classifying/grouping the WTC victims

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The controversial plan to list victims' names randomly at the World Trade Center Memorial was scrapped yesterday in favor of grouping them by uniformed service and employer.
The change - long sought by many 9/11 family members and the police and firefighter unions - was approved by the executive committee of the WTC Memorial Foundation.
The change "strikes the right balance," said Mayor Bloomberg, who was elected chairman of the organization two months ago.
"I have spent a lot of time listening to everyone's views on the subject and there is no right answer," Bloomberg said.
The mayor had favored the random listing to reflect what memorial designer Michael Arad called the "haphazard brutality" of the terror attacks.
"Nevertheless, it is time to move forward," Bloomberg said.
Arad signed off on the change.
The 1,518 names to be inscribed at the sunken pool marking where the north tower stood will include those who worked in or were visiting the building on 9/11, such as the 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives. They would be listed as a group, but without the company's name.
Those aboard the hijacked plane that crashed into the tower also will be inscribed there.
The 1,461 names at the pool for the south tower will be divided among eight other groupings, including those who worked in the building, the three other hijacked flights of 9/11 and first responders.
As a result, fallen members of the Fire Department, Police Department, Port Authority Police Department and court officers will be listed together - by command, precinct or company, but not byrank.
"We're very happy with the outcome," Uniformed Firefighters Association President Steve Cassidy told the Daily News last night.

I say dud.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:58 (seventeen years ago) link

that's from The Daily News. The News has a history of making itself out to be some kind of guardian of city morals when it comes to the WTC site, having led a mean-spirited and ultimately successful crusade to eject the Drawing Center - a consistently engaging and provocative Wooster St. art gallery - from moving to the site as part of a planned "cultural" nexus there. The News said the fact that the Drawing Center had hung a work drawing links between Saudi business interests and the Bush family, and a work showing a hooded prisoner at Abu Ghraib, made them somehow morally unfit to show artwork on the WTC site.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I say not dud to the thread premise, in as much as relatives looking for loved ones names would stand a better chance if they know where sections are.

Especially noting that victims are classified by 'occupation' but not by rank is something to be admired. (We've spent ages looking for my wife's (opposite of descendants) on various war memorials, and it always seems that the good old generals get their section and the foot soldiers get lumped together in theirs)

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:11 (seventeen years ago) link

I think Arad's idea made sense on that level, but people are at least trying to make sense of things. A random listing would have people having to read every square inch of the memorial. Maybe that's what was wanted by some people, but to subject victims' families to that is unfair.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Those aboard the hijacked plane that crashed into the tower also will be inscribed there.

The hijackers were on board those planes, will they be included?

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:15 (seventeen years ago) link

What's wrong with plain old alphabetical?

― masonic boom (kate), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh wait, the victims' names. Sorry. Verrrry stupid remark.

(xpost to self)

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:16 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost in a sense, listing them by occupation shows what the victims were doing there at the time.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I just think it's reductive.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Only if one thinks of the general public as being lesser.

It depends on how it's done of course. The 'not ranking' seems to be a step towards it.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:49 (seventeen years ago) link

I know if I was looking for someone's name, I'd like to see it in with the names of colleagues, whose names might also be familiar, and some of whom might have been friends, rather than looking for it among strangers who just happened to have a name starting with the same letter.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:50 (seventeen years ago) link

It makes me uncomfortable, but I can't entirely put into words why. It's almost like this different-tiered system of the dead. And separate is never equal.

Reminds me of a story my former housemate was telling me, about her sister going to some victim support group after she lost her husband in the WTC. And even among them, there was starting to be this ... pecking order, of "well, I'm the widow of a firefighter, and you're just the widow of an office worker". It smacks to me of that, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

― masonic boom (kate), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:51 (seventeen years ago) link

if they had done a random list they could've put little icons next to the names to show what the person did. this might've helped people find them quick enough - if they were looking for a specific name.

