Pay for infant seat or not?
paul williams
thread.
Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
US flights in November ?
Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
whether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
plenty of spare seats on the flight.
Miss L. Toe
"paul williams" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3839a34f.04091...@posting.google.com...
> OK. No abuse please - I think we had enough of that in the other
> thread.
>
> Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
> US flights in November ?
>
www.AA.com will show you the avaialble seats for any transatlantic flight.
(maybe internal as well I havent looked).
> Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
> whether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
> plenty of spare seats on the flight.
There may be plenty of spare seats but that doesnt mean there will be two
spare ones together, or a spare one next to you, book a basinet.
Is it worth paying extra for another seat ? - That depends how much money
you have.
PTravel
> thread.
Do you really regard it abuse when people disagree with your positions?
>
> Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
> US flights in November ?
>
> Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
> whether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
> plenty of spare seats on the flight.
If you must take your infant, pay for the seat. If you don't, and there's
no room, you, your son and everyone around you will be miserable.
But better, still, is to not take an infant on a long haul.
Kristina
kris
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:06:11 -0700, "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com>
wrote:
jenn
I have taken a dozen intercontinental flights in the past 5 years and
there are rarely open seats -- you might luck out -- but every flight I
have been on into London, Paris or Rome has been full. for this long a
flight it is inconsiderate to not get a toddler his own seat.
Banty
says...
This is from a mother who travelled with an infant, so not to worry about the
abuse ;-) - -
absolutely buy a ticket for your boy. He will be more comfortable and safer,
you will be more comfortable and safer, and the passengers around you will be
more confortable and safer.
That someone offers something (inadvisably) for free does not mean you should
take it.
Cheers,
Banty
paul williams
Like I said - how about we keep this argument to the other thread...
paul williams
To be honest, we've now 99% decided that we're going to pay for a seat
for him. I'd imagine the flight would be unbearable if there were no
spare seats and he had to sit on our laps for that long !!! :-)
PTRAVEL
You asked for feedback and I provided it. Interestingly, everyone,
including parents who travel with infants, said the same thing (about buying
a seat). And, as everyone has agreed, the reason that this topic is
sensitive at all is because of the marked lack of courtesy and consideration
on the part of some (but not all) parents. Flying 8 hours with a toddler is
as much a courtesy and consideration issue as it is a ticketing issue.
This is advice, not abuse. Sorry if it's not palatble to you.
paul williams
hmmm. I was hoping for advice from fellow parents really rather than
people who object to children traveliing in the first place.
I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
Alan Street
williams <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote:
€ > >> Do you really regard it abuse when people disagree with your positions?
€ > >>
€ > >> >
€ > >> > Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
€ > >> > US flights in November ?
€ > >> >
€ > >> > Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
€ > >> > whether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
€ > >> > plenty of spare seats on the flight.
€ > >>
€ > >> If you must take your infant, pay for the seat. If you don't, and
€ > >> there's
€ > >> no room, you, your son and everyone around you will be miserable.
€ > >>
€ > >> But better, still, is to not take an infant on a long haul.
€ > >
€ > > Like I said - how about we keep this argument to the other thread...
€ >
€ > You asked for feedback and I provided it. Interestingly, everyone,
€ > including parents who travel with infants, said the same thing (about
€ > buying
€ > a seat). And, as everyone has agreed, the reason that this topic is
€ > sensitive at all is because of the marked lack of courtesy and
€ > consideration
€ > on the part of some (but not all) parents. Flying 8 hours with a toddler
€ > is
€ > as much a courtesy and consideration issue as it is a ticketing issue.
€ >
€ > This is advice, not abuse. Sorry if it's not palatble to you.
€
€ hmmm. I was hoping for advice from fellow parents really rather than
€ people who object to children traveliing in the first place.
€
€ I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
€ travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
The best way is to buy a seat for your child.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>In article <3839a34f.04092...@posting.google.com>, paul
:>williams <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Subject to various values of "best".
If one has money falling out of their pockets? Certainly.
If one is on a budget, where the money has better uses and thus it is worth
suffering some amount of hours of discomfort (and Paul's dirty looks) to save
it? No.
Each family has to consider their own circumstances.
But, all in all, it is just a flying bus. Don't pay much attention to those
with their noses in the air.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Alan Street
Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
€
€ :>€ hmmm. I was hoping for advice from fellow parents really rather than
€ :>€ people who object to children traveliing in the first place.
€
€ :>€ I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
€ :>€ travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
€
€ :>The best way is to buy a seat for your child.
€
€ Subject to various values of "best".
€
€ If one has money falling out of their pockets? Certainly.
€
€ If one is on a budget, where the money has better uses and thus it is worth
€ suffering some amount of hours of discomfort (and Paul's dirty looks) to save
€ it? No.
€
€ Each family has to consider their own circumstances.
€
€ But, all in all, it is just a flying bus.
Would that be a tyical bus in the US or the UK, or a typical non-aircon
bus in Thailand or Mexico? Holding a child on your lap for 8 hours
isn't a good idea for you, your child or the people around you, and if
it's a full flight (likely), then he's going to be doing just that.
As for circumstances and funds, there's always limits. Are you implying
that regardles of funds, if someone needs to get somewhere, the ends
always justifies the means? Are you trying to say that anyone, any time
has the "right" to travel somewhere, by hook or by crook if necessary?
If he can't afford a ticket for his son, then he shouldn't go, just as
he shouldn't go if can't afford a ticket for himself.
Banty
That you stay off airplanes if normal human noises bother you so much is also
advice, not abuse.
Your definition of 'courtesy' would prevent orphans from being transported for
adoption, dispossess infants of their parents while they are on overseas jobs
and assignments, and disabled grandparents from ever seeing their infant
grandchildren. Let alone many other situations (and, no, noise is not an
assault or similar in intrusiveness to encroachment on seating space, and
there's no cosmic perogative for you to cherry-pick which of others' needs and
concerns you think 'justify' you hearing their noises).
Lambasting each and every parent who comes here with practical questions on
infant travel with your irritations and impossible admonishments to never take
infants on long airplane trips does not help the situation, and does not put
people in a receptive mood to take measures for your comfort even if they might
have been initially motivated to do so.
Banty
PTRAVEL
I don't object to children travelling in the first place; I object to
parents who bring disruptive children who create annoyances for others
on board. Your latest inquiry was on the availability of extra seats
so that you wouldn't have to buy a seat for your child. It doesn't
take a parent to answer that -- only someone who flies enough to know
that most flights are full these days. And, as someone who flies a
lot (Platinum on CO, Premiere Exec on UA, lots of miles on most
others), including transoceanics, my answer remains the same (and
agrees 100% with what you've been told by parents): Don't count on
open seats, buy a seat for your child, as it will be uncomfortable for
you, your child and other passengers if your child is forced to sit on
your lap for 8+ hours.
