#How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
Kurt Nicklas
by Randy Plante
01/05/2010
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35060
The attempted bombing of Delta/Northwest 253 on Christmas Day was not
the first from the Islamic terrorists nor will it be the last. Since
I am a pilot, I have had people ask what can a passenger do onboard an
airplane to help thwart a terrorist attack. Having personal
experience with a few events myself, as well as reading articles and
hearing stories from other crewmembers, I can give you some
information which might assist you in dealing with a suspicious
passenger or situation.
The first thing to realize is that there are a few different scenarios
which the terrorists could be using on your particular flight. (Also
realize that it could happen on any flight, not just one originating
from a non U.S. location.) Options include testing TSA and law
enforcement personnel, testing passengers and crewmembers,
observation, dry run/practice, and actual execution of an attack. Of
course it is hard to differentiate which scenario is playing out until
after your flight lands, but it might assist you in recognizing the
threat and knowing how serious your reaction should be if you know all
of the options. In most of these instances, their job is to also scare
you. Terrorists create terror. If you stop flying, they win. So be
pro-active. Maybe something you do will cause them to call off the
attack.
As a passenger you must be observant and vigilant. Most often someone
notices some unusual activity or behavior. It doesn’t have to be just
a person either. Suspicious bags, luggage, packages, notes, pillows,
and electronic devices have been found on planes. One of the biggest
advantages you have is the ability to profile. TSA refuses to do the
obvious thanks to political correctness. Everyone knows who is
committing these attacks -- Muslim, Middle-Eastern men between 18 and
40. Maybe al Qaeda is trying to recruit others than don’t fit this
profile but it sure fits the mold right now.
Some things to look for: groups or pairs of men, a passenger talking
to themselves, speaking Arabic, watching crewmembers (this is
different than looking), staring at the cockpit door, long stays or
multiple trips to the lavatory, reading a book but not turning any
pages, nervousness, being unusual by trying to fit in, taking pictures/
videos, not making eye contact. When you are at the boarding area and
on the plane if you notice a suspicious passenger, look for others.
How many? If it is one or two then they could be planning on bombing
the aircraft or just making observations of crew procedures. 6 or
more? Then this cell’s objective would be hijacking the plane by
brute force. Also remember that there are sleepers that try to blend
in with the other passengers and could be very hard to notice. A
website reports a well-dressed man in custody that was also a
passenger on Delta Flight 253. After an incident, your entire plane
might be delayed for security and they will treat everyone as
suspects. Also expect the government and airline to try to cover up
parts or all of an event.
A recent example of a possible test occurred on Nov 17 with an Airtran
flight from Atlanta to Houston. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane and
caused a big disturbance and ended with passengers assisting the
flight attendants in the commotion. TSA was called, they took the men
off, talked to them, and put them back on. The crewmembers walked off
the plane refusing to fly it, and then passengers walked off as well.
The terrorists tested the TSA and passengers but probably also
threatened lawsuits to the government and Airtran. This could be
setting up a later mission with hopes the TSA and airline would be
afraid to take them off the plane. Just like the Delta flight, the
final layer of security, the crewmembers and passengers, are the ones
who might have prevented an attack, nothing the government did was
successful.
The best time to do something is prior to boarding and before the
aircraft pushes back from the gate while the door is still open. This
is when you have some control in the situation and easier for the
captain to get involved. Before you board you can talk to a TSA
employee or gate agent and explain your concerns. The gate agents are
usually very busy and might give you the brush off. Talk to other
passengers. While on the plane you will have to find a flight
attendant, which could prove difficult because at times the boarding
process can be quite chaotic. If one flight attendant seems to ignore
you then talk to the other one. Maybe ask to see the captain. Write
a note. If you are really scared, grab your bags, say you are sick,
and get off the plane. Some crewmembers can be just as ignorant about
the serious nature of the threat as our government officials. One
time after a flight years ago a flight attendant asked me what the
captain did about the suspicious passenger. She had called the cockpit
inflight to report the behavior to the captain (since retired) and he
neglected to tell me anything and did nothing.
While seated look for able-bodied men, military personnel, or
deadheading crew to assist you. Maybe you notice a suspicious
passenger but do not feel it warrants a visit with TSA/Flight
Attendant or it happens inflight . Volunteer yourself or change seats
on your own to sit next to or right behind any suspicious passengers.
