Aussies On A Planes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I’m re-reading the article for the third time, and I’m trying to find some mention of the “panic” and “fear” you and lixy have described.

The woman was acting bitchy all flight, as you pointed out, and the flight attendant thought she swore at her.

According to the article, the flight attendant calmly asked for her passport and took down her name so that she could be reported to the authority for making a scene on the plane, which has been standard practice for as long as I’ve been flying; long before 9/11. Unruly passengers annoying others on the plane and are reported, as they should be.

Please, someone, anyone point out where in the article describes the “panic” and “fear”.[/quote]

First, I found it humorous.

Second, the fear and panic is an inference based on the behavior taken. A person disliking the service she is getting may not warrant three officers at the gate.

Of course, any actual fear and panic is pretty unlikely, but then the alternative is a little power trip on behalf of the stewardess.

Take your pick, I don’t care.

42

[quote]vroom wrote:
Second, the fear and panic is an inference based on the behavior taken. A person disliking the service she is getting may not warrant three officers at the gate.

Of course, any actual fear and panic is pretty unlikely, but then the alternative is a little power trip on behalf of the stewardess.

Take your pick, I don’t care.[/quote]

Or it could be the passenger was an asshole - as inferred in the article - and the stewardess had had enough of her shit.

Maybe we need to get the passenger to sit under you thinking tree so we can understand how she was so mis-treated that she had to act out.

There was no fear inferred by any behavior taken. I swear - do they not sell common sense in Canada, or Sweden?

43

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:

Hardly…

Tokoya wrote:

Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes, trains, or automobiles for that matter.

Truth hurts.

Yeah, I know.

The allmost exclusive monopoly for spreading terro…, um, shock and awe using planes is held by the US of A.

You, as in an average world citizen, are far more likely to die because of an American bomb dropped out of a plane then to die in a hostage situation on a plane.

Far, far, more likely.

Actually since the thread was about terror on planes (or it could have been trains since we’ve seen their handiwork in Madrid) I’d say you suspend the myopia about shock and awe, and keep your eye on the ball.

Mohammed Atta would have loved the way you think. I know Lixy does. [/quote]

You posted, and I quote:

“Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes…”,

which is of course horseshit unless you narrow down your definitions of “acts of terror” until they only fit your enemies.

I suggest you keep your eye on the whole playing field.

44

[quote]orion wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:

Hardly…

Tokoya wrote:

Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes, trains, or automobiles for that matter.

Truth hurts.

Yeah, I know.

The allmost exclusive monopoly for spreading terro…, um, shock and awe using planes is held by the US of A.

You, as in an average world citizen, are far more likely to die because of an American bomb dropped out of a plane then to die in a hostage situation on a plane.

Far, far, more likely.

Actually since the thread was about terror on planes (or it could have been trains since we’ve seen their handiwork in Madrid) I’d say you suspend the myopia about shock and awe, and keep your eye on the ball.

Mohammed Atta would have loved the way you think. I know Lixy does.

You posted, and I quote:

“Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes…”,

which is of course horseshit unless you narrow down your definitions of “acts of terror” until they only fit your enemies.

I suggest you keep your eye on the whole playing field.

[/quote]

Do you consider all police and soldiers terrorists?

45

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Or it could be the passenger was an asshole - as inferred in the article - and the stewardess had had enough of her shit.

Maybe we need to get the passenger to sit under you thinking tree so we can understand how she was so mis-treated that she had to act out.

There was no fear inferred by any behavior taken. I swear - do they not sell common sense in Canada, or Sweden?[/quote]

Rainjack, there is a thing known as an opinion. You are certainly welcome to yours, just as I am welcome to mine.

There is obviously no law against having an abrasive personality, as you aptly demonstrate every time you post, but I’ve flown on planes very many times. If the passenger had done more than indicated it should have been mentioned in the article that we read.

The fact you wish to “infer” information about the passenger and others wish to “infer” information about the airline or authority figures is simply a matter of viewpoint. Many people are more concerned about abuse of authority than they are about civilians abusing people in positions of authority.

The fact that you, or the airlines, or whatever get so uptight about any fluanting of authority does show some type of fear… through a need for control. This has invaded US culture since 9/11. While fear may not be the right term, or the aspect of change, there is some type of social hysteria going on.

Perhaps you could tell us which inferences you choose to make, yes I know you already did, without showering insults over everyone on the planet who doesn’t hold your viewpoint?

46

I fly at least once a week. I don’t see any social hysteria going on around me. People are more aware of the possibility of terrorism because two American cities were attacked and 3000 people lost their lives.

People aren’t scared. They are cautious. The folks on the planes during 9/11 were scared. Now those fucks would be beaten to death by the other passengers. Hardly fear, more aware of the possibilities of inaction.

47

[quote]vroom wrote:
The fact you wish to “infer” information about the passenger and others wish to “infer” information about the airline or authority figures is simply a matter of viewpoint. Many people are more concerned about abuse of authority than they are about civilians abusing people in positions of authority.

