"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:1Q%Lf.5321$M52.3777@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly
believe
a tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss
Army knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving
end of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle.

Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Indeed, Max. You are, indeed, wrong and everyone here knows it. I
wasn't referring to those little 2 oz spirits bottles. I guess you
don't drink wine and/or travel on crappy airlines.

No, I don't drink the bilgewater wine served on airplanes. I do see the
little wine bottles, however, and they aren't much bigger than the 2oz.
liquour bottles--maybe 6 oz. max. Mooron says he sees half liter bottles on
planes. I don't believe I've ever seen half liter bottles--half bottles
(375 ml.) yes, but half liter? Never heard of 'em. And I've never seen
half bottles on a plane. Only the peewee ones.


Keep digging a deeper hole. Oz is an ex-cop and I believe Mooron WRT
fighting experience far more than I believe you.

And why is that? Because he's supportive of your argument? Because he's
Canadian, not American? Your rationale for assessing credibility
demonstrates a lack of knowledge and more than a bit of prejudice, methinks.
To your credit, I've had very little fighting experience--mostly parking lot
brawls after drinking too much in college. But I have had fairly extensive
training that neither you nor he knows anything about (at least prior to my
last post to him in this thread). Your decree that you believe him more
than me is not borne of knowledge, rather of prejudice.

As for me, I have no
'hands-on' experience, but I know what you can fashion from a broken
bottle, and unlike a box cutter, it's a weapon with both a cutting edge
*and* stabbing ability sufficient to reach major organs.

You should have quit with the "I have no hands-on experience." Your last
statement is redundant.

I just snipped the rest - irrelevant. You're just flailing about in a
****-poor attempt to avoid admitting the whole airline 'security' caper
is smoke & mirrors, incapable of achieving its stated purpose.

No, I admitted it may be just that. I also acknowledge that it *may* be
effective and working as intended. The evidence sides with the latter, but
no one really knows for sure. Certainly you, Mooron, and Ozzy don't. Until
another plane is hijacked, it's anyone's guess. You, however, make blanket
statements with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Your antipathy toward
the US is your only basis for making such statements, and that shows your
ignorance. If another four planes had been hijacked subsequent to 9/11,
your opinion would bear some credibility. As it is, your opinion is just
that--an unsupported opinion.


All that was needed was secure doors between the pilot's compartment &
the pax space. Damn, that was real difficult to work out oh, about 30
years ago...........

I can't believe I'm reading this from a purportedly intelligent human. So
such a secure cockpit access door would stop a flight crew from acceding to
hijackers' demands if they were carrying a bomb? Are you implying that
hijackers would simply give up if they couldn't gain access to the cockpit.
(Oh ****, Achmed, the pilot won't let us in, and the door is locked. Let's
give the bomb and our guns to the flight attendants and maybe they'll let us
off with a slap on the wrist.") The key to preventing a repeat of 9/11 is
to prevent the hijacking in the first place.

While I'm digging the hole you seem to think I am, you might notice the
self-imposed 20' deep well you're currently standing in, Pete.


Max