Strangely, lots of important things happened before my time or when I was too young to bother about them. September 11 was one of these. I remember my parents frantically calling up relatives and friends in New York and I just couldn't understand what the fuss was all about. I was a little worried because Dad said that we weren't going on a holiday until he could be sure air travel was safe. At that age, I was only interested in my immediate concerns. The Ego in a young child is extremely large. He can't think of anything else but what pleases him or saddens him.

My Grandparents remember the World War!!! So lots of things happened before my time. I used to wonder if I was born a little too late. I am an only child and I'm usually in the company of adults.

But then lot of things didn't happen in my parents' time. Health care was bad and they had to go for a nasty vaccination to prevent Small Pox, a disease that was quite bad but has been wiped out. They did not have the internet when they were young and they didn't even have the computer.

We just have to take things as they come. You win some and you lose some.

It isn't strange at all that lots of important things happened before your time. You were born in 1994 like me, so obviously there's loads more history before that date and only 13 years since!! I don't think you've changed much. You still seem more interested in your immediate concerns and I don't mean that to be rude.

I love history lessons. I don't pretend to understand every consequence of events but it's fascinating to read about the lifestyles of those before us. My grandmother was an evacuee, shipped off to Yorkshire because of the war. There's been a TV programme on recently about modern children living the lifestyle of evacuee children, the clothing, the teaching, the cooking, the manners. It was most interesting. Everything that was before our time has gone towards making the world today although I think the world today is moving quite a lot faster with new technology, etc.

I remember seeing on the front of a newspaper that Diana had died. And sat watching programs about her and memorials. That was years ago, yet it upset me even though I had no idea who she was at all. Now I realise how much she touched people, how much more she might have touched my heart had i been older and been able to understand what she did for people. Now I watch documentaries on her and feel I understand her that little bit more.

Likewise, I sat and watched the twin towers falling, shocked but still not fully understanding why people who fly a plane into a building? Now I realise that there are people like that in the world, unfortunate, but true. When I watch those films about the twin towers, about who died and who lived, who died but not before saving as many as they could, about those who never gave up hope and kept everyone going, about those who could simply watch as the world fell down around them. I watch them now, as shocked and mesmerised as I was 6 years ago, but now I understand more (well who can really understand why someone would want to kill innocent people) but I can at least try. Now I can watch and cry, knowing why the families of the dead are breaking down on TV, I can cry in sympathy and empathy, I can know why its so upsetting.

It seems strange that things so far away, and things from so long ago can upset people, even years and years on (think about how many people hate Hitler even though he was well before most peoples time!). I guess it shows how united we are, that even coming from so many different backgrounds we can all empathise with each other? Or I could be talking about a load of rubbish, after all I'm only young!!
x

I don't think you are talking rubbish. I didn't get why there was such a fuss over Diana at the time, although I understand more now, I do wish they could let her rest...

The twin towers were different for me - I was old enough to understand what was going on, although I didn't truly believe what was happening until I saw the pictures. Even today I still remember and feel the awful feelings I felt... Words don't really do it justice I don't think.

I still don't understand the fuss about Diana - she was a nice lady and it was tragic yes - anybody dying in such a manner would be tragic, especially a mother. A lot of more charitable people die every day though, and are not mourned in the same manner. Does the fact that she was once married to prince Charles make her more worthy of grief?

I didn't understand the fuss over the twin towers at first. I watched the news every day and saw famines and war and people dying in their thousands in far off places. To me it was another tragedy in another far away place. I understand the tragedy and sadness better now.

I sound heartless here, I'm not, that's just the way I experienced it at the time. I am sorry Diana's dead, I feel sorry for her children - in the same way that I am sorry that a woman died in a nearby village last week who I'd never met.

I watched that with my children too when it was first on. We all found it fascinating, especially as my parents and inlaws were children at the time.

The thread about the merits, or otherwise, of decimalisation has demonstrated that I was a small child when decimalisation occured and have been brought up with both systems, whereas younger members to whom imperial measurements are more alien can not see the merits of the system. Numerically they have a point, but somehow (just somehow) the imperial units feel more natural to me.

