[quote]lixy wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
I gave it in response to your question so actually it is an answer. Surely you must realize I couldn’t give a fuck if you like it or not.
She wasn’t charged or arrested. Apparently she pissed someone off enough to call the police on her. People who travel are cautious about those who act up on airplanes since your pals flew a couple of them into the WTC. Again, I really couldn’t give a fuck if you agree with that or not.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Now, how do you explain the people who forced a man to remove his T-shirt then? How is that “awareness”?
Now…how about using the article you cited?
Do you sell used cars? Your mastery of the bait and switch is awe inspiring. [/quote]
Yes, Lixy - we are all waiting on you to admit that your “scare story” doesn’t exist in the article you cited and is one more example of you not reading the article you posted in opening the thread on a particular (scary) topic.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I gave it in response to your question so actually it is an answer. Surely you must realize I couldn’t give a fuck if you like it or not.
[/quote]
What you “gave” was a pathetic attempt at making it personal yet another time to draw the attention out of the issue. Your reply was “too bad it wasn’t you”. It was neither informative nor insightful. I seriously doubt anyone will find it funny either. In short, absolutely no added value to the thread.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, Lixy - we are all waiting on you to admit that your “scare story” doesn’t exist in the article you cited and is one more example of you not reading the article you posted in opening the thread on a particular (scary) topic.
Can you do that? [/quote]
The title of the article reads “Fair dinkum! Lingo sparks [b]US scare”[/b].
The Herald Sun had this to say:
“An Australian woman was branded a criminal by airline officials after “swearing” on an American flight - with a classic, and utterly inoffensive, Aussie oath.”
Instead of denouncing the ignorance and bullshit bureaucracy that caused this, you’re giving the benefit of the doubt to the airline. That’s fair enough by me, but don’t pretend like you didn’t read my post which unambiguously provides the context this event should be put into. Read it again if you must.
I, for one, will always give the benefit of the doubt to the underdog and that’s why I’ll keep putting Mrs. Reynolds’ word over that of SkyWest Airlines.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
I gave it in response to your question so actually it is an answer. Surely you must realize I couldn’t give a fuck if you like it or not.
What you “gave” was a pathetic attempt at making it personal yet another time to draw the attention out of the issue. Your reply was “too bad it wasn’t you”. It was neither informative nor insightful. I seriously doubt anyone will find it funny either. In short, absolutely no added value to the thread.
I take it that you fold at this point.[/quote]
Then you would be wrong again asshole.
It should have served to inform you that you were being insulted and mocked. I thought it funny. Remember you don’t have a sense of humor so your judgement regarding what is funny would be of little value little man.
You are hardly in any position to call anyone pathetic. You do realize your little Jihad is ridiculed daily on T-Nation.
Keep trying to deflect…somone will fall for it eventually.
The title of the article reads “Fair dinkum! Lingo sparks [b]US scare”[/b].
The Herald Sun had this to say:
“An Australian woman was branded a criminal by airline officials after “swearing” on an American flight - with a classic, and utterly inoffensive, Aussie oath.”
Instead of denouncing the ignorance and bullshit bureaucracy that caused this, you’re giving the benefit of the doubt to the airline. That’s fair enough by me, but don’t pretend like you didn’t read my post which unambiguously provides the context this event should be put into. Read it again if you must.[/quote]
The article is about wacky behavior on a plane - not a nefarious Big Brother exercise in restrciting liberties. Did you know you are a criminal if you try and smoke on an airplane?
Once again, your dubious use of an article makes the rest of us suspect.
You, for one, will manufacture stories with ideological slants when there isn’t one - better known as attempting propaganda.
[quote]hedo wrote:
It should have served to inform you that you were being insulted and mocked. I thought it funny. Remember you don’t have a sense of humor so your judgement regarding what is funny would be of little value little man. [/quote]
The point of comedy isn’t to make yourself laugh. Don’t they teach you that at clown school? Hedo, the wanker of comedy!
Often times, I salute Zap for his sharp wits despite the fact that they’re offensive to me. I can accept, ney welcome funny jokes at my expense as long as they bring added value to the boards. Yours was dull and made very little sense.
I’m still waiting for your take on the T-shirts incidents. Is that part of being “cautious”? Or did they blatantly cross the line?
