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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.