>
> I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
> travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
I understand that and, frankly, what I find rather disturbing is that,
after a rather long and contentious thread (in which _I_ was not
abusive, but was the subject of abuse by a number of parents), despite
the fact that _everyone_ was in agreement that taking a toddler as a
lapchild on a transoceanic was a particularly poor idea, you still are
willing to risk it to save a couple of dollars. As I've said right
along, this is a matter of courtesy and consideration. It is truly
unfortunate that you see it solely as a question of "us versus them,"
"parents versus non-parents."
It isn't and, sorry to say, parents who see it that way are the ones
who make it difficult for everyone else, parents and non-parents. I
really wish you would consider what I've written about imposition and
courtesy, rather than simply rejecting it out of hand as coming from
"someone who thinks children shouldn't fly."
abacus
> In article <2r87hdF...@uni-berlin.de>, PTRAVEL says...
>>
>>
>>"paul williams" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3839a34f.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<2r0jseF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>> "paul williams" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3839a34f.04091...@posting.google.com...
>>>> > OK. No abuse please - I think we had enough of that in the other
>>>> > thread.
snip lots of vitriole
>
> That you stay off airplanes if normal human noises bother you so much is
> also
> advice, not abuse.
>
> Your definition of 'courtesy' would prevent orphans from being transported
> for
> adoption, dispossess infants of their parents while they are on overseas
> jobs
> and assignments, and disabled grandparents from ever seeing their infant
> grandchildren. Let alone many other situations (and, no, noise is not an
> assault or similar in intrusiveness to encroachment on seating space, and
> there's no cosmic perogative for you to cherry-pick which of others' needs
> and
> concerns you think 'justify' you hearing their noises).
>
> Lambasting each and every parent who comes here with practical questions
> on
> infant travel with your irritations and impossible admonishments to never
> take
> infants on long airplane trips does not help the situation, and does not
> put
> people in a receptive mood to take measures for your comfort even if they
> might
> have been initially motivated to do so.
>
> Banty
I love where this argument has led. Pure artistry. And no spelling errors
(as far as I can see). A bit unsporting for us spelling nazis though.
abacus.
>
Banty
>
>:>The best way is to buy a seat for your child.
>
>Subject to various values of "best".
>
>If one has money falling out of their pockets? Certainly.
>
>If one is on a budget, where the money has better uses and thus it is worth
>suffering some amount of hours of discomfort (and Paul's dirty looks) to save
>it? No.
>
>Each family has to consider their own circumstances.
Few who ride with a lap infant really need the savings. There's a lot of folks
out there who think that That Which Is Offered For Free Should Be Taken Or One
Is A Fool. Which *is* the foolish idea actually, and well worth counteracting
sometimes.
IMO it makes a large enough practical difference to make the extra ticket worth
while. Unless one really cannot travel at all otherwise, and is scrimping
heavily on other accomodations as well.
>
>But, all in all, it is just a flying bus. Don't pay much attention to those
>with their noses in the air.
>
Sure. For every person with a cold stabbing stare for a parent with an infant,
there are several who are charmed, sympathetic, and even anxious to help. Which
side of human nature deserves the largest place in our experience?
Cheers,
Banty
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>In article <15b0l0d9gn6144ftk...@4ax.com>, Binyamin
:>Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>€ :>€ hmmm. I was hoping for advice from fellow parents really rather than
:>€ :>€ people who object to children traveliing in the first place.
:>€ :>€ I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
:>€ :>€ travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
:>€ :>The best way is to buy a seat for your child.
:>€ Subject to various values of "best".
:>€ If one has money falling out of their pockets? Certainly.
:>€ If one is on a budget, where the money has better uses and thus it is worth
:>€ suffering some amount of hours of discomfort (and Paul's dirty looks) to save
:>€ it? No.
:>€ Each family has to consider their own circumstances.
:>€ But, all in all, it is just a flying bus.
:>Would that be a tyical bus in the US or the UK, or a typical non-aircon
:>bus in Thailand or Mexico? Holding a child on your lap for 8 hours
:>isn't a good idea for you, your child or the people around you, and if
:>it's a full flight (likely), then he's going to be doing just that.
Granted that it most likely will not be comfortable.
Just like driving a small car, working a double shift, etc.
To those with money falling out of their pockets, it is not an issue.
For those living on a budget who want to visit Grandma, it very well may be.
:>As for circumstances and funds, there's always limits. Are you implying
:>that regardles of funds, if someone needs to get somewhere, the ends
:>always justifies the means? Are you trying to say that anyone, any time
:>has the "right" to travel somewhere, by hook or by crook if necessary?
If the bus is willing to sell them a ticket, why not?
You want a private bus? Pay for it.
:>If he can't afford a ticket for his son, then he shouldn't go, just as
:>he shouldn't go if can't afford a ticket for himself.
The airline is selling transport for the child.
Nothing is being stolen.
Any more red herrings in your jar?
Binyamin Dissen
:> despite
:>the fact that _everyone_ was in agreement that taking a toddler as a
:>lapchild on a transoceanic was a particularly poor idea, you still are
:>willing to risk it to save a couple of dollars.
Perhaps merely a "couple of dollars" to someone with a bit of money.
You might be surprised to know that there ARE people that live on budgets, and
to them $300 is not merely a "couple of dollars".
Banty
"Unsporting"??!? How unfair. I had kindly provided an omitted verb in my
second paragraph fo your and others' enjoyment.
Banty (always the courteous one... :-)
Alan Street
Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
€ On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:19:16 -0700 Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com>
€ wrote:
€
€ :>In article <15b0l0d9gn6144ftk...@4ax.com>, Binyamin
€ :>Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
€
€ :>€ :>€ hmmm. I was hoping for advice from fellow parents really rather than
€ :>€ :>€ people who object to children traveliing in the first place.
€
€ :>€ :>€ I take your points onboard but the bottom line is my child WILL be
€ :>€ :>€ travelling... I'm just trying to find the best way to do this.
€
€ :>€ :>The best way is to buy a seat for your child.
€
€ :>€ Subject to various values of "best".
€
€ :>€ If one has money falling out of their pockets? Certainly.
€
€ :>€ If one is on a budget, where the money has better uses and thus it is
€ :>worth
€ :>€ suffering some amount of hours of discomfort (and Paul's dirty looks) to
€ :>save
€ :>€ it? No.
€
€ :>€ Each family has to consider their own circumstances.
€
€ :>€ But, all in all, it is just a flying bus.
€
€ :>Would that be a tyical bus in the US or the UK, or a typical non-aircon
€ :>bus in Thailand or Mexico? Holding a child on your lap for 8 hours
€ :>isn't a good idea for you, your child or the people around you, and if
€ :>it's a full flight (likely), then he's going to be doing just that.
€
€ Granted that it most likely will not be comfortable.
€
€ Just like driving a small car, working a double shift, etc.
Yeah, lots of one-year olds master those difficulties, too.
€
€ To those with money falling out of their pockets, it is not an issue.
"Money falling out of their pocket" is a relative term. He can afford
to fly himself, which makes him rich by some standards.
