Passenger killed by Feds was on church trip to South America
|
|
Thread rating:  |
s a d - 08 Dec 2005 15:25 GMT Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death
Maitland man is remembered as a loving husband who 'was always nice.'
Henry Pierson Curtis and Willoughby Mariano Sentinel Staff Writers December 8, 2005
MAITLAND -- They called him Rigo, speaking in whispers and shock outside a Maitland home illuminated Wednesday night by television lights and sudden national attention.
To neighbors, he was a jogger, an immigrant, a bicyclist, a loving husband. He was the paint guy at The Home Depot, the man who always waved hello.
And to the frightened woman talking through a mail slot in a red door, Rigo was her "darling son-in-law." She slid out his photograph, showing a smiling Rigoberto Alpizar against a star-filled background.
In the hours after Alpizar's name flashed across televisions and computer screens, friends, neighbors, and family members struggled to understand how someone so nice could be the same man who authorities said claimed to have a bomb at Miami International Airport.
"I can tell you he was very proud to be living in America," said brother-in-law Bradley Jentsch in Sheboygan, Wis. "He was very, very proud to become an American citizen and to vote."
Alpizar moved to the U.S. about 20 years ago after growing up on a farm near Golfito on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, according to his in-laws.
He and Anne Buechner, his wife of more than 18 years, regularly jogged and rode bicycles together through their Maitland neighborhood.
"He always said, 'Hi, how is your day?" said Alex McLeod, 16. "He was always nice."
Reports from the Miami airport shortly after the killing that described Alpizar as mentally ill left longtime neighbor Louis Gunther doubting media accounts. The friend he knew never showed any signs of a mental illness or aggression toward anyone.
An Orlando-area resident for more than 10 years, Alpizar worked at Home Depot on Colonial Drive near Semoran Boulevard, neighbors said. Home Depot spokesman Don Harrison said he could not confirm if Alpizar worked for the company.
Alpizar and his wife bought their four-bedroom house in 1998 on Gillis Court, where houses now sell for $250,000 and up. They had no children.
As word of Alpizar's death spread, TV crews, photographers and reporters filled the street in front of the house. Other than a couple of brief interviews through the front door, the woman who said she was Alpizar's mother-in-law did not leave the house until about 9:15 p.m., when Maitland police escorted her away.
Shortly after Thanksgiving, Alpizar and his wife left on a trip sponsored by their church to work with children in South America, said Gunther, who was taking care of their house while they were gone.
The couple first met in Costa Rica when Buechner, a social worker, was working in Central America. They regularly returned in recent years to his childhood home after the death of his mother to spend time with his aging father, relatives said.
The widow's siblings, including brother Steven Buechner of Milwaukee, had not been able to speak to her by Wednesday evening.
"He was a very loving husband," said Jentsch, calling Alpizar "Rigo," a family nickname. "He loved to read and he taught himself English by reading."
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/orl-suspect0805dec08,0,2830981.st ory?coll=sfla-news-florida
President, GOP Liars Club - 08 Dec 2005 16:44 GMT > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/orl-suspect0805dec08,0,2830981.st ory?coll=sfla-news-florida He is a Christian martyr. He died for his country bringing Jesus to the heathen. I wish there were more like him. Thousands more.
Larry Bud - 08 Dec 2005 17:23 GMT > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > > Maitland man is remembered as a loving husband who 'was always nice.' Yeah, except for the time he ran screaming through an airplane terminal that he had a bomb.
Other than that he was a great guy.
HLS@nospam.nix - 08 Dec 2005 17:46 GMT > > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Other than that he was a great guy. Yep, barmy as a fish. For all the marshalls knew, he WAS a violent person and had means to actualize his violence.
He should have never been on the plane if he had a mental problem and had not been taking his medicine. Those kinds of people can be very dangerous.
t.j. mello - 08 Dec 2005 18:59 GMT >> > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >had not been taking his medicine. Those kinds of people can be very >dangerous. Remember Randy Weaver and Waco! They claimed they were dangerous too.
john - 08 Dec 2005 19:01 GMT >> > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >had not been taking his medicine. Those kinds of people can be very >dangerous. Yes. Maybe we can have the TSA agents ask each passenger:
"do you have any mental problems?"
"Are you taking your meds?"
What an idiot you are.
HLS@nospam.nix - 08 Dec 2005 22:38 GMT "john" <z2345678998765432y@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Yes. Maybe we can have the TSA agents ask each passenger: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What an idiot you are. Not compared to you, Im not.
Wordsmith - 08 Dec 2005 19:33 GMT Why was he neglecting his meds?
W
Mike T. - 08 Dec 2005 20:23 GMT > Why was he neglecting his meds? > > W My best guess is he forgot to pack them before heading out of the country, or they stayed longer than they were anticipating? But that is only a guess. -Dave
HLS@nospam.nix - 08 Dec 2005 22:40 GMT > Why was he neglecting his meds? Dont know, specifically. This is not unusual, however, for manic/depressives.
We had a case of this in my present family, and the guy refused to take his meds, was violent, eventually committed suicide.
When nutters are involved, who can really say?
john - 09 Dec 2005 00:18 GMT >> Why was he neglecting his meds? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >When nutters are involved, who can really say? Well, where it happened in your present family, mabe you or your kids
may be the next "nutter".
HLS@nospam.nix - 09 Dec 2005 11:36 GMT "john" <z2345678998765432y@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Well, where it happened in your present family, mabe you or your kids > > may be the next "nutter". John, you're just an idiot. Now go somewhere where your opinion matters, if you can find such a place.
