Reply #13: Heh....

[recon54]

Well, I appreciate your reply, and suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're right, it has been "an interest to history buffs" long before Cameron cashed in on it. It took Cameron to trivialize the story into cultural junk, starring Leo and Kate. If it weren't for the movie, it would still be history buffs and the History Channel.

I'm not trying to say the Titanic is irrelevant, but I will sustain my point that it's a chapter in human history and engineering that's not qualitatively or quantitatively more or less important than, say, the Hindenburg disaster, and not more or less important a chapter in maritime historical disasters than, say, the story of U-Boat crews in WWII, or the loss of the Scorpion back in '68. But you don't hear about those every other day -- or rather, you won't until Hollywood figures out a way to tie in a love story around those events.

Speaking of movies and U-boats, yeah, I saw U-571 -- another trivialization of a potentially strong narrative -- the actual story of U-570, the only U-Boat to have been captured and re-launched back at sea by the Allies in August of '41 would have made for one hell of a flick).

>Christ, some of you need to read a little history.

Tsk tsk, that's not a very nice thing to assume.

I personally started reading about the Titanic back when I was about 10 or so, and remember the anecdotal pieces, that the sinking was the first use of --- ... --- SOS (save our souls, or was it save our ship?).

> The poster clearly made remark that would be deleted if it had said black instead of white.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Anyway -- thanks for the welcome.