€
€ For those living on a budget who want to visit Grandma, it very well may be.
€
Depends on the size of the budget.
€ :>As for circumstances and funds, there's always limits. Are you implying
€ :>that regardles of funds, if someone needs to get somewhere, the ends
€ :>always justifies the means? Are you trying to say that anyone, any time
€ :>has the "right" to travel somewhere, by hook or by crook if necessary?
€
€ If the bus is willing to sell them a ticket, why not?
Actually, it has nothing to do with selling a ticket, and everything to
do with how many people are travelling on that one ticket. Two people
in one seat is OK for short time. For 8+ hours, it's a bit much.
€
€ You want a private bus? Pay for it.
€
€ :>If he can't afford a ticket for his son, then he shouldn't go, just as
€ :>he shouldn't go if can't afford a ticket for himself.
€
€ The airline is selling transport for the child.
€
No, the airline is selling a ticket for a seat. Some allow two people
to occupy that seat if one of them is small enough. Common sense says
that's not a good idea for 8+ hours. Even the OP recognizes this, and
is hoping that someone (you perhaps) will help him rationalize his
decision to roll the dice and hope theres a empty seat in coach on a
transoceanic flight. He doesn't want to or intend to hold his child for
8 hours.
€ Nothing is being stolen.
€
€ Any more red herrings in your jar?
More? There aren't any now (except to those who see things that don't
exist).
jenn
I invented the flying bus line -- but I also believe that any child past
about 6 mos is too big to fly in someone's lap on an intercontinental
flight. It can't be done without imposing on others -- and certainly
once the infant is a toddler, it should not be done. Flights today are
usually full -- carriers have cut flights to make this so -- so for long
haul flights in particular, seats should be purchased for the child.
Period. Someone else's desire to save a buck should not trump the next
passenger's right not to have grubby hands or small feet in their space
or their hair pulled by the toddler in Dad's lap right behind them.
the airlines should get rid of the lap child policy -- or lower the age
to a year or younger.
abacus
Aaah, much better. Ommission of a verb is not a spelling error. You'll be
wanting the grammar nazis.
abacus.
Banty
>
>>
>
>I invented the flying bus line -- but I also believe that any child past
>about 6 mos is too big to fly in someone's lap on an intercontinental
>flight. It can't be done without imposing on others -- and certainly
>once the infant is a toddler, it should not be done. Flights today are
>usually full -- carriers have cut flights to make this so -- so for long
>haul flights in particular, seats should be purchased for the child.
>Period. Someone else's desire to save a buck should not trump the next
>passenger's right not to have grubby hands or small feet in their space
>or their hair pulled by the toddler in Dad's lap right behind them.
>
>the airlines should get rid of the lap child policy -- or lower the age
>to a year or younger.
They should charge for all pax, period. A seat going with each charge. Whether
or not children or groups of any sort should be given a discount is another
question (I would favor pricing along those lines). But each passenger needs a
seat. Each one. (Some more than one ;-)
But IMNSHO nothing, not even one's adopted alley cat's kittens, should be given
away for free. Free Stuff distorts a lot of people's decisional calculations.
Banty
Banty
Poor excuse of a spelling nazi you are - you let the one I provided, slip by.
Cheers,
Banty
abacus
Far too obvious. Typo's don't count as spelling errors. But I did just
notice that I spelt "omission" incorrectly.
abacus.
PTRAVEL
There's so much wrong with this statement, I don't know where to
begin. "Normal human noises" don't bother me. _Some_ normal human
noises bother me in very specific contexts. I know you think so, too,
because you've agreed that screaming children don't belong in, for
example, fine restaurants or theaters. So, what we differ about is
not "normal human noise," but abnormally loud human noises in specific
venues.
>
> Your definition of 'courtesy' would prevent orphans from being transported for
> adoption, dispossess infants of their parents while they are on overseas jobs
> and assignments, and disabled grandparents from ever seeing their infant
> grandchildren.
Nonsense. If you've read any of what I've written, then you know that
my opposition is to bringing disruptive children onto aircraft for
what is purely _discretionary_ travel, for the convenience of the
parents.
> Let alone many other situations (and, no, noise is not an
> assault or similar in intrusiveness to encroachment on seating space,
According to you. Not according to others, including airlines (if you
think I'm wrong about noise, just try screaming at the top of your
lungs the next time you fly). You've never explained why you think
other kinds of activities, e.g. obnoxious drunks, etc., are intrusive
and imposing, but seat-kicking children or shrieking toddlers are not.
> and
> there's no cosmic perogative for you to cherry-pick which of others' needs and
> concerns you think 'justify' you hearing their noises).
You've never been clear on this concept at all. For the last time,
_no_one_ has to justify to anyone else why they are travelling. It's
no one else's business. Period.
If, however, you expect me to make an accomodation for you, _I_ won't
be willing to do it unless you've got a reason which _I_ think
justifies the imposition. Don't want to justify anything to me?
Fine. Then don't ask me to accept your imposition.
>
> Lambasting each and every parent who comes here with practical questions on
> infant travel
Do you think it's a good idea to take a toddler which the _OP_
described as rambunctious on an 8-hour transoceanic flight as a
_lap_child_? Come on, Banty, even you wouldn't suggest this is a good
idea.
I posted exactly twice (unsolictied) to the OP. The first time was a
flip and terse comment, i.e. "don't fly." He ignored it, as is his
perogative. The second time, I responded to a very specific question
-- should he buy a seat for his kid. I said he should because he
can't count on an empty seat and would be uncomfortable for him, his
kid and everyone else if the child didn't have a seat. That's exactly
the same advice you, and a lot of other parents, gave him. Why is it
"lambasting" when it comes from me, but not from anyone else?
The rest of my posts in this thead have been exchanges with other
people, some parents, some not, in which I expressed my views, civilly
and without insult (and without hyperbole, exaggeration, unnecessary
rhetoric or reliance on strawmen). Since when is expressing a
viewpoint with which you differ "lambasting"? Since when is it
"abuse"?
> with your irritations and impossible admonishments to never take
> infants on long airplane trips does not help the situation,
My admonishments are to not take infants on long airplane trips
_if_it_can_be_avoided_. However, even if you want to shorthand my
views in this fashion, this is internet, and I'll offer my views
whenever I like -- people are free to ignore them or killfile me.
With respect to the OP, the fact that he asked about the likelihood of
getting an open seat proves he is a casual flyer, unfamiliar with the
experience. It is not inconceivable that there is some parent out
there somewhere who, when learning that there are an awful lot of
passengers who don't appreciate a rambunctious, noisy toddler on a
long flight, might just realize that they ARE imposing on others and
decide not to take the trip.
> and does not put
> people in a receptive mood to take measures for your comfort even if they might
> have been initially motivated to do so.
My point was not whether the OP was in a receptive mood or not. I
wanted to know why polite disagreement was regarded by him as abuse.
