On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:42:11 +0000, Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III
wrote:

Medically, 'shock' is usually an intensive care type problem; fainting
or hyperventilating after seeing some dreadful event is not.

Thank you for the explanation. I've always been under the (wrong) impression
that "having a shock" (at a large gas bill, e.g.) was a synonym for being
"in shock". I thought that all this business about people being "taken
to hospital for shock" was some sort of medical euphemism for "taking them
to a sanatorium for some sort of emotional upset".

I had no idea that "shock" was a specific medical condition.

The danger occurs when the lesser and greater usages get muddled. One
is "shocked" at an incident, then looks around for someone to blame so
as to claim damages for suffering "shock".

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Aren't 'flu jabs the reasons "they have never suffered anything worse
than a heavy cold"?

--
To contact me take a davidhowdon and add a @yahoo.co.uk to the end.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:38:45 GMT, David Howdon
wrote:

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Aren't 'flu jabs the reasons "they have never suffered anything worse
than a heavy cold"?

Maybe :-)

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:46:58 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

... let's not descend into tabloid exaggerations. You and the
driver may have been shocked. But you wouldn't be "in shock".
That's a specific medical condition. ...

Let's not assume that words or phrases have only one meaning, either.

Sometimes they should.

Language doesn't work that way. (And that's a statement with more than
one meaning as well.)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10862735.html
(a train on the Hythe Pier Railway, Hampshire in 1998)

The original post was a thoughtful contribution about an upsetting
incident, and all the respondents seem able to do is bitch about
semantics, when the meaning was perfectly clear all along.

Shame on you.

On 29 Nov 2005 00:37:27 -0800, "peter"
wrote:

The original post was a thoughtful contribution about an upsetting
incident, and all the respondents seem able to do is bitch about
semantics, when the meaning was perfectly clear all along

The original included more implied sympathy for the effect on
witnesses than for the victim. It needed challenging.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 00:37:27 -0800, "peter"
wrote:

The original post was a thoughtful contribution about an upsetting
incident, and all the respondents seem able to do is bitch about
semantics, when the meaning was perfectly clear all along

The original included more implied sympathy for the effect on
witnesses than for the victim. It needed challenging.

What "victim"? It was the individual's choice to jump. The only people
adversely affected were the LU staff and others who had to clear up the mess
and the passengers who witnessed it.

I hope the poor soul who jumped got what he wanted.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:57:49 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

The original included more implied sympathy for the effect on
witnesses than for the victim. It needed challenging.

What "victim"? It was the individual's choice to jump. The only people
adversely affected were the LU staff and others who had to clear up the mess
and the passengers who witnessed it.

I hope the poor soul who jumped got what he wanted.

See what I mean? :-)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:57:49 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
said:

What "victim"? It was the individual's choice to jump. The only people
adversely affected were the LU staff and others who had to clear up the mess
and the passengers who witnessed it.

I hope the poor soul who jumped got what he wanted.

I don't. I hope that the inconsiderate ******* got *really* badly
hurtand spends the the rest of its life stuck in a wheelchair ****ing
itself uncontrollably.

If you want to kill yourself there are plenty of ways which only
inconvenience yourself, your family, and whoever finds your rotting
corpse, instead of inconveniencing hundreds of strangers.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:57:49 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
said:

What "victim"? It was the individual's choice to jump. The only
people adversely affected were the LU staff and others who had to
clear up the mess and the passengers who witnessed it.

I hope the poor soul who jumped got what he wanted.

I don't. I hope that the inconsiderate ******* got *really* badly
hurtand spends the the rest of its life stuck in a wheelchair ****ing
itself uncontrollably.

If you want to kill yourself there are plenty of ways which only
inconvenience yourself, your family, and whoever finds your rotting
corpse, instead of inconveniencing hundreds of strangers.

You appear to be under the misapprehension that someone who does such a
thing is full control of themselves. Perhaps you might like to give that a
few minutes thought, assuming you're capable.