A recent crew moved a soldier to sit next to a nervous Middle-Eastern
passenger before pushback. Once while I was deadheading in coach
during a flight, the captain told the flight attendant to move me next
to a suspicious passenger.
Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A divert
takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight I diverted
for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot us down
if we didn’t immediately land.
If an actual attack occurs, then all bets are off. Take Action! DO
NOT wait for crewmember instruction! This is a life or death
situation. The terrorists will be hoping for the element of
surprise. You will probably die anyways if the terrorists are
successful so you might as well die giving them a fight. If it is a
hijacking, block the aisles and do not let them get to the cockpit.
For a bombing, jump on the passenger and separate him from the
ignition source. For a suspicious package, box, etc. there is a place
on the plane to move it to, but do not move it until necessary and
with guidance from the crew.
The airlines are doing their best just to stay in business with the
recession, bad weather, tough competition, and low fares. The
employees are very frustrated with pay cuts, long hours, full planes,
grumpy customers and poor morale. The commercial aviation system
wasn’t designed to fight terrorists. And don’t necessarily blame the
TSA and law enforcement agencies. They have some really hard working
personnel trying to protect us. It is the policies implemented by
people working in the U.S. government that is the problem, and amazing
enough, it is the federal government that is required by law to defend
us by the U.S. constitution. So what do they do? President Obama
decides to take legal action against CIA employees for using special
interrogation techniques to obtain information from terrorists to keep
us safe. It was an obvious emotional, liberal, political decision.
This will only make it much more difficult for the intelligence
agencies to do their jobs and recruit/retain top talent, as well as
lowering morale.
Another government employee, the DHS Secretary herself, said after the
12/25 attempted bombing, “the system worked” when it was obvious to
the world that it did not. The news media gave President Bush an
amazing amount of grief for not connecting the dots with 9/11.
Regarding the underwear bomber on Flight 253; his father warned the
government, was on a watch list, paid cash for his ticket, no
passport, no luggage. A third grader could have connected these dots.
The Republicans had to undo the laws and policies enacted by the
Clinton Administration that impeded communication between intelligence
and law enforcement agencies while President Bush implemented new ones
to protect us after September 11. Now Democrats are acting like it
is September 10 again.
Government by definition is a bureaucratic monopoly. It is managed by
politicians and career bureaucrats. Slow, inefficient, unaccountable.
Lots of finger pointing, blame games, commissions, hearings,
conferences, meetings, and reports, but do you know anybody that got
fired after 9/11, Fort Hood, or any other government blunder? Deja
vous with this security lapse? It feels like we are on a team that
wants to lose. And I don’t like being on a team that likes losing and
neither does millions of people across the United States.
Unfortunately, until the Obama administration, Congress, and our
government officials get serious with national security and the war on
terrorism, then what we will lose is more of our freedoms and the
lives of more American citizens.
edi...@netpath.net
> Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
> attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A divert
> takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight I diverted
> for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot us down
> if we didn’t immediately land.
Pilot better wake up. First actual shootdown of any airliner by any
American military - and no American will be willing to fly commercial
any trip under 1,000 miles after. Either - as he says - the damn
regime starts profiling the only people who are jihadists (Moslems) -
or the airline industry is one incident away from bankruptcy.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Father Haskell
Put dogs on the planes. Ain't no fanatic fanatical enough
to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
Christopher A. Lee
Could even be a friendly one - a Muslim terrorist hates dogs because
they're unclean.
AZ Nomad
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 5, 8:20?pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 7:56?pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Once airborne there are limited options. ?Talking to the flight
>>> > attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. ?A divert
>>> > takes time and would be a major emergency. ?On the flight I diverted
>>> > for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot us down
>>> > if we didn?t immediately land.
>>>
>>> Pilot better wake up. ?First actual shootdown of any airliner by any
>>> American military - and no American will be willing to fly commercial
>>> any trip under 1,000 miles after. ?Either - as he says - the damn
>>> regime starts profiling the only people who are jihadists (Moslems) -
>>> or the airline industry is one incident away from bankruptcy.
>>
>>Put dogs on the planes. Ain't no fanatic fanatical enough
>>to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
>Could even be a friendly one - a Muslim terrorist hates dogs because
>they're unclean.