Personally, I like the fact that at the moment I am only 15 and not a lot has happened in "my time" yet. I have a whole life to live, as do you, and things will happen in you're life just like you're grandparents and everyone else.
Each generation grows up in a different world and as you said, we win some, we lose some. Personally I love studying history and seeing how life has changed and the past has contributed to our present. Also I think it is necessary to learn about our past so that we don't make the same mistakes in the future.

I agree with you a lot (and maybe its cos we are the same age lol!). I think knowing what is happening in our world is important, but also seeing how the past has built the foundations for our future. I hate it when people have a go at the "older generation" for no reason, do they not realise that without them, there would be no us?

About Diana - I wish they would just leave her now, the press are just dragging her name through the mud. I don't think its fair, on the royal family, on anyone who knew her, and on anyone who was touched by her. Obviously because she was a "royal" her press coverage was extremely huge compared to that of a "normal" person, who may have been just as nice. We can't forget the fact that because she was a royal seh had lots of oppourtunites, and was able to reach out to more people than normal kindhearted people, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a nice person I remember being told a story about how a while ago, when peple didn't understand about AIDS, people wouldn't even hold their hands, or touch them or anything. And princess Diana went to visit a hospital somewhere that had people with AIDS in it, and she was obv followed by lots of press. Diana went up to one of the AIDS sufferers and held their hand. The next day it was splashed across all the newspapers, and it was such a huge thing. I think those are the sorts of things she should be remembered for, not the fact that she wrote diaries, or confided in her butler or whatever. I wish she could be left in peace.

The Royal Family, when I was growing up in the 70's, commanded a lot more respect than they do now. The class divide then was much more obvious - in a very "them" and "us" fashion.

Diana was the first Royal to break with convention. She had an extra-ordinary ability to reach out to all sorts of people, and as a result the nation took her into their hearts. She was also not afraid to show her feelings, which I think most of the time were genuine.

Yes she manipulated the media (don't all celebrities?), even more so when she split up with Charles. The media couldn't get enough of her - and as a nation, nor could we. However media courtship is a dangerous game (as evidenced recently....) Even after her divorce, she wasn't left alone - every detail of her life became public domain.

Papers rely on new stories to sell, the more sensational the better. When she died, the reason why there was such an outpouring of grief and emotion was due to the fact that as a nation we all felt tremendous guilt, almost as though we were all in part responsible for her death, as in some ways indirectly we were (remember the press had been following her every move on the night). As a young child, it would not be possible to fully appreciate the repercussions of her death but I'm sure many people who were old enough to understand will identify with what I've written.

Yes I've always agreed about the ruthlessness of the paparazzi, I suppose at seven I would have felt no guilt, as I certainly wasn't reading tabloids. I also agree with the person who said that she was ideally placed to help people - for example she helped lessen the taboo about AIDs (which is unfortunately still in existance.) I think the same person mentioned that too, sorry if I'm just repeating it.

I don't want to imply that she wasn't deserving of grief, and certainly the tabloids exploitation was disgusting... I think I sort of understand... Could someone clarify... did the tabloid coverage of every aspect of her life make you feel like you knew her, like it was a personal tragedy? If not I'm still lost, and I'll have to be forever confused, probably merely because of my age.

Anyway, I do agree that she was wonderful, and did many great things - I think other people sacrifice as much and do as much for charity. I suppose I think it's a pity that other people equally good-hearted don't get the same reverence and respect as Diana (in some ways... in others she gets absolutely no respect, and should be left in peace)... and I suppose my attitude is "if everyone good can't have that amount of love and respect, no one should."

Probably a particularly childish attitude.

The media coverage did make it feel in some ways like a personal tragedy as we all felt we knew her. Her story began like a fairytale - she was beautiful, privileged, married a prince, did lots of charitable work - but like all individuals was flawed, and the media were quick to exploit her flaws once these became common knowledge. Famous people in the past didn't have their personal lives splashed all over the media - all of the press information was carefully orchestrated - but with Diana it was different. Nowadays, everything is laid bare and with shows like 'Big Brother' nothing personal is sacred anymore.

