On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:37:46 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

I
don't trust the planes and the people that operate and maintain them, even
though I realize that US based airlines have an excellent safety record.

Yeah, but will it continue with maintenance being outsourced.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...intenance.html

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Well, then, I need to get a tee-shirt that says:

F*ck the F*cking Republicans


Free speech or not, how do you possibly justify wearing something like that
in mixed company including young children old enough to read and senior
citizens who may be deeply disturbed by it.

No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket. It's being led
there by selfish "adults" who care for nothing but their own agenda. Whew,
it stinks!

Eisboch

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
hlink.net...
In a public place, the woman should be allowed to wear whatever she wants
to
wear.

Jim




Does that include nothing?

Technically, that should be the case. Simple nudity should be considered as
nothing special, but there's no such thing as simple nudity. So the
practical answer should be no. Personally, I don't want to see most of us
naked in public; but that's just me.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

A airline is considered a "public accommodation", not "private property",
and they are limited in the rules they can set. If you think not, think
if an airline can refuse boarding because of race. The question is one of
obscenity. My guess is, as obnoxious as she may have been, it *is*
probably protected speech.

Not all speech is protected under all circumstances.

It is very common for babies to have trouble equalizing when flying.


"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html


The woman was right; the airline was wrong.
Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in
their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in
violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the
"word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can
set
their own standards.

Eisboch


Airline? Standards? Surely you jest. On my flight back from Hawai'i to
San Francisco, two rows in front of me, there was a couple incapable of
controlling their crying, screaming brats. The two kids whined all the
way back to the mainland, for four and a half hours. without letup. I
asked one of the flight attendants to ask the couple to either control
their brats or to move them to a less-occupied part of the plane. She
refused.

At least 20 other passengers complained. Those brats were more offense
than anyone's shirt.


Crying kids are part of our world Harry and, although annoying to you,
are
not unique.

I've flew many miles in my working days and crying babies and bratty
kids
where often part of the experience. On occasion I even had my own crying
baby along.

Your standards for travel are too high for commercial airlines. Buy your
own
jet.

Eisboch



Hey, I'm not talking about a half hour of crying and screaming; these two
brats would not shut up the entire trip.

Then, Harry, the most likely explanation is that they were in pain.

Harry,
Since babies do have trouble equalizing and can be in pain when flying, it
appears you are doing a bit of projecting.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bryan wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html


The woman was right; the airline was wrong.
Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in
their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in
violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the
"word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can
set
their own standards.

Eisboch


Airline? Standards? Surely you jest. On my flight back from Hawai'i to
San Francisco, two rows in front of me, there was a couple incapable
of
controlling their crying, screaming brats. The two kids whined all the
way back to the mainland, for four and a half hours. without letup. I
asked one of the flight attendants to ask the couple to either control
their brats or to move them to a less-occupied part of the plane. She
refused.

At least 20 other passengers complained. Those brats were more offense
than anyone's shirt.

Crying kids are part of our world Harry and, although annoying to you,
are
not unique.

I've flew many miles in my working days and crying babies and bratty
kids
where often part of the experience. On occasion I even had my own
crying
baby along.

Your standards for travel are too high for commercial airlines. Buy
your own
jet.

Eisboch


Hey, I'm not talking about a half hour of crying and screaming; these
two brats would not shut up the entire trip.

Then, Harry, the most likely explanation is that they were in pain.

No, the most likely explanation is that they have incompetent parents.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



I think it perfectly appropriate to wear clothing that says
F*ck Bush, if one feels like doing that.


And the mudrats on your plane were simply exercising their right to free
speech and expression.

So what's the problem?

Eisboch

Bryan wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...

JIMinFL wrote:

Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html



The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in
their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in

violation

of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the

"word".

Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can

set

their own standards.

Eisboch



Airline? Standards? Surely you jest. On my flight back from Hawai'i to
San Francisco, two rows in front of me, there was a couple incapable of
controlling their crying, screaming brats. The two kids whined all the
way back to the mainland, for four and a half hours. without letup. I
asked one of the flight attendants to ask the couple to either control
their brats or to move them to a less-occupied part of the plane. She
refused.

At least 20 other passengers complained. Those brats were more offense
than anyone's shirt.


Crying kids are part of our world Harry and, although annoying to you,
are
not unique.

I've flew many miles in my working days and crying babies and bratty kids
where often part of the experience. On occasion I even had my own crying
baby along.

Your standards for travel are too high for commercial airlines. Buy your
own
jet.

Eisboch



Hey, I'm not talking about a half hour of crying and screaming; these two
brats would not shut up the entire trip.


Then, Harry, the most likely explanation is that they were in pain.


The parents probably should have given the kids a drink. Swallowing
helps equalize the air pressure in the inner ear.

Harry,
Are you encouraging the use of corporal punishment?
Sounds very "liberal" of you.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Bryan wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...

JIMinFL wrote:

Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html



The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in
their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in

violation

of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the

"word".

Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines
can

set

their own standards.

Eisboch



Airline? Standards? Surely you jest. On my flight back from Hawai'i
to
San Francisco, two rows in front of me, there was a couple incapable
of
controlling their crying, screaming brats. The two kids whined all
the
way back to the mainland, for four and a half hours. without letup. I
asked one of the flight attendants to ask the couple to either
control
their brats or to move them to a less-occupied part of the plane. She
refused.

At least 20 other passengers complained. Those brats were more
offense
than anyone's shirt.


Crying kids are part of our world Harry and, although annoying to you,
are
not unique.

I've flew many miles in my working days and crying babies and bratty
kids
where often part of the experience. On occasion I even had my own
crying
baby along.

Your standards for travel are too high for commercial airlines. Buy
your own
jet.

Eisboch



Hey, I'm not talking about a half hour of crying and screaming; these
two brats would not shut up the entire trip.


Then, Harry, the most likely explanation is that they were in pain.

The parents probably should have given the kids a drink. Swallowing helps
equalize the air pressure in the inner ear.


You're assuming the kids were in pain, and the parents did give them
plenty to drink. I'm assuming the parents were obnoxious. In fact, they
were on the continuation of the flight to Minneapolis, and the person who
was sitting next to them INSISTED that her seat be moved far away from the
brats. The mother of the kids said in a snarly voice, "This woman has an
issue with my children." At that point, I piped up and said, "You're the
issue, mother of the year. Control your kids."

If I had carried on like that for as long as those kids did, my father
would have threatened to put me into low-earth orbit. My father never hit
me, but he was a sturdy fellow and very strong. I took him seriously.

These weren't infants, by the way. They were toddlers. And they were
whining in the terminal too, before the continuation of the flight.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

A airline is considered a "public accommodation", not "private property",
and they are limited in the rules they can set. If you think not, think
if an airline can refuse boarding because of race. The question is one of
obscenity. My guess is, as obnoxious as she may have been, it *is*
probably protected speech.

If everytime someone with purple hair walks into my business he robs me then
what I am I to do? Keep letting people with purple hair into my business?