I'm not Kristina -- I didn't insult anyone, didn't threaten any kind
of action. I simply explained my views, which are counter to those of
the OP. Sorry, Banty, that's not abuse -- it's disagreement.
>
> Banty
Banty
An airliner is a big bus in the sky. It's not a fine restaurant, it's not a
theater. While I do agree that parents (everyone, really) should try to keep
unecessary noise to a minimum, there's no guarantees, and a crying baby does not
prevent you from arriving at point B as scheduled from point A.
You have to get over this idea that your travel venues are specialized venues.
>
>
>>
>>Your definition of 'courtesy' would prevent orphans from being transported for
>> adoption, dispossess infants of their parents while they are on overseas jobs
>> and assignments, and disabled grandparents from ever seeing their infant
>> grandchildren.
>
>Nonsense. If you've read any of what I've written, then you know that
>my opposition is to bringing disruptive children onto aircraft for
>what is purely _discretionary_ travel, for the convenience of the
>parents.
I also know how you define "discretionary" and "convenience". I'm sorry, but
I'm afraid it has no cosmic status and does not trump what another person finds
important enough for them to fly. Furthermore, you have also made choices as to
whether or not to find your amusements and make your living without flying.
We've been over this before, the OP can Google what's been written by you in
this NG to get an idea of how to regard your statements. I bring up these
points again mainly for his benefit, not for a re-re-re-re-re-re-hashing.
Banty
PTRAVEL
So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for short
trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the ride.
Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.
> It's not a fine restaurant, it's not a
> theater.
No, it's an airplane. Yesterday, I was on a flight from Houston to
Philadelphia. I was seated in first class. Across the aisle from me was a
mother with her toddler (she, at least, bought the child a seat). The child
didn't like being confined to a car seat and made her feelings known --
loudly and long. Now, as it turns out, I was upgraded on this flight.
However, usually I pay a premium to get a first class seat. What would you
say to me, and the other passengers who had paid good money for the added
comfort and service of first class who had to endure the continuous
shrieking through the last half of the flight? Now, this was a short
flight, slightly under three hours. What would you say if it was the 8
hours that the OP is contemplating?
Sometimes an airliner IS like a fine restaurant.
> While I do agree that parents (everyone, really) should try to keep
> unecessary noise to a minimum, there's no guarantees, and a crying baby
> does not
> prevent you from arriving at point B as scheduled from point A.
Nor would it if the IFE was broken, or your seat jammed and didn't recline
or if the airline ran out of food or drink or the airconditioning work. But
you know what? When any of these things happen, the airline compensates the
passengers. Because a plane ticket is more than just transportation from
point A to point B.
>
> You have to get over this idea that your travel venues are specialized
> venues.
You have to get over this idea that the only difference between airplanes
and buses is that airplanes go higher.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Your definition of 'courtesy' would prevent orphans from being
>>>transported for
>>> adoption, dispossess infants of their parents while they are on overseas
>>> jobs
>>> and assignments, and disabled grandparents from ever seeing their infant
>>> grandchildren.
>>
>>Nonsense. If you've read any of what I've written, then you know that
>>my opposition is to bringing disruptive children onto aircraft for
>>what is purely _discretionary_ travel, for the convenience of the
>>parents.
>
> I also know how you define "discretionary" and "convenience". I'm sorry,
> but
> I'm afraid it has no cosmic status and does not trump what another person
> finds
> important enough for them to fly.
It does when you impose on other people.
>Furthermore, you have also made choices as to
> whether or not to find your amusements and make your living without
> flying.
Oh, please! I should abandon my career because there are selfish and
irresponsible parents who fly? I'd much rather keep my career, thank you,
and instead complain about it -- here, on board and to airline management.
>
> We've been over this before, the OP can Google what's been written by you
> in
> this NG to get an idea of how to regard your statements. I bring up
> these
> points again mainly for his benefit, not for a re-re-re-re-re-re-hashing.
As in, you won't respond to anything that I've said?
>
> Banty
>
PTRAVEL
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:9tg0l0lcvbgt7voch...@4ax.com...
> On 21 Sep 2004 07:36:14 -0700 ptr...@ruyitang.com (PTRAVEL) wrote:
>
> :> despite
> :>the fact that _everyone_ was in agreement that taking a toddler as a
> :>lapchild on a transoceanic was a particularly poor idea, you still are
> :>willing to risk it to save a couple of dollars.
>
> Perhaps merely a "couple of dollars" to someone with a bit of money.
>
> You might be surprised to know that there ARE people that live on budgets,
> and
> to them $300 is not merely a "couple of dollars".
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel. Do you really believe
someone who says, "The only way I can take my family on an international
holiday is if I save $300 on the fare (and subject everyone around me to a
noisy, squirming nuisance)?
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:9tg0l0lcvbgt7voch...@4ax.com...
:>> On 21 Sep 2004 07:36:14 -0700 ptr...@ruyitang.com (PTRAVEL) wrote:
:>> :> despite
:>> :>the fact that _everyone_ was in agreement that taking a toddler as a
:>> :>lapchild on a transoceanic was a particularly poor idea, you still are
:>> :>willing to risk it to save a couple of dollars.
:>> Perhaps merely a "couple of dollars" to someone with a bit of money.
:>> You might be surprised to know that there ARE people that live on budgets,
:>> and
:>> to them $300 is not merely a "couple of dollars".
:>Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.
Do you feel that they should be able to eat steak or expensive ice cream?
Why do you feel that you get to decide on what they can spend their money?
:> Do you really believe
:>someone who says, "The only way I can take my family on an international
:>holiday is if I save $300 on the fare (and subject everyone around me to a
:>noisy, squirming nuisance)?
To repeat:
You might be surprised to know that there ARE people that live on budgets, and
that to them $300 is not merely a "couple of dollars".
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
:>airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for short
:>trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the ride.
:>Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.
Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in his
mouth and thus never took Greyhound.
There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people (with
less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.
And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver decides to
stop.
I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying commercial,
just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap baby
to save money.
Simon Elliott
> Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.
Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?
--
Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk
PTRAVEL
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:14:22 -0700 "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> :>news:9tg0l0lcvbgt7voch...@4ax.com...
> :>> On 21 Sep 2004 07:36:14 -0700 ptr...@ruyitang.com (PTRAVEL) wrote:
>
> :>> :>
> despite
> :>> :>the fact that _everyone_ was in agreement that taking a toddler as a
> :>> :>lapchild on a transoceanic was a particularly poor idea, you still
> are
> :>> :>willing to risk it to save a couple of dollars.
>
> :>> Perhaps merely a "couple of dollars" to someone with a bit of money.
>
> :>> You might be surprised to know that there ARE people that live on
> budgets,
> :>> and
> :>> to them $300 is not merely a "couple of dollars".
>
> :>Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.
>
> Do you feel that they should be able to eat steak or expensive ice cream?
Not if it means bringing a screaming infant into a fine restaurant to do it.
>
> Why do you feel that you get to decide on what they can spend their money?
