Read This Carefully please; word for word

In article . net,
"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?