 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / February 2004American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity Associated Press NEW YORK - An American Airlines pilot flying passengers to New York asked Christians on board to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians discuss the faith with them, a spokesman for the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline said Saturday. Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to John F. Kennedy Airport on Friday afternoon, said spokesman Tim Wagner. The pilot, whose identity was not released, had been making flight announcements and then asked that the Christians on board raise their hands, Wagner said. The pilot told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers use the flight time to talk to the identified Christians about their faith, Wagner said. The pilot later told passengers he would be available at the end of the flight to talk about his first announcement. Wagner said the airline was investigating the incident, and that the company had guidelines about appropriate behavior. He said the pilot had just returned to work from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica. "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm Darn, I was going to post this with the header "Jebus makes pilot lose job...claims he'll live on the love of the Lard." And he will lose his job...can't have the mentally unstable in such a position. I wouldn't fly on his plane, and I will send an email to AA to that effect. zamboni > >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > zamboni And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you compassionate liberals go for the jugular just because you disagree with him. So he made and announcement but no one was forced to do as he suggested. You jack a.s libs are always spouting about peace and dialogs, perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. But of course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his head, right? > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole They were serving fish? Funny how a Christian would misspell such an important word. Would you approve if the captain was a Satanist preaching the history of the Devil? How about if the captain was a Muslim and started to talk about how everyone should face Mecca and pray? Or is it only your religion that is sacrosanct? Casey >> And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole > >They were serving fish? And bread to go with it, and a nice red wine to wash it all down. ;)  SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver! > > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and started to talk about how everyone should face Mecca and > pray? Or is it only your religion that is sacrosanct? Of course his religion is the one one that should not result in punishment. Had it been Satanism or Islam or any other brand of snake oil, Casey would have been first in line to scream, "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" -- Gregory Gadow techbear@serv.net http://www.serv.net/~techbear "If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." -- Benjamin Franklin On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:49:50 GMT, "Casey" <nospam@nospam.com>, Message ID: <24dVb.18149$uM2.2426@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote in alt.atheism; >> And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and started to talk about how everyone should face Mecca and >pray? Or is it only your religion that is sacrosanct? BINGO! Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his >head, right? This is not an issue of injury or retribution. It's an issue of professionalism. What if the pilot started talking about Allah and Islam? I'm sure some passengers would have been freaked out, even if he meant no harm. What if he started talking about NAMBLA? There are simply some subjects that are innappropriate. If this pilot wants to go start his own Christian airline where this behavior is prevalent, he is free to do so and you are free to fly that airline. No one needs to "create an atmosphere" of learning for anyone. Passengers are already free to discuss whatever they want to. -- to reply by email, change the 1 to I in 100sparrows > >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you > >compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No one needs to "create an atmosphere" of learning for anyone. Passengers > are already free to discuss whatever they want to. Or what if he decided to come out of the closet and get on his soapbox and start venting on his rights for gay marriage...some things should be kept personal damn it...the f.cking religious credulists only want others to keep quiet. > > >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you > > >compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > personal damn it...the f.cking religious credulists only want others to keep > quiet. A commercial airline pilot's job is to fly the plane safely, not facilitate a discussion amongst passengers on Christianity or any other topic. > No one needs to "create an atmosphere" of learning for anyone. Passengers > are already free to discuss whatever they want to. > > -- Oh really? Are they free to discuss hijacking the plane and flying it into a building? Clearly there are limits, regardless of who owns the airline. I'm sure AA is going to take some severe heat over this one. In alt.atheism None <none@nospam.org> wrote: : Oh really? Are they free to discuss hijacking the plane and flying it into : a building? I bet quite a few of the passengers were wondering whether they should storm the cockpit like the ones on 9/11 did. Its hard to imagine how it would feel to be sitting there wondering how much longer you had to live before this fanatic crashes the plane. But of course, this incident of terrorism gets a pass because its good Christian terrorism. ------ Wayne Aiken (#304) / NC Director \ Getting AANEWS? Send msg to: PO Box 30904 / American Atheists \ <AANEWS-on@atheists.org> to Raleigh, NC 27622 / waiken@atheists.org \ start your Free subscription (919) 954-5956 / http://www.atheists.org/nc/ AIM: slackx42 <c0bant$2o3$2@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in alt.atheism; >In alt.atheism None <none@nospam.org> wrote: >: Oh really? Are they free to discuss hijacking the plane and flying it into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But of course, this incident of terrorism gets a pass because >its good Christian terrorism. Of course. :\ Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} "Leon Bronstein" <100sparrows@hotmail.com> wrote i > This is not an issue of injury or retribution. It's an issue of > professionalism. What if the pilot started talking about Allah and Islam? Heck, imagine if the pilot had been Madelyn O'Hair and she did the same thing . . . geez, I'd pay full price for a ticket on that plane just for the entertainment . . . --Tock > Heck, imagine if the pilot had been Madelyn O'Hair and she did the same > thing . . . geez, I'd pay full price for a ticket on that plane just for the > entertainment . . . > --Tock It would be interesting.. After all, she died in 1995. <KkgVb.1445$Bm.531@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >"Leon Bronstein" <100sparrows@hotmail.com> wrote i >> This is not an issue of injury or retribution. It's an issue of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >entertainment . . . >--Tock Hehehehe. The christians would have went ape-sh.t. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you > >compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No one needs to "create an atmosphere" of learning for anyone. Passengers > are already free to discuss whatever they want to. Christians already have a history of "creating an atmosphere" for people to learn about their religion. That included torture, murder, stealing children from parents, locking people into ghettos to live in filth and disease-ridden conditions, prohibiting them by law from socializing with Christians, refusing to let them hold jobs of any consequence, using them as scapegoats whenever a Christian committed a crime, separating husbands from wives, forced sermons, teachings of outright hatred, destroying of religious books, and far more things. Fortunately, few Christians today believe those things any more. These things go against the teachings of Jesus and against the basic principles of most religions. Non-Christians do not need anybody to "create an atmosphere." If I want to learn about Christianity, it would not be hard to find a Church almost anywhere in the country where I can learn more about it. I do not need to be held captive by somebody who tells me that most people there are not like me and I need to learn something. Somebody could teach them a few things about Christianity and I don't think they'd like it. Not that I would because it would not be appropriate. But respect has to be a two way street. Treating others as you would wish to be treated is a basic principal of Christianity. If you want to be free from others condemning your beliefs, you need to treat them with the same courtesy. We need to recognize that this pilot does not speak for all Christians. Those here who defend him do not speak for all Christians either. Most Christians have a much better understanding of morality than that. Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >compassionate liberals go for the jugular That's "soul." When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when the religious nutso pilot pretty much tells the Christians on the plane to bug the non-Christians for the entire flight would piss me off.. I'd file a lawsuit against American had I been on that flight. >just because you disagree with him. So he made and announcement but no one >was forced to do as he suggested. You jack a.s libs are always spouting >about peace and dialogs, perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and >atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. But of >course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his >head, right? I've spoken with hundreds of people about their faiths.. but the way the pilot phrased it, it was an invatation to harass people who could not get away. I was amused that the captain had just returned from a mission to Costa Rica.. an area which has been 95% Catholic for four centuries. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows" (snip) >I've spoken with hundreds of people about their faiths.. but the way >the pilot phrased it, it was an invatation to harass people who could >not get away. >I was amused that the captain had just returned from a mission to >Costa Rica.. an area which has been 95% Catholic for four centuries. To many evangelical Christians that means that at least 95% of the Costa Ricans aren't 'real' Christians. pan > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plane to bug the non-Christians for the entire flight would piss me > off.. I'd file a lawsuit against American had I been on that flight. You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. Sorry, they are a PUBLIC company, publicly traded on the stock exchange, and HEAVILY regulated by the FAA and the DOT. > Sorry, they are a PUBLIC company, publicly traded on the stock exchange, and > HEAVILY regulated by the FAA and the DOT. OK, but what would the suit be for? The constitution restricts government from endorsing religion, not an airline. >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American >> Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their >> airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. > > Sorry, they are a PUBLIC company, publicly traded on the stock exchange, > and HEAVILY regulated by the FAA and the DOT. I don't think either the FAA or DOT has any regulations about prosletyzing by airline staff. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > >> Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think either the FAA or DOT has any regulations about prosletyzing > by airline staff. And even if they did, the regulations would likely be struck down as a constitutional violation. > > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > >> Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And even if they did, the regulations would likely be struck down as a > constitutional violation. None of that was my point, which was that even as a privately held company . . . they have limits and AA has one of the stiffest employee manuals I've ever seen. This pilot is in deep sh.t. > > > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. > > > >> American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > None of that was my point, which was that even as a privately held > company . they have limits Not government imposed limits regarding prosyletizing. > and AA has one of the stiffest employee manuals I've ever seen. That's fine. That's American's internal company policies and rules. It's not mandated by the government and if a pilot violates them, he can be reprimanded and disciplined by the airline but that doesn *not* give the passengers a cause of action to sue. > This pilot is in deep sh.t. Perhaps but not from the government or the courts. > > This pilot is in deep sh.t. > > Perhaps but not from the government or the courts. Yes he is. There's more to this story than you've obviously seen. Keep yourself posted, you'll get the drift sooner or later. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > This pilot is in deep sh.t. > > > > Perhaps but not from the government or the courts. > > Yes he is. There's more to this story than you've obviously seen. Keep > yourself posted, you'll get the drift sooner or later. Well, when the government steps in and does something, you get back to me, sparky. Until then, you have *zero* proof for your position. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> > > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. >> > > >> American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Perhaps but not from the government or the courts. Probably, but not necessarily. The pilot created a potentially dangerous situation. Remember the current rules and condition. You can get arrested for interfering with flight personnel, you can get arrested for creating a disturbance on an airplane, you can go to jail for saying things on an airplane that are absolutely fine elsewhere. What if people had followed his advice and someone objected and a scuffle ensued? You can make a very reasonable argument that that was a reasonably foreseeable result of the pilots actions which would make him civilly, if not criminally liable. Whether it rises to that state without the scuffle is not clear. He is probably not in such trouble, but it is not a clear cut case. From an employer POV, however, his actions were quite wrong and troubling. He should be thinking of passenger safety, not salvation. I don't know their rules and procedures, but loosing his job is not an unreasonable result. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > > > > > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > reprimanded and disciplined by the airline but that doesn *not* give the > passengers a cause of action to sue. Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their customers. If the customer had a reasonable expectation based on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the customer has every right to sue. > Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their > employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their > customers. If the customer had a reasonable expectation based on published > policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the customer has > every right to sue. The customer has to be able to show harm. A surprise is not harm. What if every airplane you'd ever been on had green carpeting, and one day you board one and discover it has red carpet? Surely you could have reasonably expected green carpeting. Can you therefore sue? miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > > Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their > > employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > miguel No, that's not a reasonable assumption. If I had firsthand knowledge that the airline had a policy against green carpeting, and if green carpeting were known to be inherently offensive to passengers, and if green carpeting were known to cause panic, then I might be willing to discuss your analogy. If, instead of a history of religious zealots taking over cockpits, launching into religious diatribes, and crashing their planes, we instead had a history of people installing green carpeting and then crashing planes, I might also be willing to discuss your analogy. However, your knack for irrelevant analogies does nothing to further this discussion. >>> Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their >>> employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > carpeting and then crashing planes, I might also be willing to discuss > your analogy. The analogy is a response to your claim that the person had a grounds for suit based on the fact that "the customer had a reasonable expectation based on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation." The analogy is easily tuned in response to your only salient point by adding a corporate policy on carpet color. Tangents about religious zealots and plane crashes are irrelevant to your claim as stated, so if you want to add them now, you should retract your earlier statement and start again from the top. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > >>> Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their > >>> employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > analogy is easily tuned in response to your only salient point by adding a > corporate policy on carpet color. No that would not be sufficient because it does not represent a situation that would reasonably be expected to cause discomfort among passengers. A company would not have a policy against green carpeting for reasons similar to the policy in question unless it was problematic for similar reasons. You insist that your situation is analagous when it's merely off the wall. It cannot be analogous to compare a harmless event to a harmful one. > Tangents about religious zealots and plane crashes are irrelevant to your > claim as stated, so if you want to add them now, you should retract your > earlier statement and start again from the top. They are not irrelevant for the reasons I stated. You did not come up with an analogous situation. If you want to argue that a situation in which people panicked, tried to call the police, called relatives in fear, and triggered all the other things that this event did is analogous to a change in carpet color, then by all means, do so. If on the other hand, the only reason for your bad analogy was to show that there is no basis to sue, you still need to establish that there was a rule that was violated and that there was a reasonable expectation that it would not be violated. Yes, I could sue for breach of contract, but you are presenting a case where I could not present a basis for showing any tangible harm. It's nonsense to compare a case that would never be in a rulebook with one that would be since one causes damage and the other did not. Also, your claim that you are limiting the scope to my statement and I'm expanding the scope is not a valid one. Implicit in my argument is that the rules present were reasonable. I was also discussing rules that pertained to employee conduct. An unreasonable restriction such as not allowing the employee to discuss carpeting with passengers who asked would not be upheld in a court. So you are effectively saying that since an unreasonable rule that's unrelated to employee conduct would not be actionable, your argument is correct. That's true only for implausable scenarios and has nothing to do with one that is plausible and actual. So by rejecting the basic concept that implied premises exist, and in this case it was clear to all involved that we are discussing items that one could reasonably expect to be in an employee handbook, you are leaving out a part of my argument. I will concede that nonsense lawsuits are not actionable, but you still have to show that this one fits into that category. >> Wai Doan Hsu <waidoan@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the wall. It cannot be analogous to compare a harmless event to a harmful > one. I don't particular disagree with where you're going, but it's not what you said. That's all. >> Tangents about religious zealots and plane crashes are irrelevant to your >> claim as stated, so if you want to add them now, you should retract your >> earlier statement and start again from the top. > > They are not irrelevant for the reasons I stated. You did not come up > with an analogous situation. That wasn't my job. You said "If the customer had a reasonable expectation based on published policy and the airline did not meet that expectation, the customer has every right to sue." I was addressing that point. I was not addressing the question of whether he was a good pilot, or whether it would be better or worse for him to have done this as a Zoroastrian, or whether the airline can fire him. There's no point trying to hit a moving target. Thankfully we have your quote at the top to refer to. > If on the other hand, the only reason for your bad analogy was to show > that there is no basis to sue, you still need to establish that there was > a rule that was violated and that there was a reasonable expectation that > it would not be violated. This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have been codified in your contract. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the > contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your > reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a > lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have > been codified in your contract. I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. If I buy an airline ticket, I'm legally entering into a contract when I provide consideration in exchange for the agreement to transport me. I might be furnished with airline tickets or a piece of paper saying I have a "ticketless" reservation, but it would be rare that I would be given a copy of the conditions at the time of the contract. I don't find the argument that their employees don't have to adhere to established policies to be a compelling one just because I wasn't handed a copy of them when I paid my money. The rest would be pretty much moot anyway since there are very specific circumstances here. It would also not make much difference even if it is specified in the contract with the passenger if there is no harm done since, even if it's considered actionable, there's no damage. So having it in the contract itself would not be relevant for something intangible -- if they did promise me red carpeting and I got green but could not show why it made a difference, the fact that it's in the contract would not allow me to win a judgement. Likewise, if I have a reasonable expectation and there's no specific rule either in the employee handbook or in my contract, I'd have a valid claim it it were harmful. If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to molest children would be irrelevant. So I don't think there are any real world ramifications to this point. > > This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the > > contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I > hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. Now all you have to do is show that (1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from discussing religion with the passengers, and (2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about these internal policies when they bought their tickets. > > > This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the > > > contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about > these internal policies when they bought their tickets. nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the passengers his explanation that 'god told him to say it' is even more scary than the original notion that he was just carried away by the enthusiasm of his mission trip -- after all god has been known to 'tell people' to do all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into a building' > nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead > remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into > a building' The passengers did not know that God told him to say it. That was revealed after the flight. Do you think that "tell others about your faith" is the same as driving a plane into a building? > > > > This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of > > > > the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the > passengers That seems to have *become* the issue. The original issue-- before all the reports of the passengers feeling threatened filtered in-- was that folks here would have sued just for being proselytized to. >> This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the >> contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I > hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. How many passengers, do you suppose, would be able to point to a clause in the pilot's contract that forbade him from talking about God on the P.A.? > If I buy an airline ticket, I'm legally entering into a contract when I > provide consideration in exchange for the agreement to transport me. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to be a compelling one just because I wasn't handed a copy of them when I > paid my money. You're missing what seems to me to be a very simple point, so I will repeat it again. You have a contract with the airline. It says you will give them money and they will give you transportation. The pilot has a contract with the airline. It says that he will fly planes and behave reasonably and they will give him money. There is no leakage between contracts. If the pilot fails to live up to his obligations to the airline, that's between him and them. The only thing that involves you is your arrangement with the airline. The airline at no point represented that they would provide you a Christ-free flight experience. And they got you where they promised to. So contracts are out of the picture. The only thing that's left is the possibility that you can demonstrate harm, which has nothing to do with any contracts. Before you come back with "but passengers were scared" and all that, remember that we are not talking about that. If you have any confusion over what you have or have not written, I encourage you to go back and re-read your previous postings before wasting any more bits. > If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless > of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to > molest children would be irrelevant. I can't believe you had the nerve to pick on my analogy when you trot out stinking whoppers like that. Shame on you. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > > If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless > > of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to > > molest children would be irrelevant. > > I can't believe you had the nerve to pick on my analogy when you trot out > stinking whoppers like that. Shame on you. So what's your point? Are you saying that the airline would not be responsible in that case? Or are you saying that you don't believe that analogies are relevant tools in arguments? I was not picking on analogies. I just found that yours was not a relevant one. If anything, you should be glad I posted this one. It not only supports the use of analogies as a relevant tool, it also supports your contention that the pilot's contract is not the relevant factor. >>> If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless >>> of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So what's your point? Are you saying that the airline would not be > responsible in that case? If the pilot molests your child, that is illegal behavior that causes specific harm. Proselytizing, however annoying, is neither of those things. > Or are you saying that you don't believe that analogies are relevant tools > in arguments? Those that apply to the point under discussion are useful. > I was not picking on analogies. I just found that yours was not a > relevant one. Well, mine applied directly to the point under dispute. Yours does not, at least not in any useful way. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ >> Yes it does. Companies are directly responsible for the actions of their >> employees and for the consequences of those actions toward their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you board one and discover it has red carpet? Surely you could have >reasonably expected green carpeting. Can you therefore sue? Semi demented pilots are a wee bit more dangerous than an unexpected colour of carpet. I only regret one thing: that I wasn't on board. I've always wanted to sue me happy.... :-( If I fly AA, and spill a cup of coffee on my lap, can I get $ 25 M? In alt.atheism on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:19:01 GMT, "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote: >> > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American >> > >> Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >. . they have limits and AA has one of the stiffest employee manuals I've >ever seen. This pilot is in deep sh.t. No, your point was that someone could bring a lawsuit against the company because they're heavily regulated by the FAA and the DOT. Or has someone munged the attributions above? -- L8r, Bill /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* "Is not the epitome of narcissism to quote one's self?" - Me /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* > In alt.atheism on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:19:01 GMT, "None" > <none@nospam.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > company because they're heavily regulated by the FAA and the DOT. Or > has someone munged the attributions above? The argument was private company vs. private company that is heavily regulated by various government agencies. Airlines now must answer to the FAA, the TSA and the DHS, and any major business plans or changes they wish to make also must pass muster with the DOJ. Now, if that isn't heavily regulated, I don't know what is. And yes, the various agencies above DO have their own rules and regulations about what may or may not be discussed onboard aircraft, or even while you're waiting in line to get on one, or going through the mandatory security protocol prior to getting in that line. 9/11 changed the airline industry forever, and it seems more changes come every day. While there may or may not be any regulations regarding broadcast religious messages on board and aircraft, after this mele, there is certainly bound to be in short order. <VlAVb.16715$F23.14988@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote in alt.atheism; >> > >> You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American >> > >> Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >. . they have limits and AA has one of the stiffest employee manuals I've >ever seen. This pilot is in deep sh.t. I hope so, but I have a tendency to doubt it. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sorry, they are a PUBLIC company, publicly traded on the stock exchange, > and HEAVILY regulated by the FAA and the DOT. Being a publicly traded company is irrelevant to 1st Amendment constitutional legal analysis. It's still a private company, held by the shareholders, not the government. As for being regulated, well my car is heavily regulated by the DOT. It has to meet dozens of safety and mechanical standards to be legal. It must be registered, have license tags and I have to be licensed by the state to drive it. Does that mean I have no right to put a religious-themed bumper sticker on it? Hint: being regulated does not invalidate a person or entity's free speech rights. If it did, then the 1st Amendment would be meaningless since there's nothing and no one that is not regulated somehow and in some way in modern America. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger >> > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >constitutional legal analysis. It's still a private company, held by the >shareholders, not the government. It seems that we allow quite a few restrictions on airlines that we don't allow elsewhere. Your freedom of speech is significantly restricted while flying. Causing a disturbance on an airline is a felony and I wonder who would be to blame if one of those discussion led to a shoving match. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> Sorry, they are a PUBLIC company, publicly traded on the stock > >> exchange, and HEAVILY regulated by the FAA and the DOT. > >Being a publicly traded company is irrelevant to 1st Amendment > >constitutional legal analysis. It's still a private company, held by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > we don't allow elsewhere. Your freedom of speech is significantly > restricted while flying. The passengers, yeah. Because it's not the passengers' plane. If you want to ride to work with me in my car and I say sure but if you ride with me, you can't talk about politics, that's my prerogative because it's *my* car. You don't have to ride in it. And if you choose to ride with me anyway, your free speech rights aren't being violated. So when the airlines tell you that you can't talk about certain things (bombs, hijacking, etc.) they are not violating your rights because it's their plane. They make the rules. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >The passengers, yeah. Because it's not the passengers' plane And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane or not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the word "bomb" either, for instance. >If you want to ride to work with me in my car and I say sure but if you >ride with me, you can't talk about politics, that's my prerogative >because it's *my* car. This is a common carrier, not a personal car. Common carriers have significantly different rules. In addition this is an airplane in a time of quasi-war, very different rules again. > You don't have to ride in it. And if you choose >to ride with me anyway, your free speech rights aren't being violated. > >So when the airlines tell you that you can't talk about certain things >(bombs, hijacking, etc.) they are not violating your rights because it's >their plane. They make the rules. No, they don't, the government does. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the > word "bomb" either, for instance. Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew on airlines myself. > >If you want to ride to work with me in my car and I say sure but if you > >ride with me, you can't talk about politics, that's my prerogative > >because it's *my* car. > > This is a common carrier, not a personal car. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. None of the common carrier rules prevent the management from discussing religion. > Common carriers > have significantly different rules. In addition this is an > airplane in a time of quasi-war, very different rules again. If you think all these "rules" people in this thread keep vaguely referencing prohibit a flight crew from mentioning religion, then please, quote those rules. Put the citation here ---------> > > You don't have to ride in it. And if you choose > >to ride with me anyway, your free speech rights aren't being violated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, they don't, the government does. Actually, not. The government makes the rules regarding people mentioning those things around security cordons in the airports. The airlines make the rules about such things on their planes. > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > mentioning those things around security cordons in the airports. The > airlines make the rules about such things on their planes. Wrong again sh.t for brains! The FAA and the TSA CLEARLY MANDATE and have authority over such things ON BOARD planes, no matter which airline owns them. > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > The FAA and the TSA CLEARLY MANDATE and have authority over such things > ON BOARD planes, no matter which airline owns them. Maybe one of these days you'll actually quote the citation for one of these rules you are so sure exists. That would be a novel approach, wouldn't it? ...and maybe someday you'll actually get to meet all the other people in my killfile face to face . . . now that your argumentative a.s has joined their ranks! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > these rules you are so sure exists. That would be a novel approach, > wouldn't it? > > Maybe one of these days you'll actually quote the citation for one of > > these rules you are so sure exists. That would be a novel approach, > > wouldn't it? > ...and maybe someday you'll actually get to meet all the other people in > my killfile face to face . . . now that your argumentative a.s has joined > their ranks! So when someone asks you to back up your claims with actual evidence, your response is to killfile them? Wow. Talk about transparent insecurities.... And if you don't like arguments and argumentative people, might I suggest that Usenet isn't really the place for you? You're going to end up spectacularly frustrated here since arguing is the entire raison d'etre of Usenet. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >these rules you are so sure exists. That would be a novel approach, >wouldn't it? http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1012.xml is an FAA document telling me what I can and can't take on an airplane. Do you need the actual FAA regulation number? -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > is an FAA document telling me what I can and can't take on an > airplane. Do you need the actual FAA regulation number? I've posted this stuff before. He won't listen. Any documented proof just knocks him down a peg from his superiority perch and he sure don't like that! I ignore his requests for such, he's just baiting, and he don't listen anyway. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > I've posted this stuff before. He won't listen. Any documented proof > just knocks him down a peg from his superiority perch and he sure don't like > that! > > I ignore his requests for such, Ah, so the reason you won't post proof of your claims is because it "knocks down my superiority"? Interesting approach. That's some fascinating logic you've got working there, sparky. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >> "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > >> > > No, they don't, the government does. > >> > > >> > Actually, not. The government makes the rules regarding people > >> > mentioning those things around security cordons in the airports. The > >> > airlines make the rules about such things on their planes. > >> The FAA and the TSA CLEARLY MANDATE and have authority over such > >> things ON BOARD planes, no matter which airline owns them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is an FAA document telling me what I can and can't take on an > airplane. Okay, now let's get back on topic and how about you quote me the rule that outlines which topics may be discussed in-flight and which topics are pohibited. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew on >airlines myself. You are lucky. Others have been arrested. >> >If you want to ride to work with me in my car and I say sure but if you >> >ride with me, you can't talk about politics, that's my prerogative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Irrelevant to the issue at hand. None of the common carrier rules >prevent the management from discussing religion. I refutes you analogy. None of carrier rule necessarily prevent discussion of religion, they do say it is not like your car. >> Common carriers >> have significantly different rules. In addition this is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >referencing prohibit a flight crew from mentioning religion, then >please, quote those rules. Did I say that? You play a game that I see too often. He did not simply mention religion, he called for actions and, apparently, attacked a verbally large group of people. Had he simply said, for example, "God bless you", had he just mentioned religion, there would be no issue. Calling on the passengers to separate themselves into two groups and calling for a likely conflict between the groups is not simply mentioning religion. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> >> >Being a publicly traded company is irrelevant to 1st Amendment > >> >> >constitutional legal analysis. It's still a private company, held [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You are lucky. Others have been arrested. It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for discussing security precautions. > >> Common carriers > >> have significantly different rules. In addition this is an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Did I say that? You play a game that I see too often. He did not > simply mention religion, But others in this thread have mentioned pilots who said a prayer before take off or somesuch. It isn't just about this one incident. The entire discussion has been about the mention of religion and how "offensive" that is. In article <BTR1702- 45EE9B.15453710022004@news.west.earthlink.net> > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for > discussing security precautions. That's what Bush's Secret Service agent thought when he got into a shouting match with and American Airlines captain. The Secret Service agent lost. > In article <BTR1702- > 45EE9B.15453710022004@news.west.earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > The Secret Service agent lost. I think I may have missed this incident. When was it, and what happened? > > In article <BTR1702- > > 45EE9B.15453710022004@news.west.earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I think I may have missed this incident. When was it, and what happened? You didn't miss anything, it never happened. The secret service agent was detained by the TSA at a secondary screening at a gate check. Ultimately, it turned out the SS agent thought he was above protocol when he failed to carry the correct documentation for his weapon or some sh.t, just because he was flying to Texas to guard the Shrub. It all worked out in the end. The SS agent tried to scream discrimination, but he was shut up quickly when learned he was just using that to cover the fact that he'd f.cked up! I believe AA received accolates from the DHS for catching, and following the new rules so quickly and efficiently. Signature***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [snip] >> >> And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane or >> >> not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for >discussing security precautions. I did not know that you were a security person involved in the airlines. In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of this than the rest of us. >> >> Common carriers >> >> have significantly different rules. In addition this is an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >discussion has been about the mention of religion and how "offensive" >that is. If it is offensive to someone it is offensive. Whether or not an offensive act rises to the level of tort or crime is not simple and quite detail dependent. For me the issue is not whether or not it is offensive, but whether it is potentially dangerous or disruptive. Given the existing restrictions on my actions on an airplane in these times I find the pilots actions quite suspect. That we now know he was a Christian using his company time to proselytize the company customers is fairly irrelevant, the reasonably expect perception at the time is important. It is reasonable for someone to suspect a hijacking and attempt to separate the passengers by religion. If a passenger were to stand up and ask for Christians (or Jews or Moslems) to raise their hands I strongly suspect he would be stopped, and potentially arrested. The pilot has *more* responsibility, not more freedom of actions. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I did not know that you were a security person involved in the > airlines. I'm not. > In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws > and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights > under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of > this than the rest of us. Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics of discussion. For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional. > >> >> Common carriers > >> >> have significantly different rules. In addition this is an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > offensive act rises to the level of tort or crime is not simple > and quite detail dependent. Actually, it is a rather simple analysis. > It is reasonable for someone to suspect a hijacking and attempt to > separate the passengers by religion. If a passenger were to stand > up and ask for Christians (or Jews or Moslems) to raise their > hands I strongly suspect he would be stopped, and potentially > arrested. The pilot has *more* responsibility, not more freedom > of actions. Which is fine. If the TSA decides his actions constituted a legtimate threat to the safety of the flight, he will be dealt with. But that wasn't the original contention when this all started. It was "I don't like having to sit on a plane and listen to religious proselytizing so I would sue". And my only contention was that the law would not support such a lawsuit. > Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The > laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics > of discussion. ???? "Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat, but is not necessarily a criminal offense, at least not in the state of California. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat, but is not > necessarily a criminal offense, at least not in the state of California. If it was clearly a threat, that would be an offense. It isn't always "clearly a threat" > > > > Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The > > laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics > > of discussion. > ???? > "Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat, Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's not a threat at all. > Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's not a threat at all. Maybe not, but one never knows. Oddly enough, a [lawyer] friend and I have only spoken when absolutely necessary, for well over a year, because of just that kind of joke. Luckily there were several others involved who understood I was kidding, when she asked, in the middle of a pretty heated discussion [in which she and I pretty well defined "opposite poles"] , why I was sitting on my hands [actually, they were cold]. I responded "To keep from strangling you". The next day I found a very threatening message from her accusing me of a litany of crimes. Luckily I was able to preserve the message. When I played it for my own attorney she got statements from the witnesses, which she offered to review with my [former] friend any time she liked... but only with an arbitrator, or judge, present. It ended the brou-ha-ha, but we'll certainly never be intimates again. It was, perhaps, a pretty jerky thing for me to have said, and I probably won't use that jest again, but for the wrong reasons. There was not one shred of doubt in my mind, or my lawyers, that she would have taken further action if I hadn't "gotten my ducks in a row" first. I hear through the grapevine that she's surprised I haven't apologized... when it snows in Hell I might think about it. > > > > > > Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's > not a threat at all. > > > > > > Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's > not a threat at all. Nor is it if I said it to you in this email or on the phone and absolutely intended on doing it. The California penal code makes the ability to act part of the crime. If I can't slap you when I say it it is not a criminal offense. Next you'll be telling me I have to be inside to commit a burglary. > > > > > > > > Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's > > not a threat at all. > Nor is it if I said it to you in this email or on the phone and > absolutely intended on doing it. > The California penal code makes the ability to act part of the crime. > If I can't slap you when I say it it is not a criminal offense. > Next you'll be telling me I have to be inside to commit a burglary. Why would I be telling you that? > > > > > > > > > > Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why would I be telling you that? Maybe it is a trick question. > > > > In article > > > > <wqUWb.12130$hR.349402@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Maybe it is a trick question. Well, it's something because I have no intention of even bringing up the subject. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >I'm not. Ok, so why was it acceptable for you to discuss bombs with the flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have special rights on airplanes. >> In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws >> and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional. Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs an overriding interest, but they can restrict your speech. They tend not to be laundry list style. >> >> >> Common carriers >> >> >> have significantly different rules. In addition this is an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Actually, it is a rather simple analysis. Is it now? I am impressed with your ability to analyze such a situation, with clear federal jurisdiction, based on the account in a newspaper. >> It is reasonable for someone to suspect a hijacking and attempt to >> separate the passengers by religion. If a passenger were to stand [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Which is fine. If the TSA decides his actions constituted a legtimate >threat to the safety of the flight, he will be dealt with. And a civil court may decide on that as well. >But that wasn't the original contention when this all started. I saw it early on and I have discussed it since. > It was "I >don't like having to sit on a plane and listen to religious >proselytizing so I would sue". And my only contention was that the law >would not support such a lawsuit. I agree that "not liking it" is not a sufficient cause. I can also see that someone would react with "I don't like it" when there was a larger cause of action. One of the things reflection and/or legal analysis can do is help distinguish the various "I didn't like" from each other. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have > special rights on airplanes. I'm not involved in flight security. Doesn't mean I'm not a cop. A whole host of federal and state police agents and officers fly armed every day wihtout being directly involved with airline security. > >> In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws > >> and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs > an overriding interest, Actually, they need a "compelling state interest". However, prior restraint is almost never upheld as constitutional and a laundry list of acceptable topics, with "religion" being among them, would never past muster. The Court wouldn't even allow the government to use prior restraint then the NY Times was going to publish sensitive Pentagon documents detailing troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that was a compelling state interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that was a compelling state >interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't. You know, someone might think that I had said something about prior restraint or that such had been an issue here. We both know that is not so. A list of forbidden topics would not be prior restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is prior restraint. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > You know, someone might think that I had said something about > prior restraint They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently). > We both know that is not so. A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so. > A list of forbidden topics would not be prior > restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is > prior restraint. Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence called "prior notification". Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the press. Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint. A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what >you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently). Not even close. >> We both know that is not so. > >A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so. A more accurate is that one of us mistakenly thinks this has anything to do with prior restraint. >> A list of forbidden topics would not be prior >> restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is >> prior restraint. > >Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence >called "prior notification". If I tell you now that something is against the law, that is not prior restraint. It would be notification of the law before (prior) to you committing the act. I am sorry if you thought I meant the term as a legal term. >Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the >press. Nor have I suggested otherwise. You keep bring up irrelevant issues. > Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as >opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint. Any government action *preventing* speech ahead of time is prior restraint. Prohibiting is fine. If you punish without prohibition yo get into the ex post facto clause. It is illegal for the government to act to prevent unwanted speech, it is ok (given other constraints are satisfied) to prohibit speech. >A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would >fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court. Not at all. It would be wrong for other reasons but not prior restraint. Sending a government agent to the airplane to prevent them from talking before they spoke the unlawful speech is prior restraint. Stopping a speaker because they might say bad things is prior restraint. Saying it is wrong to do X is not *restraint*. Let us take a recent other example. It was illegal in some state or another to use vulgar language in front of women and children. That is a prohibition. Someone was actually charged under that law. That is not *prior* restraint. The court struck down the case not because of any prior issues, but because it was allowable free speech. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> A list of forbidden topics would not be prior > >> restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (prior) to you committing the act. I am sorry if you thought I > meant the term as a legal term. Well, it *is* a legal term. More specifically, a legal doctrine under 1st Amendment law. According to you, the government is not engaging in prior restraint if it merely passes a law prohibiting certain types of speech. Your term for this is "prior notification". Well, the courts disagree with you. Two federal courts of appeals recently ruled that posting encryption source code on the Internet is a form of scientific speech and that export regulations requiring a license for such activity are a prior restraint on expression. Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000) Bernstein v. Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132, vacated for rehearing en banc, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999) So here we have the government passing a law (prohibiting export of encryption without a license) and the courts striking down that law as an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. Note that the courts never classified it as "prior notification", nor did they ever even use the term. Note also that these cases have nothing to with the press, which I believe you implied was another restriction on the prior restraint doctrine. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000) Says nothing meaningful regarding prior restraint. All it says is that the district court rules that the regulations were not subject to challenge on prior restraint grounds and the court reverse the total ruling. It made no comment at all on the issue of prior restraint. >Bernstein v. Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132, vacated for rehearing >en banc, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999) Exactly what I said: a pre-publication licensing scheme. The law said that he needed to ask permission to publish: that is prior restraint. It is not prior restraint to forbid a class of speech. Again, that may be wrong on other grounds, but not prior restraint. Try reading this for a discussion of the issue: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/09.html >So here we have the government passing a law (prohibiting export of >encryption without a license) and the courts striking down that law as >an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. It is the *license* that the court said was prior restraint. >Note that the courts never classified it as "prior notification", nor >did they ever even use the term. Good because I said I was not using that as a legal term. > Note also that these cases have nothing >to with the press, which I believe you implied was another restriction >on the prior restraint doctrine. I gave it as a common example. Traditionally publishing is a press issue. It does not have to be, but it usually was. -- Matt Silberstein Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by an arson who wrote "Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall. C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors. > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > The passengers, yeah. Because it's not the passengers' plane. It's not the pilot's either bub. jwk > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > > The passengers, yeah. Because it's not the passengers' plane. > > If you want to ride to work with me in my car and I say sure but if you > > ride with me, you can't talk about politics, that's my prerogative > > because it's *my* car. You don't have to ride in it. And if you choose > > to ride with me anyway, your free speech rights aren't being violated. > > So when the airlines tell you that you can't talk about certain things > > (bombs, hijacking, etc.) they are not violating your rights because it's > > their plane. They make the rules. > It's not the pilot's either bub. That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. The assertion was the PASSENGERS could sue for violation of their rights. Since it's not their plane, they CAN'T SUE. Of course, it's not the pilot's plane, either, but since no one is claiming the pilot is going to sue anyone, your observation is wholly irrelevant and pointless. > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > The assertion was the PASSENGERS could sue for violation of their rights. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > claiming the pilot is going to sue anyone, your observation is wholly > irrelevant and pointless. So I have to be on property I own to sue somebody? The insurance companies will be happy to hear that. Or perhaps you think that only some physical injury is required? The insurance companies will be happy to hear that. I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that a reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement to a captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm to them in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone "knows" crazy religious people flew into buildings. It would be interesting to find out if the pilot believed in "The Rapture". Clearly the people in the plane would die if both pilot and co-pilot were to be Raptured. Do God fearing christians have the right to kill others through neglect if their god takes them? > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone "knows" > crazy religious people flew into buildings. The legal term of art that you want is either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The latter requires proof of injury, e.g. visits to a shrink or medical doctor, inability to sleep, etc. The former doesn't require any injury but, of course, requires intent (which, arguably, could be present under the facts as reported). > It would be interesting to find out if the pilot believed in "The Rapture". > Clearly the people in the plane would die if both pilot and co-pilot were > to be Raptured. > Do God fearing christians have the right to kill others through neglect if > their god takes them? > > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > doesn't require any injury but, of course, requires intent (which, arguably, > could be present under the facts as reported). Who needs intent? I'm going to argue that it was an attactive nusiance :) (We have an old fire engine and school bus sitting on an empty lot where we used them for a disaster drill. They should have been towed away some time ago and attractive nusiance has been on my mind a while.) > > It would be interesting to find out if the pilot believed in "The > Rapture". > > Clearly the people in the plane would die if both pilot and co-pilot were > > to be Raptured. > > Do God fearing christians have the right to kill others through neglect if > > their god takes them? > > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > doesn't require any injury but, of course, requires intent (which, arguably, > could be present under the facts as reported). If you haven't figured out by the reaction here that it created emotional distress, you are not paying attention. Except, of course, we have no standing. When we have people coming off the plane telling us very clearly how distressed they were, it's not a stretch to assume that there was emotional distress. > > > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > us very clearly how distressed they were, it's not a stretch to assume > that there was emotional distress. Ahem. Talk about not paying attention . . . "Emotional distress" is a legal term of art, not a subjective description. Negligent infliction requires proof of physical injury, and that proof is introduced through competent expert testimony, i.e. a doctor, psychiatrist, etc. Intentional infliction doesn't require proof of injury, but does require a statement sufficiently outrageous that injury would be the presumed result, as well as intent to achieve that result. It is not enough to say, "I was distressed." That's the law. As for standing, obviously only the passengers would have standing to sue; no one has suggested otherwise. PTRAVEL, Esq. > Negligent infliction requires proof of physical injury, and that proof is > introduced through competent expert testimony, i.e. a doctor, psychiatrist, > etc. Rushing to judgment, your honor? There's certainly a permissible "window" of time for symptoms of PTS to appear and for treatment to be sought, etc., isn't there? Isn't that how the expert testimony comes in? No one implied passengers' saying they were traumatized was the end... it seems to me that was only the beginning. > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<c09c5i$14jhcl$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > PTRAVEL, Esq. > > Negligent infliction requires proof of physical injury, and that proof is > > introduced through competent expert testimony, i.e. a doctor, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > passengers' saying they were traumatized was the end... it seems to me that > was only the beginning. All I did was set out the legal standard. I don't know whether the passengers have a claim or not. Everyone here likes to play lawyer. I am one, and I've explained the law. That's all. > > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:<c09c5i$14jhcl$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > > > PTRAVEL, Esq. > > > Negligent infliction requires proof of physical injury, and that proof > is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > passengers have a claim or not. Everyone here likes to play lawyer. I am > one, and I've explained the law. That's all. That's nonsense. When I said that if people came off the plane saying how distressed they were, it's not a stretch to asume that some people are distressed, you had a big problem with it. I never claimed that it was sufficient to win a legal argument, but at this point, what's relevant is whether it has merit. What happens next is yet to be seen, but your implication is that there is no merit. That's simply premature. > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<c09c5i$14jhcl$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > PTRAVEL, Esq. This reminds me of an anecdote that is commonly taught to first year law students. An attorney is watching a wildlife program on television. In the show, a lion stalks and kills a zebra. The announcer explains how the lion does it merely to eat, and there is no malice involved in the killing. The attorney jumps up and says, "of course there was malice! It intended to kill the lion!" The point of the story is, of course, that the attorney was missing the point. The word malice has perfectly valid definitions that are found in any dictionary. While there may be a specialized legal definition, the others are unquestionably valid. They represent how the word is used every day. That's simply how language works. In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence has been presented to prove it in court, to argue that there was no emotional distress shows that you share a problem that many lawyers have. You don't understand English. > In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is > properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence > has been presented to prove it in court, to argue that there was no > emotional distress shows that you share a problem that many lawyers > have. You don't understand English. Considering this is a legal discussion, revolving around the validity of the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious that *you* are the one who is missing the point. > Considering this is a legal discussion, revolving around the validity of > the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious > that *you* are the one who is missing the point. Actually, this did not start as "a legal discussion, revolving around the validity of the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline". Around the 12th message to the thread the post included [though it didn't really appear to be the main focus of the message]; "...I'd file a lawsuit against American...". The 14th post was yours, and it the [perhaps] became a "legal discussion" for you and a few others, That is quite different from saying this "is a legal discussion". So "who is missing the point" I wonder? I read the message you replied to above as saying you were missing some points... but put more politely than your reply. Have a legal sub-discussion with whomever you wish... but please keep in mind it does not appear to have been the intent of the originator of the thread, or of primary interest to all who are following it. > > In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is > > properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious > that *you* are the one who is missing the point. >> Considering this is a legal discussion, revolving around the validity of >> the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mind it does not appear to have been the intent of the originator of the > thread, or of primary interest to all who are following it. I think you'd have an easier time following if you used a threaded newsreader. The subthread on lawsuits branched off with message <nvua20592e7a5vt15in51rr6bn0ikea1av@4ax.com> and has continued to cover solely this topic for dozens of messages. It sounds to me like you're using a primitive newsreader (Google or Outlook Express or something) that lists messages in subject and date order, which makes it near-impossible to accurately follow the discussion in a large thread with many divergent subthreads. miguel -- Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > > > In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is > > > properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > of the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious > > that *you* are the one who is missing the point. > Actually, this did not start as "a legal discussion, I didn't say it started as one. I said it *is* one. > > In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is > > properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the passengers' ability to successfully sue the airline, it's obvious > that *you* are the one who is missing the point. No, I essentially said that there was emotional distress and did so while steering it away from your legal tangent. No descent lawyer could make that sort of determination in such a short period anyway. You simply have no basis to say whether there was emotional stress that can be proven from a legal standpoint, but I do have a sufficient basis to show that people were emotionally distressed. Had you said that the people may have been emotionally distressed, but proving it is another issue and we're not there yet, I would have agreed from the beginning. But to say that there was no emotional distress when you have not seen any legal filings, depositions, or anything related to any case that might exist at any time in the future is something you simply cannot do as a lawyer. You can't say that it wasn't there or that it can't be proven because you simply don't know. > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that a > reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement to a > captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm to them > in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone "knows" > crazy religious people flew into buildings. I wouldn't be surprised either. But I am sure that this kind of ruling would only be possible in an US court - and perhaps a few of those countries that most Americans would not be too happy to be compared to.... Nik. > > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that > a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > only be possible in an US court - and perhaps a few of those countries that > most Americans would not be too happy to be compared to.... Yeah, like the other countries that still have a death penalty. Most of the countries we call good abhor the death penalty and like tits. > > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that > a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nik. Really? I would have thought that France would be more likely to come to mind, considering recent events. jwk > > > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that > > a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > jwk You could well be right on this one. Nik > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > claiming the pilot is going to sue anyone, your observation is wholly > > irrelevant and pointless. > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that > a reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement to a > captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm to > them in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone > "knows" crazy religious people flew into buildings. "Might do irreparable harm" won't cut it. In a court of law you have to prove actual damages-- i.e., that you actually *were* harmed, not that you might have been harmed. I might have been harmed by you on the freeway today. I wasn't but I might have been. Should you have to pay me money? > It would be interesting to find out if the pilot believed in "The > Rapture". Clearly the people in the plane would die if both pilot and co-pilot > were to be Raptured. > Do God fearing christians have the right to kill others through neglect > if their god takes them? That would only be relevant if Chistianity was objectively real and the rapture was an objectively provable occurrence. The fact that a pilot might believe he is going to be raptured someday hardly puts his passengers lives at risk. They are only at risk if the rapture really happens. > > I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that > > a reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement to a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prove actual damages-- i.e., that you actually *were* harmed, not that > you might have been harmed. I said the reasonable person should have known he might have done harm with the statement. As such, if harm was done, the pilot would have no excuse for the harm done. Prior to 9/11 such behavior probably would not have made the news except as a filler on page 7. The reasonable man might not be liable for any harm done. Today, in an airplane, what a religious fundamentalsit in charge of the plane might do could well cause damage. People have been absolutly convinced they were going to die with a lot less. > I might have been harmed by you on the freeway today. I wasn't but I > might have been. Should you have to pay me money? Not the same at all. > > It would be interesting to find out if the pilot believed in "The > > Rapture". Clearly the people in the plane would die if both pilot and co-pilot [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hardly puts his passengers lives at risk. They are only at risk if the > rapture really happens. Just a side though on the morality or actual beliefs of those who do say that the rapture will come Real Soon Now. > > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > claiming the pilot is going to sue anyone, your observation is wholly > irrelevant and pointless. f.ck you. If I didn't catch your meaning it was because you did not express yourself clearly. *You are the slow one. Anyone who declares that a passenger who paid for his ticket "CAN'T SUE" is a moron. Try to keep up. a.shole jwk > f.ck you. If I didn't catch your meaning it was because you did not > express yourself clearly. *You are the slow one. Anyone who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > jwk Goodness! How long have you had this problem with anger management? ;-) -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > > > > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > f.ck you. If I didn't catch your meaning it was because you did not > express yourself clearly. *You are the slow one. Ah, so now it's my fault when you can't keep up with the basic flow of a discussion. You're one of those people who blames everyone around you whenever you make a mistake, aren't you? > Anyone who declares that a passenger who paid for his > ticket "CAN'T SUE" is a moron. Cite the law which gives a passenger a cause of action when the flight crew mentions religion. Put that citation here ---------> [And try and do it with a minimum of profanity. It only makes you look like a puerile idiot.] > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > The assertion was the PASSENGERS could sue for violation of their rights. > > Since it's not their plane, they CAN'T SUE. Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. There is consideration. (i.e. money paid by the passenger.) So the passenger certainly has grounds to sue. > > That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. Cite the rule that prohibits airline employees from metioning religion during flights. Put the citation here ---------> > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. I haven't seen anyone credibly claim that the rules prohibit discussing religion. > There is consideration. (i.e. money paid by the passenger.) So the > passenger certainly has grounds to sue. If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? If you're made to feel that the quality of his plumbing will depend on your answer, then you probably can... R Atheist Chair, EAC Disciplinary Committee -- [snip] Sorry for the double post. My newsreader's acting up. > > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > his plumbing will depend on your answer, > then you probably can... No, you can fire the plumber and hire someone else. The law gives you no grounds to sue him. > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? If you're made to feel that the quality of his plumbing will depend on your answer, then you probably can... R Atheist Chair, EAC Disciplinary Committee -- > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? Is there a federal law that says you must follow and obey all instructions from your plumbing crew? If not, it might be a different situation altogether. >>> Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an >>> agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all instructions from your plumbing crew? If not, it might be > a different situation altogether. Best point I've seen in a while. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ [snip] > >> If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Best point I've seen in a while. The various threads are all out of control so it's kinda tough to make this point. But I've mentioned this before with respect to aircrew behavior. They've got alot of clout and when discussing the expectations of their behavior, I tend to lean towards thinking of them as cops, not butlers. There are similarities in the restrictions on their behavior too. If you've ever been on the wrong end of a shotgun and a badge, it might be easier to understand how ANY question can take on very threatening tones. Think of a cop, fingering his gun, while saying to you "Hey boy, you a christian?". > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. > > I haven't seen anyone credibly claim that the rules prohibit discussing > religion. Then you haven't been paying attention. Many newspaper articles made it clear that his behavior violated the airline's rules. > > There is consideration. (i.e. money paid by the passenger.) So the > > passenger certainly has grounds to sue. > > If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? What does that have to do with anything? If my cat flies an airplane into North Korea, do I get free cheese? cheese... they have cheese? > > > Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an > > > agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > If my cat flies an airplane into North Korea, do I get free cheese? >>> Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an >>> agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then you haven't been paying attention. Many newspaper articles made > it clear that his behavior violated the airline's rules. You said "There is an agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules." I repeat, I haven't seen anyone credibly claim that the rules prohibit discussing religion. The airline representative quoted in the papers did not say that the pilot's behavior violated the contract of carriage between airline and passenger. If it violated the rules of the contract between airline and pilot, then the airline has grounds to take action against the pilot. Not the passengers (at least not for that reason). >>> There is consideration. (i.e. money paid by the passenger.) So the >>> passenger certainly has grounds to sue. >> >> If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue? > > What does that have to do with anything? You said (I keep having to remind you what you said) that the passenger has grounds to sue the airline because they paid the airline money. I pay my plumber money. If you don't intend to make cause-and-effect statements, then you should stop using words like "so" and "because". > If my cat flies an airplane into North Korea, do I get free cheese? I'm not sure, but that's the most coherent thing I've seen from you so far in this thread. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> > > plane to bug the non-Christians for the entire flight would piss me > >> > > off.. I'd file a lawsuit against American had I been on that flight. Don't be so touchy. What if the pilot had been a Muslim? They would have had to clean up the plane after it landed. > >> > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > >> > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. Or they could put something religious to read on your dinner/snack tray.... Nah, no airline would do that.. (wink) > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. > > Or they could put something religious to read on your dinner/snack > tray.... Nah, no airline would do that.. (wink) Heh Heh, I remember that. As you probably recall, that turned into one HUGE stink, and it did end up in court, where the airline handily lost. Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism >> When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to >> point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their >airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. Yup, the way Alaska does. But in this case, the captain created a hostile environment by encouraging prostelyzation when I was unable to leave. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows" >Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger >called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yup, the way Alaska does. It's why I always refused to fly Alaska. >But in this case, the captain created a hostile environment by >encouraging prostelyzation when I was unable to leave. > Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > >airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". Oh yes he is!! The pilot fully represents that airline everytime he dons the uniform and crawls into the cockpit! It says so in AA's own employee policy manual. The employees ARE the airline! If the airline condones what he did, then they airline is saying they agree, and that it is their policy to do such things. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** Would it be wrong to say I LOVE this persons signature? Diane "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they airline is saying they agree, and that it is their policy to do such > things. Obviously you cannot comprehend the topic. A.A. DOES, as a private industry, to do things like put up religious posters on its airplanes and such (the part you clipped). The Captain is NOT the private business (A.A.), and he does NOT have the right to put up his religious posters, or make his religious comments, in the same way! > > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > right to put up his religious posters, or make his religious comments, in > the same way! Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers the right to sue. > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers the right to sue. We'll see [but maybe we won't see "all"]... neither he, nor American Airlines have the right to casually put passengers in a position of fear for their lives. Given their experience with hijackings by religious zealots... and the passengers... I imagine cases will be brought and [quietly] won. > > > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > the right to sue. > > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > the right to sue. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > zealots.. and the passengers... > I imagine cases will be brought and [quietly] won. It can't be quietly won. It can only be quietly settled which hardly qualifies as a win. If it goes to jury and a verdict is returned (which is the only valid "win"), it's a matter of public record. Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:51:37 GMT, a stranger called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism >> > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers >> the right to sue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It can't be quietly won. It can only be quietly settled which hardly >qualifies as a win. So, if I were on that flight, sued, and settled for 85 grand, I haven't won? Strange world you live in. >If it goes to jury and a verdict is returned (which is the only valid >"win"), it's a matter of public record. So, when a case is settled for an undeclosed amount, why do the plantifs always talk about their victory? -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows" > Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:51:37 GMT, a stranger > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So, if I were on that flight, sued, and settled for 85 grand, I > haven't won? Strange world you live in. That depends on how you define "won." From a legal standpoint, you have won nothing. From a moral standpoint, it's a different story. Realistically, this is not worth millions of dollars to anybody. For those who were on the flight, they may end up with vouchers for free trips if they complain. For those not on the trip who have reservations or who are frequent fliers and make it clear to AA that we are outraged, the airline may or may not do anything. But it may decide that a real apology is on order instead of merely saying that the pilot may have done nothing wrong. In the mean time, I expect that they will lose real business because of this. > >If it goes to jury and a verdict is returned (which is the only valid > >"win"), it's a matter of public record. > > So, when a case is settled for an undeclosed amount, why do the > plantifs always talk about their victory? It's not a victory from a legal standpoint, and the lawyers on both sides are aware of it. It's all about lawyers and court decisions. > Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:51:37 GMT, a stranger > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So, if I were on that flight, sued, and settled for 85 grand, I > haven't won? Strange world you live in. When a company settles a suit for nuisance value it hardly means the plaintiff scored a victory on the merits. The claim may be completely frivolous but the corporation pays you to just go away and leave them alone, knowing that fighting you, even if they win in the end, will cost them more in the long run. That doesn't mean you had a valid case, it doesn't mean the law was on your side, all it means is you got some money and if that's your only goal-- to milk someone for money-- I suppose you could call that a "win" in your ammoral little world. > >If it goes to jury and a verdict is returned (which is the only valid > >"win"), it's a matter of public record. > > So, when a case is settled for an undeclosed amount, why do the > plantifs always talk about their victory? Because they are plaintiffs. Why does Howard Dean talk about his second place showing in the primaries as a win? Just because he says it's a win doesn't put him in first place, does it? > When a company settles a suit for nuisance value it hardly means the > plaintiff scored a victory on the merits. The claim may be completely > frivolous but the corporation pays you to just go away and leave them > alone, knowing that fighting you, even if they win in the end, will cost > them more in the long run. If you file a suit and your goal is to get the nuisance value, then wouldn't that be a win? > > > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > the right to sue. Too late! Four just did . . . news story to follow > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > > the right to sue. > > Too late! Four just did . . . news story to follow People sue every day for things they about which they have no valid cause of action. The defendant moves for summary judgment and the judge kicks the case (and makes the idiotic plaintiff pay court costs, if he has a lick of sense). The fact that someone files a lawsuit proves nothing. Some moron in Tennessee filed suit against Janet Jackson for billions (with a "b") in actual damages over seeing her boob on the TV. How far do you think that one's gonna get? > How far do you think that one's gonna get? Further than you do, apparently. I just came from a meeting that started very late... everyone was fired up in one way or another about this... and not one thought the pilot [or the airline since] behaved appropriately. By the way, do you? > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How far do you think that one's gonna get? > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > How far do you think that one's gonna get? > Further than you do, apparently. I just came from a meeting that started > very late... everyone was fired up in one way or another about this... Well, I guess since everyone in your meeting was "fired up", I must be wrong about the law. > and not one thought the pilot [or the airline since] behaved appropriately. By > the way, do you? Have you bothered to read the thread? Obviously not. I stated several times that I think the pilot was a loon. However, just because an employee of a company does something you don't like, hardly means you have a legal cause of action to sue. > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How far do you think that one's gonna get? If the plaintiff is smart, he'll settle. But the attorney could decide that all viewers were part of a class, and judges have accepted that argument for other unlikely cases. > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If the plaintiff is smart, he'll settle. But the attorney could > decide that all viewers were part of a class, It doesn't matter what the attorney decides. Attorneys don't have that power. A class action has to be certifie by the court with proof that all members of the class suffered the same harm. This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm, let alone the hundreds of millions of other people watching the show. > This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm... What an absurd statement. It remains to be seen what harm she suffered. She might not even be the first to see the symptoms. I'm wondering why, exactly, you're so determined to defend this bozo's actions? > > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm, let alone > the hundreds of millions of other people watching the show. > > This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm wondering why, exactly, you're so determined to defend this bozo's > actions? Because one born again will always defend another. They don't think they found gawd again, they think they ARE gawd! Fire the pilot, and refund everyone on board - mitigate your damages NOW American Airlines! For once in your pathetic existence, do the right thing! > > > This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because one born again will always defend another. They don't think they > found gawd again, they think they ARE gawd! LOL! So now I'm a "born again"? That'll come as shocking news to the real fundies on this newsgroup who have been calling me a godless commie atheist for years. Apparently, unless I lash out at anyone and anything religious, no matter the circumstances, I can't be a "real" atheist, huh? >>>This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Fire the pilot, and refund everyone on board - mitigate your damages NOW > American Airlines! For once in your pathetic existence, do the right thing! Why would they fire him? Do they have written rule saying he can't do what he did? The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that what the pilot did is "against company policy" so obviously they do have a written policy regarding same. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > >>>This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm... > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why would they fire him? Do they have written rule saying he can't do > what he did? > The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that what > the pilot did is "against company policy" so obviously they do have a > written policy regarding same. But is it something they are normally fired for, on the first offense? It is probably something I would have cared nothing about, and it wouldn't have even risen to the level of even talking to the airline about it, much less suing them. > > The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that what > > the pilot did is "against company policy" so obviously they do have a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wouldn't have even risen to the level of even talking to the airline > about it, much less suing them. I think everyone is missing the point, here. It doesn't matter whether there is an AA policy that says, "keep your religion to yourself," or that there are warnings to be given for its violation. What is of concern is the incredibly poor judgment shown by an individual who is entrusted with the lives of more than hundred passengers and a fully-fueled multi-ton jet that, as has been made all too clear, can easily be turned into a flying bomb. Forget terrorists for the moment. The experiences of Egypt Air are more than sufficient to convince me that religious fanatics have no business at the controls of an aircraft -- two of their "true believer" pilots have, per our own FAA, deliberately crashed their planes in the service of their god. I have zero confidence in a pilot who believes that anyone who isn't his peculiar species of Christian is "crazy." The man has proven himself too irresponsible AND too unstable to be a pilot. And THAT is why he should be fired, not because he "shared personal experiences" or whatever trip AA claims. > Forget terrorists for the moment. The experiences of Egypt Air are more > than sufficient to convince me that religious fanatics have no business at > the controls of an aircraft Lets face it, while we still can't explain infinite time/space and what was there before the big bang and what caused the big bang, almost all of the bible "special effects" can be explained with science (or even just Hollywood effects). Religious fanatics are those who refuse scientific facts and want to continue in their little world where the bible is taken litterally and it is illegal to question the interpretation of the bible or "creation". This is incompatible with the desired image of a pilot who is to be cool,, scientific, understands the laws of physics, doesn't think thunder is because God is angry etc. Religious fanatics are not seen as cool, logical, cool headed people. And if an airline decided to keep such a person as a pilot, it devalues the image of that airline. Believing in a supreme being, creator of the universe is one thing. Living some religiously-influenced culture instead of your own country's culture is not right. JF Mezei <nobody@nobody.com> trolled: >> Forget terrorists for the moment. The experiences of Egypt Air are more >> than sufficient to convince me that religious fanatics have no business at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >some religiously-influenced culture instead of your own country's culture is >not right. Yes, we all know you are such an arbiter of what is right and wrong..... ==================== THE JF MEZEI FAQ ==================== 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can't do that then he'll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can't stand it. Some of JF's favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women's genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) ... the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What's his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy's foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls' hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don't grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys' penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys' penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There's over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn't he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn't he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn't worked a day in his life! He's an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn't trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man's body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It's really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he's so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn't troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it's impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won't find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you're at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: abuse@sympatico.ca abuse@bellglobal.com abuse@istop.com And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it's impossible to compile a full list. jfmezei@istop.com jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com jfmezei@videotron.ca jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] nobody <nobody@nobody.com> nobody <nobody@nobody.net> nobody <nobody@nobody.org> nobody <nobody@nobody.info> nobody <nobody@nobody.int> nobody <nobody@nothing.nil> nobody <nobody@null.dev> snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree> Conspiracy Theory <conspiracy@theory.org> Lou Raccoon <L.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Flapping Labias <flabia@anatomy.org> Throbbing vulva <t.vulva@anatomy.org> Twin Gonads <two@gonads.com> Loose Scrotum <l.scrotum@anatomy.org> Raised Organ <R.Organ@anatomy.org> Popped Cherry <P.Cherry@anatomy.org> Monica Lewinski <billclinton@westchester.com> Deep Fried Foreskin <dff@mcdonalds.com> Aroma of Smegma <aroma@chanel.org> Wet fart <w.Fart@smell.org> Pubic dandruff <P.dandruff@anatomy.org> Voluptuous Nipple <V.nipple@anatomy.org> Inserted Finger <I.Finger@anatomy.org> Pubic Nair <shaved@anatomy.org> Flatulent Meatus <F.Meatus@anatomy.org> Lihk Mhygroin <L.MyGroin@anatomy.org> Pre Khum <P.Khum@anatomy.org> Phi Mosis <Phi.Mosis@anatomy.org> Bal Anatis <Bal.Anatis@anatomy.org> Fren Ullum <F.Ullum@anatomy.org> Ivanna Getlaid <I.Getlaid@onani.org> Ivanna Wankalot <I.Wankalot@onani.org> Ivanna Umpalot <Humpalot@drevil.com> Wan Tnoneofit <W.Tnoneofit@weirdnames.org> Wan Itbad <W.Itbad@inneed.org> Wan Towank <W.ToWank@anatomy.org> Wan Tolik <w.tolik@anatomy.org> Testos Terone <t.terone@anatomy.org> Upper Gonad <U.Gonad@anatomy.org> Right Gonad <R.Gonad@anatomy.org> Left Gonad <L.Gonad@anatomy.org> Tyson's Glands <Tyson.G@anatomy.org> Nose Hair <n.hair@anatomy.org> Coronal Sulcus <C.Sulcus@anatomy.org> Corpus Cavernus <manhood@anatomy.org> Armpit moisture <armpit@anatomy.org> Onani Room <onani@hotels.com> Arnie's Banana <weiner@terminator.com> Raised eyebrows <r.eyebrows@anatomy.org> Vas Deferens <V.deferens@anatomy.org> Naked Canuck <N.canuck@naturists.org> Arni's socks <Smelly.Socks@arnold.org> Notable Exception <N.exception@untied.com> Unpopped Cherry <U.Cherry@anatomy.org> Tatooed Ovaries <T.Ovaries@anatomy.org> Pierced eyelid <p.eyelid@piercings.org> Limp Tomato <limp.tomato@vegetables.org> Eggplant Earrings <e.earrings@piercings.org> Banana Underpants <B.Underpants@hillfiger.org> Naval Lint <navel@lint.mil> Ingrown Toenail <i.toenail@anatomy.org> Empty Stomach <E.Stomach@anatomy.org> Full Stomach <f.stomach@anatomy.org> Smelly Cat <S.Cat@friends.nbc.com> Torn Ligament <T.Ligament@anatomy.org> Art Tistic <A.Tistic@modern.museum> Furry Raccoon <F.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Wet Racoon <W.Racoon@wildnerness.org> Mad Racoon <M.Racoon@wildlife.org> Lazy Racoon <L.Racoon@wilderness.org> Eaten Racoon <E.Raccoon@mcdonalds.com> Happy Raccoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Sleeping Racoon <S.Racoon@wilderness.org> Hungry Racoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Horny Raccoon <H.Racoon@fauna.org> Smart Raccoon <S.Raccoon@wilderness.org> George W Raccoon <GW.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Ronald McRaccoon <r.raccoon@wilderness.org> Thirsty Raccoon <T.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Johnny Raccoon <J.Racoon@wilderness.org> Oshi Santo <O.Santo@nx01.starfleet.org> Oishi Chinko <O.Chinko@nx01.starfleet.org> T.Yellow <T.Yellow@nowhere.com> Q <queue@continuum.net> Borg Queen <1of1@borg.org> Ronald Wilkerson <wilkersonr@sympatico.ca> John Balterman <j.balterman@sympatico.ca> *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* JF Mezei <nobody@nobody.com> trolled: >> Forget terrorists for the moment. The experiences of Egypt Air are more >> than sufficient to convince me that religious fanatics have no business at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >some religiously-influenced culture instead of your own country's culture is >not right. Yes, we all know you are such an arbiter of what is right and wrong..... ==================== THE JF MEZEI FAQ ==================== 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can't do that then he'll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can't stand it. Some of JF's favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women's genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) ... the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What's his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy's foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls' hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don't grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys' penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys' penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There's over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn't he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn't he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn't worked a day in his life! He's an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn't trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man's body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It's really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he's so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn't troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it's impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won't find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you're at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: abuse@sympatico.ca abuse@bellglobal.com abuse@istop.com And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it's impossible to compile a full list. jfmezei@istop.com jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com jfmezei@videotron.ca jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] nobody <nobody@nobody.com> nobody <nobody@nobody.net> nobody <nobody@nobody.org> nobody <nobody@nobody.info> nobody <nobody@nobody.int> nobody <nobody@nothing.nil> nobody <nobody@null.dev> snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree> Conspiracy Theory <conspiracy@theory.org> Lou Raccoon <L.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Flapping Labias <flabia@anatomy.org> Throbbing vulva <t.vulva@anatomy.org> Twin Gonads <two@gonads.com> Loose Scrotum <l.scrotum@anatomy.org> Raised Organ <R.Organ@anatomy.org> Popped Cherry <P.Cherry@anatomy.org> Monica Lewinski <billclinton@westchester.com> Deep Fried Foreskin <dff@mcdonalds.com> Aroma of Smegma <aroma@chanel.org> Wet fart <w.Fart@smell.org> Pubic dandruff <P.dandruff@anatomy.org> Voluptuous Nipple <V.nipple@anatomy.org> Inserted Finger <I.Finger@anatomy.org> Pubic Nair <shaved@anatomy.org> Flatulent Meatus <F.Meatus@anatomy.org> Lihk Mhygroin <L.MyGroin@anatomy.org> Pre Khum <P.Khum@anatomy.org> Phi Mosis <Phi.Mosis@anatomy.org> Bal Anatis <Bal.Anatis@anatomy.org> Fren Ullum <F.Ullum@anatomy.org> Ivanna Getlaid <I.Getlaid@onani.org> Ivanna Wankalot <I.Wankalot@onani.org> Ivanna Umpalot <Humpalot@drevil.com> Wan Tnoneofit <W.Tnoneofit@weirdnames.org> Wan Itbad <W.Itbad@inneed.org> Wan Towank <W.ToWank@anatomy.org> Wan Tolik <w.tolik@anatomy.org> Testos Terone <t.terone@anatomy.org> Upper Gonad <U.Gonad@anatomy.org> Right Gonad <R.Gonad@anatomy.org> Left Gonad <L.Gonad@anatomy.org> Tyson's Glands <Tyson.G@anatomy.org> Nose Hair <n.hair@anatomy.org> Coronal Sulcus <C.Sulcus@anatomy.org> Corpus Cavernus <manhood@anatomy.org> Armpit moisture <armpit@anatomy.org> Onani Room <onani@hotels.com> Arnie's Banana <weiner@terminator.com> Raised eyebrows <r.eyebrows@anatomy.org> Vas Deferens <V.deferens@anatomy.org> Naked Canuck <N.canuck@naturists.org> Arni's socks <Smelly.Socks@arnold.org> Notable Exception <N.exception@untied.com> Unpopped Cherry <U.Cherry@anatomy.org> Tatooed Ovaries <T.Ovaries@anatomy.org> Pierced eyelid <p.eyelid@piercings.org> Limp Tomato <limp.tomato@vegetables.org> Eggplant Earrings <e.earrings@piercings.org> Banana Underpants <B.Underpants@hillfiger.org> Naval Lint <navel@lint.mil> Ingrown Toenail <i.toenail@anatomy.org> Empty Stomach <E.Stomach@anatomy.org> Full Stomach <f.stomach@anatomy.org> Smelly Cat <S.Cat@friends.nbc.com> Torn Ligament <T.Ligament@anatomy.org> Art Tistic <A.Tistic@modern.museum> Furry Raccoon <F.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Wet Racoon <W.Racoon@wildnerness.org> Mad Racoon <M.Racoon@wildlife.org> Lazy Racoon <L.Racoon@wilderness.org> Eaten Racoon <E.Raccoon@mcdonalds.com> Happy Raccoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Sleeping Racoon <S.Racoon@wilderness.org> Hungry Racoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Horny Raccoon <H.Racoon@fauna.org> Smart Raccoon <S.Raccoon@wilderness.org> George W Raccoon <GW.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Ronald McRaccoon <r.raccoon@wilderness.org> Thirsty Raccoon <T.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Johnny Raccoon <J.Racoon@wilderness.org> Oshi Santo <O.Santo@nx01.starfleet.org> Oishi Chinko <O.Chinko@nx01.starfleet.org> T.Yellow <T.Yellow@nowhere.com> Q <queue@continuum.net> Borg Queen <1of1@borg.org> Ronald Wilkerson <wilkersonr@sympatico.ca> John Balterman <j.balterman@sympatico.ca> *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* JF Mezei <nobody@nobody.com> trolled: >> Forget terrorists for the moment. The experiences of Egypt Air are more >> than sufficient to convince me that religious fanatics have no business at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >some religiously-influenced culture instead of your own country's culture is >not right. Yes, we all know you are such an arbiter of what is right and wrong..... ==================== THE JF MEZEI FAQ ==================== 1. Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups. He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. 2. How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3. Where does he live? Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 4. What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless. Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end. He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear anything you say!" 5. What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex. He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest. If he can't do that then he'll just start making lewd posts. 6. What does he hate about the USA? Everything! He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly. The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can't stand it. Some of JF's favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7. What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best. No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women's genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) ... the list is endless. 8. Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years. He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world. Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims). As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy. His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9. What's his interest in child sexuality? That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky. Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy's foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls' hymens. He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don't grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys' penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys' penises. 10. Ewww! This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute! Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself. There's over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11. How can I find all that out, doesn't he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course! See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12. So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn't he work? Ha ha ha! JF hasn't worked a day in his life! He's an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night. In his free time when he isn't trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13. That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo! JF is a boy in a grown man's body. Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14. Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes! JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room. He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins. He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised. He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15. Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts! He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane. He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him. The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM. To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA. Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words. He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak. Then he turned his attention to aviation. Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil). So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings. He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation. He has never recovered from this. 16. Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades. JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore. It's really pathetic! 17. Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups. For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he's so famous for. But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18. It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn't troll. Pretty much. For a megatroll like JF it's impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won't find out what a major netkook he is. 19. Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly. Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms. And while you're at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too. And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20. What else can I do? Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: abuse@sympatico.ca abuse@bellglobal.com abuse@istop.com And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely. Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc. *** APPENDIX *** List of some of the many trolling aliases used by Mezei over the years. This is only a partial list, he has so many it's impossible to compile a full list. jfmezei@istop.com jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com jfmezei@videotron.ca jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] nobody <nobody@nobody.com> nobody <nobody@nobody.net> nobody <nobody@nobody.org> nobody <nobody@nobody.info> nobody <nobody@nobody.int> nobody <nobody@nothing.nil> nobody <nobody@null.dev> snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree> Conspiracy Theory <conspiracy@theory.org> Lou Raccoon <L.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Flapping Labias <flabia@anatomy.org> Throbbing vulva <t.vulva@anatomy.org> Twin Gonads <two@gonads.com> Loose Scrotum <l.scrotum@anatomy.org> Raised Organ <R.Organ@anatomy.org> Popped Cherry <P.Cherry@anatomy.org> Monica Lewinski <billclinton@westchester.com> Deep Fried Foreskin <dff@mcdonalds.com> Aroma of Smegma <aroma@chanel.org> Wet fart <w.Fart@smell.org> Pubic dandruff <P.dandruff@anatomy.org> Voluptuous Nipple <V.nipple@anatomy.org> Inserted Finger <I.Finger@anatomy.org> Pubic Nair <shaved@anatomy.org> Flatulent Meatus <F.Meatus@anatomy.org> Lihk Mhygroin <L.MyGroin@anatomy.org> Pre Khum <P.Khum@anatomy.org> Phi Mosis <Phi.Mosis@anatomy.org> Bal Anatis <Bal.Anatis@anatomy.org> Fren Ullum <F.Ullum@anatomy.org> Ivanna Getlaid <I.Getlaid@onani.org> Ivanna Wankalot <I.Wankalot@onani.org> Ivanna Umpalot <Humpalot@drevil.com> Wan Tnoneofit <W.Tnoneofit@weirdnames.org> Wan Itbad <W.Itbad@inneed.org> Wan Towank <W.ToWank@anatomy.org> Wan Tolik <w.tolik@anatomy.org> Testos Terone <t.terone@anatomy.org> Upper Gonad <U.Gonad@anatomy.org> Right Gonad <R.Gonad@anatomy.org> Left Gonad <L.Gonad@anatomy.org> Tyson's Glands <Tyson.G@anatomy.org> Nose Hair <n.hair@anatomy.org> Coronal Sulcus <C.Sulcus@anatomy.org> Corpus Cavernus <manhood@anatomy.org> Armpit moisture <armpit@anatomy.org> Onani Room <onani@hotels.com> Arnie's Banana <weiner@terminator.com> Raised eyebrows <r.eyebrows@anatomy.org> Vas Deferens <V.deferens@anatomy.org> Naked Canuck <N.canuck@naturists.org> Arni's socks <Smelly.Socks@arnold.org> Notable Exception <N.exception@untied.com> Unpopped Cherry <U.Cherry@anatomy.org> Tatooed Ovaries <T.Ovaries@anatomy.org> Pierced eyelid <p.eyelid@piercings.org> Limp Tomato <limp.tomato@vegetables.org> Eggplant Earrings <e.earrings@piercings.org> Banana Underpants <B.Underpants@hillfiger.org> Naval Lint <navel@lint.mil> Ingrown Toenail <i.toenail@anatomy.org> Empty Stomach <E.Stomach@anatomy.org> Full Stomach <f.stomach@anatomy.org> Smelly Cat <S.Cat@friends.nbc.com> Torn Ligament <T.Ligament@anatomy.org> Art Tistic <A.Tistic@modern.museum> Furry Raccoon <F.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Wet Racoon <W.Racoon@wildnerness.org> Mad Racoon <M.Racoon@wildlife.org> Lazy Racoon <L.Racoon@wilderness.org> Eaten Racoon <E.Raccoon@mcdonalds.com> Happy Raccoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Sleeping Racoon <S.Racoon@wilderness.org> Hungry Racoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org> Horny Raccoon <H.Racoon@fauna.org> Smart Raccoon <S.Raccoon@wilderness.org> George W Raccoon <GW.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Ronald McRaccoon <r.raccoon@wilderness.org> Thirsty Raccoon <T.Raccoon@wilderness.org> Johnny Raccoon <J.Racoon@wilderness.org> Oshi Santo <O.Santo@nx01.starfleet.org> Oishi Chinko <O.Chinko@nx01.starfleet.org> T.Yellow <T.Yellow@nowhere.com> Q <queue@continuum.net> Borg Queen <1of1@borg.org> Ronald Wilkerson <wilkersonr@sympatico.ca> John Balterman <j.balterman@sympatico.ca> *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* *DISTRIBUTE FREELY* > Lets face it, while we still can't explain infinite time/space and what was > there before the big bang and what caused the big bang, almost all of the > bible "special effects" can be explained with science (or even just Hollywood effects). Actually, at least two of those three have been explained. Space/time is NOT infinite (merely unbounded, which is a different matter), and there wasn't any "before" to the Big Bang in any meaningful sense. There are even some interesting speculations as to what "caused" the Big Bang, if in fact "cause" has much of a meaning in the absence of time. Bob M. >> > The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that >what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >And THAT is why he should be fired, not because he "shared personal >experiences" or whatever trip AA claims. Voight can't and won't understand any of this because his sole purpose for participating here is to deliberately misunderstand other people's arguments and take them out of context so he can post his stupid retarded pointless questions and comments. It's the only way he can get anyone to pay attention to him. About Rogue Cisco Employee Michael "mrtravelkay" Voight, a.k.a. the "mrtravel" Netkook Troll/Usenet Flooder "mrtavelkay" is the latest usenet handle of a brainless troll whose real name is Michael Voight, email <mvoight@cisco.com>. He is better known by his previous stupid handle, "mrtravel". The idiot works for Cisco in San Jose and apparently they don't keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet when he isn't looking for foreign brides to marry in exchange for money in alt.visa.us.marriage-based and alt.personals.big-folks, or trying to pick up minors in alt.personals.teens or any of the number of creepy newsgroups he frequents. Some of his other trolling aliases are Network Guy, starrystarrynight@sbcglobal.net, sleepydoc <sleepdoc@verizon.net>, jlhunt <jlhunt@huntbros.com>, and Lost 5 of 8 <seeme@loveme.fun>, mrt <mrt@mrt.com>, news.sf.sbcglobal.net <none@none.none>, not-nomen <none@none.none>,<uclaisthebest@ucla.edd>, David Tanner <dtanner1256@dtanner.org>, Jeff Davies <test@test.test>. All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav <mrtrav@mtr.mrt.trm>, mrtrav3 <mrtaa@aa.aa>, mrraveltay <mrraveltay@me.igpay.atinlay>. The lastest product of his brain diarrhea is mrtravelkay <mrtravelkay@a.aa> and he seems to like to hang out in alt.personals.fat. Hmmm.... His phone number is 831-252-2606. He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids he has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come and go so do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of deviant sexual pervert maniac they have working for them, so.... For starters, forward his idiotic posts to abuse@cisco.com . He works in technical support, so forward them to tac@cisco.com . He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to abuse@prodigy.net and abuse@sbcglobal.net as well. You can also call them at 1 800 553 2447 and ask to speak with a supervisor and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his whole day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE THAT. Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing and telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE that you brought this to their attention: Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with phone calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up as possible. (408)526-4000 (800)553-NETS or (800)553-6387 Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in their company but won't do so until they get rid of this a.shole who is wasting company resources: Cisco Systems, Inc. Investor Relations Department 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 Phone: (408) 526-8890 Fax: (408) 526-4545 Email: investor-relations@cisco.com Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this type of stuff: USA 1 800 553 6387 ic-support-us@cisco.com cs-support-us@cisco.com Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and are VERY INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees. They will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this a.shole out of their company: John Morgridge, Chairman John Chambers, President, CEO Donald Valentine, Vice Chairman Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations Have fun! > I think everyone is missing the point, here.... The man has proven himself too irresponsible AND too unstable to be a pilot... And THAT is why he should be fired, not because he "shared personal experiences"... Unless I've read into quite a few posts, that is the point several have been making. Many have been more concerned about the effect of his statements, not their content. If he had said, for example, "I just became a 'dad'...", it would have, arguably, been more personal information than passengers would need, or some want, to hear, but it wouldn't be likely to create an atmosphere of fear. His religious "rant", because it was practically guaranteed to bring up memories of hijackings by religious zealots for at least some aboard, was not a problem because of the sharing of his personal beliefs, but the time and place he chose to share them. > > > The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that > what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > And THAT is why he should be fired, not because he "shared personal > experiences" or whatever trip AA claims. > > The airline has clearly publicly stated, and to all news sources, that what > > the pilot did is "against company policy" so obviously they do have a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wouldn't have even risen to the level of even talking to the airline > about it, much less suing them. It does not have to offend every single passenger on the plane to rise to that level. We are not talking about a case where a single passenger was offended, as was the case with the Southwest "eenie meenie" case. We're talking about a case where many passengers were offended, alarmed, or panicked. > It does not have to offend every single passenger on the plane to rise > to that level. We are not talking about a case where a single > passenger was offended, as was the case with the Southwest "eenie > meenie" case. We're talking about a case where many passengers were > offended, alarmed, or panicked. What were the results of the "eenie meenie" case? > > It does not have to offend every single passenger on the plane to rise > > to that level. We are not talking about a case where a single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What were the results of the "eenie meenie" case? SW not found at fault -- but of course this sort of thing does 'chill' expression > > It does not have to offend every single passenger on the plane to rise > > to that level. We are not talking about a case where a single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What were the results of the "eenie meenie" case? Tossed out, Southwest awarded fees and costs. >>> It does not have to offend every single passenger on the plane to rise >>> to that level. We are not talking about a case where a single [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Tossed out, Southwest awarded fees and costs. For those who, like myself, wondered what the ennie meenie case was, see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78139,00.html miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > > > > In article > > > > <ahTVb.17715$F23.10934@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > This woman can't reasonably show *she* suffered any real harm, let > > alone the hundreds of millions of other people watching the show. > What an absurd statement. It remains to be seen what harm she suffered. > She might not even be the first to see the symptoms. How can a woman suffer quantifiable harm by looking at a human body? If breasts cause her harm, how does she even look in the mirror? The claim is ludicrous on its face. > I'm wondering why, exactly, you're so determined to defend this bozo's > actions? I'm wondering why you don't seem to have the ability to tell the difference between saying there's no basis in law for a suit and defending the pilot's actions. I know we're getting into subtleties here but perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. > How can a woman suffer quantifiable harm by looking at a human body? If > breasts cause her harm, how does she even look in the mirror? OK... there's a nun spinning in her grave this minute... muttering "He's scanning again... never did read too thoroughly!!" When I read "breasts cause her harm" it dawned on me one of us had strayed off course. Of course, you are correct. I had a "moment", and jumped to thinking about a woman [one of several making similar statements] aboard the AA flight who used language in her interview that lead me to believe she's a candidate for PTS. My error... sorry > > > > > In article > > > > > <ahTVb.17715$F23.10934@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > I know we're getting into subtleties here but perhaps I'm giving you too > much credit. > > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > power. A class action has to be certifie by the court with proof that > all members of the class suffered the same harm. Of course attorneys have that "power." If an attorney does not come to that conclusion, he would not ask a court to certify the class. Judges certify classes at the request of attorneys with requisite supporting evidence. If the attorney does not decide to take the case in the first place, it would not happen. An attorney has to decide that it has merit at the beginning before it gets to the part of my sentence that you snipped. Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:13:51 GMT, a stranger called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism >Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers >the right to sue. Bullshit. Know why? SuperShuttle Transportation Systems od San francisco was sued by one of my passengers because I honestly told him that because he lied to our rez desk, he was going to miss his flight. His claim was that my actions, onboard van 487, caused him mental distress and undue emotional anguish. Why did he sure the company? Because I was acting as a represenatative of the company, driving their van, wearing a SuperShuttle jacket and ID badge, and when I called up to his apartment, I identified myself as "SuperShuttle." (The case was tossed out, mainly due to the fact we discovered the guy had sued just about every transportation business in the city trying the same ruse.) SSTS/SF has been sued, successfully, for the comments and actions of it's drivers and dispatchers. Now, if I'm off work, and scream at someone for driving in the bike lane, my current employer has no liability. Why? Because I am not acting as a company rep. The pilot in question was in unifrom, one adorned with AA badges, working as a representative of American Airlines, and used company equipment to make his bizarre little request. The passengers can file suit for emotional distress, and probably win or settle out of court. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows" > Now, if I'm off work, and scream at someone for driving in the bike > lane, my current employer has no liability. Why? Because I am not > acting as a company rep. Then this pilot, in this case, as a double employer threat to worry about. American Airlines has a clause in their employee manual, which all employees agree to, that basically says their actions are subject to corrective action whether they are on OR off duty. In other words, this airline spreads it's corporate reach up it's employees backsides 24/7/365. And supposedly american troops are in Iraq fighting for our freedom? -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:13:51 GMT, a stranger > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bullshit. Know why? Yes, but it's not the reason you gave. Passengers "have the right to sue" ANYWAY. There is no strict prohibition regarding the bringing of a lawsuit regarding damned near ANYTHING, at least as I understand the process. (No, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I want to play one on the net.) Your suit might be tossed out for being frivolous, and if it is frivolous ENOUGH you might even be unable to find an attorney who would take it that far in the first place (although I would suspect if that happened, you simply hadn't looked hard enough for a real ambulance-chaser type) - but you don't need to be "given the right to sue" in order to try to bring suit in the first place. Bob M. > Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:13:51 GMT, a stranger > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > (The case was tossed out, Exactly. It was tossed out. When I say someone "can't sue", that's shorthand for saying they can't sue successfully, that the law is not on their side. Of course anyone can sue for anything but it doesn't mean they'll get any money. It can often mean they will lose money if the judge has any stones and finds their suit frivolous and orders them to pay costs and attorneys' fees. > > > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > the right to sue. His actions *do* give the passengers a right to sue. You see, the pilot is an "agent" of the airline and as such, the airline is responsible. This is a keystone of Common (Civil) Law . Any doubt, check "The Common Law" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. > > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > > the right to sue. > > His actions *do* give the passengers a right to sue. You see, the > pilot is an "agent" of the airline and as such, the airline is > responsible. Responsible for what? If the pilot punched a passenger, then absolutely, the passenger would have a valid cause of action for the tort of battery. But does a person have a right not to be offended by a pilot or a company with whom they are doing business, such that if they *are* offended, the business owes them money? What tort has the business committed by talking about religion in the presence of non-religious customers? What does Oliver Wendell Holmes say about that? > Any doubt, check "The Common Law" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. > > > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the passengers > > > the right to sue. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What does Oliver Wendell Holmes say about that? I think all of us delicate flowers need to just fan ourselves and rest a bit rather than sueing BUT the issue here is not being exposed to religion -- it is being captive passengers of a religious fanatic at a time when religious fanatics have been known to murder planeloads of passengers [and 9/11 is not the only example of that] these people are sueing because of the fear of death they felt this pilot created -- and all evidence is that in fact many passengers were frightened and needed reassurance by the plane staff that they were not to become headlines > > > > Then the airline can fire him but his actions don't give the > > > > passengers the right to sue. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I think all of us delicate flowers need to just fan ourselves and rest a > bit rather than sueing Amen! (irony intended) > BUT the issue here is not being exposed to religion -- it is being > captive passengers of a religious fanatic at a time when religious [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > frightened and needed reassurance by the plane staff that they were not > to become headlines Well, if they can prove the elements of IIED, then more power to them but I think a big stretch, even in light of Stella and her coffee suit with McDonalds. For every Stella who gets a win, there are thousands of other people you never hear about who have their cases tossed. <q3uVb.16234$F23.4941@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote in (snip) Great job on your website. The photography is fantastic. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} >> Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger >> called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". Yes he is - when he is their representative. > > Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger > > called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". Actually, legally he is. >>Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 GMT, a stranger >>called by some BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> came forth and told [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their >>>airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. > The captain of the plane is NOT ":American Airlines". The problem for the airline is that he is a representative of "American Airlines". Some folks might take his silly proselytizing poorly. I suspect many of the stockholders might as well. Well American stock isn't worth much perhaps the southern baptists might buy it out. FFM > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. Methinks you got mixed up. That's Alaska, not AA. > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. > > Methinks you got mixed up. That's Alaska, not AA. The point is the same either way. > > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The point is the same either way. Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC. 703. (a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that circumstance. They cannot hire pilots based on religion, nor can they "otherwise ... discriminate against, any individual because of his ... religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold, they are breaking the law. > Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC. 703. > (a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that > circumstance. They cannot hire pilots based on religion, nor can they > "otherwise ... discriminate against, any individual because of his ... > religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold, > they are breaking the law. They can stop him from preaching to the passengers, and they can determine what religious reading material to put on the plane. They just can't force him to read it. > > Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC. 703. > > (a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > determine what religious reading material to put on the plane. They just > can't force him to read it. If they tape it all over the cockpit, they are forcing him to read it. That's different from putting a Bible in with the reading material. > > > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > > > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold, > they are breaking the law. Who said they have told anyone, let alone a pilot, what religious views they can hold? > > > > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American > > > > > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Who said they have told anyone, let alone a pilot, what religious views > they can hold? I suppose that you could make the argument that telling you in writing what religious views to hold by taping the writings in front of your face isn't telling you what views to hold. You could make the argument, but it would be a stupid argument. > > > > > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. > > > > > > American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > face isn't telling you what views to hold. You could make the > argument, but it would be a stupid argument. Putting up a sign with a bible verse on it (which is what I assume you are talking about) isn't telling someone what religious view they must hold. People have brains. They are free to accept or reject anything they like. A private company has every right to decorate their facilities with religious iconography if they like. People can express their pleasure or disgust with their wallets. > > > > > > > You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. > > > > > > > American Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > religious iconography if they like. People can express their pleasure or > disgust with their wallets. That would depend on the degree. If you are my employer and you stick a sign in front of my face that says, "Jesus is your Lord," I think I can make a compelling argument that you are telling me what beliefs I should hold. We were not talking about the AA situation or even the Alaska one, but a hypothetical case where an airline plasters the airplane cabins with bible verses. In that case, I'd say that it's proselytizing, and it goes well beyond what established cases (Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 1997),Wilson v U.S. West Communications, 58 F.3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995).) have found to violate the rights of the employer. Employees have no choice but to be in the cabin and would be exposed to the messages constantly. But even more subtle religious verses can be problematic potentially. In California, there is a burger chain called In-n-out Burger. They print Christian verses on cups and napkins and other supplies. If they had a Muslim or other employee who did not want to hand cups to customers, because giving a fellow Muslim a message that "Jesus is Lord" is in direct violation of her religious beliefs, the question would be whether the company could make reasonable accomodations. Since there is no compelling business reason for the messages, it would be hard for them to say no, and convince a California court of it. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger >> called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their >airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. It is not clear if they can do that after the fact, after they have passengers in the seats. Remember, getting up and causing any kind of disruption is potentially a felony. It was a terrible thing to do. I don't think a lawsuit makes sense (but neither does the lawsuit against Janet Jackson), but that is a pretty poor standard to use. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their > airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do. That's absolute nonsense. You don't understand basic contract law. They agreed to transport people in accordance with their policies. They did not do that; they created a hostile environment for people instead. They broke a legal contract. > > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > They did not do that; they created a hostile environment for people > instead. They broke a legal contract. Cite the clause in the contract that says passengers had an affirmative expectation not to encounter any religious messages from the employees throughout the duration of their flight. Put that here ---------> > > > Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, a stranger > > > called by some "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> came forth and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > They did not do that; they created a hostile environment for people > instead. They broke a legal contract. Furthermore, as regulated interstate carriers they're required not to discriminate on basis of race, religion, disability, etc. etc. etc. I am in any event calling American to tell them that even though they were previously my airline of choice I will NEVER fly them again because I don't want to be subjected to such incredibly rude treatment. gardhi aa #1964 > I am in any event calling American to tell them that even though they > were previously my airline of choice I will NEVER fly them again > because I don't want to be subjected to such incredibly rude > treatment. It seems as if they're laying the groundwork for firing the guy. Wouldn't that be all you could hope for? It's not as if (based on the information we have available) they knew, or could have predicted, this would happen. Seems like the more effective statement would be to say you're not going to fly them unless they fire the guy. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ >I was amused that the captain had just returned from a mission to >Costa Rica.. an area which has been 95% Catholic for four centuries. Which of course makes them a perfect target for a missionary who has the "real truth". Signature"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net > When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to > point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when > the religious nutso pilot pretty much tells the Christians on the > plane to bug the non-Christians for the entire flight would piss me > off.. I'd file a lawsuit against American had I been on that flight. A lawsuit??? Were you really harmed by this? Do you think it AA condones this behavior? Clearly, the pilot did this on his own. It was in poor taste, perhaps, but certainly nothing to sue over. > > When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to > > point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this behavior? Clearly, the pilot did this on his own. It was in poor > taste, perhaps, but certainly nothing to sue over. That airline takes responsibility for all the lives on board, and vests the responsibility for those lives in that pilot. Clearly, he was a whackjob who would have no problems crashing a plane now that his trip to Costa Rica had taught him all about heysooos, heaven, big daddy, junior and the spook! It was inappropriate, period. >> When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to >> point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this behavior? Clearly, the pilot did this on his own. It was in poor > taste, perhaps, but certainly nothing to sue over. But certainly the case for requesting a public apology on the PA system right away. And be willing to deal with homeland security and perhpas a visit to a jail until the guy would indeed publically apologize. > >> When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to > >> point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > right away. And be willing to deal with homeland security and perhpas a > visit to a jail until the guy would indeed publically apologize. I didn't know that you were THAT enthusiastic about religion! It really seems as if you have strong and persistent feelings involved!! It's certainly an attitude far from being disengaged and indifferent that you exhibit!! During the old days of the awakening this kind of attitude was considered as the first sign of a person being drawn to religion (and the similar things are also being said by members of other religions). Who knows - a few years down the line the Devil might indeed be born again (in one religion or the other as this phenomenon seems to be rather common in many religions). I'll send you a bottle of red when (rather than if) this happens to help you cool down a little ;>) Nik > When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to > point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when > the religious nutso pilot pretty much tells the Christians on the > plane to bug the non-Christians for the entire flight would piss me > off.. I'd file a lawsuit against American had I been on that flight. You'd file a suit for what, receiving a suggestion that you didn't want to follow? If that works for you, try suing for all the times you've been offered peanuts when you weren't hungry. If you read the article you'll notice that he actually suggested to the non-Christians that they talk to the people who had identified themselves as Christians. If anyone had a complaint it would be the people (if any) who had chosen to identify themselves as Christians. Drew -- Free Secure IM X-IM: Encrypted Instant Messaging http://www.x-im.net > > When I fly, I'm paying the airline to transport me from point A to > > point B in a safe, comfortable manner. Being a captive audience when [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Drew No it wouldn't. He was directing Christians to proselytize. If you had a Christian sitting next to an atheist, one cannot reasonably assume that it's a directive for the athiest to proselytize because he has no religious views. If a Christian were sitting next to a Jew, on cannot assume that the Jew would be expected to proselytize because his religion forbids it. But many Christians, when engaged in a discussion of religion, believe that it's their duty to proselytize. I've seen it in this very thread in people's signatures. -<zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com> wrote in message -news:o7ja20d0n6rksat33hl2bnqt0oc8dbc10q@4ax.com... -> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:56:45 +0000, rom <rom@ram.rem> wrote: -> -> >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity -> >Associated Press -> > -> >NEW YORK - An American Airlines pilot flying passengers to New York asked -> >Christians on board to identify themselves and suggested the -non-Christians -> >discuss the faith with them, a spokesman for the Fort Worth, Texas-based -airline -> >said Saturday. -> > -> >Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to John F. Kennedy Airport on -Friday -> >afternoon, said spokesman Tim Wagner. The pilot, whose identity was not -> >released, had been making flight announcements and then asked that the -> >Christians on board raise their hands, Wagner said. -> > -> >The pilot told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers -use the -> >flight time to talk to the identified Christians about their faith, -Wagner said. -> > -> >The pilot later told passengers he would be available at the end of the -flight -> >to talk about his first announcement. -> > -> >Wagner said the airline was investigating the incident, and that the -company had -> >guidelines about appropriate behavior. He said the pilot had just -returned to -> >work from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica. -> > -> >"It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be -> >appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner -said. -> > -> >http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm -> -> -> Darn, I was going to post this with the header "Jebus makes pilot lose -> job...claims he'll live on the love of the Lard." -> -> And he will lose his job...can't have the mentally unstable in such a -> position. I wouldn't fly on his plane, and I will send an email to AA -> to that effect. -> -> zamboni - -And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you -compassionate liberals go for the jugular -just because you disagree with him. So he made and announcement but no one -was forced to do as he suggested. You jack a.s libs are always spouting -about peace and dialogs, perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and -atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. But of -course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his -head, right? WOW!! That little tirade is a perfect example of "Cjristian love in action"..yes sireeeee!! Why do you aszume the people who have a problem with this are "liberals"? And suppose that instead of being a Christian, the pilot was aMoslem..would you be so supportive of him? Somehow I doubt it. Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian http://Rainbow-Christian.tk The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay http://Ninure-Saunders.tk My Yahoo Group http://Ninure.tk My Online Diary http://www.ninure.deardiary.net - Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.MCCchurch.org To send e-mail, remove nohate from address And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:46:50 +0000 didst Ninure Saunders speak thusly: > -<zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com> wrote in message > -news:o7ja20d0n6rksat33hl2bnqt0oc8dbc10q@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Somehow I doubt it. And how about if the pilot was a Democrat and wanted people to share with the Republicans on board just how bad a president Bush is? SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > And how about if the pilot was a Democrat and wanted people to share with > the Republicans on board just how bad a president Bush is? YIKES! Surely fists would fly! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > And how about if the pilot was a Democrat and wanted people to share with > > the Republicans on board just how bad a president Bush is? > > YIKES! Surely fists would fly! That case would be a bit harder to make since almost half of Americans have confidence in Bush, but it would not be appropriate whether he be a Republican, Democrat, or member of any other party. However, if you can understand why Republicans would be offended (and rightly so) when the Democrats have only a slight edge in popularity, it's much more understandable how non-Christians would feel when Christians have such a dominant presence. On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:16:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>, Message ID: <pan.2004.02.08.17.16.41.894662@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism; >And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:46:50 +0000 didst Ninure Saunders speak >thusly: (snip) >> -And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >> -compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >And how about if the pilot was a Democrat and wanted people to share with >the Republicans on board just how bad a president Bush is? RRRRRROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG. That would have been grounds from ejection from the aircraft without a parachute. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > > >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > compassionate liberals go for the jugular > just because you disagree with him. The last thing I want is to be forced to sit next to a stranger for hours and discuss religion. The pilot has the ability to turn on the seatbelt light and force all the passengers to remain in their seats. Secondly, with all the craziness going on in the world I don't want to declare my religion, or lack of, on an airplane. I do think there was some harm possible. I think that requesting that passengers discuss controversial matters increases the likelihood of air rage. And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:41:48 +0000 didst Vox Humana speak thusly: >> > >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> > >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > think that requesting that passengers discuss controversial matters > increases the likelihood of air rage. Mormons proselytizing the baptists, the baptists telling the catholics they're going to hell, the JWs bitching at everybody, the... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >compassionate liberals go for the jugular just because you disagree with him. He's being paid to fly a plane. If he wants to win converts, he should do it on his own time, not on his employer's time. >perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and >atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. You mean that the Christians could have learned reality from the atheists? Not a chance. Signature"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net>: >> >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole Would you feel the same way if he had asked people to discuss Islam? Or Satanism? >but you >compassionate liberals go for the jugular >just because you disagree with him. His actions were clearly and grossly inappropriate. Whether they were to the level of loosing his job depends on job rules. But they are certainly wrong from a Christian standpoint. You should not use your power of life and death, like being a pilot, to try to lead people to Christ. You don't get open and honest responses that way. > So he made and announcement but no one >was forced to do as he suggested. You jack a.s libs are always spouting >about peace and dialogs, perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and >atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. But of >course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his >head, right? Again, would you feel the same way if he wanted a dialog about Wicca? -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > His actions were clearly and grossly inappropriate. Whether they > were to the level of loosing his job depends on job rules. But > they are certainly wrong from a Christian standpoint. You should > not use your power of life and death, like being a pilot, to try > to lead people to Christ. You don't get open and honest responses > that way. Also ... were I on that plane .. I would wonder just how deranged and fanatic the pilot was ........... would he decide to take some other inappropriate actin based on his extremist views? > > So he made and announcement but no one > >was forced to do as he suggested. You jack a.s libs are always spouting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I want to be different, I just don't want to change. All human being wishing to be "different" please stand in the appropriate line. > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you > compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his > head, right? His job is to fly the f.cking plane from point A to point B, not make the non-Christian passengers uncomfortable (and probably a lot of the Christian ones, too). He deserves to lose his job. >> And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >> compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >non-Christian passengers uncomfortable (and probably a lot of the Christian >ones, too). He deserves to lose his job. Yep. And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:20:40 -0700 didst gk speak thusly: >> And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you >> compassionate liberals go for the jugular [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > non-Christian passengers uncomfortable (and probably a lot of the Christian > ones, too). He deserves to lose his job. At least obtain one serious reprimand. With just the different *christian sects that could have been on board and the differences between them (imagine the baptists telling the catholics they're "going to hell"), he could have caused some quite nasty arguments in a confined space. Is that safe? SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600 didst E.E.Bud Keith speak thusly: >> >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his > head, right? And you just gave a perfect example of why he shouldn't be opening a contentious subject on a flight. People can get quite nasty to each other. I'm pretty sure his job description does not include "try to start fights among the passengers." SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > I'm pretty sure his job description does not include "try to start fights > among the passengers." No, but rumor has it at AA, it IS the company policy to start fights among the EMPLOYEES of the company. They thrive on animosity, divide and conquer from within, and while the employees are too busy bickering with each other, the company slips in behind, loads their golden parachutes, then proceeds to slash wages, cut benefits and triple up on work loads. Rumor has it . . .that is. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him. In alt.atheism on Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:49:02 -0500, Christopher <carthur50@hotmail.com> wrote: >God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat >him. You could probably make a movie out of that. "Eating God". I'd almost be willing to bet that a "Catchy Title of the Year" award would probably go there. ;-) -- L8r, Bill /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* "Is not the epitome of narcissism to quote one's self?" - Me /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* > In alt.atheism on Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:49:02 -0500, Christopher > <carthur50@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > almost be willing to bet that a "Catchy Title of the Year" award would > probably go there. ;-) And AA could show it as a feature movie on one of their flights. > L8r, > Bill > /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* > "Is not the epitome of narcissism to > quote one's self?" - Me > /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole but you > compassionate liberals go for the jugular > just because you disagree with him. He didn't harm their shoes, true. What's your point? > So he made and announcement but no one > was forced to do as he suggested. He was the guy in charge. Gross example of abuse of authority. > You jack a.s libs are always spouting > about peace and dialogs, perhaps all he was attempting to do was create and > atmosphere in which people might talk to and learn from each other. But of > course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his > head, right? He had no right to try get people to talk. Besides, getting to talk about this sort of things potentially leads to a unsafe situation. I sure would have been mad enough to make a big fuss. Homeland security or not. Ask for immediate and public apologies. I once found myself in a meeting room at breakfast. At the annual meeting of a major American proferssional assocaiation. Breakfast meeting for speakers and session chairs. That year, the meeting chair was some brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. By starting the breakfast with a prayer. There were maybe 300 people in the room. When he started, I stood up. Asked for him to wait until I would be out of the room before proceeding. And I started walking toward the door. Only took him a couple of seconds to react, "OK, let's have a minute of silence instead." I am sure if I would have had time to get anywhere clsoe to the door, more people would have followed and he would have ended up with an empty room. As usual the fundies get off on the wrong foot (or "sole" as one illiterate put it). It's not just the fact that he did it on board in the USA, but that his actions were deemed so inappropriate that it made headlines in the New York Times. That means a good portion of the muslim world, which pretty much hates our guts right now, christian or otherwise, now know about it and more than a few of them I'll bet are now devising ways to teach the infidel americans about allah! While some may think this is no big deal, I shudder to think of the reprocussions it could/will have on americans both in the USA and abroad in the very near future, and for some time to come. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > That means a good portion of the muslim world, which > pretty much hates our guts right now, christian or otherwise, now know about it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reprocussions it could/will have on americans both in the USA and abroad > in the very near future, and for some time to come. So you think we should shut up and censor ourselves and avoid saying things in public that might make psychopathic terrorists mad? Personally, I'm not going to tiptoe around my daily life on the off-chance some terrorist somewhere might not approve. > That year, the meeting chair was some > brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. > By starting the breakfast with a prayer. This may not be OK with your point of view, but what if it is a normal practice where the meeting is being held ? If you were in the bible belt, wouldn't it be normal for the americans to be seen prarying at every opportunity ? When in Rome... >> That year, the meeting chair was some >> brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > When in Rome... I had some board members talk to me and thank me aftertward. "We were going to deal with this at the next board meeting." Talking about a major international professional organization here. Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about religion. Even most Catholics were unhappy with the stunt. >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. >Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about >religion. Even most Catholics were unhappy with the stunt. Of course they were. Catholics are not evangelists, trying to convert every sinner out there to their faith. Like Jews, they're too wrapped up guilt to be out proselytizing. But these born-again Christians, they are truly the most annoying people on earth. What did Dennis Miller say? "Born AGAIN? No... pardon me for getting it right the FIRST time!" Also something about their personal relationships with Jesus, because nobody down here on earth will f.cking talk to them anymore... > >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. > >Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every sinner out there to their faith. Like Jews, they're too wrapped > up guilt to be out proselytizing. Um, no. I can't speak for Catholics, but Jews don't proselytize because it isn't part of their religious beliefs. > But these born-again Christians, they are truly the most annoying > people on earth. What did Dennis Miller say? "Born AGAIN? No... > pardon me for getting it right the FIRST time!" Also something about > their personal relationships with Jesus, because nobody down here on > earth will f.cking talk to them anymore... >> >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. >> >Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Um, no. I can't speak for Catholics, but Jews don't proselytize because it >isn't part of their religious beliefs. My ladyfriend is Catholic. She doesn't prosetylise but some of her friends can be pretty obnoxious. >> But these born-again Christians, they are truly the most annoying >> people on earth. What did Dennis Miller say? "Born AGAIN? No... >> pardon me for getting it right the FIRST time!" Also something about >> their personal relationships with Jesus, because nobody down here on >> earth will f.cking talk to them anymore... > >> >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. > >> >Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > My ladyfriend is Catholic. She doesn't prosetylise but some of her > friends can be pretty obnoxious. Members of most religions - inclusive of Buddhist - can. However lately Jews seems not to be too engaged in this business. Even though I believe that they in earlier times did have a relatively large influx into their traditions of people who had no ethnic relation to Palestine.. Nik > > >> >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start > with. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Members of most religions - inclusive of Buddhist - can. However lately > Jews seems not to be too engaged in this business. Jews have never been engaged in this business. Seeking converts is contrary to the religion. >Even though I believe > that they in earlier times did have a relatively large influx into their > traditions of people who had no ethnic relation to Palestine.. Hunh? > Nik > > >> >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start > with. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Nik Judaism is NOT and never has been a proseletyzing religion I was wondering how many on that flight will be in a lawyers office in the next couple of days to sue American Airlines for being scared shitless on that flight with that wacko flying the plane .. my guess .. everyone that wasn't Christian .. hell .. I would have been calling my lawyer on a cell phone from the plane. diane > >Half the attendants are probably either Jewish or Muslim to start with. > >Plus all the folks who don't really believe in a god or care about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > their personal relationships with Jesus, because nobody down here on > earth will f.cking talk to them anymore... > .. I would have been calling my lawyer on a cell > phone from the plane. And, I'll bet, since so many cell & air-phone calls were reportedly placed, a few lawyers got calls. > I was wondering how many on that flight will be in a lawyers office in the > next couple of days to sue American Airlines for being scared shitless on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > their personal relationships with Jesus, because nobody down here on > > earth will f.cking talk to them anymore... > > That year, the meeting chair was some > > brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wouldn't it be normal for the americans to be seen prarying at every > opportunity ? Hell no. You're more likely to see them polishing their pistola than anything else. The bible belt ain't what it used to be. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** >> > That year, the meeting chair was some >> > brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hell no. You're more likely to see them polishing their pistola than > anything else. The bible belt ain't what it used to be. Actually, I have seen more praying in public events in Canada than in the US. Mostly in situations where it was not so easy to do something about it. >> That year, the meeting chair was some >> brainwashed Christian, who abused of his authority in a similar manner. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wouldn't it be normal for the americans to be seen prarying at every > opportunity ? No. You snipped the part about it being a meeting of a major professional association. > When in Rome... ... you can choose to pray at the Vatican. Signaturerk > You snipped the part about it being a meeting of a major professional > association. But if that meeting was in a middle east country with majority muslim participants, wouldn't you expect breaks to allow people to pray at the right times because that is how business is conducted there ? If americans accept that any business function should start with a prayer, then it would be normal to see this practice in conferences, even if there are foreigners present. You have a born again christian president who wanted to give the church a greater role in the community. Perhaps there really is a majority of americans who prefer to have more religious rituals performed on a daily basis, even if it means that the minority must now bear with these silly prayers. You just said that a portion of americans made the rule that Jabnet can't show boob on national TV, this means that the more enlightened others must abide by this self imposed restriction. And if a portion of americans state that prayers must be recited, then the other portion will have to bear with this practice. Unless the more enlightened portion rises up and makes changes, it will remain that way. How did the british end the victorian era ? Was it an abrupt change or was it pregressive over multiple generations ? The problem I see is that the USA seemed to have become far more enlightened in previous decades and is now in a trend towards increased victorianism. Extreme religious, extreme politically correct, extreme hiding of anything sexual. >> You snipped the part about it being a meeting of a major professional >> association. > > But if that meeting was in a middle east country with majority muslim > participants, wouldn't you expect breaks to allow people to pray at the > right times because that is how business is conducted there ? But the meeting was not in a Middle East country, it was an American association. And the meeting was not adjourned to allow people to practice their faith, it was started with prayer. So your question is irrelevant. > If americans accept that any business function should start with a > prayer, then it would be normal to see this practice in conferences, even > if there are foreigners present. But Americans do not accept that any business function should start with a prayer and it is not normal to see this practice in conference, with or without foreigners present. For such an "expert" on American culture and faults, you seem to know nothing about American culture. [ dribble snipped ] Signaturerk > > When in Rome... > > ... you can choose to pray at the Vatican. > > -- Just be careful about being on your knees to pray around all those priests! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his > head, right? What business was it of his to start the inevitable fights? Why should anyone have to put up with a paid professional who tries to interfer in their lives? It was none of his god damn business. You jackass (note the correct spelling) conservatives always get mad when others don't want your point of view shoved down their throats (your stuck in a plane and the captain has a loudspeaker, so that is shoving). However, let someone you don't agree with impose on you a bit and you whine, yell foul and cry like little children. Why is that? jwk And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600 didst E.E.Bud Keith speak thusly: > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole He caused a panic. People were calling relatives, afraid they were about to be involved in some 9/11 type of event. Airline officials had to be contacted, the crew had to run around reassuring people the flight was safe... No harm eh? http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airline.christianity/ Of course, had a *Muslim pilot pulled a similar stunt, the plane would have been escorted back to the airport by military jets and he'd be in jail right now... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > From: "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.travel.air, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > been escorted back to the airport by military jets and he'd be in jail right > now... Or possibly shot down if the Feds felt the danger was high enough. SignatureHarry F. Leopold aa #2076 AA/Vet #4 The Prints of Darkness > And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600 didst E.E.Bud Keith speak > thusly: > > > And just what is that we call you, the guy was not harming a sole There's an old saw : "Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table". Simple etiquette. Why ? Because folks have very different, often antithetical views; and who needs a fist fight (or worse) at the dinner table ? How much less desirable is such behaviour at 30000 feet ? > > And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600 didst E.E.Bud Keith speak > > thusly: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How much less desirable is such behaviour at 30000 feet ? and in the current terrorist climate knowing that your aircraft is in the hands of someone who can't control his religious fervor is scary how would folks supporting this very inappropriate pilot feel if he asked people who believed in Allah to raise their hands? On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:07:31 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>, Message ID: <pan.2004.02.10.15.07.30.631107@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism; >And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600 didst E.E.Bud Keith speak >thusly: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >have been escorted back to the airport by military jets and he'd be in >jail right now... and on his/her way to Gitmo. /article Pilot's proselytizing scares passengers American Airlines apologizes for comments on religion NEW YORK (CNN) --An American Airlines pilot made some passengers fearful when he urged them to make wise use of their flight time by talking to Christians, passengers said Monday. Passengers were "shocked," said Karla Austin, who had flown on Friday's Los Angeles to New York Flight 34. Some reached for their mobile phones and others used the on-flight phones, she said. "Just given the history of what's happened on planes in this country, anything can happen at this point. So we weren't sure if something was going to happen at takeoff, if he was going to wait until JFK (John F. Kennedy) to do something," Austin said. "But there was definitely implication there that we felt that something was going to happen." Passengers complained to the flight attendants, who relayed their concerns to the cockpit and who then reassured them they had nothing to worry about, Austin said. Attendants also told passengers they had contacted airline officials about the matter, she said. "We were just at the beginning of our flight. The pilot came on to greet everyone and give his comments for the morning, and he said he'd recently been on a mission trip, and he'd like all the Christians to please raise their hands," said passenger Jen Dorsey. He said, 'If you are a Christian, raise your hand.' He said, 'If you are not, you're crazy,'" said Austin. Dorsey nodded her head in agreement that the pilot had called non-Christians "crazy." Another passenger recounted a similar experience in an interview with WCBS-TV in New York. Amanda Nelligan told the station the pilot said those who did not raise their hands were "crazy." Austin said no passengers raised their hands. The pilot then asked passengers to look around at each other and use the flight wisely or "just sit back and watch the movie," Dorsey said. About 45 minutes into the flight, the pilot apologized -- but his apology focused on the crew, not the passengers, Dorsey said. "He came on and said, 'I want to apologize for my comments earlier. I think I really threw the flight crew off a little bit, and they are getting a lot of flack for the things I said. So I want to apologize to my flight crew,' " she said. Wagner said the pilot offered to speak after the flight with anyone who wanted to discuss his comments. On her way out, Austin said she told him that "he should be ashamed of himself." "He just nodded and looked to the ground, and that was it," she said. The airline is investigating reports about Friday's Flight 34, a company spokesman said. American Airlines said that if the incident were true it "would be against our policy." In a statement, the airline said, "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job." Airline spokesman Tim Wagner said the pilot denies using the word "crazy." He told the airline he recently had returned from a mission trip and was encouraging people to use the four and a half hour flight to speak with passengers about their relationships with God, Wagner said. The pilot's name has not been released. "American Airlines apologizes if anyone was made to feel uncomfortable by the comments of this pilot," Wagner said. The airline spokesman declined to say whether the pilot has been relieved of duty while an investigation is under way. The man, a senior pilot with the airline, did not fly again over the weekend, Wagner said. The spokesman also declined to say whether the pilot is scheduled to fly this week. The result of the airline's investigation will not be made public because it is an internal matter, Wagner said, adding it will be "handled internally according to American Airlines procedure." CNN's Tracy Sabo contributed to this report. Find this article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airline.christianity Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net>, Message ID: <1tGdnUU1MYGYxbjdRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >> >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >course biased people like you would not even consider that, off with his >head, right? You a.sholes have nothing to teach. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} >>American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >>Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >zamboni I see no problem at all. ...I dunno, maybe I happen to be a little tolerant. Oooh, my. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. And so upon Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:53:09 -0600 didst Daniel Kolle speak thusly: >>>American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >>>Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I see no problem at all. ...I dunno, maybe I happen to be a little > tolerant. Oooh, my. Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a touchy subject among passengers on a jet? Forget atheists being on board. What happens when the Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, and JWs start going after each other? I'm sure his job description does not include starting religious arguments among passengers on a flight... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." >Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a >touchy subject among passengers on a jet? It was on a mission trip. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. > "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> thought hard and said: >> Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a >> touchy subject among passengers on a jet? > > It was on a mission trip. AA0034 is a scheduled flight between Los Angeles and New York. It goes every day. It is most certainly not a chartered mission flight. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ >>"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> thought hard and said: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AA0034 is a scheduled flight between Los Angeles and New York. It goes > every day. It is most certainly not a chartered mission flight. Maybe not to you, but it was for the pilot. >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> thought hard and said: >>>> Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe not to you, but it was for the pilot. I don't get what that has to do with anything. If I was traveling to attend a concert, does it mean I get to stand on my seat and sing? miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:43:08 -0600 didst Daniel Kolle speak thusly: >>Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a >>touchy subject among passengers on a jet? > > It was on a mission trip. It's a good idea of a pilot to encourage argument and contention among passengers on certain flights? SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > >Tolerant of a pilot who basically encourages big, nasty arguments over a > >touchy subject among passengers on a jet? > > It was on a mission trip. Read for comprehension Daniel, it was after the mission trip. Diederik > -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 > Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. > Madly Insane EAC Scientist. >> I see no problem at all. ...I dunno, maybe I happen to be a little >> tolerant. Oooh, my. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'm sure his job description does not include starting religious arguments >among passengers on a flight... I'd have thought the proper thing to have done was to inform the Sky Marshal that religious fanatics had taken control of the cockpit. SignatureStuart "We're all gonna die" Bibby > >> I see no problem at all. ...I dunno, maybe I happen to be a little > >> tolerant. Oooh, my. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'd have thought the proper thing to have done was to inform the Sky > Marshal that religious fanatics had taken control of the cockpit. And you know who the sky marshals are on any given flight? 'Cause they stand up and announce "Hi, I'm Bob. I'll be your sky marshal this morning..." > And you know who the sky marshals are on any given flight? > > 'Cause they stand up and announce "Hi, I'm Bob. I'll be your sky marshal > this morning..." LOL, they are easy to pick out. They'll only fly first class (the best of course) they usually sit in the exact same seats all the time, they board ahead of everyone else and are already seated, usually sipping their sodas or coffee, and they generally look like dorks. They aren't on every flight, but when they are on one, they're easy to spot. > > And you know who the sky marshals are on any given flight? > > > > 'Cause they stand up and announce "Hi, I'm Bob. I'll be your sky > > marshal this morning..." > > LOL, they are easy to pick out. They'll only fly first class Wrong. > (the best > of course) they usually sit in the exact same seats all the time, they board > ahead of everyone else and are already seated, Wrong. You're 0 for 2. Good job. > and they generally look like dorks. That's the first time I've ever heard a woman described as "looking like a dork", but hey, each to his own. Here's a hint: the people you think are sky marshals, who board first, etc. etc. are most likely either airline personnel catching a freebie flight or FBI, ATF, Secret Service or local police flying on official business, going from one duty assignment to another. They are not sky marshals. But that's okay. As long as self-important dullards like you think you can spot them every time, then when it really comes down to it, the hijackers will be rather surprised when the real marshals stand up and take them out. > the hijackers will be rather surprised when the real marshals stand up and > take them out. As long as that is what YOU believe, then whatever makes you happy. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > the hijackers will be rather surprised when the real marshals stand up > > and > > take them out. > > As long as that is what YOU believe, then whatever makes you happy. Well, with me it's actual knowledge based on first-hand experience. With you, it's just "look how smart I am, I can spot the undercover guys" ego posturing. > > > the hijackers will be rather surprised when the real marshals stand up > > > and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you, it's just "look how smart I am, I can spot the undercover guys" ego > posturing. Actually, it's from boarding the lazy f.ckers on planes! Now eat me! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** In alt.atheism on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:48:35 GMT, "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote: >> > > the hijackers will be rather surprised when the real marshals stand up >> > > and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Actually, it's from boarding the lazy f.ckers on planes! How do you board an undercover cop? >Now eat me! Oh. Well, that answers _that_ question. -- L8r, Bill /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* "Is not the epitome of narcissism to quote one's self?" - Me /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~* In alt.atheism on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Avender@SpamMeNot.com >In alt.atheism on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:48:35 GMT, "None" ><none@nospam.org> wrote: <forgot to include snip> >>Now eat me! > >Oh. Well, that answers _that_ question. Though I didn't mean "BORED", just "board", as _you'd_ used. They may be synonyms, but if you focus hard enough, I'm sure you can see the distinction. ;-* -- Love, Bill, The Avender >>> I see no problem at all. ...I dunno, maybe I happen to be a little >>> tolerant. Oooh, my. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I'd have thought the proper thing to have done was to inform the Sky >Marshal that religious fanatics had taken control of the cockpit. What do you think would have happened if he told everybody to praise Allah? How quickly would he have been surrounded by a SWAT team? Sorry, an airplane is for transportation, not religious activism. (That's assuming the plane was not chartered by a religious group.) Let people of religion make their own private contact with their sky pilots, and let the atheists get some good reading or sleep. drift >And he will lose his job... Wishful thinking. >an't have the mentally unstable in such a >position. Is believing in a god really a mental illness? Nuh-uh. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. >>And he will lose his job... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is believing in a god really a mental illness? Nuh-uh. Not really, but babbling over the intercom, whether about religion or brownie recipes when you're supposed to be flying a passenger jet, frightening passengers in a time of frayed nerves does little to assure me of his sanity. He asked all the christians to raise their hands, that alone would scare the hell out of me...no pun intended. Most sane, sober people don't suddenly act in such a radically unprofessional manner. I wouldn't want to be on the next plane he pilots. >-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 >Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. >Madly Insane EAC Scientist. >He asked all the christians to raise their >hands, that alone would scare the hell out of me... I do not know whether to laugh or fell sorry for you. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. >>He asked all the christians to raise their >>hands, that alone would scare the hell out of me... > >I do not know whether to laugh or fell sorry for you. So, if you heard a voice that you were not familiar with come over the intercom and ask you to identify your religious affiliation, that wouldn't bother you? What if the plane had been taken over by hijackers and they were looking for who to kill first? Keep in mind that it is *never* standard operating procedure for a pilot to ask what religion their occupants are. Also, keep in mind that there is a history of hijackers identifying passengers of the "wrong" religion or nationality and executing them. I repeat, it would scare the hell out of me. Wow, you *are* naive. I sincerely hope that you are never on a plane that is hijacked, but if you are, I'm sure you will allow them to do whatever they want, and will peacefully allow them to kill you as you obediently raise your hand at the wrong time. In another response, you seem to be under the impression that this plane was going on a christian mission. No, the *pilot* had recently returned from a mission, and was full of love for the "Lard." This plane was full of all religious affiliations (including "none"). Many of which, I am sure, did not wish, nor paid to be trapped in a tube 10000+ meters in the air with people empowered by the person in charge, the pilot, to preach Jesus to them for six hours. Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything unusual. The new manager on duty (not the owner, and someone whom you have never seen before) decides to lock the doors for the duration of the meal, asks christians (feel free to substitute any religion) to identify themselves, and asks all the christians to preach the good word to you for the next few hours. You are not free to leave, nor do they tell you when or even if you can leave. You paid for a nice, quiet, trouble free meal, and that's not what you got and you weren't sure if you were going to leave alive. You wouldn't have any problem with that? Wow! Remind me not to travel *or* go to dinner with you. >-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 >Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. >Madly Insane EAC Scientist. zamboni #2139 > Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You > have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sure if you were going to leave alive. You wouldn't have any problem > with that? Sure I would. The manager is violating about a half dozen health, safety and fire codes by locking the doors to a restaurant during business hours. He's also committing the civil tort of false imprisonment by preventing people from leaving the restaurant. How is he doing this? Is he threatening them with physical violence if they try and leave? If so, that's a terroristic threat. Also a felony. Personally, as a cop, I'd stand up, order the manager to open the doors and let anyone who wants to leave, and if he refused, I'd place him under arrest. And if he tried to stop me, that would only add to his prison time. Problem solved. >> Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You >> have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Problem solved. So, put the exact same scenario 10000+ meters into the air, and every thing is fine. Mmmmkay. Just so I know. I guess it'll be fine if I start walking up and down the aisles preaching religion, might be islam, could be satanism, next time I'm on a flight. I'll let everyone know that you said there was no problem. I am just exercising my right to free speech. I'll give you an update on how that works out. > >> Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You > >> have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > So, put the exact same scenario 10000+ meters into the air, and every > thing is fine. Mmmmkay. Just so I know. The weird thing is, it's *not* the exact same scenario by the mere fact that it's 10,000 feet in the air. I know you desperately want to make this analogy work but it just doesn't. > I guess it'll be fine if I start walking up and down the aisles > preaching religion, might be islam, could be satanism, next time I'm > on a flight. I'll let everyone know that you said there was no > problem. LOL! Yes, you do that. Please. > I'll give you an update on how that works out. I'll be waiting. Seriously, it will bring a smile to my face to hear how that worked out for you. >> Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You >> have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Problem solved. Or... Well not exactly. Turn's out he really is a nut. Doesn't really care about laws, because jebus' (or allah, or whatever) law is greater than man's. He's armed, as are several of his friends because he expected some resistance. You stood up and were shot in the back by one of his fellow men of god at the table behind you. The owner and some of the wait persons were tied up in the back. Ridiculous? That's how hijacking works. He continues his sermon as you bleed to death on the floor still clutching your badge in your hand. Maybe someone else will arrest them...later...maybe, but that won't help you much. As a cop, I certainly hope you have noticed that there are people in the world who, for some reason or another, don't really worry about laws, cops, badges, health, safety and fire codes. Or, do you really just hold up your badge and the bad guys just say "oh darn, you got me, I give up." Funny, I thought that only happened on tv. How did the passengers know what was happening? How would the patrons in the restaurant know what was happening? > >> Let me present this hypothetical situation.You go to a restaurant. You > >> have been many times and have always had an good time, never anything [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > man's. He's armed, as are several of his friends because he expected > some resistance. Ah, so now we've slipped the surly bonds of reality and entered into your own personal comic book world. > You stood up and were shot in the back by one of his > fellow men of god at the table behind you. Well, since we've now moved beyond prosyletizing during dinner and into the realm of a full-fledged terrorist action, this "analogy" now in no way resembles anything that happened on that American Airlines flight and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. > The owner and some of the > wait persons were tied up in the back. Ridiculous? That's how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clutching your badge in your hand. Maybe someone else will arrest > them...later...maybe Maybe? Religious nuts committing homicide in a public restaurant? They'll be lucky if they walk out alive. > As a cop, I certainly hope you have noticed that there are people in > the world who, for some reason or another, don't really worry about > laws, cops, badges, health, safety and fire codes. None of whom were on the American Airlines flight or even in your first restaurant analogy. You just didn't like that I pointed out how badly your restaurant analogy compared to the American Airlines incident so you changed it all around to the point where it bears no logical relation to the original issue. > Or, do you really > just hold up your badge and the bad guys just say "oh darn, you got > me, I give up." Funny, I thought that only happened on tv. No, if they pulled guns, I'd shoot them. Sometimes that happens on TV, too. > How would the patrons in the restaurant know what was happening? By looking around. By standing up to leave and seeing what happened. >Wow, you *are* naive. I sincerely hope that you are never on a plane >that is hijacked, but if you are, I'm sure you will allow them to do >whatever they want, and will peacefully allow them to kill you as you >obediently raise your hand at the wrong time. A preaching pilot and a homicidal maniac are completely totally different things. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. > From: Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.travel.air, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A preaching pilot and a homicidal maniac are completely totally different > things. And just how do you tell the difference when all you have in either case is a voice over the intercom? The pilot is locked in a separate cabin, passengers don't have, or aren't supposed to have, access to that control cabin. SignatureHarry F. Leopold aa #2076 AA/Vet #4 The Prints of Darkness "You think atoms like having a half-life?" Incenjucar >>And he will lose his job... > > Wishful thinking. We'll see. >>an't have the mentally unstable in such a >>position. > > Is believing in a god really a mental illness? Nuh-uh. Yes. god was created at men's image. By folks unable to consider the prospect of death. Inexistence. At the very least, it's a healthy dose of wishful thinking. Surely, having such a need to impose one's own BS upon other in the way the jerk did is at the very least borderline mential illness. > At the very least, it's a healthy dose of wishful thinking. Surely, > having such a need to impose one's own BS upon other in the way the jerk > did is at the very least borderline mential illness. Hmmmm, that may be pushing it just a tad. But, surely it would bring into question whether or not the holy roller pilot possessed the ability to keep his mind on his work, rather than rehearsing bible quotes over and over in his head as practice before he grabs the P.A. mic and force feeds it to the paying customers! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > >And he will lose his job... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is believing in a god really a mental illness? If you are representative it is. jwk > >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > zamboni The pilots actions were inappropriate in that setting, but how do you leap to someone being mentally unstable for encouraging a discussion about Christianity? > The pilots actions were inappropriate in that setting, > but how do you leap to someone being > mentally unstable for encouraging a discussion about > Christianity? Because ALL religious fundies are whackjobs, didn't you know that? Especially when they openly announce it, try to push it off on everyone else, and openly recruit which xtians are extremely famous for. >> >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >mentally unstable for encouraging a discussion about >Christianity? Actually, I wouldn't give a rat's a.s what he was discussing, or what he was encouraging. Unless it involves where we are, what I should do with my seat belt, how fast we're going, what I will see if I look out my window, or when we will arrive, I DON'T CARE! I don't care how his family's doing, how his car is running, what he had for dinner or what he thinks about Jebus. He is a professional airline pilot. He should fly the plane and shut up. That's what I am paying the airline company, and therefore the pilot to do. If he wants to save souls instead of be a pilot, then he should turn in his wings and become an evangelist. I don't care if a judge in a murder case wants to encourage a discussion of animal rights among those in court. I don't care if my dentist wants to encourage a discussion of lawn maintenance among those in the waiting room. I don't care if the pilot wants to encourage a discussion of fly fishing within his captive audience. I might question their abilities as well. I don't care. I want them to do the jobs that I am paying them for. This was worse. He behaved in a radically unprofessional, and in light of recent events, threatening way. PERIOD. He is in a position of great responsibility. Frightening your customers while you SHOULD know that you should be providing a feeling of security and comfort is not mentally stable behavior. You may not have noticed, but there are people in this world who kill others because of their religious affiliation. Knowing this, the pilot asked his customers to identify their religion. Again, you may not have noticed, but there have recently been people who, because of their religious affiliation, have crashed airplanes into buildings (as well as murdered those who were the "wrong" religion.) Can you not see that this was somewhat worse than merely "inappropriate" I'm sorry if he happens to be talking about your favorite superhero. But I don't want to hear it, because I am not paying him to tell me. I don't pay pilots to pursue their theological agenda on my time. GOT IT? Thank you for your kind attention. zamboni > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm Wait a minute ... perhaps the intent was to allow rational, non christians (and atheists) to talk the christians OUT of their dubious religious beliefs. > > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > (and atheists) to talk the christians OUT of their dubious religious > beliefs. I was hoping that too until I read: "...the pilot had just returned to work from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica." Maybe he works undercover for MI-5? > > > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Maybe he works undercover for MI-5? Probably a Mormon or other Christian denomination that does charitable work in order to bribe unfortunates into believing in his fantasy. > > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > (and atheists) to talk the christians OUT of their dubious religious > beliefs. Atheists at least wouldn't pull such a stunt. It is only pushy Christians who do this sort of crap. Maybe Muslums do it too, but who else? Atheists are content to live and let live. As long as xians don't start preaching first that is. jwk > Atheists at least wouldn't pull such a stunt. It is only pushy > Christians who do this sort of crap. Maybe Muslums do it too, but who > else? Atheists are content to live and let live. As long as xians > don't start preaching first that is. Need I remind you that Google has a search feature? There's no shortage of posts by atheists attacking people's belief in God. It's not just done against Christians, and is OFTEN initiated by atheists. Yes, some religions proselytize, but others don't. Some religions believe that everybody else is going to hell, and others don't. But that does not stop atheists from launching into diatribes and vitriol REGARDLESS of the religious beliefs of the person being attacked. When somebody cross-posts a message to many groups, and an atheist attacks not only the beliefs of the original poster, but also the beliefs of the people in all the other groups, then it's the atheist who is doing exactly what you are denying. When a member of of one of the other groups defends himself against attacks he did not start, members of alt.atheism have no qualms about further attacks. Posters from alt.atheism do not differentiate between somebody who tells you what to believe and somebody who merely says that he believes in God and is defending himself against attacks by others. Next time you see an atheistic diatribe, take a look at what groups it gets posted to. For each group, ask yourself why the post is there. If it's a religious group, find out some basic information about its beliefs. Does it proselytize, or do its leaders actively discourage conversion to assure that only the sincere convert? Do they preach to you or not? Do they believe that you must be one of them or do they believe that God is just fine with the righteous people of any nation as long as they live a moral (not in the strictly sexual sense) life? Or does it bother you so much that a religion's basic moral code has a deity involved that you must attack its members even if they are perfectly fine with your beliefs? I can't speak for you on this one, but other atheists have spoken for themselves, and it was loud and clear. When it comes to uglyness, I've seen enough of it from all sides, and there's no shortage at all coming from atheists. If you visit any of the websites for atheism, you would learn that it's NOT a religion and its members do NOT NECESSARILY hold the same views. So don't tell me or anybody else how atheists behave. Perhaps most behave just fine, but you would not know that from Usenet. This hypocracy is not lost by anybody who reads alt.atheism and sees the total lack of restraint and notices that it goes entirely unchecked by the other group members. I never see an atheist in alt.atheism who stands up to another atheist for attacking somebody who did not impose his views on anybody in the first place. > I never see an atheist in alt.atheism who stands up to another atheist > for attacking somebody who did not impose his views on anybody in the > first place. I have in the past. I've criticized several atheists for expressing the very intolerance they claim to be fighting against. And I've been criticized myself for being an atheist who doesn't have an automatic knee jerk negative reaction to anything and everything religious. I've noticed there seems to be a definite atheist "party line" that we're all expected to tow. Kinda like African-Americans who vote Republican. If they don't vote the way they are "expected" to-- they way they are told to by the "leaders" of the black community-- other blacks react negatively toward them. And so upon Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:53:47 -0800 didst Wai Doan Hsu speak thusly: > So don't tell me > or anybody else how atheists behave. Perhaps most behave just fine, > but you would not know that from Usenet. Yeah... but it's *Usenet. I haven't seen much in the way of "restraint" in *any Usenet newsgroup. About much of *anything. I'm not sure there's much of a comparison between what that pilot did and what happens on Usenet... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > > Atheists at least wouldn't pull such a stunt. It is only pushy > > Christians who do this sort of crap. Maybe Muslums do it too, but who [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > for attacking somebody who did not impose his views on anybody in the > first place. When I said "pull such a stunt" I meant proselytizing people trapped in a plane, like that pilot did. Usnet is a special case. If you can provide one instance where an atheist stood up in a moving bus and tried to "save" everyone, or went to someone's doorstep uninvited, or announced over an airplanes intercomm that any non-Christians were crazy, I'll eat my hat. As for usent - if you are an xain and you come into alt.atheism looking for trouble, you'll find it. I don't see why you would expect otherwise. And there is a difference between cross-posting a flame and responding to a cross-posted flame. If a fundy cross-posts to alt.atheism and a bunch of other groups, you have to leave the other groups in your reply to make sure it gets through. Blame the originator, not us. Not that I doubt that atheists ever start the cross-posting, but I believe it is rare. Besides, no one forces you to read a usenet post. Personally I ignore almost all threads with more than 2 or 3 groups included. How do you escape a deranged Christian fundy pilot once the plane door is shut? That is a big difference. jwk > > > Atheists at least wouldn't pull such a stunt. It is only pushy > > > Christians who do this sort of crap. Maybe Muslums do it too, but who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > beliefs of the people in all the other groups, then it's the atheist > > who is doing exactly what you are denying. When a member of of one of > > the other groups defends himself against attacks he did not start, > > members of alt.atheism have no qualms about further attacks. Posters [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > announced over an airplanes intercomm that any non-Christians were > crazy, I'll eat my hat. Point taken. > As for usent - if you are an xain and you come into alt.atheism > looking for trouble, you'll find it. But what if I'm not? > I don't see why you would expect > otherwise. And there is a difference between cross-posting a flame > and responding to a cross-posted flame. If the originator posts something, whether I agree with it or not, but it's somebody in alt.atheism who replies in a way that not only attacks the OP, but attacks ME and attacks people in other groups who obviously (to anybody who understands the other religions) did not start the attack, then I can't see the merit in what you are saying. It's still the poster in alt.atheism who is starting the attack against me. > If a fundy cross-posts to > alt.atheism and a bunch of other groups, you have to leave the other > groups in your reply to make sure it gets through. Blame the > originator, not us. If you truly believe that the post was from a Christian fundamentalist addressed to athiests, then direct the responses to groups that deal with those subjects. If the OP somehow misses the response, the worst you have done is avert a flame war. But you would have still managed to reach the relevant audience. The argument that you have to leave the other groups in is a poor one. Even if the OP is hanging out in alt.basketweaving, it would be clear who his audience is. If you leave alt.basketweaving out of the reply, you might have lost one relevant person, but you would have also reached those who considered the post relevant and left out the one who would prolong the flaming. > Not that I doubt that atheists ever start the > cross-posting, but I believe it is rare. Besides, no one forces you > to read a usenet post. That's irrelevant. Nobody forces you to open the door when somebody comes to your house to "save" you. That doesn't mean that I have to like or condone the practice. Nobody forces atheists to come to a group to attack people either. There are plenty of other groups such as soc.atheism that discuss issues related to atheism without getting into any of this. This has nothing to do with force. If a person sees a post in a group that he frequents, and it appears to be about a relevant subject, it's absurd to say that he or she should not have read it and it's his fault for doing so. I don't expect to be attacked in a group I read by somebody from another group when it has nothing to do with what anybody in my group posted. However, it would still seem better for an atheist to just ignore it in the first place rather than attack every possible reader, even though most of them had nothing to do with the OP. Do you honestly think that anything an atheist ever posted in one of these flame threads ever got a fundamentalist Christian to say, "Oh. I never thought of that! I guess you are right! I'll go home now?" That does not happen. Likewise, there's no more chance that they will get you to accept their brand of religion. So if the only thing that gets accomplished is to antagonize other Christians who are not pushing this agenda, and members of other religions who couldn't care less what your beliefs are, and might even be atheists themselves, then what point is being served? Live and let live? > Personally I ignore almost all threads with > more than 2 or 3 groups included. Anecdotal experience tells me otherwise, but I'll take your word for it. > How do you escape a deranged > Christian fundy pilot once the plane door is shut? That is a big > difference. You make it clear to the airline that this issue is not going to die, and that their actions were not enough. You don't use them until they get the message. If you were a passenger, you take stronger action. Airlines have given people vouchers for much smaller issues. There's no reason to put up with this. > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm One more reason not to fly. Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off the next rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane load of "infidels" all about Allah! That little announcement would be all it would take to push any hanky head over the edge. > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off the next > rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane load of "infidels" > all about Allah! That little announcement would be all it would take to > push any hanky head over the edge. Well, I'm an atheist myself but I think it's ridiculous to suggest we as Americans should censor ourselves and give up our rights to discuss matters openly and freely because we might tick off a terrorist. I'm certainly not going to keep silent because some religious whack-job might get worked up over something I say. > > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off the next > > rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane load of "infidels" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm certainly not going to keep silent because some religious whack-job > might get worked up over something I say. This was different. This was a pilot with a captive passenger load, who was inviting those onboard who WERE xtians to bend the ears of those who weren't, most likey for the duration of the flight. I would have sued if I had been on that flight. If they don't fire his a.s, the fall-out will be a lot more than people would think. > > > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off the > > > next rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane load of "infidels" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > was inviting those onboard who WERE xtians to bend the ears of those who > weren't, most likey for the duration of the flight. And those who weren't Christians can politely say "Can you please shut the hell up. I'm trying to sleep (or read or whatever)." You seem to think there's a fundamental right to never have an unpleasant experience in life. > I would have sued if I had been on that flight. You would have had no more of a cause of action than if the pilot had asked everyone who had ever been to the Grand Canyon to share their experience with the person next to them. Since the airline is not a government entity, the fact that the subject was religion and not tourism has no bearing on the legalities involved. > If they don't fire his > a.s, the fall-out will be a lot more than people would think. And that's their risk to run, of course. People can decide to spend their money elsewhere. > > > > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off the > > > > next rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane load of "infidels" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You seem to think there's a fundamental right to never have an > unpleasant experience in life. You are right about one thing: there is no basis for a lawsuit against AA. However, I hope you are not suggesting that the pilot's actions were appropriate. Not only were they incredibly rude and disrespectful to _all_ of those who do not share his faith, but they show incredibly poor judgment on the pilot's part. People with poor judgment should not be piloting airplanes. I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. If AA tolerates this kind of behavior from it's pilots, I will make it point to avoid them at all costs. And I'll be sure to let them know why. > > I would have sued if I had been on that flight. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And that's their risk to run, of course. People can decide to spend > their money elsewhere. >You are right about one thing: there is no basis for a lawsuit against AA. >However, I hope you are not suggesting that the pilot's actions were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >this kind of behavior from it's pilots, I will make it point to avoid them >at all costs. And I'll be sure to let them know why. The sad thing is that if they take any action, the captain will claim his first amendment rights are being abridged. It's the sort of thing Pat Robertson loves. > The sad thing is that if they take any action, the captain will claim > his first amendment rights are being abridged. It's the sort of thing > Pat Robertson loves. ??? That makes no sense. His employer has every right to restrict his speech while on duty. It's not like he is a tenured prof. > >I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm > >not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. If AA [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his first amendment rights are being abridged. It's the sort of thing > Pat Robertson loves. And the captain won't have any more of a leg to stand on than his passengers do. American Airlines is a private business, not the government. It can tell its employees to shut the hell up whenever they like. AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Note how it only prohibits Congress (and by extension, the government) from abridging speech and religion. Private companies are not covered. So the airline is free to prosyletize without violating the customers' rights and it's also free to fire or discipline the captain without violating his right to free speech. >> >I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm >> >not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. If AA [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And the captain won't have any more of a leg to stand on than his >passengers do. Actually, the passengers do have a leg to stand on. He doesn't. >American Airlines is a private business, not the government. It can tell >its employees to shut the hell up whenever they like. And he'll probably still sue, claiming religious discrimination, >AMENDMENT I > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >rights and it's also free to fire or discipline the captain without >violating his right to free speech. No, it is not. Most businesses have anti-harrassment rules. I know my own employer does. > >> >I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm > >> >not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Actually, the passengers do have a leg to stand on. He doesn't. Neither one does. Cite me the law American Airlines has broken through the actions of its pilot. Put the legal citation here --------> > >AMENDMENT I > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No, it is not. Most businesses have anti-harrassment rules. I know my > own employer does. The rules are created and defined by the business. The airline can change its own rules to exempt religious prosyletization from the definition of harassment if that's what it wants to do. The point is, there's no *law* prohibiting an airline from putting bibles in the seat pockets, printing bible verses on the napkins and starting every flight with a prayer if that's what it wants to do. They might lose business when people stop flying on their planes but it's not ILLEGAL. >They might lose business when people stop flying on their planes but >it's not ILLEGAL. But it is "crazy". > >> >I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm > >> >not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. If AA [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Actually, the passengers do have a leg to stand on. He doesn't. Nope. No government action, no First Amendment rights involved. > >American Airlines is a private business, not the government. It can tell > >its employees to shut the hell up whenever they like. > > And he'll probably still sue, claiming religious discrimination, He can try, but he'll lose. He's not being discriminated against because of his religion, but because of specific conduct, i.e. he can believe whatever he wants, but he better keep his mouth shut about it during working hours. > >AMENDMENT I > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No, it is not. Most businesses have anti-harrassment rules. I know my > own employer does. Right. And what the pilot did would almost certainly violate them. No Jewish, Shinto or atheist FAs on board? >>> >I, for one, am very curious to see how AA handles this incident. I'm >>> >not an AA fan anyway, but I do have to fly them from time to time. If AA [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >No, it is not. Most businesses have anti-harrassment rules. I know my >own employer does. Mine, too - keep the topic work related, not on politics, sex, gambling, race, creed, religion, etc. drift > >You are right about one thing: there is no basis for a lawsuit against AA. > >However, I hope you are not suggesting that the pilot's actions were [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > his first amendment rights are being abridged. It's the sort of thing > Pat Robertson loves. He has no First Amendment rights in this context. The First Amendment is a restriction on _government_ action, and has nothing to do with private employers. >> >You are right about one thing: there is no basis for a lawsuit against >AA. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >restriction on _government_ action, and has nothing to do with private >employers. I know. > > > > > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off > > > > > the next rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > AA. However, I hope you are not suggesting that the pilot's actions were > appropriate. Not at all. Personally, I would have been spectacularly annoyed. But my remedy for that is to stop patronizing their business. I would have no basis in *law* for filing a suit against them. Too many people these days think that if something pisses them off, they should be able to recover money from someone for it. > Too many people these days think that if something pisses them off, they > should be able to recover money from someone for it. Thats because nine times out of ten, they can . . .and do! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > Too many people these days think that if something pisses them off, they > > should be able to recover money from someone for it. > > Thats because nine times out of ten, they can . . .and do! Well, next time you're on a plane and the flight crew mentions prayer, you go ahead and file a lawsuit and see how far you get. > > > > > > Great, another xtian freak just chomping at the bit to piss off > > > > > > the next rag head who's bound and determined to teach a whole plane [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Not at all. Personally, I would have been spectacularly annoyed. But my > remedy for that is to stop patronizing their business. Mine, too, though I'd be awfully tempted to leave the plane, even to the point of asking that the door be opened if had already been shut. > I would have no basis in *law* for filing a suit against them. There _may_ (and only _may_) be some basis in breach of contract, though it's a real stretch, i.e. my contract with your airline doesn't require that I listen to religous indoctrination, etc. Either way, though, it would be an extremely stupid law suit and wouldn't have much chance of prevailing. > Too many people these days think that if something pisses them off, they > should be able to recover money from someone for it. Yep. No argument there. > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm He should be fired. He was using his position as a pilot to try and convert people to his religion, which is an inappropriate use of his position. Diederik > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. >> American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. You could argue, I suppose, that since he did not force anyone to convert he did nothing wrong. I guess. -Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035 Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods. Madly Insane EAC Scientist. >>What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >>asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. > >You could argue, I suppose, that since he did not force anyone to >convert he did nothing wrong. I guess. How do you "force" someone to convert on an airplane? He did plenty wrong, and deserves to lose his job. If you don't think so, then prove me wrong: Go to your job on Monday, and take your co-workers and bosses aside individually, and tell them of the glories of Jesus. Let me know how that works out for you. So one day I'm on a flight and the pilot is Jewish and I have to hear him tell the other Jewish passengers to talk to me about their faith. And the next flight I take, the pilot is Muslim and I....etc., etc., etc. Yeah, that's great. That's what I want my pilots to do. Where do you draw the line? What is the pilot is a Black Panther or KKK. Is that okay too? >>>What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >>>asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >How do you "force" someone to convert on an airplane? Easy. Ask all the non believers to wait outside. >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. He was using his employer's property for purposes for which he wasn't hired. Since it's obvious to any reasonable person that he wasn't hired to proselytize, he can't claim that he didn't know. Signature"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net > > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He > asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. What the pilot did was totally wrong and insulting. He waited until all his passengers were trapped in the plane, then told one group to proselytize to everyone who didn't belong to that group whether the group being proselytized to wanted this or not. That is invasion of privacy under conditions of entrapment. The pilot should be fired. What he did was definitely not part of his job specs. I can only hope that the Christians on board the plane didn't do what he suggested. >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. This is very appropriate. Had the pilot been a Hindu asking the same thing, he would have been fired upon arrival. Just a comment: When a crewmember wishes passengers "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter", this has real slant but nobody objects. If a crew were to announce Happy Haaj (or some other muslim holiday), it would be seen as very strange in the USA (but perfectly normal on an airline based in a muslim country). western countries have to deal with the conflict that developped with immigration between the constitution which is slanted towards christianism, and the human rights issue which dictates no discrimination between religions. Until religions stop being cultures filled with visible rituals, it will be very hard to integrate "foreign" religions in basically christian countries. In the middle east, foreigners are expected to abide by local customs even if they are not muslim (for instance, no female drivers etc). They can do that because there is no expection of full liberty and freedom. But in western countries that claim full liberty and freedoms, you have to learn to accept very different people because your constitution stipulates you cannot discriminate and must allow them to live the way they wish instead of adapting to your country's culture. A country would have to define a "religion" as being limited only to personal beliefs and which exlcudes any rituals/customs/culture associated with that religion. >Just a comment: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >A country would have to define a "religion" as being limited only to personal >beliefs and which exlcudes any rituals/customs/culture associated with that religion. When I flew back to California for Thanksgiving, a couple of months after 9/11, we were treated to a sermon after landing. This was on American. I wonder if it was the same crew. > Just a comment: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > A country would have to define a "religion" as being limited only to personal > beliefs and which exlcudes any rituals/customs/culture associated with that religion. The guy was a pilot - an American Airlines representative, in controlled situation. What you state is only applicable in generic, "man on the street" situation! This is a VERY appropriate parallel to the religion in government situation. While the pilot has EVERY right to his personal beliefs - as a representative of "American" and in a situation where he has power and control over the WHOLE plane and it's passengers, It is TOTALLY inappropriate for him to use that power and that position to present HIS religions views! He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > This is a VERY appropriate parallel to the religion in government situation. > While the pilot has EVERY right to his personal beliefs - as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! New AA Company Policy: The cockPIT is now to be referred to as the PULPIT! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! Should that also preclude the "welcome aboard flight xx" messages from pilots ? Or announcements that passengers on the left can see the grand canyion ? And what if there was a large group of religious zealots on board (organised group), wouldn't it then be proper for the pilot to make a prayer ? It takes judgement. That pilot lacked judgement. > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It takes judgement. That pilot lacked judgement. The pilot asked Christians to raise their hands, and then said that anybody who didn't have their hand up was crazy. He deserves to be sued for slander. SignatureJohn Popelish > > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The pilot asked Christians to raise their hands, and then said that > anybody who didn't have their hand up was crazy. You seem to be hallucinating. Where in this news report does the word "crazy" appear? > > NEW YORK - An American Airlines pilot flying passengers to New York asked > > Christians on board to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be > > appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. > > > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Where in this news report does the word "crazy" appear? That one didn't report it. This one (and many more) did. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/162499p-142438c.html Do a google news search for [american airlines pilot crazy]. SignatureJohn Popelish <snip> > http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/162499p-142438c.html Wow! It was even worse than originally reported. Some excerpts: "An American Airlines pilot terrified passengers aboard a Los Angeles-to-New York flight when he asked Christians to identify themselves and then called those who weren't Christian "crazy," witnesses and an airline spokesman said yesterday. "Fearing the pilot might have some sinister plans for the flight, many frantic passengers tried to reach their families on their cell phones, witnesses told CBS News. "Flight attendants contacted ground control about the incident, assuring passengers that they didn't think they were in any real danger. "Nelligan said she and other passengers thought the behavior was "bizarre" and wondered whether his comments were a threat." I take it back. There very well may be grounds for a law suit, specifically negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress. This guy is a nut bag! If AA doesn't fire him, and PUBLICLY, then I think a letter is in order from everyone who, like me, refuses to fly with pilots so lacking in judgment that they can do this. > Do a google news search for [american airlines pilot crazy]. > -- > John Popelish > I take it back. There very well may be grounds for a law suit, specifically > negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress. > > This guy is a nut bag! If AA doesn't fire him, and PUBLICLY, then I think a > letter is in order from everyone who, like me, refuses to fly with pilots so > lacking in judgment that they can do this. Right now the bean counters at AMR are weighing the pros and cons of the "christian" business they'll loose if they fire his a.s, and the rest of the traveling public's business lost if they don't. What to do what to do . . .such a quandry. f.ck the Fundies! Fire his a.s! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > I take it back. There very well may be grounds for a law suit, > specifically [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "christian" business they'll loose if they fire his a.s, and the rest of the > traveling public's business lost if they don't. It has nothing to do with the Christian business. If they fire him for breaking a rule, Christians should understand. Nobody is telling him that he can't be Christian, and other airlines would do the same. However, AA would not disclose firing him because it would violate their rules on employee privacy. If he makes it public, they would probably refuse comment, but insist it was not based on his religion. > > > I take it back. There very well may be grounds for a law suit, > > specifically [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > their rules on employee privacy. If he makes it public, they would > probably refuse comment, but insist it was not based on his religion. I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing the > fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? All companies do. When calling for references, the only thing company HR departments are supposed to give out is length of employment, last salary, and whether or not they are available for re-hire, that's it. If the HR department says . . .we fired his a.s . . . then they become culpable. > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > If the HR department says . . .we fired his a.s . . . then they become > culpable. Culpable for what? It may be a policy to avoid the potential exposure to litigation re: defamation, but it has nothing to do with privacy. There is no legally-protected privacy interest that I'm aware of regarding termination. > > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > > > I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing > the > > > fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > no legally-protected privacy interest that I'm aware of regarding > termination. Then you better raise your level of awareness. You go badmouthing a former employee and being culpable is the least of your worries. > > Culpable for what? It may be a policy to avoid the potential exposure to > > litigation re: defamation, but it has nothing to do with privacy. There [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then you better raise your level of awareness. You go badmouthing a former > employee and being culpable is the least of your worries. which is why we end up with serial killer nurses and doctors easily find new employment although serious suspicions were raised repeatedly in their previous employment There is no comparisson, and you are waaaaaay off the mark on that one. -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > Culpable for what? It may be a policy to avoid the potential exposure to > > > litigation re: defamation, but it has nothing to do with privacy. There [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > new employment although serious suspicions were raised repeatedly in > their previous employment > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > > If the HR department says . . .we fired his a.s . . . then they > > > become culpable. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then you better raise your level of awareness. You go badmouthing a > former employee and being culpable is the least of your worries. What other worries could there be? It's not like you can be arrested and sent to prison for it or anything like that. > > > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > > > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Then you better raise your level of awareness. You go badmouthing a former > employee and being culpable is the least of your worries. "Badmouthing," i.e. defamation, is tortious. Reporting the truth is not. > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > If the HR department says . . .we fired his a.s . . . then they become > > culpable. > > Culpable for what? Theoretically, claims of slander and defamation. But this whole thing is a morass of legal potholes. Some companies have been sued (successfully) for providing bad references on the basis of defamation. Other companies have been sued for *not* telling the new employer about the employee's past bad behavior. When the guy comes to work with a gun and kills someone, they say if only Company A had told us he was fired for harassing other employees at his old job, we would never have hired him. So it's a damned if you do/damned if you don't sort of scenario. > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Theoretically, claims of slander and defamation. Absolutely wrong. Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, nor have any so-called "privacy rights" been breached. > But this whole thing is a morass of legal potholes. Some companies have > been sued (successfully) for providing bad references on the basis of > defamation. Bad references are not the same thing as announcing an employee has been terminated. However, the recent rulings that I've seen hold references to be privileged to the extent that they were authorized by the employee in the first place, i.e. if you think you'll get bad-mouthed, don't list the former employer as a reference. > Other companies have been sued for *not* telling the new employer about > the employee's past bad behavior. When the guy comes to work with a gun [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So it's a damned if you do/damned if you don't sort of scenario. > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, nor have any > so-called "privacy rights" been breached. I missed this part but maybe what BTR is saying that if the company fires that would aid in any suite. You don't fire someone for something that is not serious and if a lawsuit looms you don't fire him until after it is over. > > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You don't fire someone for something that is not serious and if a lawsuit > looms you don't fire him until after it is over. I suspect AA's major concern is not any lawsuit for defamation (none lies, believe me), but trouble with the pilot's union which will, no doubt, come to bat for this lunatic pilot. > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Absolutely wrong. No, it's not wrong. Companies *have* been sued for such things and now seek to protect themselves from even frivolous lawsuits. The fact that truth is a defense is irrelevant to whether companies are refusing to provide this information to insulate themselves against lawsuits, frivolous or not. Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, nor have any > so-called "privacy rights" been breached. Irrelevant. See above. > > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > refusing to provide this information to insulate themselves against > lawsuits, frivolous or not. Though it may not seem like it, lawyers can not, and will not, bring a completely frivolous suit. If the pilot was fired and wants to sue because the company said so, he'll have an awfully difficult time trying to find someone to bring the action. On the other hand, a wrongful termination suit can be, and is often, brought. However, AA could get hit with one of those regardless of whether it makes his termination public or not. I also suspect AA wants to avoid trouble with the pilot's union. Most likely, AA is simply holding back, waiting to see if there is much public furor over the incident. If there is, you bet they'll can his butt, and announce it as well. If not, I suspect he'll be subject to lesser (and quieter) discipline. > Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, nor have any > > so-called "privacy rights" been breached. > > Irrelevant. See above. Spoken like someone who has little or no experience of the legal system. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. <snip> > Spoken like someone who has little or no experience of the legal system. > Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I just sat through a class where a deputy DA gave what I thought was an excellent talk but most were not happy with her at the end. My dead friend Hank Marsh was the only attorney I've ever known who could have, in a short time, explained the concepts. He used to be able to explain to cops why defense attorneys were a good thing. I guess not having a lot of experience with the legal system other than on TV is a good thing for most people. > > > > In article <c0bgft$152nrp$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > > > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Though it may not seem like it, lawyers can not, and will not, bring a > completely frivolous suit. The contention being whose definition of "frivolous" is operant at any given moment. > > Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > > > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Spoken like someone who has little or no experience of the legal system. Member of the Texas Bar since 1993. Federal law enforcement agent since 1998. Try again. > > > > > In article <c0bgft$152nrp$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > > > > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The contention being whose definition of "frivolous" is operant at any > given moment. "Frivolous" has a legal meaning, and is discussed, at some length, in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which provides for sanctions against the lawyer who makes frivolous filings. Some pertinent excerpts: [The claim] is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harrass . . . [is] warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law . . . the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support . > > > Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > > > > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Member of the Texas Bar since 1993. Is the Texas bar in such a sorry state that its members routinely bring frivolous actions? > Federal law enforcement agent since 1998. > > Try again. No need. Member of the California bar since 1992, admitted to all four United States District Courts in California, the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. I've litigated in courts all over the country and can count the number of frivolous actions I've encounter on two fingers of one hand. > > > > In article <c0bmu4$155rgk$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > > > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > establishment of new law . . . the allegations and other factual > contentions have evidentiary support . Right. And the judge decides whether the facts fit the law, so it's his/her opinion of frivolous which is operant at any given moment. > > > > Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > > > > > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is the Texas bar in such a sorry state that its members routinely bring > frivolous actions? Frivolous actions are brought everywhere. Just search the state bars of any state for attorneys who have been sanctioned for bringing them. I betcha California has a few of its own. As for "routinely", well that depends on your definition of "routine", now doesn't it? I mean, Halley's comet routinely visits the inner solar system every 75 years. Does that count? But none of that was really your contention here, was it, counselor? I believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice change of subject.... subtle. I like it. > > > > > In article <c0bmu4$155rgk$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > > > > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Right. And the judge decides whether the facts fit the law, so it's > his/her opinion of frivolous which is operant at any given moment. Sure, though I don't recall off-hand if it's an abuse of discretion standard. Still, judges have a considerable interest in precluding frivolous filings -- it's their docket that gets cluttered if not. > > > > > Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is > > > > > > fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > any state for attorneys who have been sanctioned for bringing them. I > betcha California has a few of its own. Of course. The statutes exist for a reason. The number, however, is small. > As for "routinely", well that depends on your definition of "routine", > now doesn't it? However you want to define it, it is far, far fewer than the popular conception, and that was my point. > I mean, Halley's comet routinely visits the inner solar system every 75 > years. Does that count? I'd say that the number of actual frivolous filings is far closer to the number of Halley's comet visits per century, than to either the number of total filings or the number of filings which most people _think_ are frivolous. In other words, both the comet visits and frivolous filings are rare events. > But none of that was really your contention here, was it, counselor? I > believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice change of > subject.... subtle. I like it. And I'll say it again -- if you believe that frivolous filings are so numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't much experience of the legal system, your bar membership notwithstanding. > > > > In article <NihWb.22450$Mj5.6078@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't much > experience of the legal system, your bar membership notwithstanding. Most judges frown on frivilous suits, and award fees and costs accordingly. You don't f.ck around with judges time, the courts are backed up enough as it is. Any lawyer that would take on a frivilous and groundless suit is a schlock out to take your money! Signature***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** <snip> > Most judges frown on frivilous suits, and award fees and costs accordingly. > You don't f.ck around with judges time, the courts are backed up enough as > it is. Any lawyer that would take on a frivilous and groundless suit is a > schlock out to take your money! Well, at least we agree on that. > -- > ***/***/*** [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ***/***/*** > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > But none of that was really your contention here, was it, counselor? I > > believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice change of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't much > experience of the legal system, your bar membership notwithstanding. And yet here's one in the news just today. Didn't have to look long or hard. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/jackson.fallout.ap/index.html > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/jackson.fallout.ap/index.html Yep, there's one. How many suits do you think get filed, nationwide, every day? > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yep, there's one. How many suits do you think get filed, nationwide, > every day? Not sure how the total number of suits is relevant. Your claim was that frivilous suits are so rare that you can count them on one hand. Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending 3 minutes searching. I guess you're going to have to start using your other hand to keep track of them now. > > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not sure how the total number of suits is relevant. Of course its relevant. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of suits are filed daily. One or two frivolous suits per ten thousand is very, very few frivolous suits. > Your claim was that frivilous suits are so rare that you can count them > on one hand. Nope, not my claim at all. I said in 12 years of practice, I can count the number of frivolous suits that I've encountered on two fingers of one hand, i.e. two. >Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending > 3 minutes searching. Good for you. Finding one suit is meaningless. > I guess you're going to have to start using your other hand to keep > track of them now. You really, really need to read things more carefully. >>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/jackson.fallout.ap/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on one hand. Well, I managed to find a current one without even spending > 3 minutes searching. To be fair, that doesn't say too much. You had the advantage of a powerful search engine. Inhabited planets are, so far as I know, so rare that I can count them on one hand, and yet I bet it wouldn't take you long to find one. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > >>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/jackson.fallout.ap/index.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To be fair, that doesn't say too much. You had the advantage of a > powerful search engine. To be even fairer, I didn't even use a search engine. I just read the CNN web page. > Inhabited planets are, so far as I know, so rare that I can count them on > one hand, and yet I bet it wouldn't take you long to find one. Yes, but I not only found one, I found a current one in court as we speak. It's not like I had to dig through legal archives for the last 20 years. > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >> Member of the Texas Bar since 1993. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > country and can count the number of frivolous actions I've encounter on two > fingers of one hand. Oh, will you two put your dicks away? > > > > > > In article <c0bgft$152nrp$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > > > > > "PTRAVEL" [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > country and can count the number of frivolous actions I've encounter on two > fingers of one hand. Well . . . . I'm impressed! NOT! Signature***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > All companies do. When calling for references, the only thing company HR > departments are supposed to give out is length of employment, last salary, > and whether or not they are available for re-hire, that's it. > If the HR department says . . .we fired his a.s . . . then they become > culpable. But, they can give the date he stopped working. One would expect that if the date is in the near future, then the reason probably can be guessed. > ... rules [which] prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? Perhaps their own released statements, indicating they would not publicly announce the actions they take with the employee in this matter, are a clue. > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing the > fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? > > ... rules [which] prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's > termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? > > Perhaps their own released statements, indicating they would not publicly > announce the actions they take with the employee in this matter, are a clue. Nope, they're not a clue. They may have a policy that precludes it. It still has nothing to do with privacy rights of employees. > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such > rules? > > > ... rules [which] prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's > > termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nope, they're not a clue. They may have a policy that precludes it. It > still has nothing to do with privacy rights of employees. If a company's policy give employees a right to privacy in such matters, then it does have something to do with privacy rights of employees. > > > > ... rules [which] prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's > > > termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If a company's policy give employees a right to privacy in such matters, > then it does have something to do with privacy rights of employees. Well, of course. However, I've never heard of a company with an express policy that protects employee privacy -- in fact, quite the contrary, the norm is that an employee has no expectation of privacy. > > > > > ... rules [which] prohibit disclosing the fact of an employee's > > > > termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > policy that protects employee privacy -- in fact, quite the contrary, the > norm is that an employee has no expectation of privacy. The company I used to work for had a policy of protecting employee privacy from outside inquiries. Nothing short of a subpoena would allow them to release your personal information to a third party. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: >> "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message >news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing the >fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? Actually quite frequently such terminations include a clause that says both parties will not talk about it. Neither side likes the publicity. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: > >I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing > >the fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > says both parties will not talk about it. Neither side likes the > publicity. I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that prohibits me from talking about it. > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that > prohibits me from talking about it. The usual incentive is severence pay. >>I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being >>fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that >>prohibits me from talking about it. > > The usual incentive is severence pay. If such an agreement were required to get severance pay, then wouldn't that move it from "wages" to a "settlement" for tax purposes? > >>I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being > >>fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If such an agreement were required to get severance pay, then wouldn't > that move it from "wages" to a "settlement" for tax purposes? I don't know. That's a good question. > >>I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being > >>fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If such an agreement were required to get severance pay, then wouldn't > that move it from "wages" to a "settlement" for tax purposes? Or a bribe. Signature***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The usual incentive is severence pay. Which most people who are fired do not get. I suppose if the company had something to hide they might offer it in exchange for silence but severance pay is usually reserved for people who are laid off, not fired for misbehavior. > > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > > > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Which most people who are fired do not get. Probably true. But the discussion was about incentive to prohibit an employee from talking about the circumstances of their departure. > I suppose if the company had > something to hide they might offer it in exchange for silence but > severance pay is usually reserved for people who are laid off, not fired > for misbehavior. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" >> > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >severance pay is usually reserved for people who are laid off, not fired >for misbehavior. I can't speak at all about "most" but I have certainly handled firing where we offered severance in exchange for an agreement to not sue and not talk about it. The suing was the most important issue as there was nothing we cared about getting in the paper, but it was in the contract. YMMV. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that > > prohibits me from talking about it. No need to sign any "clause" as most employees sign one on the day they are hired that follows them for life. Signature***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > > > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > > > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No need to sign any "clause" as most employees sign one on the day they > are hired that follows them for life. Baloney. I've worked for many companies over the course of my life and I don't have "clauses" following me around, limiting what I can and can't say. Oh, and I thought you killfiled me. Or was that just some grand statement on your part, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" >> <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that >prohibits me from talking about it. It all depends on how the firing goes. Quite frequently any kind of disemployment is accompanied by some kind of hush money. Companies want to avoid both suits and bad publicity. So they do things like giving you X weeks of severance in exchange for your not suing or such. If they just walk you to the door, of course, you can do what you want. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing the > fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has such rules? Only the myriad articles that have been written on this specific case that quote AA as saying so. AA explicitly said that they would not comment on disciplinary actions or terminations because it violates their policy. I really wish that people would take the time to read the press on this. If you can read threads that are hundreds of articles long, you can at least read a few newspaper articles to find out what verified sources have said. > > > "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message > > news:<9UCVb.16938$F23.1640@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > comment on disciplinary actions or terminations because it violates > their policy. And there policy, almost certainly, has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with minimizing costs associated with defending frivolous litigation. > I really wish that people would take the time to read the press on > this. If you can read threads that are hundreds of articles long, you > can at least read a few newspaper articles to find out what verified > sources have said. I've read them. You're imputing to AA a rationale that hasn't been articulated. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: >> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<c0bcce$14a138$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >everything to do with minimizing costs associated with defending frivolous >litigation. First off, why frivolous? Certainly the can do such things to avoid real cause litigation as well. Second, you are paying too much attention to the privacy issue. I don't think that companies have privacy interests per se (unlike humans), but they do care about their privacy for other reasons. A company privacy policy can prevent the company from talking about any HR issue and could exist, in part, to protect them from suits. (One could argue that companies have fire extinguishers for the same reason.) The policy also protects the privacy of the employee. >> I really wish that people would take the time to read the press on >> this. If you can read threads that are hundreds of articles long, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I've read them. You're imputing to AA a rationale that hasn't been >articulated. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. > In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > First off, why frivolous? Certainly the can do such things to > avoid real cause litigation as well. Because, in most jurisdictions, employment is at will, meaning the employer can fire you for any non-prohibited reason (religion, race, etc. being prohibited reasons). > Second, you are paying too > much attention to the privacy issue. I'm not paying any attention to the privacy issue. There is no privacy issue implicated at all. > I don't think that companies > have privacy interests per se (unlike humans), but they do care > about their privacy for other reasons. A company privacy policy > can prevent the company from talking about any HR issue and could > exist, in part, to protect them from suits. But the suit would be for wrongful termination, not for any privacy interest. >(One could argue that > companies have fire extinguishers for the same reason.) The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I want to be different, I just don't want to change. In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>: >> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL" >> <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >can fire you for any non-prohibited reason (religion, race, etc. being >prohibited reasons). Which does not mean that companies don't fire for inappropriate reasons and then pay money to avoid lawsuits. >> Second, you are paying too >> much attention to the privacy issue. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >But the suit would be for wrongful termination, not for any privacy >interest. Who said otherwise? [snip] -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. >>> First off, why frivolous? Certainly the can do such things to >>> avoid real cause litigation as well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Which does not mean that companies don't fire for inappropriate >reasons and then pay money to avoid lawsuits. However there is an appropriate reason for firing this guy. The problem is that too many strongly religious people behave in a disruptive way and are fired for that - and they claim it's for being Christian when it's actually for being disruptive. What really worries me is his attitude towards his fellow flight crew. They're supposed to work together as a co-ordinated team. I certainly wouldn't want to be the passenger of a religious loony who can't get on with the rest of his crew. >>> Second, you are paying too >>> much attention to the privacy issue. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Who said otherwise? But I doubt it would be wrongful. Most large companies have conditions of employment which include not making the workplace hostile, including to customers. I doubt AMR is any dirrerent. >[snip] And so upon Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:25:42 +0000 didst PTRAVEL speak thusly: > "Fearing the pilot might have some sinister plans for the flight, many > frantic passengers tried to reach their families on their cell phones, > witnesses told CBS News. Oh. My. They better can that guy. Yesterday. SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > > > > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Do a google news search for [american airlines pilot crazy]. OK BTR1701, tell me that *that doesn't violate some FAA rule. Since 9/11? If the nut job had been a Muslum and said that, you'd be expecting him to fly into the Sears tower. You are not allowed to terrorise people on a plane. If the FAA doesn't take action it will only be because he was a prostelysing *Christian. jwk > > > > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/162499p-142438c.html Okay, now bring me a story from a respectable news source. The New York Daily News has a well-deserved reputation for being less than factual in the name of sensationalism. Every legitimate print and media outlet (NY Times, Houston Chronicle, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, etc,) has reported this story without ever mentioning the pilot calling anyone "crazy". If you can bring me a story from one of the above news outlets that backs your claim, I'll concede the point. > Every legitimate print and media outlet (NY Times, Houston Chronicle, > L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, etc,) has > reported this story without ever mentioning the pilot calling anyone > "crazy". CNN just did it today - go check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airline.christianity/index.html > If you can bring me a story from one of the above news outlets that > backs your claim, I'll concede the point. > > Every legitimate print and media outlet (NY Times, Houston Chronicle, > > L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, etc,) has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you can bring me a story from one of the above news outlets that > > backs your claim, I'll concede the point. <Crickets chirping> I don't hear you conceding. jwk >> > Every legitimate print and media outlet (NY Times, Houston Chronicle, >> > L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, etc,) has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ><Crickets chirping> I don't hear you conceding. It's a silent concession. Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist! Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA Charter Member of SMASH and Queen of the known universe (snip) > > > You seem to be hallucinating. > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If you can bring me a story from one of the above news outlets that > backs your claim, I'll concede the point. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airline.christianity/ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4217621/ There are more, but they require registering. SignatureJohn Popelish Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:57:12 -0500, a stranger called by some John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism >(snip) >> > > You seem to be hallucinating. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4217621/ >There are more, but they require registering. San Francisco Chronicle, using the Associated Press story. http://makeashorterlink.com/?V3F312B57 Also found it on the Chicage Tribune site, (registration required there.) -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows" And so upon Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:57:12 -0500 didst John Popelish speak thusly: > (snip) >> > > You seem to be hallucinating. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4217621/ > There are more, but they require registering. From the CNN article: > Passengers were "shocked," said Karla Austin, who had flown on Friday's > Los Angeles to New York Flight 34. Some reached for their mobile phones > and others used the on-flight phones, she said. > "Just given the history of what's happened on planes in this country, > anything can happen at this point. So we weren't sure if something was > going to happen at takeoff, if he was going to wait until JFK (John F. > Kennedy) to do something," Austin said. "But there was definitely > implication there that we felt that something was going to happen." The man actually panicked at least some of the passengers into thinking they were about to be involved in a 9/11 style event. Real professional behavior that one... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > > anybody who didn't have their hand up was crazy. > > You seem to be hallucinating. > > Where in this news report does the word "crazy" appear? Watch CNN lately? At lest two passengers have said it. > > > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be > > > appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. >> > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > The pilot told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers use the >> > flight time to talk to the identified Christians about their faith, Wagner said. Not the word "crazy" but, right there, the suggestion to talk to the Christians (for supposedly needed help) was a definite put-down, implying inferiority of non-christians. I think I would definitely ask to be let off the plane immediately. If I did a similar thing at work I would be immediately fired. >> > The pilot later told passengers he would be available at the end of the flight >> > to talk about his first announcement. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be >> > appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. drift AMR/American Airlines FINALLY apologized today to all the people this born again freak scared the living sh.t out of! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > AMR/American Airlines FINALLY apologized today to all the people this born > again freak scared the living sh.t out of! Do you have a URL? I'd love to read it. Thanks. > -- > ***/***/*** [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ***/***/*** It's on CNN, they are still running it in the headlines, it's a very weak, very vague apology. Passengers: Pilot uses flight as pulpit American Airlines apologizes for comments on religion http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airline.christianity/index.html -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** > > AMR/American Airlines FINALLY apologized today to all the people this born > > again freak scared the living sh.t out of! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > ***/***/*** SCARED? Laughed at, maybe > AMR/American Airlines FINALLY apologized today to all the people this born > again freak scared the living sh.t out of! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ***/***/*** And so upon Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:55:06 +0000 didst DALing speak thusly: > SCARED? Laughed at, maybe No, scared. He actually freaked several of the passengers out and they started calling relatives, afraid the flight was being threatened. The flight crew ended up contacting people on the ground and running around the plane reassuring passengers there was no threat to the flight. There was more to it than people rolling their eyes and going back to their magazines... >> AMR/American Airlines FINALLY apologized today to all the people this born >> again freak scared the living sh.t out of! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> ***/***/*** SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." > And what if there was a large group of religious zealots on board > (organised group), wouldn't it then be proper for the pilot to make a > prayer ? No. > It takes judgement. That pilot lacked judgement. Then he shouldn't be a pilot. If you wish for an individual to find out if there are a number of "religious zealots" on board and then make a prayer, he could buy a ticket and get a different job. Signaturerk > > He is paid, and expected, to be a pilot - nothing more! > > Should that also preclude the "welcome aboard flight xx" messages from pilots > ? Or announcements that passengers on the left can see the grand canyion ? Those don't infringe on people's beliefs. > And what if there was a large group of religious zealots on board (organised > group), wouldn't it then be proper for the pilot to make a prayer ? No it would not, except if it were a chartered flight. > It takes judgement. That pilot lacked judgement. When it comes to what a pilot can say and it's not covered in the rules, that's judgement. When there is already a rule against it, it's not a judgement call. It's a breach of employment contract. > Just a comment: > > When a crewmember wishes passengers "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter", this > has real slant but nobody objects. If a crew were to announce Happy Haaj (or > some other muslim holiday), it would be seen as very strange in the USA (but > perfectly normal on an airline based in a muslim country). That's not the same at all. If a crewmember wishes a "Merry Christmas to our Christian passengers," others would probably have no problem with it. I wouldn't get offended if they wished a happy birthday to somebody just because it's not my birthday, and I don't mind it if they wish a merry Christmas to Christians just because it's not my religion. It seems like an appropriate and a nice thing to do. It does not tell me that I need to be a Christian or that I should discuss my religious beliefs with anybody. I'd be happy to wish them a merry Christmas too if I knew they were Christians. I don't see Christians getting offended when people wish Jews a happy Chanukkah. Happy Haaj may seem strange to those not used to it, but only because they are not used to it. If the crew wished a happy Chinese new year to people last week, I would not have seen it as an indication that I should become Chinese. >> What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >> asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. > > This is very appropriate. Had the pilot been a Hindu asking the same > thing, he would have been fired upon arrival. Had the pilot been a Hindu, he would never have asked the same thing. miguel SignatureHundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ > >> What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He > >> asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Had the pilot been a Hindu, he would never have asked the same thing. And that's exactly the point. Off the top of my head, I can think of only two extant religions that proselytze for converts -- Christianity and Islaam. The theological "norm" is to regard religion as a private matter. Fanatics from the convert-seeking religions never seem to understand how genuinely obnoxious and rude others find their behavior. > miguel > -- > Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ >> >> What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >> >> asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Fanatics from the convert-seeking religions never seem to understand how >genuinely obnoxious and rude others find their behavior. In my experience Hindus, being polytheists, tend to "allow" others to believe in and worship whichever deity they choose. The cases of action against Christian missionaries in India tend to be because of their obnoxiousness, not because they're Christian. Christopher A. Lee muttered.... > In my experience Hindus, being polytheists, tend to "allow" others to > believe in and worship whichever deity they choose. The cases of > action against Christian missionaries in India tend to be because of > their obnoxiousness, not because they're Christian. In other words, in a religion where non-violence forms a sort of significant plank, for followers of the precepts of Gandhi, it's allright to murder your fellow (wo)man based on your personal or community threshold of obnoxious.... "Hell, Ossifer, I got plumb tared of them Jehovah's Witnesses obnoxiously knocking on my front door during the cocktail hour, so I shot'em." "Then them two boys in white shirts and dark ties runt plumb over my petunias on their bicycles, so I shot them too." TMO > And that's exactly the point. Off the top of my head, I can think of only > two extant religions that proselytze for converts -- Christianity and > Islaam. The theological "norm" is to regard religion as a private matter. > Fanatics from the convert-seeking religions never seem to understand how > genuinely obnoxious and rude others find their behavior. Especially when they come knocking at my door for just such a reason. They always ask . . ."have you found jesus?" I quite frankly tell them . . . .if he ain't turned up after over 2000 years, he ain't lost . . . .he doesn't want to be found by his followers!! > And that's exactly the point. Off the top of my head, I can think of only > two extant religions that proselytze for converts -- Christianity and > Islaam. The theological "norm" is to regard religion as a private matter. I live in the USA, and spend little time in large cities. I've been prosletyzed at by a host of christians, two moslems, and one somewhat confused-sounding wiccan...though I think the wiccan was either trying to date me, or to get me not to eat a particular cheeseburger. It was hard to tell. Curiously, the moslems (who were working as a pair) tried out Pascal's Wager on me...they were puzzled when I named it, and were somewhat annoyed that others knew of it. They were university-level speakers at a conference I was helping out with, but still thought the Pascal's Wager idea was something their religious teacher had come up with on his own. Walt Smith Firelock on DALNet > > And that's exactly the point. Off the top of my head, I can think of only > > two extant religions that proselytze for converts -- Christianity and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Walt Smith > Firelock on DALNet and any grownup who can't see the obvious logically difficulties with Pascal's wager is downright scary >> American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >> Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. So you think a plane load of people yelling and screaming at each others is a good idea? I would have no problem telling a seat neighbor how much of an idiot they were to believe if they started in on my family and children with that crap. You really think that person would not be offended? There's a reason you don't bring up religion with strangers. It's not polite and not conducive to civil behavior. > >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He > >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There's a reason you don't bring up religion with strangers. It's not > polite and not conducive to civil behavior. I did say what he did was in appropriate. Didn't I? God revealed Himself to us. He also gave us wisdom. >> >What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He >> >asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I did say what he did was in appropriate. Didn't I? God revealed >Himself to us. He also gave us wisdom. A perfect example of the problem: you've just shown what a stupid brainwashed moron you are because figments of YOUR deluded imagination can't reveal themselves outside YOUR fantasies. The voices YOUR head certainly didn't give YOU wisdom, did they? > I did say what he did was in appropriate. Didn't I? God revealed > Himself to us. He also gave us wisdom. God? What's that? Dog? On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:36:02 GMT, devil <devil@attglobal.net>, Message ID: <pan.2004.02.15.01.36.01.222953@attglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism; >> I did say what he did was in appropriate. Didn't I? God revealed >> Himself to us. He also gave us wisdom. >God? What's that? Dog? Some imaginary despot. (shrug) It's irrelevant and immaterial. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:36:02 GMT, devil <devil@attglobal.net>, Message > ID: <pan.2004.02.15.01.36.01.222953@attglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Some imaginary despot. (shrug) It's irrelevant and immaterial. > The boogeyman who is going to get us when we are bad. And just as real as the other boogeymen too. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:06:55 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, Message ID: <jhachm-64320A.22065516022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:36:02 GMT, devil <devil@attglobal.net>, Message >> ID: <pan.2004.02.15.01.36.01.222953@attglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Some imaginary despot. (shrug) It's irrelevant and immaterial. >The boogeyman who is going to get us when we are bad. And just as real >as the other boogeymen too. Yep, although each follower insists their particular boogeyman is real. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:06:55 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, > Message ID: <jhachm-64320A.22065516022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yep, although each follower insists their particular boogeyman is real. > Some even think that their boogey man is bigger than the other guy's boogeyman. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, Message ID: <jhachm-DDCB0C.22042518022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:06:55 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, >> Message ID: <jhachm-64320A.22065516022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Some even think that their boogey man is bigger than the other guy's >boogeyman. Some will kill each other over which one's the biggest a.shole. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, > Message ID: <jhachm-DDCB0C.22042518022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Some will kill each other over which one's the biggest a.shole. If some wacko preacher told them to do that, they probably would. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:31:18 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, Message ID: <jhachm-17E53A.22311819022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, >> Message ID: <jhachm-DDCB0C.22042518022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >If some wacko preacher told them to do that, they probably would. Effectively, that's what they do no matter the 'reasoning' for the request. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:31:18 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, > Message ID: <jhachm-17E53A.22311819022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > request. > They're true believers. They don't need no stinkin' reason! SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:27:30 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, Message ID: <jhachm-E93BBE.23273020022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism; >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:31:18 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, >> Message ID: <jhachm-17E53A.22311819022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> Effectively, that's what they do no matter the 'reasoning' for the >> request. >They're true believers. They don't need no stinkin' reason! That's the problem. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:27:30 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, > Message ID: <jhachm-E93BBE.23273020022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > That's the problem. Its also the answer to all those "who killed jesus" threads. Nobody killed him, he got so sick of his twisted and demented followers that he JUMPED on the cross! Signature***/***/***/***/***/***/***/*** Shrub is a ONE TERMER! Just Like His Daddy! Jesus Protect Me . . . From Your Followers! ***/***/***/***/***/***/***/*** http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** <dONZb.2686$yZ1.2625@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote in alt.atheism; >> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:27:30 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, >> Message ID: <jhachm-E93BBE.23273020022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in >> alt.atheism; (snip) >> >> >> >Some even think that their boogey man is bigger than the other >guy's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >him, he got so sick of his twisted and demented followers that he JUMPED on >the cross! If that was the reaction with just twelve followers, I'm unable to contemplate the reaction with a couple billion. Stoney "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion and SCAMPERMEISTER!" When in doubt, SCAMPER about! When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere! When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough! /end humour alert alt.atheism military veteran #11 {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:27:30 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>, > Message ID: <jhachm-E93BBE.23273020022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > That's the problem. > Precisely. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken > What he did may not be appropriate. But he was not preaching. He > asked Christians on board the flight to share their faith with others. The NEW Christian Crusades! > > rom <rom@ram.rem> wrote in message > news:<k9ga20hjvp0f0uhjr3hnpbjd3pjhiidjvc@127.0.0.1>... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The NEW Christian Crusades! Naaaaaa..the same old "shove our religion down your throats, by any means possible"! At least it was not as scary as one United pilot on a flight I took early last year who announced that his crew was prepared to deal with any nefarious acts that might arise onboard, and that he hoped we would all "do our part" if we saw a need to jump in. The guy sitting beside me said 'Oh for Crist's sake". I guess he would have not needed a religious discussion. SignatureCommander Bob Please remove ALLSPAM from address to respond via email. > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be > appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. ...brainwashed pilots! makes me shudder! > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm I hope that the pilot is suspended for inappropriate proselytizing. What next? The flight attendants leading the passengers in prayer after the pre flight check? SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken Is it possible that this is part of some anti-terrorist thing ? Get the passengers to talk religion to each other so that you could figure out if your seatmate is a terrorist and then contact the FAs if you think he might be dangerous ? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this would have been a TSA pilot project to see how much reaction they get from the public. > Is it possible that this is part of some anti-terrorist thing ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this would have been a TSA pilot project > to see how much reaction they get from the public. It could be. Nothing that this administration does these days surprises me anymore. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken In alt.atheism on Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:56:45 +0000, rom <rom@ram.rem> wrote: <snip> >Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to John F. Kennedy Airport on Friday >afternoon, said spokesman Tim Wagner. The pilot, whose identity was not >released, had been making flight announcements and then asked that the >Christians on board raise their hands, Wagner said. <snip> >"It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be >appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. Gee, really? Ya *THINK* so? Well by gosh, by golly, what EVer would make you think _that_, now? :-? -- L8r, Bill /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*/.\|`=~`\-/.|=\`~*`\|/.-~\ "What I most admire about myself is my incurable narcissism." /\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*/.\|`=~`\-/.|=\`~*`\|/.-~\ >American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm I believe I may have flown with this pilot before. He has a big old sticker on his flight bag that says "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter" and parades around the gate area before boarding making sure all passengers see it. We also got a long rambling sermon on the plane right after we took off. Freaked me out completely. I thought of writing AA about it but didn't get around to it. Now I wish I had. > I believe I may have flown with this pilot before. He has a big old > sticker on his flight bag that says "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter" > and parades around the gate area before boarding making sure all > passengers see it. We also got a long rambling sermon on the plane > right after we took off. Freaked me out completely. I thought of > writing AA about it but didn't get around to it. Now I wish I had. It's never too late! -- ***/***/*** When life gives you lemons Skullfuck everyone in sight! http://wonderofitall.com/ ***/***/*** >>American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity >>Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >right after we took off. Freaked me out completely. I thought of >writing AA about it but didn't get around to it. Now I wish I had. What sort of athmosphere does it create on the flight deck? Do other crew refuse to fly with him? Or is it like school sports where if you're not one of them you're simply not part of the team because everybody has to be on the same wavelength? There was a fatal crash in Britain many years ago when a Trident finished up in the sewage works west of Heathrow because the crew didn't get on with the captain (but not because he was a religious a.shole, just an a.shole). > "It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be > appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job," Wagner said. No kidding. It's maybe a good thing I wasn't on that flight. I'd have gotten some xians pretty upset laughing at them for the 6 hours of that flight. SignatureNemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations. Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!) BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all! Charter member, SMASH!! http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus Quotemeister since March 2002 Finally - someone putting the fun back in flying. ;) -- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. > American Airlines pilot suggests passengers discuss Christianity > Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7900122.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.