Frank F. Matthews - 09 Dec 2005 04:52 GMT If he was bi polar it would not be unusual. Patients feel fine without their meds and see little reason to continue. It is much like blood pressure medication. In both cases if there is no outside pressure to continue the medication the patient will be in trouble.
> Why was he neglecting his meds? > > W Frank F. Matthews - 08 Dec 2005 20:42 GMT >>>Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > had not been taking his medicine. Those kinds of people can be very > dangerous. Usually dangerous only to themselves on a plane.
RTC - 17 Dec 2005 07:03 GMT The only dangerous people are nitwit nazi republicons with power
> > > Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > had not been taking his medicine. Those kinds of people can be very > dangerous. Mike T. - 08 Dec 2005 17:48 GMT >> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Other than that he was a great guy. If you read certain articles on this, you will see that he was bipolar, and off his meds. In other words, he died because he was mentally ill. -Dave
john - 08 Dec 2005 19:05 GMT >>> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If you read certain articles on this, you will see that he was bipolar, and >off his meds. In other words, he died because he was mentally ill. -Dave How the hell do you know he died because he was mentally ill?
Do you want to kill everyone who is mentally ill?
Who heard him yell: "I have a bomb"? Only the air marshals?
Who, other than the marshals, saw the shooting?
Mike T. - 08 Dec 2005 20:22 GMT > How the hell do you know he died because he was mentally ill? Ummmmm . . . because HIS WIFE SAID SO
> Do you want to kill everyone who is mentally ill? Of course not. My point was, his mental illness was the most significant cause of his death. Sure, a bullet fired by an air marshall killed him. The bullet wouldn't have been fired if he wasn't mentally ill, OR if he had been on his medication. -Dave
john - 08 Dec 2005 21:51 GMT >> How the hell do you know he died because he was mentally ill? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The bullet wouldn't have been fired if he wasn't mentally ill, OR if he had >been on his medication. -Dave So you know this for a FACT?
Care to state explicitly where you heard this? Or di you just make it up?
Dave - 08 Dec 2005 22:51 GMT
> So you know this for a FACT? > > Care to state explicitly where you heard this? Or di you just make it > up? Well, that's what was reported on various news sites such as cnn and foxnews. It could be wrong, I guess. Wouldn't be the first time that a story was made up by a major news agency. -Dave
mrtravel - 08 Dec 2005 21:01 GMT No, he died because he claimed to have a bomb and reached into a bag against the commands of the air marshalls. Whether or not he was mentally ill doesn't change this. A mentally person doing this would have also been shot.
Sid9 - 08 Dec 2005 21:03 GMT wrote:
> No, he died because he claimed to have a bomb and reached into a bag > against the commands of the air marshalls. > Whether or not he was mentally ill doesn't change this. A mentally > person doing this would have also been shot. That's not the current story. He "reached into his bag" is current.
john - 08 Dec 2005 21:54 GMT >No, he died because he claimed to have a bomb and reached into a bag >against the commands of the air marshalls. >Whether or not he was mentally ill doesn't change this. A mentally >person doing this would have also been shot. Who claimed he had a bomb? The air marshals? other witnesses?
Cite your source.
Borked Pseudo Mailed - 09 Dec 2005 00:10 GMT Fired Cisco troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" trolled:
>No, he died because he claimed to have a bomb and reached into a bag >against the commands of the air marshalls. >Whether or not he was mentally ill doesn't change this. A mentally >person doing this would have also been shot. Speaking of the mentally ill:
Usenet Public Service Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES - has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES - is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager - has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7 - is such a loser he often responds to posts two minutes after they appear - is a known liar and bullshitter, has lied about everything - was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work - likes to make death threats - is a known pedophile and child sexual predator - is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel" 111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118 Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148 (831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 (831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
Nomen Nescio - 09 Dec 2005 02:10 GMT Fired Cisco troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" trolled:
>No, he died because he claimed to have a bomb and reached into a bag >against the commands of the air marshalls. >Whether or not he was mentally ill doesn't change this. A mentally >person doing this would have also been shot. Speaking of the mentally ill:
Usenet Public Service Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES - has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES - is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager - has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7 - is such a loser he often responds to posts two minutes after they appear - is a known liar and bullshitter, has lied about everything - was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work - likes to make death threats - is a known pedophile and child sexual predator - is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel" 111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118 Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148 (831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 (831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
Larry Bud - 08 Dec 2005 22:41 GMT > >> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you read certain articles on this, you will see that he was bipolar, and > off his meds. In other words, he died because he was mentally ill. Unfortunately, the air marshalls don't have time for a complete psych exam in the split second they have to make a decision, for a guy who's threatening to blow up the airplane.
They did exactly what they should have done, and I salute them for it!
john - 09 Dec 2005 00:35 GMT >> >> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >exam in the split second they have to make a decision, for a guy who's >threatening to blow up the airplane. Did any passenger hear him threaten to blow up the plane?
The marshals chased him off the plane.
The marshals and the victim were the only people in the jetway.
Because they killed him the air marshals HAVE to say that the victim claimed he had a bomb. Otherwise, they would have a tough time explaining the shooting.
>They did exactly what they should have done, and I salute them for it! Bill Bennett - 09 Dec 2005 01:19 GMT >Did any passenger hear him threaten to blow up the plane? According to cnn.com, the marshalls said he had a bomb while he was still on the plane. No other passengers heard this.
js - 09 Dec 2005 14:41 GMT > >> >> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Did any passenger hear him threaten to blow up the plane? There is an eyewitness report from a passenger that he said he had a bomb in his bag.
