Vintage Jet Slams Into Homes Near Air Show

Yeah. Don't want to "sensationalize" a jet crashing into a (fortunately
vacant) home, and destroying it. Neighbors describing the "explosion"
should also be more understanding that words like that are inflammatory...

Skylune wrote:
Yeah. Don't want to "sensationalize" a jet crashing into a (fortunately
vacant) home, and destroying it.

Exactly. There is no need to add sensationalism.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

Exactly. There is no need to add sensationalism.

They didn't. They described it. The jet very clearly slammed into the home.

-c

gatt wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

Exactly. There is no need to add sensationalism.

They didn't. They described it. The jet very clearly slammed into the home.

-c

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty subjective.

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty
subjective.

What exact difference does it make? What does it change? Journalists
aren't hired for their ability to undramatize the dramatic, and the jet
slammed into a house. It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce
off of, it didn't land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin
house.

It hit the house and friggin' exploded. Er, if that's too incriminating or
something, let's just say it combusted? The entire house is gone. Almost
no wreckage of the house remained an hour afterward, let alone the plane.
The houses next to it looked like a plane had crashed into them. The house
that the plane slammed into didn't look like it, 'cause there isn't much
left but scorched earth, dirt and random debris.

There's no point in dumbing down or deceiving the public. It slammed into
the house, and the last time I checked, slammed is a word and its primary
definition of slam is "strike." It would be ludicrous to deny that the
plane struck the house, and the word is no more subjective than "crashed
into."

-c

gatt wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty
subjective.

What exact difference does it make? What does it change? Journalists
aren't hired for their ability to undramatize the dramatic, and the jet
slammed into a house. It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce
off of, it didn't land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin

Yes, it did strike, it did impact, and it did collide. Yet the media
uses the word slammed.

You know, I grew up with a couple of military officers for parents, who
viewed the media as a necessary evil. I didn't understand why until I
started flying.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

Yes, it did strike, it did impact, and it did collide.

Yet the media uses the word slammed.

Then what the hell difference does it make? Slammed is a dramatic, active
verb. All writers who paid attention in writing classes learned to avoid
weak verbs. If a jet plane flying into a house, exploding, incinerating the
house and leaving nothing but a smoking ruin -isn't- "slamming" into
something, nothing is.

Your opinion that "slammed" is subjective is subjective.

You know, I grew up with a couple of military officers for parents, who
viewed the media as a necessary evil.

Pilots are frequently of the arrogant opinion that the media somehow owes
them something. They just don't. Journalists earn livings and reputations
by writing vivid, truthful accounts. There is nothing untruthful about the
FACT that the jet SLAMMED INTO the house and no reason why a
journalist--especially after the treatment observed in this forum--should
feel an obligation to sugarcoat it for the sensitivies of the aviation
community.

A community journalist's job is to report to the community what happened.
Mission accomplished. Your sensibilities about what words is insignificant
compared whatever memories, pets or possessions the property holder lost
because of the accident. And the media has been calling it a tragic accident
AND calling the pilot a hero since it happened, so I don't see the point of
whining about media insensitivity.

-gatt

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:13:48 +0000, gatt wrote:

Er, if that's too incriminating
or something, let's just say it combusted?

Engaged in an uncontained but brief exothermic event?

The entire house is gone.

House has received the beginning of a complete reconstruction. For free!

Almost no wreckage of the house remained an hour afterward, let alone the
plane.

The event was sanitary.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
Er, if that's too incriminating or something, let's just say it
combusted?

Engaged in an uncontained but brief exothermic event?

The entire house is gone.

House has received the beginning of a complete reconstruction. For free!

Almost no wreckage of the house remained an hour afterward, let alone the
plane.

The event was sanitary.

LOL!

"A vintage jet suffered an engine problem today and caused mild damage to
three homes after an unscheduled off-runway touch down. The pilot expired
at the scene and a slight conflagration caused a fireball and a small cloud
of smoke to extend thousands of feet into the air. The damage to the house
is comprehensive and the resultant pyrotechnic event resulted in a
Three-Alarm on the job training exercise for local fire departments..."

Several aviators nationwide are seeking help for being slightly inconvience
by the mejia's choice of the word 'slammed'

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce off of, it didn't
land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin house.


Now you've gone and confused the whole issue! Did it "Slam" into the house,
or did it "Smash" into the house?
Crash Lander