On feeling sorry for people

Okay - I'm getting confused. How does this pertain to robin's story? He didn't cut any old men dead who tried to engage him in conversation.I don't think it's fair to assume the old men wanted to be talked to. It even seems vaguely patronising to imagine that they'd jump at the chance to have a bit of nice human contact with someone new. Again - how does this pertain to Robin's story? You and several other people seemed to have neatly elided pity with disinterest, and attributed a mean-spirited sideshow gawp ("different") to him that appears wholly unjustified to this humble reader.I don't think pity has to mean this at all.I don't really understand why everyone here sounds either so angry at him or so quietly regretful on his behalf. I don't know how one can experience such strong feelings when one didn't see the exact circumstances. It is quite possible that any number of factors prevented him from acting as you anticipate you would have, and would have also prevented you.I notice that later on in the thread that someone, perhaps you, says that the veterans might like to be reassured that they didn't lose a limb in vain. Without wishing to sound like a broken record, isn't that a bit of an assumption?
I'm imagining a conversation, once an appropriate amount of pleasantries have been exchanged:Robin: You know, I feel personally endebted to you for the obvious sacrifice that you made for me and this country.
Veteran: Wow. It really means a lot to me that you say that, thanks.That went pretty well, but I can imagine that similar sentiments might actually upset or anger some people.Or am I getting the wrong end of the bough?

I like the name Mr. Correct! That strikes me as a bit odd - I'm not impuning you for not bending the story to be more relevant: I'm just saying that if it isn't analogious to robin's story then it isn't very relevant. I agree entirely. This is embarrassing. I have always understood elision to mean "run together" or "comingle" etc... Its funny how you can land flat on your malapropical arse sometimes. And it's not even a very big word. I think it must sound like something in linguistics (i.e. the reason that A Norange became An orange perhaps??). Dunno. Apologies. I thought I got a flavour of it when you said "different". Although this kind of pixie intervention isn't something we should prematurely discount, I think it is less relevant than the idea that Robin may not have had time, or that some other legitimate factor may have prevented him from engaging the noble old fellows in wholesome discourse.Although this is pure speculation on my part(maybe he really is an unredeemable sociopath, for instance), everyone who is berating him seems to be making an equal and opposite assumption that his decision not to speak reflects a kind of disguised callousness, or the stunted nature of his compassion, or whatever it is that's making everyone so upset.I'm getting the impression that you really disagree with me over this point (there was something you said earlier in your response which is making me suspect this - when you said that we shouldn't assume that they didn't want to be talked to either I think)... so I'd be greatful if you could spell it out.Clearly only if you have the time and inclination - I'm not trying to be obstructive, just genuinely curious.Cheers,TEdited by Tusko, : I left a fragment at the end that was out of context by mistake.

The 3 stooges incident sounded great. The difference that breaks the analogy for me is that one of your guys offered you something first. In Robin's case nobody did. Personally I would have jumped at a chance to have the three stooges conversation. In the other example though, I would have felt uncomfortable making the assumption that anyone wanted to speak to me - apparently purely on the basis that they were missing limbs.I imagine you would think I was misconstruing things here. Maybe your attitude would be "nothing ventured nothing gained, I bet these guys have an interesting story to tell." Forgetting any other constraints that Robin might have neglected to mention (like the time issue), that is one of many legitimate reactions to the situation. I don't think its the best. For instance, it might transpire that you might inadvertantly upset a vet through said conversation. Of course, that could be used as an excuse not to talk to anyone ever, as you rightly pointed out in a previous post. I'm not advocating that; merely that just as it can be argued that in not talking Robin was acting in some way regretfully, it could equally be argued that an attempt to engage someone in conversation "to hear an interesting story" or "to learn something" or whatever might be considered selfish.Anyone who is socially adept to a high degree probably won't experience this problem very often - but its still something to think about.I just think there are too many unknown variables in the situation described to have anything like a firm opinion about the rightness of Robin's (in)action. I agree entirely. That's not to say that every time that it's used it isn't legitimate. But that was just one example of a possible reason that Robin might not have had a chat with a veteran. I wasn't there so I don't really feel confident to comment on anyone's motivation. I agree that Jar's comments were innocuous. It was some of the others that slightly perplexed me. Let me see... to me that sounds quite accusatory - though perhaps this is a matter of interpretation.Also, Schraf's: There may have been a couple of others that sounded similarly... I don't know. Short? Unamused? I don't think it was totally unreasonable to say he was being berated, at least by some people for his (in)actions.I'm not so interested in this whole shy people thing, even though it seems reasonable enough to me for shy people to be shy. Personally I'm totally up for a nice conversation with strangers. How kind. I was merely trying to say that if I grant you that I don't have any evidential support for the fact that Robin didn't speak to the vets for a perfectly legitimate reason (e.g. he might have been in too much of a hurry to have a chat with the veterans), I don't see why you can't grant me that you don't have any more support for your contention that through his actions Robin did something a little (or a lottle) regrettable.Clearly, we both agree that I don't have any evidence to support my position; however, you disagree on the second point point - that is, you think that you have some evidence to support your position.I just wanted to know what it was.Look forward to hearing from you, Angel Eyes.T xEdited by Tusko, : Jar's comments didn't even seem "fairly" innocuous.

Its weird - I get the feeling we're just talking at cross porpoises. I feel a bit silly. It feels like you really don't think my point of view is reasonable, and so I'm prompted to write lengthier and lengthier defences of it. To be honest, I don't really care that much about the issue - I just want to see if I can get some acknowledgment, somehow. One last go!I think I see your point of view. Is it best crystalised thus? That seems perfectly reasonable. I do that most of the time. ( I happen to be one of those people who really likes getting strangers to smile back at them on the bus by smiling at them.) Of course, there are times when I don't do this. I might be in a bad mood. I might be in a hurry. For other people, they might be inhibited by any nomber of factors, either short- or long-term. Maybe you come from a small town - but I don't believe that you are physically capable of acknowledging every human you come near. Sometimes this isn't possible, or desirable, or appropriate. There are all kinds of circumstances that might prevent you from tipping your ten gallon hat to a passer-by. There are so many.I'm imagining that you see your position as common sense, humane etc.. etc.. But I was prompted to write because it seemed like everyone was being uneccessarily hard on Robin. To pass a judgement on him, as some people seemed to, or even with a shake of a metaphorical head to say "you have perhaps missed out on a wonderful conversation" seemed to be a little presumptuous. That's all - that's my only point! I think its presumptuous because there could be any number of reasons that prevented him from talking. We weren't there: we don't know.Notice - he didn't say "when I see old veterans from wars, I pity them." He was instead refering to a specific situation and the feelings he felt at that time. It would be pretty offensive to sweepingly dismiss all vets as objects of pity out of hand. But he didn't do that.Even if you want to, sometimes you can't speak to the people that break your heart to look at - but I was really suprised that when he offered this moment up he got the reception he did. Like I said, we don't know what meant that he didn't speak at this time - but to assume that the failure to speak/smile/whatever indicates some kind of character flaw seems weird [italic]when none of us are able to be like this 100% of the time[/italic]I was asking for evidence not to try to undermine your argument necessarily, but because I'm having real trouble understanding your position and I need help.Whoops! Got to go. Cheers, hope you are doing okay today. I can't wait to get out of work.

I hoped someone would like that one!