On a side note, calling others “asshole” only deteriorates the quality of the debate, as illustrated by the “cheap-shot-replies” in my first paragraph. Let’s hope we manage to contain this and that it doesn’t degenerate into a name-calling contest.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The point of comedy isn’t to make yourself laugh. Don’t they teach you that at clown school? [i]Hedo, the wanker of comedy![/b]
Often times, I salute Zap for his sharp wits despite the fact that they’re offensive to me. I can accept, ney welcome funny jokes at my expense as long as they bring added value to the boards. Yours was dull and made very little sense.
I’m still waiting for your take on the T-shirts incidents. Is that part of being “cautious”? Or did they blatantly cross the line?
On a side note, calling others “asshole” only deteriorates the quality of the debate, as illustrated by the “cheap-shot-replies” in my first paragraph. Let’s hope we manage to contain this and that it doesn’t degenerate into a name-calling contest.[/quote]
You could have shortened your post down to 3 words: “Boo Hoo Hoo”.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
errr…It says F-A-R-C-E, not scare. That spells “farce” as far as I can tell. You know - a joke? A scam? Kinda what I have been saying all along.
Next time - you might want to read the words that are actually there, not the ones you make up in your very small little head.
What a dipshit…[/quote]
I know what a farce thank you very much.
If you bothered following your advice and actually read the article, you’d see that it says SCARE.
Look! It even says so on the article’s URL.
Don’t fell obligated to apologize for the gratuitous name calling.
All this article really says is that there was unthinking behavior on a passenger’s part coupled with douchebaggery on the airline’s part. If there was truly an issue, someone would have been arrested. Are airlines personnel more sensitive since 9/11? Yes, we all know that. Are there some dumbasses that work on airlines? Yes, we all know that too. Are there some people that do things without thinking? Yes, of course there are. It’s part of human nature.
People got pulled off of planes for being assholes all the time before 9/11 and it never made news. I know, because I’ve done quite a bit of traveling on planes and saw it first hand. After 9/11, it was only going to get worse for passenger’s and airline personnel because of the heightened sensitivity around airline security. Bottom line, this is a non-story.
Now, if she would have gotten dragged from the plane, got the shit beaten out of her and then carted away for further “questioning” then we would have a story.
I didn’t. Does this extend to buses, trains or restaurants?[/quote]
None of that matters - what is important is that there are number of very strict rules regarding behavior on flights, and the existence of these various rules (even with some of the ones stepped up after 9-11) are not evidence of “the terrorists winning”, as you tried to concoct.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maybe if you had included the proper link to the “scare” version… two different links, two different headlines. [/quote]
The “scare” version is the one in the OP. And if you read my post closely, you’ll see that I reply to TB who claims my article didn’t mention scare. I simply quoted the title, which article it was from was evident from the thread.
Here’s an excerpt of how it went:
[i]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, Lixy - we are all waiting on you to admit that your “scare story” doesn’t exist in the article you cited and is one more example of you not reading the article you posted in opening the thread on a particular (scary) topic.[/quote]
The title of the article reads “Fair dinkum! Lingo sparks US scare”.[/i]
Then I went on to show that other papers have used the same tone of “scare”. I named the paper from which the new article was caught (Herald Sun), quoted it, then linked to it. That you got confused because of your low attention span does not excuse your attitude nor your language.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
It should have served to inform you that you were being insulted and mocked. I thought it funny. Remember you don’t have a sense of humor so your judgement regarding what is funny would be of little value little man.
The point of comedy isn’t to make yourself laugh. Don’t they teach you that at clown school? Hedo, the wanker of comedy!
Often times, I salute Zap for his sharp wits despite the fact that they’re offensive to me. I can accept, ney welcome funny jokes at my expense as long as they bring added value to the boards. Yours was dull and made very little sense.
I’m still waiting for your take on the T-shirts incidents. Is that part of being “cautious”? Or did they blatantly cross the line?
On a side note, calling others “asshole” only deteriorates the quality of the debate, as illustrated by the “cheap-shot-replies” in my first paragraph. Let’s hope we manage to contain this and that it doesn’t degenerate into a name-calling contest.[/quote]
I already gave my “take”. Your ignorance must be blissful.
