Vintage Jet Slams Into Homes Near Air Show

"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

gatt wrote:
"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.


Truthful? That's debateable.

Sorry, I killfiled you before I read the rest of your drivel. Idiot.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

Sorry, I killfiled you before I read the rest of your drivel. Idiot.

In other words, she can't handle an opposing opinion, couldn't think of a
way to argue like an adult, so she stuck her fingers in her ears and
resorted to name calling.

Whatever. I'm an idiot. With a degree in journalism and a passion for
aviation. I couldn't possibly have a little perspective on this issue. I
must just be an idiot because I disagree with her.

No skin off my back at all. I prefer to associate with mature adults.

-c

gatt wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..


Sorry, I killfiled you before I read the rest of your drivel. Idiot.


In other words, she can't handle an opposing opinion, couldn't think of a
way to argue like an adult, so she stuck her fingers in her ears and
resorted to name calling.

Whatever. I'm an idiot. With a degree in journalism and a passion for
aviation. I couldn't possibly have a little perspective on this issue. I
must just be an idiot because I disagree with her.

No skin off my back at all. I prefer to associate with mature adults.

That's not true or you wouldn't be participating in usenet. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No skin off my back at all. I prefer to associate with mature adults.

That's not true or you wouldn't be participating in usenet. :-)

DOH! : Man, some days I wonder...

-c

Matt Whiting wrote:
gatt wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..


Sorry, I killfiled you before I read the rest of your drivel. Idiot.


In other words, she can't handle an opposing opinion, couldn't think
of a way to argue like an adult, so she stuck her fingers in her ears
and resorted to name calling.

Whatever. I'm an idiot. With a degree in journalism and a passion for
aviation. I couldn't possibly have a little perspective on this
issue. I must just be an idiot because I disagree with her.

No skin off my back at all. I prefer to associate with mature adults.

That's not true or you wouldn't be participating in usenet. :-)


Matt

Gee, thanks for letting that slip though.

Degree in journalism? That explains a lot.

(Not directed at you, of course)

("gatt" wrote)
Whatever. I'm an idiot. With a degree in journalism and a passion for
aviation. I couldn't possibly have a little perspective on this issue. I
must just be an idiot because I disagree with her.


At least you're not a "bloviating idiot."


Montblack :-)

"gatt" wrote in message
...
Sorry, I killfiled you before I read the rest of your drivel. Idiot.

In other words, she can't handle an opposing opinion, couldn't think of a
way to argue like an adult, so she stuck her fingers in her ears and
resorted to name calling.

Yup. Pretty much.

She's been going off half-cocked at any hint of disagreement. Pretty soon,
she'll be talking to herself, 'cause she won't be reading anyone else's
posts.

On the bright side, I think her attitude can be attributed to youthful
arrogance. At least she might grow out of it. We've got people here just
as bad who are way beyond growing out of anything of the sort.

[...]
No skin off my back at all. I prefer to associate with mature adults.

And yet you put up with us.

Pete