Not childish at all - in fact it shows maturity to question what to you seems a strange misplacement of emotion.


(BTW I was in Toronto when she died - it was only later that I fully appreciated the outpouring of grief that was felt by millions).

All credit to BeamishBoy for this one!



That's very profound and level-headed. And very well put!
Emotion is a strange thing. We react to things according to how those around us react - or if we're very young, and not yet conditioned, we store it up for our attitudes of the future. But I think it's good to be able to be objective through all that goes on around us. Then we know when something really matters to us. We are each the subjective centre of our own universe, and need to be able to emotionally react to things with regard to how they genuinely affect us as individuals. If we get carried away with every item that is newsworthy, how will we know when it's important - to us? The break-up of a relationship, the loss of a friendship...I remember my parents getting upset over people being shot in the N.I. troubles, but I couldn't really understand how they could be in such a state about people they didn't know. It was broadcast on the radio or on the TV screen, and to me it felt like it might as well have been an item of fiction. I couldn't relate. I was distraught when my dog died, though.

I was 6 when Diana died. I don't remember much from that part of my life other than longing for the weekends I could spend on my grandparents croft . I suppose I didn't really understand what the fuss was about, but I'm thankful for one thing. My parents knew that I wouldn't yet understand and recorded various parts of coverage from the time surrounding her death, so that if I should ever want to fill in the patches in my memory the resources are there. (I know you can find most things online/in the library but actually having the newspapers from the day it happened is a bit different I think...). In stark contrast, when Steve Irwin died last year, I remember a few of us sitting in the canteen at school pouring over newspapers, rather upset by what had happened. We didn't even especially approve of all that he did, but we couldn't remember a time when he hadn't been known to us.

September the 11th was one event which, to dramatise slightly, changed my life. I was 10 and so on the verge of being able to understand. I was standing in the living room with my dad when we turned on the news, and I distinctly remember looking at him and asking 'Will there be a war?' Of course, I didn't know what had already been going on, but I knew enough to understand marginally what was going to happen.

I wish I was able to understand these events with more clarity though. When the Tsunami happened in 2005 I felt as though I'd lost family members/friends even though I hadn't. Reading about the devastation that occured and the families which were horrifically separated made me want to do everything within my power to help. In reality that wasn't very much, but I did what I could.

Six years ago today, my grandfather died unexpectedly. For 2 years I must have appeared as a seriously cold-hearted child because I didn't even cry. It hit me one day though, possibly once I was old enough to completely understand what had happened, having put two and together. I wish I could have understood wholly from the start because perhaps I wouldn't feel quite so haunted by it now, but as BeamishBoy said, 'you win some, you lose some'.

I know what you mean Miss Ross. I was 16 when my greatnan died and although I was upset and cried at her funeral, it was only a couple of years later that it hit me that I had never known her. I wish now that I had spent more time with her, visited her, talked to her. She was a lovely old lady, but at that age and being quite shy, I somehow never got round to being friends with her.
Anyway, I am grateful to be able to be friends with other people of that generation and my nan's generation now.

With regard to Diana, I never understood why people said that the royal family had killed her. She died in a car crash from not wearing a seat belt. Without getting into conspiracy theories etc, she could easily have been in a crash and died whilst still with Charles. I was actually sadder when the Queen Mother died, but that may just be me LOL.

9/11 was something that affected me by the sheer loss of lives. I found it so difficult to comprehend. The pictures of people jumping out of the building really shook me as well.

I have a fascination with the first and second world wars- not the strategies and battles as such, but the experiences of normal people, whether in the trenches, in the airforce or in the Blitz. I don't know why, but I have a lot of empathy for those people; it almost feels as if I lived through it. I think empathy is key to appreciation, like with Diana for example.

Anyway, waffled enough!

Actually me too... about the world wars, all war poetry and war literature can bring me to tears, because it's described so vividly, and I just feel like I was there, or I can imagine myself and my reactions living through it. It doesn't seem as distant as, say, September 11th, despite the fact that it was so much longer ago.

