3 Mins silence - why ?
Author
Discussion

rev-erend

Original Poster:

21,586 posts

300 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
3 Mins silence - why ?

Can anyone answer why it's now 3 mins and not 1 min ..

not that I begrudge it .. but why has all these silences suddenly changed from 1 to 3 mins..:

Marki

15,763 posts

286 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
inflation

rev-erend

Original Poster:

21,586 posts

300 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
Marki said:
inflation


Would sure be true if Ken Livingstone had organised it .. (9% rise on tubes in London (3 * inflation))

maxf

8,434 posts

257 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
I equally don't begrudge it.

However, I seem to remember standing for 2 minutes in November to remember the war dead. So does 3 minutes mean that this natural disaster is more 'important'?

Also,

Is 3 minutes silence actually going to achieve anything. 'Remebering' to me means thinking of and reflecting on something which is in the past. This is still going on, and hundreds of thousands of people still need 'real' help.

pdavison

1,638 posts

293 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
I was thinking that this morning when I heard it on the radio.

I still believe 1 minutes silence is appropriate.

alexkp

16,484 posts

260 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
3 minutes is too long IMHO. The two world wars only get two minutes...

Julian64

14,317 posts

270 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
I think its because we have to show how much we care, and 3 mins shows that better than 1 min?

Collective grief is a strange study in social interaction even at funerals, even more so when conducted at a state level

mrmaggit

10,146 posts

264 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
1 min OK for single people that we know/knew. Also disasters in foreign lands.

2 minutes for the war dead, OK.

3 minutes for natural disaster? Don't think so. IMHO

birdbrain

1,564 posts

255 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
FFS, what does it matter if it's 1 minute or 3 minutes? It's not a sliding scale of how seriously it's taken you know!

forever_driving

1,869 posts

266 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
Well, I'll be observing a 1 minutes silence and then I'll get back on with my job.

Podie

46,646 posts

291 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
[redacted]

maxf

8,434 posts

257 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
[redacted]

stumartin

1,706 posts

253 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
Seems far too long. Whatever it might or might not say about it's relative importance, I just can't sit still and 'reflect' for 3mins - I'll end up thinking about what I'm having for tea and scratching my arse. I'd rather spend my time finding out where I can donate some money without it being siphoned off.

alexkp

16,484 posts

260 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
[redacted]

shadowninja

78,634 posts

298 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
you miserable ers. I'm gonna do a 50 minutes silence to make up for your lack of goodwill.

*puts his feet on the desk and opens a beer*

Buffalo

5,466 posts

270 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
I just posted a thread, but then saw this one, so thought i would post my comment here instead:

>>>I am absolutely positive that the company i work for at the moment did not observe the two minutes silence for rememberance day this year...

...yet they want us to observe *3* minutes of silence for the tsunami victims...

I am actually so cross about the mixed priorities here, i am considering not observing it at all.

Thoughts..? <<<

anonymous-user

70 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
Because it's another great example of EU bullshit.

The EU are not so keen to remember the war because most of them were either with the Nazis or hiding behind the shed waiting for us and the yanks to rescue them.

Much more appropriate to have 3 minutes silence now. (The EU will probably propose a "general" day of rememberance to replace 11th November next).

The tsunami was a terrible thing (as is war, famine and the brutal tyranny of Mugabe & Co) and we should all do what we can to help. 3 minutes silence though helps nobody and is inappropriate. (IMO)

alexkp

16,484 posts

260 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
Buffalo said:
I just posted a thread, but then saw this one, so thought i would post my comment here instead:

>>>I am absolutely positive that the company i work for at the moment did not observe the two minutes silence for rememberance day this year...

...yet they want us to observe *3* minutes of silence for the tsunami victims...

I am actually so cross about the mixed priorities here, i am considering not observing it at all.

Thoughts..? <<<


Observe it. It has nothing to do with your company's skewed priorities, it is simply a reflection and statement of grief.

Do insist that they observe Rememberance though as they have observed this.

billb

3,198 posts

281 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
a good point - 1 minutes is easily enough why the extra two? is it to make ourselves feel better that its taken so long to help them or are the extra 2 minutes to remember the 20,000 people that die in africa every day that we dont care about because we dont holiday there?

( no disrespect intended to the asia victims it was indeed absoultely terrible )

tricky69

1,696 posts

258 months

Wednesday 5th January 2005
quotequote all
only had a 1 minute silence at stamford bridge last night..... does that mean that chelsea players/fans don't care as much as they should ?