unless of course someone can point me to some research that states contrary?

Your point about the 14 year old girl doesn’t show a lack of attention / short attention span. She had a very good attention span to whatever was in her phone! Maybe she wasn’t that interested in the flying. Wearing the red arrows gear doesn’t necessarily indicate a in depth interest.

And I don’t think any of those things about old people. I believe they are cliches ( insert accent for me please ). Just lazy stereotypes. I’ve met enough progressive, sharp and open minded old people to know that. It was used as an example of lazy thinking. Your view of young people is I think not very accurate and your cornerstones are one full on film franchise and viewing a girls behaviour from a far. We know nothing of what she was doing. Might have been texting her friend about Jean-Paul Satre for all we know. Or Towie. Who knows. Likewise Fast and the Furious is indeed, I concur, rot. But it doesn’t represent ever film that is released. Go to an independent cinema and see some very intelligent films. I went to see a Buster Keaton film in South London a few years ago. Packed with kids. Laughing their heads off. Can we draw the conclusion from this that all children are cinema-buffs. No, course not but Id challenge you to give the younger generation more credit.

With respect Paul.

Agreed. However I think it’s worthwhile trying to maintain standards. In general, like you, I also tend to ignore poorly-written posts on any forum. Since the primary purpose of a forum is the transmission of information, it’s implicit that bad English and incorrect use of grammar can only hinder that process.

Going one step further and using the Media’s coverage of recent events as an example (this thread tackling that very issue by the way), I associate poor grammar and spelling with dodgy or worthless information.

I find this post a little arrogant too but in the spirit of this may I correct YOU? The primary point of a forum is the EXCHANGE of ideas not the TRANSMISSION of ideas.

No need for it is there?

If it’s understandable and doesn’t give you a headache reading it then I see no problem. Some people, myself included, slip up for a whole host of reasons. Only one of which is laziness.

Your comment about poor grammar diluting the value of testimony is not a good argument. Imagine if a historian took that approach. The correct approach is to weigh up its value after examining all the factors.

No we didn’t my wife ran our post office and shop on her own and I ran another post office 5 and a half days a week. On top of that is cash and carry, accounts, VAT returns etc etc etc. If you wanted anything more than beautiful countryside then it was 2 hours just to get out of Wales and had to be open next morning.

Charlie understands and as he says maybe its an age thing.

It was a total shock to us both how much things had changed in relation to service and manners in public, and a few other things!

Yes, of course, there are plenty of nice people but there are also plenty of people without any manners. My main comment was about service and I have had a lot of dealings with banks in the last few years and really you may not realise it but the service is very poor. When dealing (no solicitor) with three probates at the same time I was repeatedly told by various banks I couldn’t do what ever it was I was doing. Guess what every single time they were wrong. One even expected me to walk away from £10K because they couldn’t find any record “and we can not help you in this matter”. They were very wrong.

I think as one gets older and you see all the things you thought of interest and value being destroyed and the same old mistakes being made over and over again it is depressing.

Don’t need cheering up I have been exchanging views with you so why are my views depressing and yours are not, they are to me which is why I replied to them.:D:D:D:D:D

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Helps me understand your point a little better.

Cripes I have had to get the dictionary out now, to make sure I understand some meanings correctly rather than just from life!

Yes of course you are right although is there not a difference between somebody who is passing and those who have deliberately gone there for that purpose as discussed elsewhere. I admit 30 years ago I went to the dunes at Valley instead of paying to get in although, actually, it may have been free anyway, cannot remember now. The point is there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want to continue seeing these aeroplanes flying and visit museums then you absolutely must pay. We are in real danger of losing them. We always now make a contribution at “free” museums and do not use the get one free entrance vouchers distributed by some magazines. This is just plain common sense as we want to continue to enjoy these and for our children to enjoy them as well.

It is nothing to do with “nonsense” or being “hypocritical” it’s just common sense.

Next along will be the “expensive” argument. But air show are just not expensive for what they are when compared with other forms of entertainment such as drinking and eating out, smoking or visiting pleasure parks, country houses theatre and cinema . It may be that some people cannot afford it but that does not mean it is expensive. Local hotels put their prices up so that for two nights they usually get, from the increased part of the fee alone, more than the air show receives from my tickets.

Some hotels are too expensive for us so we cannot go to them and go to those we can afford.

I think I have been able to make my points without being condescending to any other poster or forumite although I was tempted to call the apostrophe police who are rife on here but the meaning was clear so not necessary.

Sorry that was a totally unnecessary poke, for which I apologise.:D:D

My use of ‘hypocritical’ and ‘nonsense’ is within the context of the strength of venom aimed at ‘freeloaders’. I can sympathise with those who may think it is ‘not on’ but those who seem to think they are the lowest of the low are being hypocritical because I doubt they have led virtuous lives where they have never had a freeloader moments. Hope you get my meaning and that I’ve expressed that well.

You’re right about the free lunch but there is no evidence to suggest that 50 odd photographers in a field is hitting the uk warbirds industry when it is likely they probably contribute to the cause in other ways (not including the safety argument here). Conversely I don’t begrudge someone who can’t afford the show enjoying it from an embankment with a packed lunch when the event is near bursting anyhow.

It’s not illegal.

The couple who ran the shop/post office in our village were there every day for 35 years and got out and about very little.

I suspect those of us a tad older are more aware of the differences we are talking about, than some of our younger members!:)

Well at least they would notice the difference in people’s manners who came into the shop then 🙂