A muslim terrorist also hates the west including everything about the
west including the airplane, and everybody aboard. A dog isn't going
to make any difference.
Father Haskell
> A muslim terrorist also hates the west including everything about the
> west including the airplane, and everybody aboard. A dog isn't going
> to make any difference.
An 80 lb dog most certainly will, particularly when incoming
at 25 mph.
Not Sure
> How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
Step 1: Keep the Muslimes off airplanes.
Step 2: The End
Not Sure
Fairly ironic considering most Muslimes haven't showered since the
Reagan administration.
Father Haskell
Shepherd is the perfect breed.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:29�pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 5, 8:20�pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 5, 7:56�pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Once airborne there are limited options. �Talking to the flight
>> >> > attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. �A
>> >> > divert takes time and would be a major emergency. �On the flight
>> >> > I diverted
>> >> > for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
>> >> > us down
>> >> > if we didn�t immediately land.
>>
>> >> Pilot better wake up. �First actual shootdown of any airliner by
>> >> any American military - and no American will be willing to fly
>> >> commercial any trip under 1,000 miles after. �Either - as he says
>> >> - the damn regime starts profiling the only people who are
>> >> jihadists (Moslems) - or the airline industry is one incident away
>> >> from bankruptcy.
>>
>> >Put dogs on the planes. �Ain't no fanatic fanatical enough
>> >to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
>>
>> Could even be a friendly one - a Muslim terrorist hates dogs because
>> they're unclean.
>
> Shepherd is the perfect breed.
>
Even when all they want to do is play. My German Shepherd is a happy
vice-grip.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
They can be great dogs. A colleague had a wonderful bitch that we knew
from when she was a puppy. Her friend had the brother, also a great
dog...
...but not at my age, they need too much exercise.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
Exercise is good for the owner as well...
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
But not that kind of exercise when you have lung problems.
Alex W
wrote:
Screw the pooches -- use pigs.
A pig is at least as intelligent as a dog. It is trainable
and naturally inquisitive. It is as fast and can be as
aggressive as any guard dog. It is also heavier.
JohnN
Why would someone willing to commit suicide be afraid of a dog?
JohnN
Bruce Bartho
> Why would someone willing to commit suicide be afraid of a dog?
Because when their balls are chewn off, not only does it hurt like hell,
but they don't get the virgins when Jews train the dogs! :)
Alex W
> On Jan 5, 8:23οΏ½pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 8:20οΏ½pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 7:56οΏ½pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Once airborne there are limited options. οΏ½Talking to the flight
>>> > attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. οΏ½A divert
>>> > takes time and would be a major emergency. οΏ½On the flight I diverted
>>> > for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot us down
>>> > if we didnοΏ½t immediately land.
>>
>>> Pilot better wake up. οΏ½First actual shootdown of any airliner by any
>>> American military - and no American will be willing to fly commercial
>>> any trip under 1,000 miles after. οΏ½Either - as he says - the damn
>>> regime starts profiling the only people who are jihadists (Moslems) -
>>> or the airline industry is one incident away from bankruptcy.
>>
>> Put dogs on the planes. οΏ½Ain't no fanatic fanatical enough
>> to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
>
> Why would someone willing to commit suicide be afraid of a dog?
>
Because the dog will follow them into the afterlife and be
extremely annoyed. It is not esy to enjoy the pleasures of
74 virgins while being chased by the hound of the
Baskervilles....
Donna Evleth
> From: JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:54:13 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
The Islamist fanatics believe dogs are unclean. If they die with dogs, then
they are also unclean, and will have to forget about the 70 virgins.
Donna Evleth
Dan Listermann
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C76AA752.853E5%dev...@wanadoo.fr...
ears.
Lord Vetinari
news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
German Shepherds are by nature good-natured animals, it takes serious
training and/or abuse to change that. For that matter, the only dogs I can
think of that aren't good-natured, are little yappy dogs, though it may be
largely due to abuse (the nice ones I've met have good owners).
Lord Vetinari
news:25ef3$4b44ea30$4a53bf9f$13...@FUSE.NET...
Last night, my wife mentioned something about beagles not being very scary,
but that they were'nt originally bred as housepets. If one is carrying
illegal substances at an airport, having a beagle sniffing you would
probably be quite frightening. Heh.