I don't care on what they spend their money. I only care when they are rude
and selfish by subjecting a planeload of people to a squawling, screaming
infant because they don't want to buy it a seat.
Banty
>
>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>:>So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
>:>airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for short
>:>trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the ride.
>:>Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.
>
>Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in his
>mouth and thus never took Greyhound.
>
>There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people (with
>less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.
>
>And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver decides to
>stop.
>
>I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying commercial,
>just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap baby
>to save money.
>
Right.
And whence came this idea that One Has A Right To Avoid Anything One Does Like,
and that therefore a situation with any such exposure is an 'imposition'?
Therefore hearing babies for Paul Tauger, or seeing men holding hands for
certain other people, etc. etc., is OK on a cross-town bus, but not where one
cannot leave at whim and will?
Banty
PTRAVEL
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> :>So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
> :>airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
> short
> :>trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
> ride.
> :>Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.
>
> Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
> his
> mouth and thus never took Greyhound.
Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
airplance.
>
> There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
> (with
> less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.
And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
Binyamin.
>
> And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
> decides to
> stop.
>
> I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
> commercial,
I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
they fly.
Don't impose.
I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
not whether there are long-distance buses, I pay more taxes than you, or any
other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
transoceanic aircraft.
> just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
> baby
> to save money.
I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft), and (2) it creates an
annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor bastard is
stuck sitting next to it.
It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.
No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
"lower classes."
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:e9b2l05qh0dvcnuot...@4ax.com...
:>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
:>> :>airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
:>> short
:>> :>trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
:>> ride.
:>> :>Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.
:>> Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
:>> his
:>> mouth and thus never took Greyhound.
:>Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
:>rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
:>Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
:>Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
:>airplance.
Agreed.
:>> There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
:>> (with
:>> less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.
:>And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
:>Binyamin.
Your assertions were "busses are for short trips" and "Airplanes are for long
trips".
It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were false.
:>> And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
:>> decides to
:>> stop.
:>> I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
:>> commercial,
:>I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
:>anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
:>know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
:>up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
:>fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
:>they fly.
You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.
:>Don't impose.
Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules of life.
:>I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
:>else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
:>not whether there are long-distance buses,
Your assertion was false.
Why not admit the mistake?
:> I pay more taxes than you, or any
:>other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
:>a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
:>transoceanic aircraft.
Perhaps. Subject to values.
There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.
The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones actions
are "rude".
:>> just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
:>> baby
:>> to save money.
:>I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
:>is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
:>there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),
Make the case to the airlines.
Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
equivalent distances.
:> and (2) it creates an
:>annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor bastard is
:>stuck sitting next to it.
To those like you.
Not to me or many others.
:>It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
:>i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
:>such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.
You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".
:>No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
:>lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
:>"lower classes."
Proven false.
PTRAVEL
"Simon Elliott" <Simon at ctsn.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4151379d$0$94921$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
>> Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.
>
> Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?
First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.
With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.
1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.
2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.
4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.
5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.
6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.
7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.
Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.
Banty
What's amazing, is that you don't understand why others find this amazing.
The Rules according to Paul Tauger. What He doesn't like; what He thinks is
important enough to deal with what He doesn't like.
Banty
PTRAVEL
And whence came the idea that this has anything to do with what I think?
> and that therefore a situation with any such exposure is an 'imposition'?
> Therefore hearing babies for Paul Tauger,
Not "hearing babies." Come on, Banty -- you don't really think there's no
difference between "hearing babies" and continuous high-volume crying?
PTRAVEL
And, as a general rule it's true. When someone says, "an airplane is a
flying bus" in the context of a discussion about public transportation, the
assumption is that what was meant is that "most airplanes are like most
buses," i.e. the short-haul municipal kind. There are buses used as RVs,
buses used by rock bands, buses used for charters, school buses, etc., but
those kind of buses are not relevant to the discussion.
Is that the kind of bus you meant when you said, "airplanes are like
buses" -- Greyhound longhaulers?
>
> It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were false.
It would be more honest of you to discuss points on the merits rather than
engage in tricky, off-point sophistry.
>
> :>> And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
> :>> decides to
> :>> stop.
>
> :>> I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
> :>> commercial,
>
> :>I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
> :>anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do
> you
> :>know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I
> grew
> :>up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when
> I
> :>fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others
> when
> :>they fly.
>
> You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.
I thought that it would, be you consistently miss my points.
>
> :>Don't impose.
>
> Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules of
> life.
What do you consider an imposition?
>
> :>I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept,
> or
> :>else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which
> is
> :>not whether there are long-distance buses,
>
> Your assertion was false.
>
> Why not admit the mistake?
The only mistake, here, is your belief that sophistry is a valid rhetorical
tool.
>
> :> I pay more taxes than you, or
> any
> :>other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to
> bring
> :>a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board
> a
> :>transoceanic aircraft.
>
> Perhaps. Subject to values.
>
> There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.
So . . . let's see where that leaves us. I politely and civilly express a
point of view different from yours and, therefore, according to you, my very
presence is an affront to you.
Or were you just trying to be glib? If so, you didn't succeed.
>
> The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones
> actions
> are "rude".
Ah, a new premise. Okay, this is interesting. Go on . . .
>
> :>> just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a
> lap
> :>> baby
> :>> to save money.
>
> :>I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that
> (1) it
> :>is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
> :>there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),
>
> Make the case to the airlines.
I do. I also make it here.
>
> Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
> equivalent distances.
So what?
>
> :> and (2) it creates an
> :>annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor
> bastard is
> :>stuck sitting next to it.
>
> To those like you.
To most passengers. Read the surveys.
I'll ask you what I've asked previously:
Assume an airline like Southwest with unreserved "festival" seating. Upon
boarding there are only two seats open, both window seats. The adjacent
seats are each occupied by identical twins, dressed identically. The only
difference is that one twin is holding a novel, the other a toddler on her
lap.
Tell me, with a straight face, that you'll select the seat next to the twin
with the toddler. Tell me, with a straight face, that most passengers would
do the same.
>
> Not to me or many others.
>
> :>It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
> :>i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor."
> This is
> :>such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.
>
> You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".
As a fraction of the cost of a trip overseas, it is a couple of dollars.
>
> :>No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
> :>lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
> :>"lower classes."
>
> Proven false.
Not in any post I've read (or you've written).
PTRAVEL
That's right -- I don't understand why others find this amazing. So feel
free to be amazed.
>
> The Rules according to Paul Tauger. What He doesn't like; what He thinks
> is
> important enough to deal with what He doesn't like.
That's everyone's rule, Banty. If you're proximate to something you don't
like, you'll move away. Except that on aircraft that's impossible.
>
> Banty
>
jenn
LOL no kidding -- there are an assortment of pathologies that create
this extreme lack of empathy and high degree of self centeredness in
adults --
Banty
>
>Banty wrote:
>>
>>
>> What's amazing, is that you don't understand why others find this amazing.