Very far-sighted of your parents, Miss Ross. As I said earlier, I was in Toronto at the time of Diana's death and so was rather detached from what was happening back home - it was only when I returned and spoke to family and friends that I was able to truly appreciate reason behind the huge emotional outpouring in this country. Even in Toronto people were shocked (although reaction was more muted) and there were long queues in the centre to sign the book of condolence. Like littlelady, I agree that her death was an unfortunate accident but I can fully understand why she evoked such a strong reaction in so many.....

9/11 was surreal - we watched events unfolding in real time. We'd just arrived down in London for a funeral so were quite emotional already. The TV was on in the living room and we watched the second plane crash and the buildings collapse in suspended disbelief. Needless to say our own personal tragedy was overshadowed by the events across the Atlantic....

The tsunami was another tragedy that could have been avoided but for lack of emergency planning. That's what gets me the most, plus the fact that due to ignorance (not their fault) a lot of people ran towards the waters when they receded.....

Most of recorded history, all of prehistory and most of the future took or will take place when I'm not around to take part. Shame to miss it all!

Although if you believe the scaremongerers, Armageddon is a-coming and sooner than we think! So you might be around after all........

Yep - some say that the world will end within 50 years or so, predicting all the stored methane from underwater in the Arctic will all be released at once from ice into the atmosphere and then the world goes boom. But that's a bit extreme I think! At least, I hope!

~Wobby~

The world as we know it may end but time will not stop merely because we are not here to witness it passing!

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's there to hear it, does it still make a sound...?

If no one's here to witness it does time still pass?

Yes, of course it does! (That's the answer I give every time to this question.) Nothing would happen otherwise! Likewise, Earth would never have come to exist otherwise before we were there to see it. Unless an alien was observing this - in which case, who saw the alien...? And so on.

~Wobby~

Not quite. Anything prior to the evolution of man can be explained by going back to more primitive ancestors, anything before that can be explained by existence of God. Taking that further obviously if God is everywhere then 'someone' was there so it does make a sound.

The time one is more interesting though. When our concept of 'time' is defined by the orbit of the earth what happened before the sun and earth existed, or does time only come into existence with the universe? In which case with the end of the universe time must cease to exist as well. Equally if you go back to one of the earliest references to 'days' in the book of Genesis then we have the dilemma of what a 'day' was when it is actually entirely dependant on which planet you are on at the time. So effectively with the end of our galaxy/planet the concept of the passage of time days, months, years all cease to exist.

Of course, this all depends on your philosophical standing (and religion I guess). And of course, it depends on whose time you are referring to as well. But I still stand by with saying it still passes, because I see it as a bit arrogant that the Universe will stop just because we are not there (and possibly other races)...

Just like if no one heard the tree fall, it doesn't mean they can't see the effects afterwards, in which case they have a justified belief that it fell.

~Wobby~

But the universe ends as well remember. The rate of expansion is already slowing and once that stops...
Ultimately though all time ends, and when we run out of time we can no longer see the effects either.
Is it justified though. After all there's quite a few 'scientists' these days who say that the universe just became so why couldn't the tree just come in to being giving the appearance that it had fell.

Ah, but does it [the Universe end]?

Some say it will continue expanding, just the rate of expansion will slow, tending to zero but not reaching it. Others say it will expand, collapse, and then collapse so much it will expand again. Then there's the idea you have suggested, where it stops, and that's it. Or there's the ekypyrotic Universe idea too. It could even be that our Universe is recycled from old Universes.

But going back to the tree question again, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's there to hear it, does it still make a sound...?", we have already defined that statement as 'true' that the tree has fallen. Just because it is not 'fact' (i.e. we don't take heed of it), does not contradict its truth. If you are drawing up a case scenario of already specifying the condition of the tree falling, then it obviously does, whether we are there or not.

If all life died, then millions of years passed before life arose again when the conditions became right (assuming a 'reviving' Universe), time must have passed between the time all life died out and life came into being again, even if the 'old life' was not there to witness it.

