'One under'
 

As a tube commuter I often have cause to grumble about it, and sometimes
people who work on it, especially when there's a strike (sorry, I'm only
human!).

But this evening I was on the southbound Jubilee line platform at Green Park
when someone a few metres to my right launched themselves in front of the
incoming train. Luckily I wasn't looking that way and I only got to hear it
rather than see it.

I just wanted to say that the driver coped with it very well; he stopped the
train extremely quickly and after a slight pause when he'd presumably
radioed it through came out of his cab calmly to help with moving people off
the platform. Unfortunately there weren't any station staff down there at
the time and there was a slight delay while staff came down to our level,
but they were all fast and efficient while still maintaining courtesy to the
people who were annoyed they were being cleared out (it was very busy and
many people were arriving who didn't know anything had happened).

Just wanted to say well done to the staff who have to deal with this on an
all too regular basis - on leaving I wished I'd asked the driver if he was
OK on behalf of the passengers but I think I was still slightly in shock
myself.

Tony

'One under'
 

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:58:26 -0000, "Tony Wilson" a@a wrote:

But this evening I was on the southbound Jubilee line platform at Green Park
when someone a few metres to my right launched themselves in front of the
incoming train. Luckily I wasn't looking that way and I only got to hear it
rather than see it.
...............

Just wanted to say well done to the staff who have to deal with this on an
all too regular basis - on leaving I wished I'd asked the driver if he was
OK on behalf of the passengers but I think I was still slightly in shock
myself.

It would have been un upsetting experience, I'm sure. But 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. The victim (if he had survived) might have been. But not
you.

'One under'
 

Would explain the "severe delays" on the boards for the Jubilee when I
was coming home earlier this evening.
I've been on a train when some has gone under. Actually heard the thump
and then the driver on the radio saying "I've got one under". It
shocked me at the time, but it quickly became a detached incident, like
seeing a bad road accident.

Neill

'One under'
 

Laurence Payne writes:
... 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.
--
Mark Brader "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto do say can and will be misquoted and used against
you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Mark Brader wrote:

Laurence Payne writes:

... 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.

Some words or phrases *do* have only one meaning - if i said "i've got a
bit of thrombosis", meaning i had a stitch, that would be wrong, wouldn't
it? The term "in shock" refers to hypovolemic shock, and always has done;
shock was not something you could be _in_ until that use was coined. It's
true that people have started using it to mean 'shocked', but, like people
using 'flu' to mean 'a bad cold', it's wrong.

tom

--
This should be on ox.boring, shouldn't it?

'One under'
 

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.

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

Tom Anderson typed

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

Some words or phrases *do* have only one meaning - if i said "i've got a
bit of thrombosis", meaning i had a stitch, that would be wrong, wouldn't
it?

Yup!

The term "in shock" refers to hypovolemic shock, and always has done;

pedant
The term 'shock' means 'a state of reduced tissue perfusion'. Not all
shock is hypovolaemic ( a state of reduced circulating blood volume, eg
due to blood loss)

There is also: septic shock (due to bacteria)
cardiogenic shock (reduced effective heart pumping action)
neurogenic shock (eg due to nervous system damage)

To state but a few
pedant

shock was not something you could be _in_ until that use was coined. It's
true that people have started using it to mean 'shocked', but, like people
using 'flu' to mean 'a bad cold', it's wrong.

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

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

'One under'
 

Tony Wilson (a@a) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

But this evening I was on the southbound Jubilee line platform at
Green Park when someone a few metres to my right launched themselves
in front of the incoming train.

I dunno what it was about Green Park yesterday, but that Jubilee "passenger
action" was followed at about 10-10.30 by somebody else at Green Park doing
exactly the same on the Victoria line.

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

Helen Deborah Vecht 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.

Richard [in PE12]

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III typed


Helen Deborah Vecht 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"

This indeed occurs; it is often safest to transfer those involved though
apparently uninjured to hospital for thorough checking,[1] often
followed by cups of tea.

Those who witness dreadful events sometimes benefit from counselling and
debriefing which may be provided.

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

Usenet has some uses...

[1] It's obviously easier to check someone from head to toe in a warm,
well-lit Emergency department than on a cold, dark, windy, noisy street.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

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.

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

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.

Haemodynamic semantic pedantics was 'One under'
 

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 :-)

'One under'
 

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)

'One under'
 

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.

'One under'
 

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.

'One under'
 

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.

'One under'
 

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? :-)

'One under'
 

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

'One under'
 

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.

'One under'
 

Brimstone wrote:

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.

Indeed. I used to think like the other poster, that if one wanted
to top onesself, there were cleaner ways of doing it; however, for
all anyone knows, the suicider might have been taken some mind
altering drug without their knowledge. Then that would at least be
persunslaughter.

Richard [in PE12]

'One under'
 

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
...
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.

That person jumped in front of the train because they were mentally ill.
No-one is that selfish to kill themselves to delay other people. Suggesting
that shows just how much empathy you have towards your fellow man.
Terrible.

I just hope you and everyone you know and love never suffer from depression.

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