R
Rolf Vonk
Guest
Hi there!
Paul, I told you to leave Great Uncle Albert alone! 
This sounds slimy, but you’re really great! I love the way you always keep the excitement in discussions! It’s good that you don’t turn around the main points, but just discuss about it. I don’t like it when we loose the path, so I like to come straight to the point immediately. Diane, Teri, Christine and you above stated that nobody is right and nobody is wrong with this kind of discussions. Well, I do partly agree, but this doesn’t mean that we may not try to convince each other about certain thoughts. That’s what discussions are about, isn’t it?! With this in mind I do believe that this board is not only a place to put thoughts on, but also to discuss and therefore I would say go on with this thread or not. We know each other and the respect doesn’t change with such decisions.
Paul, you said I was making a connection between exhumation and salvage/commercial exploitation. I saw you putted a nice sentence from my debate! 
Well, actually you are taking the sentence out of the context. I was not just stating that there’s a link between exhumation and salvage/commercial exploitation, but I was saying that exhumation of Titanic graves is an emotional subject just as everything connected to Titanic. Titanic is a graveyard too and I see salvage as the disturbing of graves too. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough in the post.
----Regarding your second point, I have no idea what the four survivors think of this matter, so saying that it's a "slam in their faces" is a bit of an assumption on your part. They might even be in favour of the attempted identification. ----
When I talk about “slam in the faces of survivors” I’m not just referring to the exhumation of bodies, but the time after time that new commotion around the whole disaster comes above again. I can imagine that it is quit emotional for them to be reminded at the disaster. However I understand it is not up to me to tell what they think or not as I, indeed, don’t know.
----I don't see the difference. Firstly, as we don't know who's involved, we have no idea as to how closely related the "families" might be to the victims. In any event, who's going to draw the line? Are you saying that if the victims were known to the families, then exhumation would be okay; but as they weren't (assumption) then exhumation is disrespectful? If so, I don't follow your argument.----
Hmmm, I actually do agree with you about that. I indeed don’t know how related the families.
----Some might say that it shows far more respect to attempt to identify a lost family member and, if possible, bring their remains to join the rest of the family's dead. ----
Why just don’t show your respect for the disaster and let the victims rest in their graves on a (almost international) memory-place where they have been for more than 80 years allready. It’s like digging up the American and British soldiers from the war-gravesides here in the Netherlands after 50 years, cause their families want them to join the family’s dead. These boys died with their fellows and got the honour and respect to be buried together as a never-ending remembrance to their duties and fate. Titanic victims died together with their ‘fellow-victims’ too and I think they deserve the same respect and honour.
----There are only another 40 unidentified victims left, (as opposed to hundreds), but I think that's a moot point. ----
I would consider all the unidentified people buried on sea as unidentified.
Paul (and other too!) feel free, as always J, to attack my statement.
Many regards,
Rolf.
Paul, I told you to leave Great Uncle Albert alone!
Paul, you said I was making a connection between exhumation and salvage/commercial exploitation. I saw you putted a nice sentence from my debate!
----Regarding your second point, I have no idea what the four survivors think of this matter, so saying that it's a "slam in their faces" is a bit of an assumption on your part. They might even be in favour of the attempted identification. ----
When I talk about “slam in the faces of survivors” I’m not just referring to the exhumation of bodies, but the time after time that new commotion around the whole disaster comes above again. I can imagine that it is quit emotional for them to be reminded at the disaster. However I understand it is not up to me to tell what they think or not as I, indeed, don’t know.
----I don't see the difference. Firstly, as we don't know who's involved, we have no idea as to how closely related the "families" might be to the victims. In any event, who's going to draw the line? Are you saying that if the victims were known to the families, then exhumation would be okay; but as they weren't (assumption) then exhumation is disrespectful? If so, I don't follow your argument.----
Hmmm, I actually do agree with you about that. I indeed don’t know how related the families.
----Some might say that it shows far more respect to attempt to identify a lost family member and, if possible, bring their remains to join the rest of the family's dead. ----
Why just don’t show your respect for the disaster and let the victims rest in their graves on a (almost international) memory-place where they have been for more than 80 years allready. It’s like digging up the American and British soldiers from the war-gravesides here in the Netherlands after 50 years, cause their families want them to join the family’s dead. These boys died with their fellows and got the honour and respect to be buried together as a never-ending remembrance to their duties and fate. Titanic victims died together with their ‘fellow-victims’ too and I think they deserve the same respect and honour.
----There are only another 40 unidentified victims left, (as opposed to hundreds), but I think that's a moot point. ----
I would consider all the unidentified people buried on sea as unidentified.
Paul (and other too!) feel free, as always J, to attack my statement.
Many regards,
Rolf.