― sede vacante (blueski), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:56 (seventeen years ago) link

By listing people in groups under their employer's names, it gives a sense that they 'belong' somewhere, rather than just be a random list of names. I think it's a rather comforting idea.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 14 December 2006 12:57 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost to kate: It seems, get any group of women together anew, pecking orders get to be the first things established.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Women be establishin' orders!

(Mark be talkin' bollocks)

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:03 (seventeen years ago) link

~~women~~ people

― sede vacante (blueski), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:04 (seventeen years ago) link

Ive seen it happen too often!

I don't generalise, in the main.

xpost yeah.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:04 (seventeen years ago) link

We Alpha Males don't need no pecking orders.

― Ned T.Rifle (Ned T.Rifle), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:15 (seventeen years ago) link

So how are they going to be ordering groups of service/employers, then? Are the police officers and the firefighters going before the folks from Cantor Fitz and Marsh? And are the firefighters going before the police? And what about the people not afiliated with anything at all? (There were a few children among the victims, IIRC.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah this forces a narrative on the viewer whether they like it or not. It makes the whole thing seem easily comprehensible to the mediocre joe, which it shouldn't really be. It's also kind of an incredible asshole move from the perspective that you wouldn't ever even think of building a Katrina memorial that listed people by "occupation" or a Pearl Harbor memorial that listed "bosun's mate" "airman" "engineer" etc. etc.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Really, though, the list should be in the order God loves them. Obviously.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:19 (seventeen years ago) link

I think it's a rather comforting idea.

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be "comforting"

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:23 (seventeen years ago) link

Katrina: People don't live in New Orleans by occupation
Pearl Harbour: you wouldn't ever even think of building a Pearl Harbor memorial that listed "bosun's mate" "airman" "engineer" etc. etc.

really not?

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:23 (seventeen years ago) link

...They are listed in chronological order, starting at the apex on panel 1E in 1959 (although it was later discovered that the first casualties were military advisors who were killed by artillery fire in 1957), moving day by day to the end of the eastern wall at panel 70E, which ends on May 25, 1968, starting again at panel 70W at the end of the western wall which completes the list for May 25, 1968, and returning to the apex at panel 1W in 1975... Information about rank, unit, and decorations are not given.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:26 (seventeen years ago) link

You're about to piss me the fuck off in a big way, grout. Oh, too late.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I think they should be grouped by gender and then by age

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:27 (seventeen years ago) link

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be "comforting"

Aren't the victims' families supposed to draw some comfort from it? I say "supposed" because of course how comfortable can you be with the name of a loved one etched on a piece of stone because they are dead, but still, isn't part of the point of this to make the names easier for the families to find?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:27 (seventeen years ago) link

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be "comforting"

Isn't part of any commemoration supposed to have an element of comfort in it though? Something tangible which is a link to the person(s) who died? That's how I feel when I visit my parents' graves, anyway.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:29 (seventeen years ago) link

This is a commemoration of PEOPLE, not of an event. Comforting is good if you are grieving.

xxpost

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:30 (seventeen years ago) link

um, why?

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:30 (seventeen years ago) link

why wot?

― C J (C J), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:31 (seventeen years ago) link

why am I pissing off Tombot?

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:31 (seventeen years ago) link

you're bored?

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:32 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not sure the audience for this memorial is really supposed to be just the families of the victims, though -- more like all Americans alive and yet to be born. At the very least.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:32 (seventeen years ago) link

"Americans". Other countries were involved too, you know.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:33 (seventeen years ago) link

But isn't this more than a memorial? Weren't many of those people never recovered? Aren't some of them still in there? So, doesn't that make it a grave as well?

Perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah you forgot POLAND

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm lost now.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:35 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost)

Yes, that's where the "at the very least" bit kicks in.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:35 (seventeen years ago) link

who are you people who love your jobs so damn much that you want your employer listed on your tombstone.

it's fucking reductive.

― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Me and tombot must have been looking at the wikipedia entry for 'The Wall' at the same time. I was interested in how they did it there because whenever you see people looking at that you see them really having to LOOK. I don't know if that's because of the chronological thing or the way the reflecting surface works but (form what I've seen and heard) this really makes people connect with the wall in a way most memorials perhaps don't.