>>
>> The Rules according to Paul Tauger. What He doesn't like; what He thinks is
>> important enough to deal with what He doesn't like.
>>
>> Banty
>>
>
>
>LOL no kidding -- there are an assortment of pathologies that create
>this extreme lack of empathy and high degree of self centeredness in
>adults --
Maybe it can all be blamed on bad parenting.... ;-)
Banty
Miguel Cruz
> "Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>> To those like you.
>
> To most passengers. Read the surveys.
>
> I'll ask you what I've asked previously:
>
> Assume an airline like Southwest with unreserved "festival" seating. Upon
> boarding there are only two seats open, both window seats. The adjacent
> seats are each occupied by identical twins, dressed identically. The only
> difference is that one twin is holding a novel, the other a toddler on her
> lap.
>
> Tell me, with a straight face, that you'll select the seat next to the twin
> with the toddler.
What's the novel?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 31 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:79u2l05c2rvi6m3h7...@4ax.com...
:>> Agreed.
That was YOUR presumption.
:> There are buses used as RVs,
:>buses used by rock bands, buses used for charters, school buses, etc., but
:>those kind of buses are not relevant to the discussion.
Actually, they are.
If one wishes a bus ride while managing to avoid what you think of as the
"lesser people", one should charter ones own bus.
:>Is that the kind of bus you meant when you said, "airplanes are like
:>buses" -- Greyhound longhaulers?
Not exclusively, but definitely included.
:>> It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were false.
:>It would be more honest of you to discuss points on the merits rather than
:>engage in tricky, off-point sophistry.
That is one of the points.
A plane is like a bus.
You want a private ride, with only those whom you deem worthy of your
presence, charter one.
:>> :>> And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
:>> :>> decides to
:>> :>> stop.
:>> :>> I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
:>> :>> commercial,
:>> :>I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
:>> :>anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do
:>> you
:>> :>know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I
:>> grew
:>> :>up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when
:>> I
:>> :>fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others
:>> when
:>> :>they fly.
:>> You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.
:>I thought that it would, be you consistently miss my points.
Then try harder.
:>> :>Don't impose.
:>> Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules of
:>> life.
:>What do you consider an imposition?
Among your case, kicking the seat.
Making sounds is not.
:>> :>I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept,
:>> or
:>> :>else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which
:>> is
:>> :>not whether there are long-distance buses,
:>> Your assertion was false.
:>> Why not admit the mistake?
:>The only mistake, here, is your belief that sophistry is a valid rhetorical
:>tool.
Why is it so hard to admit your mistake?
:>> :> I pay more taxes than you, or
:>> any
:>> :>other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to
:>> bring
:>> :>a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board
:>> a
:>> :>transoceanic aircraft.
:>> Perhaps. Subject to values.
:>> There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.
:>So . . . let's see where that leaves us. I politely and civilly express a
:>point of view different from yours and, therefore, according to you, my very
:>presence is an affront to you.
I didn't say it was me.
Try reading more carefully.
:>Or were you just trying to be glib? If so, you didn't succeed.
The point stands.
:>> The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones
:>> actions
:>> are "rude".
:>Ah, a new premise. Okay, this is interesting. Go on . . .
The basic premise all along.
:>> :>> just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a
:>> lap
:>> :>> baby
:>> :>> to save money.
:>> :>I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that
:>> (1) it
:>> :>is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
:>> :>there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),
:>> Make the case to the airlines.
:>I do. I also make it here.
You have failed.
Certainly in the former.
:>> Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
:>> equivalent distances.
:>So what?
Your safety issue has been absolutely refuted.
:>> :> and (2) it creates an
:>> :>annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor
:>> bastard is
:>> :>stuck sitting next to it.
:>> To those like you.
:>To most passengers. Read the surveys.
Then why aren't the airlines refusing to sell lap baby tickets?
Why not jump into this market opportunity?
:>I'll ask you what I've asked previously:
:>Assume an airline like Southwest with unreserved "festival" seating. Upon
:>boarding there are only two seats open, both window seats. The adjacent
:>seats are each occupied by identical twins, dressed identically. The only
:>difference is that one twin is holding a novel, the other a toddler on her
:>lap.
:>Tell me, with a straight face, that you'll select the seat next to the twin
:>with the toddler. Tell me, with a straight face, that most passengers would
:>do the same.
It would be the same question if one was a large passenger and one was a small
passenger.
If the combined sizes of woiman+book and women+baby were the same it would be
a toss-up.
:>> Not to me or many others.
:>> :>It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
:>> :>i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor."
:>> This is
:>> :>such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.
:>> You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".
:>As a fraction of the cost of a trip overseas, it is a couple of dollars.
Only to those born with a silver spoon in the mouth or with money falling out
of their pockets.
:>> :>No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
:>> :>lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
:>> :>"lower classes."
:>> Proven false.
:>Not in any post I've read (or you've written).
I doubt that I would ever hire you as a lawyer - and I would love it if my
opposition did.
jenn
so then he was right all along? works for me
jenn
> PTRAVEL <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To those like you.
>>
>>To most passengers. Read the surveys.
>>
>>I'll ask you what I've asked previously:
>>
>>Assume an airline like Southwest with unreserved "festival" seating. Upon
>>boarding there are only two seats open, both window seats. The adjacent
>>seats are each occupied by identical twins, dressed identically. The only
>>difference is that one twin is holding a novel, the other a toddler on her
>>lap.
>>
>>Tell me, with a straight face, that you'll select the seat next to the twin
>>with the toddler.
yup my heart always sinks when I find myself seated next to someone with
a lap child -- although more often than not I am pleasantly surprised to
find the child no trouble at all
but then my heart sinks even further when I am seated next to a fat
person or a man with very broad shoulders both of whom tend to intrude
into my space -- or next to a loud tourist returning from a cruise -- or
next to an evangelist -- or next to a self important doink who is elbows
out carving space for using his laptop --
lots of seatmates don't thrill me much when the plane is crowded
this doesn't make any of these people less entitled to fly wherever they
are going --
Banty
Oh, but only if what they're doing is IMPORTANT. If the self-important doink is
playing computer games, obviously he shouldn't fly. If he's doing it for his
job - it depends. Is he middleman arranging for retail sales of something he's
bought wholesale? >>honk<<, he's out - no net benefit to society. Is he doing
actual value-generating work? Well, it depends. If it's the final stages of
getting Drug A for the cure of lymphomatic cancers approved by the FDA - hey!,
he should elbow away! But if it's research on Drug A such that application is
still years away, then his elbow-intrusion should be inversly proportional to
the time to FDA approval. Ten years away?? Keep your elbows to yourself - it
won't matter if you can do it on this flight or not. Four years away - hey, I
know someone with a lymphoma; that's within his probable survival, but the
chances of Drug A actually working is only about 10%, well, he can use his
laptop, but I get the forwardmost portion of the armrest.