The fact that you, or the airlines, or whatever get so uptight about any fluanting of authority does show some type of fear… through a need for control. This has invaded US culture since 9/11. While fear may not be the right term, or the aspect of change, there is some type of social hysteria going on.

Perhaps you could tell us which inferences you choose to make, yes I know you already did, without showering insults over everyone on the planet who doesn’t hold your viewpoint?[/quote]

Did you read the article? It says in there that the woman had been doing whatever it was she was doing the entire flight. I have been on many flights, and I have seen some people be total assholes. They should have been removed from the plane.

I have not - since 9/12/01 got on a plane with even the slightest fear of anything besides plowing into the Gulf of Mexico. But that has nothing to do with the times.

The story was not newsworthy in the first place. Assholes are dealt with every day. Not out of fear, but because they are assholes.

The challenge remains: Show me anything in the article that would lead a rational person to believe that the incident was motivated by fear.

You can’t…which should be your mantra.

48

[quote]hedo wrote:
I fly at least once a week. I don’t see any social hysteria going on around me. People are more aware of the possibility of terrorism because two American cities were attacked and 3000 people lost their lives.

People aren’t scared. They are cautious. The folks on the planes during 9/11 were scared. Now those fucks would be beaten to death by the other passengers. Hardly fear, more aware of the possibilities of inaction.[/quote]

Hedo, I know you what you mean. I don’t mean to imply that everyone is acting scared, but that a lot of changes and adjustments have been made.

Most seem more than appropriate. Some seem to show people overreacting in terms of laws passed, actions taken, or mistakes made in misapplication of the rules for situations that do not seem to have anything to do with terrorism.

In general though there seems to be more clamoring for people to follow the rules… or else. It’s a nebulous thing and maybe it was always present anyway.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
orion wrote:

Hardly…

Tokoya wrote:

Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes, trains, or automobiles for that matter.

Truth hurts.

Yeah, I know.

The allmost exclusive monopoly for spreading terro…, um, shock and awe using planes is held by the US of A.

You, as in an average world citizen, are far more likely to die because of an American bomb dropped out of a plane then to die in a hostage situation on a plane.

Far, far, more likely.

Actually since the thread was about terror on planes (or it could have been trains since we’ve seen their handiwork in Madrid) I’d say you suspend the myopia about shock and awe, and keep your eye on the ball.

Mohammed Atta would have loved the way you think. I know Lixy does.

You posted, and I quote:

“Lixy understands that statistically, muslims are much more likely than any other segment on the planet to commit acts of terror using planes…”,

which is of course horseshit unless you narrow down your definitions of “acts of terror” until they only fit your enemies.

I suggest you keep your eye on the whole playing field.

Do you consider all police and soldiers terrorists?[/quote]

No.

I am also not against using terror as a tactic, especially not when it saves lives in long run.

I just despise manipulative double-speak.

50

[quote]vroom wrote:
The fact that you, or the airlines, or whatever get so uptight about any fluanting of authority does show some type of fear… through a need for control. This has invaded US culture since 9/11. While fear may not be the right term, or the aspect of change, there is some type of social hysteria going on. [/quote]

Rudy Giuliani sums it up pretty nicely.

[b]�??Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.�??[/b]

http://www.rmchronicle.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1138

The Orwellian aspect would be comical if the guy wasn’t a US presidential candidate.

51

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Did you read the article? It says in there that the woman had been doing whatever it was she was doing the entire flight. I have been on many flights, and I have seen some people be total assholes. They should have been removed from the plane.[/quote]

This is silly. Perhaps you could pull a quote out of the article to support your claim. Here, let me help, here is the article that I read:
[i]
Strewth. Crikey. Bloody hell. An Australian woman has reportedly sparked a security scare aboard a US flight after her use of a common Australian phrase was apparently misinterpreted as an act of aggression.

Sophie Reynolds, 41, from Queanbeyan, was flying aboard SkyWest Airlines from Atlanta to Pittsburgh this week when she asked a flight attendant if she could have a pack of pretzels instead of crackers.

“[The flight attendant] said they didn’t have any [pretzels], and I said, ‘Fair dinkum,’ out of frustration,” Reynolds was quoted as saying in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Before she knew it a second flight attendant asked her for her passport and copied down her name.

Then, when the flight landed, three uniformed officers greeted her.

“They said, 'You swore at the hostess and there are federal rules against that,”’ Reynolds said. “And I said, 'I did not swear at the hostess, I just said 'fair dinkum.”’

A spokeswoman for the airline said it was not simply a matter of misunderstanding the language.

“We witnessed aggressive behaviour throughout the flight,” she said.

Reynolds was not charged and allowed to go on her way, she said.[/i]

I imagine you are referring to aggressive behavior? That is a pretty nebulous statement. The fact you believe it, without question, just shows you prefer to believe the viewpoint (unsupported mind you) of authority figures. That is fine, but you have no more proof than anyone else.