> The marshals chased him off the plane. He ran off the plane with Marshalls running behind.
> The marshals and the victim were the only people in the jetway. Actually, there is no evidence that this is in fact true. You asked for evidence from others, where is yours?
> Because they killed him the air marshals HAVE to say that the victim > claimed he had a bomb. Otherwise, they would have a tough time > explaining the shooting. The only thing the Air Marshalls HAVE to say is the truth.
> >They did exactly what they should have done, and I salute them for it! Agreed.
js
john - 09 Dec 2005 16:54 GMT >> >> >> Neighbors, family stunned by Alpizar's violent death >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >There is an eyewitness report from a passenger that he said he had a >bomb in his bag. Can you cite a source for this eyewitness reoport?
Here is a source of passenger statements that they DID not hear him say he had a bomb.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting
>> The marshals chased him off the plane. > >He ran off the plane with Marshalls running behind. What's the difference?
>> The marshals and the victim were the only people in the jetway. > >Actually, there is no evidence that this is in fact true. You asked >for evidence from others, where is yours? Until I hear statements from witnesses in the jetway I will believe that they were NO witnesses.
>> Because they killed him the air marshals HAVE to say that the victim >> claimed he had a bomb. Otherwise, they would have a tough time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >js nobody - 10 Dec 2005 01:07 GMT > The only thing the Air Marshalls HAVE to say is the truth. Last summer, when an innocent tourist was murdered by London police, the police made immediate statements that he had not behaved properly, was running, not listening to the police requests etc etc.
The Bliar government as well as police officialls immediatly condoned the murder of this tourist, stating that protecting the public was more important.
It was later revealed that in fact, the innocent person had just been standing on the platform waiting for a train and the police decided he looked suspisious and that his backpack just had to be a bomb and he had to be killed before he could detonate it.
It is your right as americans to never doubt what cops say. It is your right to think that cops never lie to protect their own a.ses after they have made huge mistakes. But don't insult those who are not as naive as you.
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 01:59 GMT > > The only thing the Air Marshalls HAVE to say is the truth. > > Last summer, when an innocent tourist was murdered by London police, the > police made immediate statements that he had not behaved properly, was > running, not listening to the police requests etc etc. He wasn't a tourist.
> The Bliar government as well as police officialls immediatly condoned > the murder of this tourist, stating that protecting the public was more important. See above.
> It was later revealed that in fact, the innocent person had just been > standing on the platform waiting for a train and the police decided he > looked suspisious and that his backpack just had to be a bomb and he had > to be killed before he could detonate it. Well, you're leaving out part of their excuse - Menezes supposedly resembled a suspect in the bombings of 21 July.
> It is your right as americans to never doubt what cops say. It is your > right to think that cops never lie to protect their own a.ses after they > have made huge mistakes. But don't insult those who are not as naive as you. Oh? And I thought the reports of Alpizar acting strangely came from other passengers and that the only apparent disagreement was if and/or when Alpizar made any comments that could have been interpreted as a threat.
Naturally, I fully support your right to reveal this gubmint disinformation conspiracy. Ta!
Paul Nixon
yoosnet@gmail.com - 10 Dec 2005 18:06 GMT >> The only thing the Air Marshalls HAVE to say is the truth. > >Last summer, when an innocent tourist was murdered by London police, the >police made immediate statements that he had not behaved properly, was >running, not listening to the police requests etc etc. He wasn't a tourist, he was lived in London.
Mike T. - 09 Dec 2005 14:11 GMT >> If you read certain articles on this, you will see that he was bipolar, >> and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They did exactly what they should have done, and I salute them for it! I totally agree!!! That does not change the fact that this man died because he was mentally ill. -Dave
khobar - 09 Dec 2005 16:22 GMT > >> If you read certain articles on this, you will see that he was bipolar, > >> and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I totally agree!!! That does not change the fact that this man died because > he was mentally ill. -Dave Air Marshal: "Are you hijacking the plane, or are off your medication?" Suspicious person: "Yes"
Paul Nixon
js - 09 Dec 2005 16:24 GMT Dave - he did not die of mental illness. He died of a gunshot wound.
Mike T. - 09 Dec 2005 16:43 GMT > Dave - he did not die of mental illness. He died of a gunshot wound. No doubt. That doesn't change the fact that if he had been mentally stable OR on his meds, there would have been no gunshot wound. His mental illness was the direct cause of his death, because remove the mental illness, and there would have BEEN no gunshot wound. -Dave
Jonathan Kamens - 09 Dec 2005 17:02 GMT >> Dave - he did not die of mental illness. He died of a gunshot wound. > >No doubt. That doesn't change the fact that if he had been mentally stable >OR on his meds, there would have been no gunshot wound. His mental illness >was the direct cause of his death, because remove the mental illness, and >there would have BEEN no gunshot wound. -Dave This is only true if by "direct" you mean "indirect".
What you wrote above is equivalent to my saying of a person who died from an intestinal blockage, "Eating was the direct cause of death, because if he hadn't eaten anything, his intestines wouldn't have gotten blocked."
Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. Death did not stem immediately from Alpizar's mental illness. His mental illness led to irrational behavior, which led to a confrontation with air marshalls, which led to shots being fired, which led to death. That's far too many steps to call his death a "direct" result of his mental illness.