Lord Vetinari
news:0e3d44bd-d83d-463f...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
: On Jan 5, 4:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: > How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
:
: Step 1: Keep the Muslimes off airplanes.
: Step 2: The End
Better yet, keep ALL fanatics off the planes. You first.
Alex W
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 8:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Jan 5, 8:20 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Jan 5, 7:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
>>>> >> > attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A
>>>> >> > divert takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight
>>>> >> > I diverted
>>>> >> > for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
>>>> >> > us down
>>>> >> > if we didnοΏ½t immediately land.
>>>>
>>>> >> Pilot better wake up. First actual shootdown of any airliner by
>>>> >> any American military - and no American will be willing to fly
>>>> >> commercial any trip under 1,000 miles after. Either - as he says
>>>> >> - the damn regime starts profiling the only people who are
>>>> >> jihadists (Moslems) - or the airline industry is one incident away
>>>> >> from bankruptcy.
>>>>
>>>> >Put dogs on the planes. Ain't no fanatic fanatical enough
>>>> >to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
>>>>
>>>> Could even be a friendly one - a Muslim terrorist hates dogs because
>>>> they're unclean.
>>>
>>> Shepherd is the perfect breed.
>>>
>>
>> Even when all they want to do is play. My German Shepherd is a happy
>> vice-grip.
>
> German Shepherds are by nature good-natured animals, it takes serious
> training and/or abuse to change that. For that matter, the only dogs I can
> think of that aren't good-natured, are little yappy dogs, though it may be
> largely due to abuse (the nice ones I've met have good owners).
Being good-natured doesn't necessarily mean "good-natured",
IYKWIM. Large breeds such as Rottweiler, Doberman or
Rhodesian Ridgeback may not be ill-tempered or malevolent by
nature, but they do have an inbred level of aggression and a
low "bite threshold" which makes it hard to call them
"good-natured" without risking misunderstandings. Even the
German Shepherd seems originally to have been a much more
assertive dog than is characteristic of the breed today, if
my reading is correct.
Anyway, bigger is not necessarily better. For a confined
space like an aircraft, one ought to give serious
consideration to the aggressiveness, tenacity and jaw
muscles of terriers. Personally, I'd be far more worried
about upsetting a fox terrier than a shepherd....
Alex W
>>
> A beagle trained to sniff explosives would be nice. They have wonderful
> ears.
Pigs have a most excellent sense of smell and would have the
advantage of annoying Islamist passengers....
Father Haskell
Lots more protective fat and muscle, too. You'd need a
50 caliber round just to irritate it, and there's no way
you could slip that gun through security.
John Rennie
John Rennie
a welcome change.
Alex W
Did I?
I am so sorry. For a moment there, I forgot Usenet
etiquette. Shan't happen again...
:-)
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Of course, dogs would do the same thing.
And Pigs would annoy Jews, too.
Someone mentioned terriers, and I would be a bit more specific and
suggest rat terriers. They aren't much bigger than Jack Russels, but
they have a more even temperament, are fast, manoeuverable, and
ounce-for-ounce are about the strongest dogs around. They would be
effective both as bomb-sniffers and as attack dogs.
Kurt Nicklas
> "Not Sure" <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And you second.
Mike Painter
Nah.
My solution is 100 pounds of Pomeranians. They love to travel and 100 pounds
of then could cover at least 20 suspects at the same time.
satyr
<nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>by Randy Plante
>
>01/05/2010
>
>As a passenger you must be observant and vigilant. Most often someone
>notices some unusual activity or behavior. It doesn�t have to be just
>a person either. Suspicious bags, luggage, packages, notes, pillows,
>and electronic devices have been found on planes. One of the biggest
>advantages you have is the ability to profile. TSA refuses to do the
>obvious thanks to political correctness. Everyone knows who is
>committing these attacks -- Muslim, Middle-Eastern men between 18 and
>40. Maybe al Qaeda is trying to recruit others than don�t fit this
>profile but it sure fits the mold right now.
>
Funny, Richard Reid is ethnically half white half Jamaican and native
born British. The Detroit bomber is Nigerian. Someone looking for a
Middle Eastern terrorist would have passed over both of them.
>A recent example of a possible test occurred on Nov 17 with an Airtran
>flight from Atlanta to Houston. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane and
>caused a big disturbance and ended with passengers assisting the
>flight attendants in the commotion. TSA was called, they took the men
>off, talked to them, and put them back on. The crewmembers walked off
>the plane refusing to fly it, and then passengers walked off as well.