― Ned T.Rifle (Ned T.Rifle), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:35 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost obv.

― Ned T.Rifle (Ned T.Rifle), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:36 (seventeen years ago) link

It's not a fucking tombstone! It's a memorial! A collective one! For lots of people who died in the same place which was AT THEIR WORK (and they aren't listing the employers' names anyway, just grouping people via them)

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:38 (seventeen years ago) link

It'd be funny if the J. Edgar Hoover got blew up and they did this with our memorial. You'd have two columns of names of federal civil servants and then eighteen more for "KEANE" "LOCKHEED MARTIN" "NORTHRUP GRUMMAN" "BAE SYSTEMS" "GENERAL DYNAMICS" "THE MITRE CORPORATION"

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Then everybody could come up and make stupid judgements about how my coworkers and I were all "greedy contractors"

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Which is what this is asking for, and as the Daily News article makes clear - so people can go up and differentiate between the "heroes" and the "victims" because that's what's REALLY important about the 9/11 story

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:43 (seventeen years ago) link

If I got blown up by terrists, and someone put "J0hn Ch@rc0£" next to my name on a freaking memorial, I'd come back and HAUNT THEM.

x-post, surprisingly Tombot OTM, and that's exactly what makes me uncomfortable about it.

― masonic boom (kate), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:43 (seventeen years ago) link

TOM OTM.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:44 (seventeen years ago) link

I agree 'Heroes' and 'Victims' is wrong as a differentiation.

All are victims.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Thursday, 14 December 2006 13:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 125 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

oh wait the 19th century was a completely different century, wasn't it?

― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:13 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, they didn't have televised memorials

― nuneb (nuneb), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:14 (seventeen years ago) link

or maybe they were early 20th? i don't even know. i'm a bad citizen. but hey at least i understand - even if i don't love the idea - that in the age of the internets and cable television, things might be a tad bit more of a big deal.

― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:15 (seventeen years ago) link

they should just make a 24 hour 9/11 memorial digital cable channel and leave it at that. we can broadcast it into enemy countries to make them feel sorry for us.

― jhoshea (jhoshea), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Of course it wasn't a serious question! It was just because "only" 35 seemed not worthy of a memorial, and wondered what actually *was* memorial-worthy?

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:21 (seventeen years ago) link

nabisco that's an interesting take, but I doubt the months of intense lobbying by firefighters etc. have much to do with the logistics of where people will stand.

They have to do with firefighters wanting to be listed as a community, which -- as much pride-of-place bullshit as it may contain -- is still also a basic mechanical thing of bringing together folks who have the same connections to the monument and one another. Beyond which the fact that some people have lame motives for pushing an idea does not make the idea inherently bad, especially when there are a million ways of executing the idea that have nothing to do with the lame motives. Like I said, scattering by company / firm / etc. would offer all the benefits of keeping social groups together without any one of them being offered any particular pride of place.

I'd be equally fine with arguing for alphabetical as a form of saying "hey firemen cool yr shit for a second," but I'm not gonna pretend a form of really even-handed value-free grouping wouldn't make a certain amount of logistical sense.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:21 (seventeen years ago) link

(I.e. you're taking the fire department motive strictly as self-aggrandizement, when in fact it seems to me that the whole structure there has a totally gut-level boyish "we're all bros here" mentality, even at the most official level. This is a bit like asking to be able to sit together in the lunchroom -- so yeah, maybe it's the popular kids making noise about it, but so long as they're not getting the best tables or anything, it might not actually be the worst idea.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:29 (seventeen years ago) link

if i was a nyfd widow, i would sure be proud to have my loved one grouped with an organization that couldn't get it together to have radios that worked in the wtc, for sure.

― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:33 (seventeen years ago) link

seriously nabisco you're defending this?

and you don't see the inherent dipshittedness of this statement:
bringing together folks who have the same connections to the monument and one another?