For you to continue to assert that his death was a "direct" result of his mental illness, you must either (a) not be a particularly clear thinker, (b) not be particularly smart, (c) be pushing a hidden agenda of some sort, or (d) be a troll. So, which is it?
Mike T. - 09 Dec 2005 18:11 GMT > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > be pushing a hidden agenda of some sort, or (d) be a troll. > So, which is it? OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy live or die? -Dave
Jonathan Kamens - 09 Dec 2005 18:33 GMT >> Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to >> the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >live or die? -Dave Stupid question that is irrelevant to my point. Proves you didn't get my point or are intentionally ignoring it. I still don't know which of the four explanations I offered above for your muddled thinking is the correct one, but one thing that *has* become clear is that there's no longer any point in discussing this with you.
*plonk*
khobar - 09 Dec 2005 19:54 GMT > > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to > > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy > live or die? -Dave Has anyone besides the wife said he was mentally ill? So far his former boss disputed the wife's claims, stating there was never any evidence of mental illness.
Paul Nixon
Banty - 09 Dec 2005 23:04 GMT >> > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to >> > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >disputed the wife's claims, stating there was never any evidence of mental >illness. Would a former boss be in position to know?
It's a medical condition. If it's under control with meds, there is no reason for an employer to know.
Banty
khobar - 09 Dec 2005 23:46 GMT > >> > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to > >> > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It's a medical condition. If it's under control with meds, there is no reason > for an employer to know. The employer would have to be completely blind not to know. Then again, as far as I've seen, we only have the wife's word that he was actually mentally ill.
Paul Nixon
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 01:09 GMT >> >> > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to >> >> > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Paul Nixon What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what?
The boss would not know a bi-polar person properly using meds. The bi-polar person has no incentive or interest in informing him.
Even off his meds, the manic state may look just like an energetic, excited, productive individual. Just what the boss likes. And the depressed states are compensated or hidden for certain venues, like work, many times. So the boss may not even *recognize* untreated manic-depression. Many people don't.
Two close friends are on medication for Bipolar disorder, and they are two of the most stable people I know. Because of the medicine, but also because, having seen what their illness does to their lives and the lives around them, they greatly value stability.
Banty
The Real Bev - 10 Dec 2005 02:54 GMT > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar
> walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? > > The boss would not know a bi-polar person properly using meds. The bi-polar > person has no incentive or interest in informing him. No, but if the bi-polar person stops taking his lithium because he believes that a healthful natural diet and lots of vitamins will keep him sane and then has to be forcibly restrained from jumping off (or perhaps flying, the intention was not really clear) an office balcony by co-workers, the boss can probably guess that there's a problem of some sort.
Not much blame for the wife convincing him to get on the plane in the first place, is there? Maybe it's her fault.
Surely there will be some sort of trustworthy investigation.
 Signature Cheers, Bev +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk. Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 03:37 GMT > > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar >>walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >intention was not really clear) an office balcony by co-workers, the boss can >probably guess that there's a problem of some sort. So - you made this up about jumping off balconies? Or do you have some source - please quote. Or you think all bipolars off meds jump off balconies? Or you have some information that balcony-jumping always precedes airplane-aisle runing? And it all happens instantly when one is off meds?
Do you know anything about this? People with depressions aren't going off somehow every second they're not controlled.
>Not much blame for the wife convincing him to get on the plane in the first >place, is there? Maybe it's her fault. So, who else should never go on a trip?
Frankly, you're not making any sense.
>Surely there will be some sort of trustworthy investigation. Hopefully. By folks who understand the various aspects.
Banty
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 04:13 GMT > > > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar > >>walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have some information that balcony-jumping always precedes airplane-aisle > runing? And it all happens instantly when one is off meds? 15% of untreated bipolar identified people commit suicide. It's the 3rd leading cause of death for persons 15-24 and 6th leading cause of disability *in the developed world*. And I know one person who, off his meds, jumped in front of a moving car, so the idea that such people might be prone to jump off balconies is completely plausible to me.
> Do you know anything about this? People with depressions aren't going off > somehow every second they're not controlled. It's a little more than just depression.
> >Not much blame for the wife convincing him to get on the plane in the first > >place, is there? Maybe it's her fault. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hopefully. By folks who understand the various aspects. Either the guy made a threat or he didn't. Time will hopefully tell.
Paul Nixon
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 05:18 GMT >> > > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone >bi-polar [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >leading cause of death for persons 15-24 and 6th leading cause of disability >*in the developed world*. Nice dramatic stat. And true. 'Cept you forget to mention it's for *all* suicides. Not just those due to bipolar.
>And I know one person who, off his meds, jumped in >front of a moving car, so the idea that such people might be prone to jump >off balconies is completely plausible to me. I did not say it could not happen. "Bev" cited it as a *likely* thing to have happened. That's ludicrous.
>> Do you know anything about this? People with depressions aren't going off >> somehow every second they're not controlled. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Either the guy made a threat or he didn't. Time will hopefully tell. Yep.
Banty
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 06:48 GMT > >> > > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone > >bi-polar [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Nice dramatic stat. And true. 'Cept you forget to mention it's for *all* > suicides. Not just those due to bipolar. 15% of untreated bipolar identified people commit suicide - that's a fact.
> >And I know one person who, off his meds, jumped in > >front of a moving car, so the idea that such people might be prone to jump > >off balconies is completely plausible to me. > > I did not say it could not happen. "Bev" cited it as a *likely* thing to have > happened. That's ludicrous. I didn't read it like that. I assumed she was talking about what typically happens when a bipolar person stops taking their meds and how their boss might find out there is a problem.