How do I decide if what he's doing merits his imposition upon myself? Well, for
this eventuality I have drawn up a survey. Whenever a passenger is within my
Personal Radius, or over my Personal Decibel Level, I present him or her with a
survey. Once he or she returns the filled out survey, I decide, based on my
sense of Societal Importance, if and to what degree their intrusion is
Justified.
Banty (I won't mention what I would do if it were revealed that the doink is a
lawyer.....)
PTRAVEL
If that wasn't your presumption, then you have no point whatsoever.
> :> There are buses used as
> RVs,
> :>buses used by rock bands, buses used for charters, school buses, etc.,
> but
> :>those kind of buses are not relevant to the discussion.
>
> Actually, they are.
>
> If one wishes a bus ride while managing to avoid what you think of as the
> "lesser people", one should charter ones own bus.
"Lesser people" are your words (and, apparently, your beliefs), not mine.
Again, nothing I've said or written hints at anything like that, nor do I
believe.
You create strawmen arguments, and it's completely disingenuous to do so.
>
> :>Is that the kind of bus you meant when you said, "airplanes are like
> :>buses" -- Greyhound longhaulers?
>
> Not exclusively, but definitely included.
Fine. In that case, airplanes are like Greyhound long haulers -- screaming
lapchildren are inappropriate on either, and for the same reasons.
>
> :>> It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were
> false.
>
> :>It would be more honest of you to discuss points on the merits rather
> than
> :>engage in tricky, off-point sophistry.
>
> That is one of the points.
>
> A plane is like a bus.
What kind of bus?
>
> You want a private ride, with only those whom you deem worthy of your
> presence, charter one.
You want to annoy people with your selfish entitlement demands, charter your
own.
>
> :>> :>> And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the
> driver
> :>> :>> decides to
> :>> :>> stop.
>
> :>> :>> I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
> :>> :>> commercial,
>
> :>> :>I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down
> on"
> :>> :>anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor
> do
> :>> you
> :>> :>know anything about either my present social class nor the one that
> I
> :>> grew
> :>> :>up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them
> when
> :>> I
> :>> :>fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and
> others
> :>> when
> :>> :>they fly.
>
> :>> You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.
>
> :>I thought that it would, be you consistently miss my points.
>
> Then try harder.
Ummm . . . you're the only one who doesn't get what I write. Others may
disagree but, at least, they understand my points.
>
> :>> :>Don't impose.
>
> :>> Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules
> of
> :>> life.
>
> :>What do you consider an imposition?
>
> Among your case, kicking the seat.
Why? Because kicking the seat is physically intrusive? Because it invades
the space assigned for your use? Because it's annoying?
>
> Making sounds is not.
Making sounds is not. Shrieking at loud decibel levels is.
>
> :>> :>I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that
> concept,
> :>> or
> :>> :>else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic,
> which
> :>> is
> :>> :>not whether there are long-distance buses,
>
> :>> Your assertion was false.
>
> :>> Why not admit the mistake?
>
> :>The only mistake, here, is your belief that sophistry is a valid
> rhetorical
> :>tool.
>
> Why is it so hard to admit your mistake?
Because I'm not wrong. Stick to the subject.
>
> :>> :> I pay more taxes than
> you, or
> :>> any
> :>> :>other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish
> to
> :>> bring
> :>> :>a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on
> board
> :>> a
> :>> :>transoceanic aircraft.
>
> :>> Perhaps. Subject to values.
>
> :>> There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.
>
> :>So . . . let's see where that leaves us. I politely and civilly express
> a
> :>point of view different from yours and, therefore, according to you, my
> very
> :>presence is an affront to you.
>
> I didn't say it was me.
You wrote it. No one else did. If you don't think so, and no one else
thinks so, then, once again, you've pulled out a strawman.
>
> Try reading more carefully.
Try thinking and expressing yourself more carefully.
>
> :>Or were you just trying to be glib? If so, you didn't succeed.
>
> The point stands.
As does mine.
>
> :>> The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones
> :>> actions
> :>> are "rude".
>
> :>Ah, a new premise. Okay, this is interesting. Go on . . .
>
> The basic premise all along.
So, not a new premise at all. Nothing more to say on that point? Fine,
then we'll dismiss it.
>
> :>> :>> just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to
> carry a
> :>> lap
> :>> :>> baby
> :>> :>> to save money.
>
> :>> :>I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care
> that
> :>> (1) it
> :>> :>is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic
> if
> :>> :>there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),
>
> :>> Make the case to the airlines.
>
> :>I do. I also make it here.
>
> You have failed.
So what? That doesn't mean I shouldn't try.
>
> Certainly in the former.
What former?
>
> :>> Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
> :>> equivalent distances.
>
> :>So what?
>
> Your safety issue has been absolutely refuted.
No it isn't. You certainly haven't refuted it. However, to be perfectly
honest, I don't care whether lap children are safe or not. If they're a
nuisance they shouldn't be on the plane.
>
> :>> :> and (2) it
> creates an
> :>> :>annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor
> :>> bastard is
> :>> :>stuck sitting next to it.
>
> :>> To those like you.
>
> :>To most passengers. Read the surveys.
>
> Then why aren't the airlines refusing to sell lap baby tickets?
Because all airlines care about are putting "asses in the seats." What the
airlines haven't realized is, the more unpleasant they make it to fly, the
less people are willing to fly, which is why the airlines are losing money.
They didn't lose money when airfares were higher and the emphasis was on
service. Now that the emphasis is on low price, more people are flying,
more frequent flyers are flying less frequently, and the airlines are
running at a loss.
>
> Why not jump into this market opportunity?
Because I have neither the money nor in the interest in starting an airline.
>
> :>I'll ask you what I've asked previously:
>
> :>Assume an airline like Southwest with unreserved "festival" seating.
> Upon
> :>boarding there are only two seats open, both window seats. The adjacent
> :>seats are each occupied by identical twins, dressed identically. The
> only
> :>difference is that one twin is holding a novel, the other a toddler on
> her
> :>lap.
>
> :>Tell me, with a straight face, that you'll select the seat next to the
> twin
> :>with the toddler. Tell me, with a straight face, that most passengers
> would
> :>do the same.
>
> It would be the same question if one was a large passenger and one was a
> small
> passenger.
Yes, exactly!
>
> If the combined sizes of woiman+book and women+baby were the same it would
> be
> a toss-up.
Then you're unique (and I don't believe you).
>
> :>> Not to me or many others.
>
> :>> :>It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a
> strawman,
> :>> :>i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor."
> :>> This is
> :>> :>such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.
>
> :>> You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".
>
> :>As a fraction of the cost of a trip overseas, it is a couple of dollars.
>
> Only to those born with a silver spoon in the mouth or with money falling
> out
> of their pockets.
Not having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and not having money
falling out of my pockets, I wouldn't know.
>
> :>> :>No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
> :>> :>lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of
> the
> :>> :>"lower classes."
>
> :>> Proven false.
>
> :>Not in any post I've read (or you've written).
>
> I doubt that I would ever hire you as a lawyer - and I would love it if my
> opposition did.