RIGHT.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:35 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not gonna pretend a form of really even-handed value-free grouping wouldn't make a certain amount of logistical sense.

unfortunately that's made rather fucking clear by the article that that isn't what is under discussion. And Daddino already shot the entire idea of "even-handed value-free" segregation full of holes better than I could.

and bringing "logistical sense" into an argument about a completely ceremonial structure is a pretty gigantic non sequitur, coming from anybody.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I think Nabisco's main point here is, "Seriously guys, you are being total dickfaces about this."

― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:42 (seventeen years ago) link

(Nabisco, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Tombot you realize it's possible for me to have an opinion on how this might be done that's distinct from other proposals, right?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:47 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't understand what's so terrible about a random distribution (or by location of death) with some kind of icon or parenthetical denoting ultra heroic extra status, but then i'm not one of the professional grievers ann coulter has been telling us all about.

glibness aside: the logic (or at least the politics) of seperating the cops and firemen out is one thing, but applying that same logic to everyone else is bullshit ("prep cook - windows on the world" indeed) (or "undocumented 'contractor' - sodexho" amirite)

THE TROUBLE that arises, then, is that grouping/seperating the NYPD and FDNY guys out immediately groups everyone else into an "everyone else" pile. i think i've just repeated this whole thread in miniature but whatever

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:50 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah and if you're just debating gratuitously even though you support plain old alphabetical order or something similarly flat as opposed to the grouping by employer nonsense then that's cool, we're in agreement.

I just don't see the grouping by employer thing as really remotely defensible, personally, and I don't think "ease of use" or form/function arguments re foot traffic hold any water when applied to this kind of thing.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

guides or no guides, there are weatherproof directories of the entire Vietnam memorial at the site that have all the names alphabetically.

we have printed phonebooks, as a nation. we have the technology. we can do this.

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

there could be a really nice laptop terminal under a very classy and somber bus shelter with Excel running a spreadsheet and you could do the data sort yourself.

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:54 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

Besides which I think you're drastically overstating what that Daily News article contains (unless you're talking about a link to some other article I haven't noticed yet): the most specific it gets about the actual logistics of the arrangement is "north pool = people in north tower and plane that hit it" / "south pool = everyone else, including FD/PD."

xpost

Also silly to imagine "prep cook" distinctions here, as the article would suggest they've split people into maybe 10 or so overarching groups? Anyway I think Dan gets where I'm coming here from a lot more than Tom does, as I'm not so much defending a proposal as just saying I think some of you are being a little weird about this.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:54 (seventeen years ago) link

I think maybe Eli, Ally and I are just thinking of the kind of people who would so vocally insist upon this arrangement and imagining that they might just possibly be totally fucking lame bastards

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:01 (seventeen years ago) link

which you've addressed, but I don't think it's necessarily weird or even a little weird to be aggravated with a decision that seems designed to pander to, well, a bunch of people who are acting like assholes, even if they don't realize it.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:04 (seventeen years ago) link

such as the 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives. They would be listed as a group, but without the company's name.

this is weird and points to the general weirdness of the whole scenario.

― jhoshea (jhoshea), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

no one i'm close to has every known or cared a fig about anyone i've worked with. is that not normal?

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:06 (seventeen years ago) link

every

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link

i think it's normal to care about people your spouse worked with when 600 of the your spouse's co-workers' spouses lose their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible way that you did

― nuneb (nuneb), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

now imagine a whole building full of people who lost their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible way.

― TOM. BOT. (trm), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, the "listing by employer" thing is way too "you are defined by your job." Why don't they list it by floor, or something, and basically accomplish the same thing w/out the weird corporatist overtones?

― max (maxreax), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

well it's not weird that the victims family's wouldn't want them to be listed with their companies (which, i assume is why the company name isn't being listed), but then that they're gonna do it anyway and just not name the companies so that the firefighters can be with their coworkers, is what is weird.