> >> Do you know anything about this? People with depressions aren't going off > >> somehow every second they're not controlled. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Yep. Yep, and now we find out that the family of the man state that they were unaware of any mental illness as well. Hmmm....
Paul Nixon
The Real Bev - 10 Dec 2005 06:53 GMT >> > What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar >>>walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So - you made this up about jumping off balconies? Or do you have some source - > please quote. I worked with the guy. It happened about half an hour after I'd gone home. The guys told me about it the next day. The guy himself told me about it several days later after he'd gotten stabilized in the hospital and said he realized that health food was not a solution to his problem. He worked for us for several years after that. Good enough?
> Or you think all bipolars off meds jump off balconies? Or you > have some information that balcony-jumping always precedes airplane-aisle > runing? And it all happens instantly when one is off meds? > > Do you know anything about this? People with depressions aren't going off > somehow every second they're not controlled. It took him a couple of days. Exactly what are we arguing about here? I'd like to play, but I need to know the rules.
>>Not much blame for the wife convincing him to get on the plane in the first >>place, is there? Maybe it's her fault. > > So, who else should never go on a trip? > > Frankly, you're not making any sense. Everybody seems to be able to offer an explanation or reason or justification and that seems as good as any.
>>Surely there will be some sort of trustworthy investigation. > > Hopefully. By folks who understand the various aspects. I don't know, I think I'd want to hire investigators who hadn't a clue about anything -- wouldn't you? Guarantee their objectivity, maybe...
Sheesh.
 Signature Cheers, Bev ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 13:49 GMT >>>> What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar >>>>walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >realized that health food was not a solution to his problem. He worked for us >for several years after that. Good enough? Good enough so far. I don't disbelieve you, never did, truly. But what you need to provide: relevance to this incident.
>> Or you think all bipolars off meds jump off balconies? Or you >> have some information that balcony-jumping always precedes airplane-aisle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It took him a couple of days. Yep. Unless he and his boss are hitched at the hip, and his boss dropped him off at the airport, it's perfectly plausible that his boss isn't in a position to know.
>Exactly what are we arguing about here? I'd >like to play, but I need to know the rules. The rule you need to know about is - what you say needs to be relevant to what's being discussed. Which in this sub-thread seems to be - would his boss necessarily know he's bipolar. Remember - the a rather strong statement was made that the boss would have to be BLIND not to know.
I'm not saying suicide doesn't happen, I'm not saying untreated bipolar disorder can't be fatal (but *many* rather common disorders are like that), I'm not saying decompensating psychotic people don't jump from balconies.
I'm refuting this black and white statemtent that this mans boss would have to know if he were bipolar or not.
Banty
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 15:59 GMT > >>>> What do you mean "would have to be ...blind"? Do you think someone bi-polar > >>>>walks around making jerks and grunts, laughs a lot then cries a lot - what what? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I'm refuting this black and white statemtent that this mans boss would have to > know if he were bipolar or not. Now his family has also stated that there was no sign of mental illness.
I'm also wondering if "bipolar disorder" isn't starting to get loosely thrown around and whether many people who claim to have bipolar disorder really don't. From what I've been reading, doctors have been expanding the definition into an almost catch-all diagnosis - a bit like people who take aspirin when they get their "migrains".
The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more likely than not someone over the course of twelve years is going to notice.
If you don't like my absolute statement, I gladly rephrase it as "the boss would most like have to be blind not to notice."
Paul Nixon
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 16:28 GMT >> I'm not saying suicide doesn't happen, I'm not saying untreated bipolar >disorder [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >definition into an almost catch-all diagnosis - a bit like people who take >aspirin when they get their "migrains". I don't think any responsible specialist would throw it around like that, but I certainly agree that people *do* toss around lay diagnoses like that. Can you provide any cites on your reading? It's not like I'm an expert (there are somewhat different problems in my family), but it's my impression that there is discussion of recognizing a larger range of *degree*.
>The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their >meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more >likely than not someone over the course of twelve years is going to notice. > >If you don't like my absolute statement, I gladly rephrase it as "the boss >would most like have to be blind not to notice." I'd go along with your statement above. How the "boss is blind" statement applies isn't clear, and it's quite plausible and common for an employer not to know. He could have been on his meds before; people can and do compensate to amazing degrees for limited venues like work.
What I object to most is the underlying assumption your statements might reinforce, that a lot of people have: that those with mood disorders are "crazy", and will be seen at any time to act "crazy" and anyone would know. Which facilitates both marginalization and denial.
Banty
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 16:32 GMT >>The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their >>meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'd go along with your statement above. Eh - I DON'T go along with "the boss....most like(sic)....blind.." "Most likely" doesn't change it much.
I DO go along with "most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more likely than not someone over the course of twelve years is going to notice" Which would mean family would be more likely than a boss to have to deal with it.
Banty
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 21:05 GMT > >>The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their > >>meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I DO go along with "most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their > meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more likely
> than not someone over the course of twelve years is going to notice" > Which would mean family would be more likely than a boss to have to deal with > it. Fine - the family has also said they saw no evidence of mental illness either.
Paul Nixon
Rex - 10 Dec 2005 22:26 GMT There are lots of people with mental problems flying every day:
http://www.wimp.com/invisiblewife/
>> >>The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking >> >>their [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Paul Nixon khobar - 12 Dec 2005 15:42 GMT > There are lots of people with mental problems flying every day: > > http://www.wimp.com/invisiblewife/ And?