>The terrorists tested the TSA and passengers but probably also
>threatened lawsuits to the government and Airtran. This could be
>setting up a later mission with hopes the TSA and airline would be
>afraid to take them off the plane. Just like the Delta flight, the
>final layer of security, the crewmembers and passengers, are the ones
>who might have prevented an attack, nothing the government did was
>successful.
When in doubt, Snope it out:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/flight297.asp
There is no evidence that this had anything to do with terrorism and
the facts are quite a bit different from this account.
>. It is the policies implemented by
>people working in the U.S. government that is the problem, and amazing
>enough, it is the federal government that is required by law to defend
>us by the U.S. constitution. So what do they do? President Obama
>decides to take legal action against CIA employees for using special
>interrogation techniques to obtain information from terrorists to keep
>us safe.
Torture is not a "special interrogation technique."
> It was an obvious emotional, liberal, political decision.
>This will only make it much more difficult for the intelligence
>agencies to do their jobs and recruit/retain top talent, as well as
>lowering morale.
I don't think we really want to recruit the kind of "talent" that is
attracted to position where torture is part of the job description.
The use of the techniques violated the Geneva conventions, hurt the
United States�ability to work with allies and helped al-Queda recruit
terrorists. (That last sentence is from John McCain.)
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
SaPeIsMa
"Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jq31udhounjk.11hlqbot1jg15$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Anyway, bigger is not necessarily better. For a confined
> space like an aircraft, one ought to give serious
> consideration to the aggressiveness, tenacity and jaw
> muscles of terriers. Personally, I'd be far more worried
> about upsetting a fox terrier than a shepherd....
>
I'd worry even more about a pissed-off Jack Russel Terrier
They're smart, small, fast, aggressive and have a HUGE Napoleon Complex.
If they decide that you are the target, they will chew up one leg, down the
other, and leave nothing in between.
SaPeIsMa
Yeah !
BAD DOG !
No cookie for you !
David Canzi
JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 8:23锟絧m, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 8:20锟絧m, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> > Pilot better wake up. 锟紽irst actual shootdown of any airliner by any
>> > American military - and no American will be willing to fly commercial
>> > regime starts profiling the only people who are jihadists (Moslems) -
>> > or the airline industry is one incident away from bankruptcy.
>>
>> to want to be eaten by a German shepherd.
>
>Why would someone willing to commit suicide be afraid of a dog?
When a terrorist straps on a big load of explosives and blows
himself up in a marketplace, he probably has only a fraction of
a second of consciousness between detonation and death. When he
pilots an airliner into the side of a building at high speed,
his brain is probably insentient pudding before pain nerve signals
have time to reach it. The ways Islamic "martyrs" choose to off
themselves don't cause them to suffer.
Getting attacked by dogs is not like that.
--
David Canzi
Alex W.
OK, I'll just go chew up your new slippers then.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Reply-To: ing...@yahoo.co.uk
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:46:40 +0000
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:41:36 -0600, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> "Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:14fc5uhiqs9nj.s...@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:30:12 +0000, John Rennie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex W wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:35:13 -0600, Lord Vetinari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
>>>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 8:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 8:20 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 7:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
>>>>>>>>>>>> attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A
>>>>>>>>>>>> divert takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight
>>>>>>>>>>>> I diverted
>>>>>>>>>>>> for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
>>>>>>>>>>>> us down
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we didn�t immediately land.
"Chew" is the operative word. It's so much nicer, though, when the chewing
is useful and productive.
Donna Evleth
Lord Vetinari
news:jpb1n.2547$YP1....@newsfe15.iad...
heh...my wife is part Pomeranian, and I'm part Alsatian.
Lord Vetinari
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:35:13 -0600, Lord Vetinari wrote:
>
>> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 8:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Jan 5, 8:20 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> On Jan 5, 7:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
>>>>> >> > attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A
>>>>> >> > divert takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight
>>>>> >> > I diverted
>>>>> >> > for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
>>>>> >> > us down
You are mistaken. Nearly all breeds are naturally (due to breeding &
evolution) good with people (exceptions perhaps being dogs like chihuahuas,
which were bred for food), including rottweilers & pit bulls (and pit bulls
are not a breed). A dog may be trained to attack people, or they may have
been abused to the point which they are no longer good with people, but that
changes nothing. Facts are facts.