[quote]
The challenge remains: Show me anything in the article that would lead a rational person to believe that the incident was motivated by fear.

You can’t…which should be your mantra. [/quote]

Here is the part I’d point to…
[i]
Then, when the flight landed, three uniformed officers greeted her.

“They said, 'You swore at the hostess and there are federal rules against that,”’ Reynolds said. “And I said, 'I did not swear at the hostess, I just said 'fair dinkum.”’

A spokeswoman for the airline said it was not simply a matter of misunderstanding the language.
[/i]

So, we have the person confronted by authorities for “swearing” and then we have some unnamed official corporate spokeworm for the airlines.

Being a big organization the airline will never admit blame and would happily come up with some unsubstantiated smarmy comment about the woman’s behavior in an attempt to save face.

You have your interpretation, I have mine, and they are both supported by the story. That’s the way it works!

All that being said, one of the first things I wrote was that it was funny. And, like it or not, it is an example of new rules based on fears of terrorism, which in this case appear to have been misapplied due to a language issue.

Anything else you’d like me to spell out for you?

52

[quote]hedo wrote:
People aren’t scared. They are cautious. The folks on the planes during 9/11 were scared. Now those fucks would be beaten to death by the other passengers. Hardly fear, more aware of the possibilities of inaction.[/quote]

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

Now, how do you explain the people who forced a man to remove his T-shirt then? How is that “awareness”?

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
In general though there seems to be more clamoring for people to follow the rules… or else. It’s a nebulous thing and maybe it was always present anyway.[/quote]

So following the rules is a sign of fear? Man - you guys can connect dots where none exist.

The only fear one can rationally expect to be present is a fear of the consequences of breaking said rule.

How you can take that and connect to Post 9/11 fear mongering is just way too far of a leap for any right-thinking person to take.

My kids know if they start a fight at school - they are in deep shit when they get home. Are they victims of post 9/11? Or are they scared shitless of getting a belt to the backside?

Your point, or your attempt at one is quite humorous.

54

You copied and pasted, but didn’t even read the hook of the entire article.

Please don’t try to spell anything else out for me. You seem to have trouble with entire sentences - how am I to trust your spelling?

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, how do you explain the people who forced a man to remove his T-shirt then? How is that “awareness”?[/quote]

Now…how about using the article you cited?

Do you sell used cars? Your mastery of the bait and switch is awe inspiring.

56

[quote]vroom wrote:
Here is the part I’d point to…
[i]
Then, when the flight landed, three uniformed officers greeted her.

“They said, 'You swore at the hostess and there are federal rules against that,”’ Reynolds said. “And I said, 'I did not swear at the hostess, I just said 'fair dinkum.”’

A spokeswoman for the airline said it was not simply a matter of misunderstanding the language.
[/i]
[/quote]

Show me the fear. It is not there. Let me spell it out for you: F-E-A-R.

No rational person would connect dots like you did- unless they already had a destination in mind.

Were the airlines being assholes as well? Probably. But where does that line up with yours and lixy’s assertion that it was motivated by fear?

It’s not there. You can look at it any way you like, but the article does not demonstrate fear.

57

[quote]rainjack wrote:
“We witnessed aggressive behaviour throughout the flight,”

You copied and pasted, but didn’t even read the hook of the entire article.

Please don’t try to spell anything else out for me. You seem to have trouble with entire sentences - how am I to trust your spelling? [/quote]

If you are talking to me, I quoted that part specifically as both part of “your” viewpoint and “my” viewpoint. How about you stop fighting and simply understand that two well intended people can both read something and come away with different opinions on it.

Instead of the baseless attacks, which make you look foolish, how about some substance for a change.

58

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
People aren’t scared. They are cautious. The folks on the planes during 9/11 were scared. Now those fucks would be beaten to death by the other passengers. Hardly fear, more aware of the possibilities of inaction.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

Now, how do you explain the people who forced a man to remove his T-shirt then? How is that “awareness”?[/quote]

Too bad it wasn’t you.

Buying a ticket doesn’t give you the right to be an asshole or create your own environment. Don’t fly if you can’t be civil at least for a few hours.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s not there. You can look at it any way you like, but the article does not demonstrate fear.
[/quote]

Lixy is the one who appears to be pushing specifically for fear. Perhaps you should ask him to support it.

I’ve outlined why I feel you could connect it to a general hysteria but you don’t agree. That’s fine. I’ve also mentioned, in my first explanatory response that mostly I found the whole item funny.

Is there ever going to be a day that you actually decide to respect opinions held by people that don’t think like you?

60

[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
People aren’t scared. They are cautious. The folks on the planes during 9/11 were scared. Now those fucks would be beaten to death by the other passengers. Hardly fear, more aware of the possibilities of inaction.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

Now, how do you explain the people who forced a man to remove his T-shirt then? How is that “awareness”?

Too bad it wasn’t you. [/quote]

That’s not an answer.

You claim that people are merely cautious, and yet, fail to explain what caution there is in the T-shirt incidents.