Paul Nixon
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 21:04 GMT > >> I'm not saying suicide doesn't happen, I'm not saying untreated bipolar > >disorder [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > somewhat different problems in my family), but it's my impression that there is > discussion of recognizing a larger range of *degree*. My opinion is biased namely because of close proximity to two persons who actually do/did have bipolar and hearing my brother-in-law go on about his benign tumors and how he hopes SSI will materialize before he drops dead.
As for some cites:
http://www.ncpamd.com/Bipolar.htm for overall discussion.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/features/n_9986/ "As much as depression was the illness of nineties, mild bipolarity has become the new diagnosis for a slice of society that includes hard-to-treat depressives and some with a personal disposition that perhaps hedges into ordinary moodiness. Actually, many doctors believe that the widespread prescription of antidepressants over the past decade has been instrumental in uncovering, and even exacerbating, bipolar conditions"
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-10-02-whe-are-in-the-dark-SSRIs.htm "Meanwhile, some psychiatrists report increasing numbers of young patients with severe psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and mania, which appeared after they began taking SSRIs. Yet rather than seeing those symptoms as possible side effects of the medication, many academics have interpreted them as signs of previously undiagnosed manic depression, or bipolar disorder. The SSRIs, in their view, are "unmasking" bipolar disorder, which was there all along.
"But there are no studies that support the notion that an individual patient's "underlying" bipolar disorder would have emerged at some later date had he or she not taken the drug."
--- This is just a couple and by no means in meant to represent everything.
It seems that doctors are more anxious to diagnose and treat problems that may or may not really exist, and I suspect some number of these doctors have stock in one for or another in the pharmaceutical industry. That's my opinion, of course.
> >The fact remains that most people who are bipolar are *not* taking their > >meds, and since it is the 6th leading cause of disability it seems more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > know. He could have been on his meds before; people can and do compensate to > amazing degrees for limited venues like work. Being plausible and being common convey two different messages. I'll agree that it's plausible, but I just can't see how it could be common given a) how debilitating it is and b) the fact that treatment is almost never 100% effective over a long period of time. Maybe it is...hopefully it is.
> What I object to most is the underlying assumption your statements might > reinforce, that a lot of people have: that those with mood disorders are > "crazy", and will be seen at any time to act "crazy" and anyone would know. > Which facilitates both marginalization and denial. Fair enough, but I thought I was very clear on a very specific problem.
However, since you raised the objection in the first place, I reaffirm that my comments are not absolute.
Paul Nixon
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 03:49 GMT > >> >> > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to > >> >> > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Even off his meds, the manic state may look just like an energetic, excited, > productive individual. Just what the boss likes. And the depressed states are I've seen a bipolar off his meds. I guarantee you that is not what the boss, the friends, the family - no one - likes.
> compensated or hidden for certain venues, like work, many times. So the boss > may not even *recognize* untreated manic-depression. Many people don't. Agitation, distraction, inflated sense of self-importance, motormouth with grand ideas, lack of attentiveness, impulsiveness.
> Two close friends are on medication for Bipolar disorder, and they are two of > the most stable people I know. Because of the medicine, but also because, > having seen what their illness does to their lives and the lives around them, > they greatly value stability. Well I'm happy for your friends, I really am. It sounds as if they were able to find the right mix of treatment and have met their responsibility to keep up with it. Unfortuantely, all too often that is not the case.
A current family member is bipolar - when he's taking his medication he's not what one would consider normal or stable - the meds barely keep his head above water, and when he's off his medication he is violent. A deceased family member was also bipolar, and despite the medications it was obvious that person had a serious problem.
The disorder is not generally something you simply take a pill for and all is suddenly well with the world - at least not from what I've seen.
Paul Nixon
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 05:22 GMT >> >> >> > Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to >> >> >> > the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >The disorder is not generally something you simply take a pill for and all >is suddenly well with the world - at least not from what I've seen. Sometimes yes, sometimes not. I also have a friend with a bipolar mother permanently institutionalized - she does not respond to meds. But she was functional enough to marry, have two children, for enough years.
Look, as you should know, it does vary. We're not told the whole manifestation of this passenger's disorder. But it is *not* necessarily the case that a boss would know. Even a quite sighted and alert one.
And, if you have a family member with a mental disorder, perhaps, since this is something we share, you would understand that part of what makes it so difficult is what *other* people think it means.
Banty
mrtravel@sbcglobal.net - 10 Dec 2005 07:14 GMT > The employer would have to be completely blind not to know. Then again, as > far as I've seen, we only have the wife's word that he was actually mentally > ill. If the condition is not evident when medicated, why would he have to know?
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 16:16 GMT > > The employer would have to be completely blind not to know. Then again, as > > far as I've seen, we only have the wife's word that he was actually mentally > > ill. > > If the condition is not evident when medicated, why would he have to know? I have since rephrased my original statement.
Paul Nixon
Dave - 10 Dec 2005 01:49 GMT
>> OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >> live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disputed the wife's claims, stating there was never any evidence of mental > illness. That's not something you allow your boss to know, if you can help it. -Dave
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 03:50 GMT > >> OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy > >> live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's not something you allow your boss to know, if you can help t. -Dave
If you can help it.
Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 09 Dec 2005 21:23 GMT >> Thing A is the DIRECT cause of thing B only if, according to >> the dictionary, Thing B "stems immediately from" thing A. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy > live or die? -Dave Remove the existence of guns and run the scenario again. So his death was the direct result of the existence of guns. Remove the existence of carry-on luggage and run the scenario again. So his death was the direct result of the existence of carry-on luggage. Remove the existence of airplanes and run it again. So his death was the direct result of the existence of airplanes.
How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally understand causation?
mrtravel@sbcglobal.net - 10 Dec 2005 07:13 GMT > How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally understand > causation? Let's blame it on a a pair of bike mechanics from Ohio. After all, no planes = no air marshals
Or on terrorists
Or remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people, bullets do"
Borked Pseudo Mailed - 10 Dec 2005 15:11 GMT Fired Cisco troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" trolled:
>> How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally understand >> causation? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Or remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people, bullets do" Too bad they haven't kill YOU yet. They'd be doing humanity a HUGE favor. You are the most worthless piece of sh.t that ever lived.
Usenet Public Service Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES - has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES - is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager - has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7 - is such a loser he often responds to posts two minutes after they appear - is a known liar and bullshitter, has lied about everything - was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work - likes to make death threats - is a known pedophile and child sexual predator - is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel" 111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118 Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148 (831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 (831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
John Mazor - 10 Dec 2005 16:40 GMT >> How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally >> understand causation? > > Let's blame it on a a pair of bike mechanics from Ohio. > After all, no planes = no air marshals Heh. The mother of the Wright brothers was born not far from me. Now I have to blame it on my homies!
Rich Ahrens - 10 Dec 2005 18:40 GMT >>>How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally >>>understand causation? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Heh. The mother of the Wright brothers was born not far from me. Now I > have to blame it on my homies! I knew you were old, John, but really...
John Mazor - 10 Dec 2005 21:34 GMT >>>>How far do you want to run this infinite loop before you finally >>>>understand causation? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I knew you were old, John, but really... Who do you think took that Kitty Hawk photograph?
mrtravel@sbcglobal.net - 10 Dec 2005 07:09 GMT > OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy > live or die? -Dave Sure. His actions could have been accomplished by a non mentally ill person.
Dave - 10 Dec 2005 13:15 GMT
>> OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >> live or die? -Dave > > Sure. His actions could have been accomplished by a non mentally ill > person. Only one who was intent on commiting suicide. -Dave
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 13:51 GMT >>> OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >>> live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Only one who was intent on commiting suicide. -Dave Or one intent on the kind of plans the marshalls are trained to prevent.
Banty
Frank F. Matthews - 10 Dec 2005 15:25 GMT >>>>OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >>>>live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Banty That appears to be part of the problem. Their training doesn't appear to have included this kind of situation.
Banty - 10 Dec 2005 15:47 GMT >>>>>OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy >>>>>live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That appears to be part of the problem. Their training doesn't appear >to have included this kind of situation. That can't be concluded yet.
The question remains - is there any reasonable way to distinguish a mentally ill person without a bomb from a terrorist with a bomb in that situation.
Keep in mind the terrorist isn't necessarily going to be calm as a cucumber while proceeding through his mission. And consider that there may be some correlation between mental illness and the profile of those recruited for terrorist suicide actions.
Banty
Banty
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 16:19 GMT > >>>>OK, remove the mental illness, and run the scenario again. Does the guy > >>>>live or die? -Dave [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That appears to be part of the problem. Their training doesn't appear > to have included this kind of situation. Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a gaping hole in security and is contrary to what I thought I'd read about situations where multiple air marshalls are aboard a plane. I guess there could have been even more air marshalls aboard, but my understanding was that there aren't enough to put even one on each flight.
Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 10 Dec 2005 17:23 GMT >> > In article <txAmf.2560$Tg2.2414@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Dave > says... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > situations > where multiple air marshalls are aboard a plane. The more typical scenario wouldn't necessarily use a bomb threat. Any behavior sufficiently alarming to draw out the FAMs would suffice. More importantly, though, trained terrorist hijackers probably would only strike while the aircraft was in flight. There's less chance of being stymied by LEOs, and the probability of collateral damage on the ground is increased. A freelance terrorist, OTOH, thinking in the mode of suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel, might plan from the beginning to strike while at the airport.
All this, or course, is hypothetical, but since we're at it, it's not unreasonable to construct a scenario where the bomber intended to take out the aircraft in flight but realized that he didn't want his wife to die, so Plan B is to wait until on the ground, run out of the aircraft, and detonate.
> I guess there could have > been even more air marshalls aboard, but my understanding was that there > aren't enough to put even one on each flight. International flights sometimes have multiple crews of two FAMs, but you're right, only a small percentage of flights are covered. Their chief value, as with the program to train and arm pilots, is to act as a deterrent.
khobar - 10 Dec 2005 21:12 GMT > >> > In article <txAmf.2560$Tg2.2414@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Dave > > says... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > A freelance terrorist, OTOH, thinking in the mode of suicide bombers in Iraq > and Israel, might plan from the beginning to strike while at the airport. I agree - the idea that this might have been a test run is just a possibility regardless of how unlikely. Now if the fellow had run off the plane and then said "okay okay I give up", that might add a little plausibility of it being a test run.
> All this, or course, is hypothetical, but since we're at it, it's not > unreasonable to construct a scenario where the bomber intended to take out > the aircraft in flight but realized that he didn't want his wife to die, so > Plan B is to wait until on the ground, run out of the aircraft, and > detonate. Perhaps, but from my understanding, the bombs are usually (usually being used loosely here) rigged with remote detonators as "insurance".