> Anyway, bigger is not necessarily better. For a confined
> space like an aircraft, one ought to give serious
> consideration to the aggressiveness, tenacity and jaw
> muscles of terriers. Personally, I'd be far more worried
> about upsetting a fox terrier than a shepherd....
The point is not to terrify the passengers, you know.
Lord Vetinari
news:111c70ks4u7cw$.118q3pdwa4obn$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:41:36 -0600, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> "Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:14fc5uhiqs9nj.s...@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:30:12 +0000, John Rennie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex W wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:35:13 -0600, Lord Vetinari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
>>>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Father Haskell
>>>>>>> <father...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 8:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 8:20 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 7:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
>>>>>>>>>>>> attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A
>>>>>>>>>>>> divert takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight
>>>>>>>>>>>> I diverted
>>>>>>>>>>>> for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
>>>>>>>>>>>> us down
One of my cats likes to dig/sharpen claws on the inside of my shoes and
slippers...he dives in with both front feet.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Lord Vetinari" <veti...@ameritech.net>
> Organization: The Eudaemonic Psuedoentropic Brewery
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:22:56 -0600
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
Your wife is part Polish or German, depending on who was in charge at the
time, and you are part French or German, depending on who was in charge at
the time:-) We once visited Munich with our dachshund (1972, the Olympic
year) and a woman insisted on taking a picture of our California born,
California bred short-haired dachshund, because for her, our dog was the
perfect M�nchner dachl (this dog was the Olympic symbol for Munich). We
complied.
Donna Evleth
>
>
Lord Vetinari
...and apparently, the older family members argue over it. Heh.
> , and you are part French or German, depending on who was in charge at
> the time:-)
I'm both, actually. My father's father was directly descended from
Frenchmen who settled in Illinois in the 1800s, and his mother was East
Frisian....and still spoke it, when no one was listening (ashamed? who
knows).
> We once visited Munich with our dachshund (1972, the Olympic
> year) and a woman insisted on taking a picture of our California born,
> California bred short-haired dachshund, because for her, our dog was the
> perfect M�nchner dachl (this dog was the Olympic symbol for Munich). We
> complied.
Cool. I recall watching those Olympics in the day room of the mental health
facility that I was living in....that was such a bummer, when those idiot
terrorists screwed it all up.
Alex W.
There's an easy cure for that.
Insert a mouse trap in the slipper.
Jimbo
> Alex W wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:35:13 -0600, Lord Vetinari wrote:
>
> >>news:Xns9CF7DB59...@216.196.97.131...
> >>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jan 5, 8:29 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>
> >>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 5, 8:20 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 5, 7:56 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Once airborne there are limited options. Talking to the flight
> >>>>>>>> attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do. A
> >>>>>>>> divert takes time and would be a major emergency. On the flight
> >>>>>>>> I diverted
> >>>>>>>> for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot
> >>>>>>>> us down
>
> - Show quoted text -
I may be wrong, but I recall reading an article some years ago that
asserted that the changes in cabin pressure are far more painful for a
dog than for a human, is that true?
Jimbo
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:07:58 +0000, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:53:36 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
> >> A beagle trained to sniff explosives would be nice. They have wonderful
> >> ears.
>
> >Pigs have a most excellent sense of smell and would have the
> >advantage of annoying Islamist passengers....
>
> Of course, dogs would do the same thing.
>
> And Pigs would annoy Jews, too.
>
Face it, pigs would annoy everyone on the plane for one reason or
another.
Dan Listermann
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa3e4919-8076-4ed1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Which brings us back to beagles and their soft ears.
Donna Evleth
> From: Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:32:06 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
>>>>> Even when all they want to do is play. 嚙瞎y German Shepherd is a happy
>>>>> vice-grip.
>>>> German Shepherds are by nature good-natured animals, it takes serious
>>>> training and/or abuse to change that. 嚙瘤or that matter, the only dogs I can
>>>> think of that aren't good-natured, are little yappy dogs, though it may be
>>>> largely due to abuse (the nice ones I've met have good owners).