― jhoshea (jhoshea), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

now imagine a whole building full of people who lost their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible wa

do you see the other people in the building at company memorials, meetings related to company benefits, etc? (also, iirc, they had a big company 'culture' pre-9/11 anyway)

― nuneb (nuneb), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:14 (seventeen years ago) link

most people likely want their loved ones to be remembered as individuals rather than employees - except for the firefighters, but they're more heros than employees.

― jhoshea (jhoshea), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:15 (seventeen years ago) link

I think maybe the problem is that listing ppl by company makes it too easy to think "Look at all these companies that lost their laborers" instead of "Look at all these people who died."

― max (maxreax), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:16 (seventeen years ago) link

the problem with america is its "show only most recent 50 messages" culture

― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link

"a bunch of people who are acting like assholes"

― bill sackter (bill sackter), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1543/nicewaytochangeamericabi9.gif

― v (sleep), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

hahaha

― obi strip (sanskrit), Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:57 (seventeen years ago) link

― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 14 December 2006 21:42 (seventeen years ago) link

If they're so hell-bent on adding in company names, then at least do something like the Newseum memorial with the affiliation listed below the name in a smaller font.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 22:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Otherwise, just skip the whole memorial anyway because in 90 years it'll look like all those moldy Lusitania memorials that no one cares about.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 14 December 2006 22:34 (seventeen years ago) link

The moldy garden looks atmospheric and like the most interesting part!

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 14 December 2006 22:36 (seventeen years ago) link

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT ENTERING IN THE COMPANY NAMES STOP MAKING UP SHIT SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL JUSTIFIED IN ACTING LIKE COCKS ABOUT DEAD PEOPLE

― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Thursday, 14 December 2006 22:43 (seventeen years ago) link

lollers. don't interupt their haughty funtime, Dan.

― bill sackter (bill sackter), Friday, 15 December 2006 00:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Should've extended No List November and this argument would never have happened.

― Onimo has his finger in the stink (nu_onimo), Friday, 15 December 2006 01:32 (seventeen years ago) link

The change - long sought by many 9/11 family members and the police and firefighter unions - was approved by the executive committee of the WTC Memorial Foundation.

If this is how the relatives of the deceased would like it done, then shouldn't their wishes be respected?

― C J (C J), Friday, 15 December 2006 06:47 (seventeen years ago) link

C J, the Daily News also said that "many" 9/11 family members were outraged by the idea of the Drawing Center opening a gallery and education center at the WTC site. The Daily News says a lot of things.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 15 December 2006 10:54 (seventeen years ago) link

There's a war memorial in london that has no names, occupations, etc, only the town and countries they came from.

Just adding that for thought.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Friday, 15 December 2006 11:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I've come to this rather late I know (I was flying back to Mpls) but feel the names of the dead should just be listed alphabetically because, basically, death renders these people equal to one another and anything else smacks of survivors having a Victim's Olympics where the NYFD are gold medal winners or summat. There is also a lot more value to having the name of the prep cook next to the cop next to the stockbroker so when people come to remember their relatives they realise that all human life/death was there together.

King's Cross fire victims included two or three homeless who have NEVER been identified, to this day.

― suzy artskooldisko (suzy artskooldisko), Friday, 15 December 2006 13:09 (seventeen years ago) link

I thought the last King's Cross victim was identified a couple of years ago.

*looks on the Internet*

Wikipedia says he was identified in January 2004.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 15 December 2006 13:23 (seventeen years ago) link

i was thinking, wouldn't adding the ranks of firemen and policemen to their names reduce any need to group them?

― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Friday, 15 December 2006 16:00 (seventeen years ago) link

for the daily news "many families" might just be "two guys who we paid to say what we want"

― max (maxreax), Friday, 15 December 2006 17:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Also any serving officer killed in duty would be more appropriately memorialised plaquewise at their relevant precincts, as with others who have lost their lives in service.

― suzy artskooldisko (suzy artskooldisko), Sunday, 17 December 2006 05:41 (seventeen years ago) link

roffles as always @ M Loi

― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, 17 December 2006 07:11 (seventeen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

classifying/grouping the WTC victims - classic or dud?