> > I guess there could have > > been even more air marshalls aboard, but my understanding was that there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > right, only a small percentage of flights are covered. Their chief value, > as with the program to train and arm pilots, is to act as a deterrent. So do you have any thoughts on both FAM's exposing themselves?
Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 10 Dec 2005 21:31 GMT >> All this, or course, is hypothetical, but since we're at it, it's not >> unreasonable to construct a scenario where the bomber intended to take [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps, but from my understanding, the bombs are usually (usually being > used loosely here) rigged with remote detonators as "insurance". Sometimes so, sometimes not, but if so, that's assuming he wasn't acting alone.
>> > I guess there could have >> > been even more air marshalls aboard, but my understanding was that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So do you have any thoughts on both FAM's exposing themselves? Given that they were still at the gate, they might have discounted the probabilty that he was a decoy - which would be consistent with them treating him as the real threat, i.e., shooting him.
Or there may have been another team onboard. If so, procedure might have allowed one team to go forward while the second one covers.
If they both just bolted and if their protocols required that only one take action while the other remains under cover, there might be some 'splainin' to do (in addition to all the explaining they already have to do).
mrtravel@sbcglobal.net - 11 Dec 2005 09:06 GMT > Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to > draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a gaping > hole in security In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?
Nomen Nescio - 11 Dec 2005 17:10 GMT Fired Cisco troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" trolled:
>> Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to >> draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a gaping >> hole in security > >In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden? No, hopefully they will come out and shoot you dead for flooding the newsgroups with so many asinine troll questions.
Usenet Public Service Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES - has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES - is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager - has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7 - is such a loser he often responds to posts two minutes after they appear - is a known liar and bullshitter, has lied about everything - was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work - likes to make death threats - is a known pedophile and child sexual predator - is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel" 111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118 Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148 (831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD One Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 (831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
mrtravel@sbcglobal.net - 12 Dec 2005 02:39 GMT > No, hopefully they will come out and shoot you dead for flooding the newsgroups > with so many asinine troll questions. Man, you post this dribble hours apart. Are you online all day long on a Saturday when you should be taking your family for a nice picnic at the beach?
khobar - 12 Dec 2005 15:46 GMT > > Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to > > draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a gaping > > hole in security > > In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden? Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good comments on the matter.
Paul Nixon
John Mazor - 26 Dec 2005 15:13 GMT >> > Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy >> > to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good > comments on the matter. Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the other FAM stayed under cover.
Feds charge woman for disturbance on airplane
PHILADELPHIA -- A 35-year-old Pottstown woman has been indicted for allegedly disrupting a USAir flight from Las Vegas to Philadelphia.
Story at http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15816294&BRD=1674&PAG=461&d ept_id=18041&rfi=6
mrtravel - 27 Dec 2005 01:24 GMT >>>>Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy >>>>to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good >>comments on the matter. Nonsense. At what point would you expect them to reveal themselves out of fear of a decoy? What if there are multiple decoys? I don't believe they have a goal to remain hidden in the event of an incident out of fear that it might be a decoy. That being said, let the crew handle the drunks, with a taser if needed.
> Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight > situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here > about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the > other FAM stayed under cover. Why do you assume there was another FAM?
khobar - 27 Dec 2005 02:26 GMT > >>>>Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy > >>>>to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fear that it might be a decoy. That being said, let the crew handle the > drunks, with a taser if needed. That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the basic idea of why there might be multiple FAM's on a flight in the first place, but obviously I needed to add the implied word "other" - as in "Actually, yes - in case of decoy (I would expect the other FAM(s) to remain hidden)."
> > Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight > > situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here > > about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the > > other FAM stayed under cover. > > Why do you assume there was another FAM? Mr. Mazor can answer that.
Paul Nixon
mrtravel - 27 Dec 2005 02:36 GMT > That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are > replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the basic > idea of why there might be multiple FAM's on a flight in the first place, > but obviously I needed to add the implied word "other" - as in "Actually, > yes - in case of decoy (I would expect the other FAM(s) to remain hidden)." Until what point would you expect the other FAM to remain hidden, since it would be quite easy for terrorist to have a 2nd decoy.
khobar - 27 Dec 2005 07:50 GMT > > That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are > > replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the basic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Until what point would you expect the other FAM to remain hidden, since > it would be quite easy for terrorist to have a 2nd decoy. The answer is rather simple actually - it depends on the number of FAM's onboard. If there is one then he/she reacts when his/her judgement dictates. If there are two on board, then the primary will react when his/her judgement dictates and the secondary will react when his/her judgement dictates. If there are three on board, then the primary will react when his/her judgement dictates, the secondary will react when his/her judgement dictates, and the tertiary will react when his/her judgement dictates.
And so on, sequentially.
Paul Nixon
Please Do Not Feed the Troll - 27 Dec 2005 03:47 GMT >> >>>>Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy >> >>>>to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Paul Nixon You are arguing with a well-known troll, and it just gets him more sexually excited.
Usenet Public Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- is a 47 year old unemployed loser, fired by Cisco a year ago - has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES - has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES - is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager - has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7 - is such a loser he often responds to posts within one or two minutes - is an alcoholic and drug addict, often trolls while drunk and high - is a known liar and bullshitter, lies about everything - was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work - likes to make death threats - is a known pedophile and child sexual predator - is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel" 111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118 Scotts Valley, CA 95066
|
|