>>
>>> Being good-natured doesn't necessarily mean "good-natured",
>>> IYKWIM. 嚙盤arge breeds such as Rottweiler, Doberman or
>>> Rhodesian Ridgeback may not be ill-tempered or malevolent by
>>> nature, but they do have an inbred level of aggression and a
>>> low "bite threshold" which makes it hard to call them
>>> "good-natured" without risking misunderstandings. 嚙瘟ven the
>>> German Shepherd seems originally to have been a much more
>>> assertive dog than is characteristic of the breed today, if
>>> my reading is correct. 嚙�>>
>>> Anyway, bigger is not necessarily better. 嚙瘤or a confined
>>> space like an aircraft, one ought to give serious
>>> consideration to the aggressiveness, tenacity and jaw
>>> muscles of terriers. 嚙瞑ersonally, I'd be far more worried
>>> about upsetting a fox terrier than a shepherd....
>>
>> Blimey! 嚙磅omebody who knows what he's posting about -
>> a welcome change.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I may be wrong, but I recall reading an article some years ago that
> asserted that the changes in cabin pressure are far more painful for a
> dog than for a human, is that true?
We had three small dachshunds, sequentially, all of whom traveled with us in
the cabin of the plane at one time or another. None of them ever
complained.
Donna Evleth
Randy Jo Hobbs
> We had three small dachshunds, sequentially, all of whom traveled with us in
> the cabin of the plane at one time or another. None of them ever
> complained.
How could silly dogs complain, you stump stupid French whore?
Do you speak Mutt, like your husband did when he proposed to you?
John Rennie
*plonk"
Donna Evleth
> From: Randy Jo Hobbs <Win...@bass.gov>
> Organization: I'll pay 1604.88 for the hide of any spammer
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:04:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
Plonk
Donna Evleth
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Which you see a lot of as they're licking their own balls. :D
Jimbo
> > From: Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> > Organization:http://groups.google.com
> > Newsgroups:
> > alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> > ns
> > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:32:06 -0800 (PST)
> > Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
> >>>>> vice-grip.
> >>>> German Shepherds are by nature good-natured animals, it takes serious
> >>>> think of that aren't good-natured, are little yappy dogs, though it may be
> >>>> largely due to abuse (the nice ones I've met have good owners).
>
> >>> Being good-natured doesn't necessarily mean "good-natured",
> >>> Rhodesian Ridgeback may not be ill-tempered or malevolent by
> >>> nature, but they do have an inbred level of aggression and a
> >>> low "bite threshold" which makes it hard to call them
> >>> German Shepherd seems originally to have been a much more
> >>> assertive dog than is characteristic of the breed today, if
> >>> my reading is correct.
>
> >>> space like an aircraft, one ought to give serious
> >>> consideration to the aggressiveness, tenacity and jaw
> >>> about upsetting a fox terrier than a shepherd....
>
> >> a welcome change.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I may be wrong, but I recall reading an article some years ago that
> > asserted that the changes in cabin pressure are far more painful for a
> > dog than for a human, is that true?
>
> We had three small dachshunds, sequentially, all of whom traveled with us in
> the cabin of the plane at one time or another. None of them ever
> complained.
>
Did you expect them to turn to you and say: "Hey! This hurts!" If
you did, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed on the plane either.
John Rennie
It's a shame but it does seem as if gentle humour just
shoots over the odd person's head with an emphasis on
'odd'.
Alex W.
This is Usenet. Humour does not travel well here unless it's
broad enough for a road train or festooned with smileys like a
Christmas tree.
Alex W.
Do I detect a note of envy?
:-P
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Perhaps the "humour" was too gentle. Where is it?
--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
John Rennie
"None of them ever complained." Any further explanation needed?
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
I took that literally, since dogs are perfectly capable of
complaining, although not, obviously, with articulated human
speech. But bringing her dog into the plane's cabin is the sort of
stunt that Paris Hilton would pull, and I'm sure has. I can see the
humour in little Buffy demanding to go outside for walkies or
she'll take a crap in Donna's lap. I think that would in fact
constitute a "complaint" from a dog about air travel and the
conditions of same.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups:
> alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.atheism,talk.politics.gu
> ns
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:05:54 +0000
> Subject: Re: #How to Recognize and Fight a Terrorist on a Plane
>
>
>
Bill, you are right, dogs are perfectly capable of complaining. Try
stepping on the tail of a dog, who will then cry out in pain. When dogs are
in pain, they cry out. I was so pleased at your sensitivity.