Well lixy, you have to find something funny before you write it. Since you simply cut and paste the writing of others, I’m not suprised you wouldn’t understand. Besides, as noted previously I really don’t value what you think. Clown School…wanker of comedy…does that pass for humor in the Arab world. Certainly explains a lot if it does. Tell your cell leader you need better material.
Do you feel you are a moderator and can influence what others post? Asshole. But if you don’t like the term asshole I’ll call you something else. Your hardly in a position to determine quality debate since it dropped considerably since T-Nation became your latest target for cyber-Jihad.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
None of that matters - what is important is that there are number of very strict rules regarding behavior on flights, and the existence of these various rules (even with some of the ones stepped up after 9-11) are not evidence of “the terrorists winning”, as you tried to concoct.
[/quote]
This makes me curious. Let’s substitute “exerting influence” for “winning” and see what we get. Is there evidence of terrorist influence on US domestic policies? Yes, assuredly.
Now, the question remains, how much influence is required for them to “win”. Surely a damned sight more than we’ve seen. However, if more and more totalitarian measures are taken, while simultaneously the US is bankrupting itself, then they are certainly getting closer to some imaginary line.
However, I, for one, am hopeful the US will wake up from it’s knee-jerk mentality and start exerting it’s principles a little more forcefully before that actually happens.
I didn’t. Does this extend to buses, trains or restaurants?
None of that matters [/quote]
And by “none” you mean…?
I asked a fairly simple question. A yes/no/don’t_know would have done the trick.
[quote]what is important is that there are number of very strict rules regarding behavior on flights, and the existence of these various rules (even with some of the ones stepped up after 9-11) are not evidence of “the terrorists winning”, as you tried to concoct.
[/quote]
I didn’t try to concoct anything. Technically, the goal of a suicide bomber is to terminate his life and bring down as many people with him as possible. In the sense that the 9/11 crew won their ticket to the afterlife, they unequivocally won. You need to understand that there’s no such thing as defeating a guy who wants to die. You can’t kill him twice. And I think we can all agree that their goal of “terrorizing” people has been achieved as well. Don’t pretend that they didn’t instill terror because they most certainly have. The attacks on Casablanca represented a 1/100th of what you endured on 9/11, but there was a very noticeable fear going on in the subsequent weeks. If in that Islamic country, the mass was cheering while cops randomly arresting people with beards, I can only imagine the response you must have had over there.
AllDurr may be onto something when he says that such incidents started catching the attention of the media post-9/11, and that may very well be true for this case. We can only speculate. One thing is for sure though, the guys asked to remove their T-shirts before boarding the plane would have definitely been reported if it had happened pre-9/11. More than that, it would have caused an uproar.
The job of an Al-Qaeda style terrorist is simple: Die, scare, and kill people in that order of importance. On all accounts they have succeeded in their despicable mission. Refusing to acknowledge makes you sound like an overly proud kid who lives in a fantasy world and refuses to see the reality.
This makes me curious. Let’s substitute “exerting influence” for “winning” and see what we get. Is there evidence of terrorist influence on US domestic policies? Yes, assuredly.
Now, the question remains, how much influence is required for them to “win”. Surely a damned sight more than we’ve seen. However, if more and more totalitarian measures are taken, while simultaneously the US is bankrupting itself, then they are certainly getting closer to some imaginary line.
However, I, for one, am hopeful the US will wake up from it’s knee-jerk mentality and start exerting it’s principles a little more forcefully before that actually happens.[/quote]
Dealing with a troublesome passenger, even if excessively, is a “totalitarian measure”? It remains hard to take you seriously - you continue to foster a paranoia that can’t be sustained on the basis of the facts on the ground (or in the air).
No doubt there is “influence” after 9/11 - and there should be. That is the process of learning through experience. Part of our vulnerability is our being an open, liberal society - so adjustments are naturally made to try and close a few windows of vulnerability.
But no one’s civil liberties got put in the cross-hairs because some lady acted bizarre on a flight - as Al Durr said, this is a non-story.
If you think the US - while tweaking its security measures - is a borderline totalitarian state, then make the case. As it comes to civil liberties, you haven’t made it yet, and you likely won’t.