~Wobby~

Everything begins and ends at some point, the question with the universe is whether that end point is infinity or not. If we are going on the Big Bang theory, which most scientists, and religions, now accept then we're looking at an explosion. But that explosive force will eventually end, as like all matter it will lose momentum as it travels. At that point the universe either contracts or grows old as no new matter is being produced.
We know that stars die eventually when they run out of fuel or when they are destroyed by another star. We also know that the galaxies are still in motion of some sort and some may eventually collide.
Once all the stars have gone, either cooling or going supernova, then in all probability we're left with a lot of black holes and not a lot else. The sources of light are all extinguished, black holes suck up most of the remaining matter so unless those singularities are a gateway to another universe...
I've never really agreed with the expand-contract-expand logic, it seems too simplistic to reduce the universe to a giant elastic band with some manipulative giant expanding and contracting it ad nauseam.
The Ekypyrotic theory is quite interesting, but its more or less been invented to go with string theory and thats far from accepted.
As to old universes, i think we've probably got enough problems trying to understand the current one. Interesting theory but thee no real logic for why a universe would just start recycling themselves.

I'm not actually challenging the tree has fallen segment, just your explanation of it, and whether the alien is really necessary . The example i was using was the a parallel of the model universe one, if you see a tree lying on the ground you presume it can only have fallen/been knocked down it can't just have came into being at that place, but the universe can just be.

But what is time? Our concept of time would in effect no longer exist. Time itself would not come into being again until some form of life began to recognise it as such.

Does everything begin and end? What about life cycles? Why can't the life of the Universe also be a cycle? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but wasn't it said that as a star gets eaten by a black hole, a new star pops up somewhere as proof of conservation of energy. So where would the energy have gone if the Universe just dies?

The expand-contract-expand logic isn't really based on a manipulative giant, though - think of a supernova in how a star expands, and then collapses, releasing huge amount of energy. If the Universe expanded so much it couldn't hold its own weight (so to speak), it would collapse by this theory, with the same energy it began with put into its collapse. Thus, on complete collapse, there would be yet another big bang, and another expansion.

In reference to the Time thing, why would it end with us? It is said that Mathematics is not invented, but discovered, as it has alway been there, just available to be found. Couldn't time be looked upon in the same way?

On the subject of the tree, the alien was necessary as a humerous bystander! It just puts the idea into perspective that we are rather small compared to the Universe, so if we were to disappear, would the disappearance be that substantial in the grand scheme of things...?

~Wobby~

I won't go into the whole chicken and egg thing, thats a problem for biologists, and it also depends on the belief aspect. I'm fairly certain no one knows what happens when matter/energy goes into a black hole. Given that the energy of the supernova can be released in formation of the black hole and in the initial collapse and subsequent release i think thats probably sufficient to account for the conservation of momentum not to mention the light/heat etc given out over the sun's lifetime.
If you going to ask where the energy goes then i'll start asking where it came from in the first place and we'll never get anywhere, after all if the universe was just born then some process/thing must have created energy?

Time is defined by human concepts, if we end then our concept of time ends with us. Likewise if our basis of measuring time, principally the orbit of the earth around the sun, is no more then there is in effect nothing to measure it by.

Time only has meaning if looked at in terms of life, otherwise it may as well stand still.

Its not quite the same as maths as time began at some point, some mathematical process had to occur to bring it into being.

I'm getting confused with all these physics and mathsy stuff!!

My head hurts
x

The tradgedy that I remember from my childhood is the Dunblane shootings. I was nine at the time and was very, very real to us as it was very close to where I lived and some of my friends had known the man who did it. It was so sad and really shocked the whole community. But the parents of the children involved have handled it so well and I fully commend the campaigning they do againist guns.

It wasn't the gun that did the shooting it was the sick man...

There are no such thing as 'killer roads', just killer drivers.

The first tragedy I remember was the Aberfan dissaster, where a coal mine's slurry tip engulfed a primary school in Wales, and all the children and teachers died: I was a primary school pupil at the time and I identified with the victims more than I have with any other disaster since. It still sends a chill down my spine just thinking about it.

That's true, but guns make it much easier for people to kill others. The whole idea of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty stupid, because if sick people can't get their hands on guns, they can't kill as many people.