And then you wrecked it. Big time. You had to bring in your "pop culture"
references, with Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton is a pop culture idol, which
does not keep her from being a worthless wreck.
BTW, bringing a dog into the cabin with you is not a "stunt". None of our
dogs have ever been named "little Buffy", and none of them ever demanded to
go out for "walkies". Nor did any of them ever lose control of their bowels
on an airplane.
Obviously you know nothing about air travel with pets. Do you know anything
about air travel at all?
Donna Evleth
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL! Could be...
Jimbo
Isn't humor supposed to be funny? :D
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Try to understand, we get all sort of nutcases saying all manner of
ridiculous things. Many of them are serious. It's difficult to
separate the humor, from the nutballz around here.
Alan Ford
>> Perhaps the "humour" was too gentle. Where is it?
>>
>
> Isn't humor supposed to be funny? :D
Entering fundy mode. Countdown commencing: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, takeoff:
Webster Dictionary defines humor as:
1 a : a normal functioning bodily semifluid or fluid (as the blood or
lymph) b : a secretion (as a hormone) that is an excitant of activity
2 a in medieval physiology : a fluid or juice of an animal or plant;
specifically : one of the four fluids entering into the constitution of
the body and determining by their relative proportions a person's health
and temperament b : characteristic or habitual disposition or bent :
temperament <of cheerful humor> c : an often temporary state of mind
imposed especially by circumstances <was in no humor to listen> d : a
sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning inclination : whim <the uncertain
humors of nature>
So, no, humor is not supposed to be funny.
Fundy mode over and out.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Jimbo
> Jimbo got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >> Perhaps the "humour" was too gentle. Where is it?
>
> > Isn't humor supposed to be funny? :D
>
> Entering fundy mode. Countdown commencing: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, takeoff:
>
> Webster Dictionary defines humor as:
>
> 1 a : a normal functioning bodily semifluid or fluid (as the blood or
> lymph) b : a secretion (as a hormone) that is an excitant of activity
> 2 a in medieval physiology : a fluid or juice of an animal or plant;
> specifically : one of the four fluids entering into the constitution of
> the body and determining by their relative proportions a person's health
> and temperament b : characteristic or habitual disposition or bent :
> temperament <of cheerful humor> c : an often temporary state of mind
> imposed especially by circumstances <was in no humor to listen> d : a
> sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning inclination : whim <the uncertain
> humors of nature>
>
> So, no, humor is not supposed to be funny.
How about humour?
Alan Ford
No, thanks. I brought my own.
Paladin
> Jimbo got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
>>>>> Perhaps the "humour" was too gentle. Where is it?
>>>> Isn't humor supposed to be funny? :D
>>> Entering fundy mode. Countdown commencing: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, takeoff:
>>>
>>> Webster Dictionary defines humor as:
>>>
>>> 1 a : a normal functioning bodily semifluid or fluid (as the blood or
>>> lymph) b : a secretion (as a hormone) that is an excitant of activity
>>> 2 a in medieval physiology : a fluid or juice of an animal or plant;
>>> specifically : one of the four fluids entering into the constitution of
>>> the body and determining by their relative proportions a person's health
>>> and temperament b : characteristic or habitual disposition or bent :
>>> temperament <of cheerful humor> c : an often temporary state of mind
>>> imposed especially by circumstances <was in no humor to listen> d : a
>>> sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning inclination : whim <the uncertain
>>> humors of nature>
>>>
>>> So, no, humor is not supposed to be funny.
>>
>> How about humour?
>
>
> No, thanks. I brought my own.
>
>
Actually, your definition of humor wasn't entirely accurate.
HUMOR (hyū'mər)
n.
1. The quality that makes something laughable or amusing;
funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.
2. That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement:
a writer skilled at crafting humor.
3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is
amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.
4-- four is the body fluids thing.
John Rennie
snip
>>>>
>>>> So, no, humor is not supposed to be funny.
>>>
>>> How about humour?
>>
>>
>> No, thanks. I brought my own.
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, your definition of humor wasn't entirely accurate.
But it was correctly spelled.
John Rennie
Alex W.
Typed.
Strictly speaking, you didn't spell "spelled".
Or "spelt".
:-P
Alan Ford
My dictionary beats your dictionary. So there.