If that man in Dunblane could only get his hand on a knife, perhaps he'd have killed one person and been overpowered - if the teenagers behind school shootings in America couldn't get guns then most likely they'd give up. There are other ways to kill people of course, but no other way so efficient, and without guns, there would be fewer murders, it's as simple as that.

All you have to do is look at the murder rate in, say America, where guns are legal, and the murder rate here, where the guns aren't.

I remember Dunblane - I was in Japan at the time and watching the news in Japanese when it came on - and I remember trying to decipher the name in Japanese as I could see the map of Scotland - D-a-n -bu-re-i-n........D-anburein? Oh...............and I remember the pit in the bottom of my stomach as I worked out Danburein was Dunblane......(having taught pupils from Dunblane piano and flute before I left for Japan). I don't think any of them were caught up in it as I think they went to a different school, but it's not exactly far from us..........

99% of the population is mis-informed about the gun situation in the UK both before the ban and subsequently. You are entitled to your opinion but be careful you know the full facts or you run the risk of making yourself look stupid. This forum is not the place for a debate on the morals of firearms, or the bigger question of sociological moral responsibilites to both mental breakdown and human-rights, but anyone can see that the guns themselves are not the issue but the conditioning and flawed cognition of the people holding them.

We might want to shun the deeper and more horrific problem of the collective breakdown of both Hamilton, the police-force and Dunblane social services but please don't hide behind blaming the 'gun' in tabloid-type hysteria. That's stupid and fundamentally immoral.. .but it is the easy option so it's the one most (stupid) people take. Don't be a sheep. Look at the bigger picture.

If you'll read my post carefully you'll notice that I don't blame guns entirely. If it weren't for sick people, no one would be murdered - that goes without saying. Guns however, are a very useful instrument for the aforementioned sick people to commit murder. Anything which makes guns more difficult (not impossible) to get hold of, will prevent some murders. You're right that I'm not 100% knowledgable about gun laws, but nothing I have said so far needs a great knowledge of the gun bans. It's all common sense.
I don't really need to know exactly who is entitled to have a gun and who isn't, to say that if sick people don't have guns they will be able to kill fewer people as easily.

I don't take kindly to the implication that if I don't know the ins and outs of a situation I am stupid, or that I look stupid. Firstly, lack of knowledge isn't stupidity - it's ignorance, and secondly I haven't said anything so far which necessitates the knowledge which you accuse me of lacking.

I wonder what most people were doing and what their thoughts were when the horrific scene of the Twin Towers collapsing appeared on the telly.

I asked this last week and the post was 'closed' and removed without any reason given to me by the administrators... so this might disappear.

(Don't know what's 'wrong' with the question though - maybe it was politically incorrect to say I was a woman and ironing (clothes not cats ) in my sitting room at the time... )

Probably a major technical glitch, that's all. I don't know much about political correctness but I'm sure it had nothing to do with the disappearance of a thread.

No it was officially 'closed' by the administrators; people could read it but not reply. Then it disappeared a day later without any word of explanation.

All I did was ask the above question and say I was sad... nothing politically incorrect etc there

I find it strange that this forum can run the 'Beamish versus Pied' thread, which is quite insulting, and yet I'm not allowed to say I feel sad about the deaths of over 3000 people. Perhaps they don't matter to the admin of this forum?

We do live in a sick world.

The trouble is that everyone has a different view as to what's insulting or what should be removed. You found the BB/PP thread insulting yet other people may have found it amusing, boring, irritating or have no view about it whatsoever. Some people might find what you've said above to be insulting, others might agree with it. Maybe the other thread was removed because someone on the forum had lost a close relative in the disaster and found the thread distressing. Who knows? I take the view that none of us know what goes on behind the scenes or why certain actions are taken. Some actions we'll agree with, others we won't - I thought it was a shame for instance that Malone's threads were deleted, but hey ho, it's never going to possible to please everybody but on the whole, and bearing in mind we don't know the whole picture, I think the balance is about right....

Lottie: Not sure, but wonder if the mods felt it might upset readers?? Not at all sure though. There have been a couple of threads recently that have disappeared and I've not been able to work out why.

I was in Israel... interesting place to be at the time, to be precise, on the border of the West Bank.