You are rude, boorish, discourteous and completely incapable of having a
civil conversation. I don't mind arguing the point with Jenn or Simon or
anyone else who conducts themselves civilly. You, on the other hand, are
petty, small, smarmy and ill-bred.
You can have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you.
Simon Elliott
> > Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?
>
> First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in
> which you indicated that you had always been civil in responding to
> my arguments. You have, and I appreciate it, thank you.
Thanks. But I think it's in my interest: as far as I know, being
obnoxious isn't all that persuasive!
> With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles,
> here.
>
> 1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid.
> It's no one's business why, and there's no "reason police"
> interviewing all passengers as to the reason they're on board.
Agreed.
> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
> else. This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in
> your seat, drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear, children
> don't have the right to kick the back of your seat, and parents don't
> have the right to force a hapless seatmate to endure a squirming,
> sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
I think each passenger will have a slightly different list, and would
order their list differently. This is one half of the problem:
different levels of tolerance.
Suppose a parent brings a four month old baby on a redeye. The baby
wakes from time to time and shrieks. Some passengers would be
completely unable to sleep, while others wouldn't even notice. The
parent doesn't know in advance how much grief they are going to cause.
Now this is an extreme condition, and most people would agree that if
you take a noisy baby on a redeye, quite a few people will be
inconvenienced. So perhaps the parent travels during the day. But what
about the chap over in 2a who has a headache and can't concentrate on
his briefing notes for his important business meeting?
As a parent, I'm going to have to estimate how much irritation my kids
are going to cause the other passengers. And sometimes I'm going to get
that estimate wrong.
> 3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to
> demand.
Agreed, but once I'm on the plane with my kids, it's too late for the
bloke in 2a with the laptop and the headache.
> 4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and
> meaningful manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.
Agreed.
> 5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and
> meaningful manner), than those others will resent you unless you have
> a reason that THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In
> other words, if you're going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get
> far more cooperation if you explain why you need it.
As above, once I've boarded, I'm not in a position to ask a favour. I
can only try to minimise the inconvenience.
> 6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior"
> is not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling
> reason for me to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler
> held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's
> discretionary travel. And it's rude and selfish.
>
> 7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it
> through the night, but there's no one to watch Junior," is, in my
> opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to
> have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of
> the person next to me for 8 or more hours. It's a necessity, it's
> unfortunate, and that person will have my moral support and
> assistance throughout the flight.
>
> Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with
> the imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.
As you say, everyone's item 6 and 7 will potentially be different. This
is the other half of the problem: different value systems.
Whether, objectively, I think ten people being woken up on a redeye is
less important than someone visiting their terminally ill mother, is a
function of my values.
Whether I view certain travel as discretionary or essential is also a
function of my values.
Once again, the issue isn't with the extreme conditions: I'd imagine
that most people would agree with your 6 and 7. It's where you draw the
line between them. If I travel with my kids for what I perceive to be a
compelling reason, but you don't, then we have a potential for conflict.
PTRAVEL
> On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
<snip>
>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
>> else. This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in
>> your seat, drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
>> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear, children
>> don't have the right to kick the back of your seat, and parents don't
>> have the right to force a hapless seatmate to endure a squirming,
>> sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
>
> I think each passenger will have a slightly different list, and would
> order their list differently. This is one half of the problem:
> different levels of tolerance.
Quite so, but there are certain kinds of intrustions which, I think, are
universally and generally abhorred. For example, I don't think anyone, even
the most kind-hearted professional nurse, would accept having a drunk be
sick on them. No one wants their hair pulled when the person in back grabs
their seat (and their head) to pull himself up. No one wants to share half
their seat with another passenger who can't fit into his own.
These are all species of physical assault. I think it's fair to say that
passengers have an expectation that they won't be physically assaulted when
they fly, and that expecation is reasonable. No one would even think in
terms of evaluating willingness to tolerate physical assault -- there is no
amount of "drunk being sick on your shoes" that would be considered
acceptable.
Concussion grenades are not acceptable on aircraft (most times, one hopes).
I don't know if these are strictly an American phenomena, but those
over-sized, over-powered automobile woofers that are popular among some
kinds of people and can shake a house to its foundations are not acceptable
on aircraft. Beginner trumpet practice is not acceptable on aircraft.
Deliberately running nails down chalkboards is not acceptable on aircraft.
Playing a boombox is not acceptable on aircraft.
It is univerally recognized that some types of loud and annoying noise is
unacceptable on aircraft. There is no debate that creating loud, irritating
noise is an unacceptable imposition. The debate goes only to the source of
the noise.
Certain kinds of noises made by children, for example, crying, are
genetically designed to be annoying and intrusive -- that's how a child in
distress gets the attention of its parent. Binyamin and Banty like to
characterize my objection as being "to children" or "to any sound." Of
course, it's not and it's disingenuous of them to say that it is. The
particular noise at issue is that to which we are all genetically-programmed
to find irritating.
Some people are willing to tolerate it from young children (though more on
this later). Others are not. This issue needs to be seen for what it is,
though. It is not a question of whether the noise made by a screaming
infant is intrusive or annoying, but whether it is somehow privileged.
Those who claim privilege have yet, at least to my satisfaction, explained
why they are entitled to this special exemption from courteous behavior.
"How are parents supposed to travel?" doesn't explain it to me, because my
answer is, "they're not, if it means taking an infant onto an aircraft."
Would anyone accept, "How are boombox owners supposed to travel?" as
justification for someone who blasts one throughout a flight?
I believe that many parents become inured to the sound of a child crying or,
perhaps, as a concomittant of parenthood, are able to tune out the sound of
infants other than their own. That's fine for the parent, but not fine for
those of us who either haven't developed that particular skill, or never had
children.
>
> Suppose a parent brings a four month old baby on a redeye. The baby
> wakes from time to time and shrieks. Some passengers would be
> completely unable to sleep, while others wouldn't even notice.
Some people can sleep through a blasting boombox, but that doesn't suggest
that a blasting boombox is appropriate in a venue where people are trying to
sleep.
> The
> parent doesn't know in advance how much grief they are going to cause.
I'm sorry, but I think the parent knows full well. I read here that very
young babies tend to sleep all the time and don't make much noise. I'll
accept that as true, as I have no experience in this area. A parent with a
very young baby can board, confident in the knowledge that his or her child
won't disturb _anyone_ because the child won't be screaming. There is
difference between that, and the parent who boards _knowing_ that their
child will scream, but hoping for a planeload of people who won't find the
screaming annoying. Resorting to my favorite analogy, it's no different
than if I boarded with a boombox hoping that everyone on the flight had a
taste for hip hop.
>
> Now this is an extreme condition, and most people would agree that if
> you take a noisy baby on a redeye, quite a few people will be
> inconvenienced.
I would hope that most people would agree. There are at least two, and
possibly three, participants in this thread who do not.
> So perhaps the parent travels during the day. But what
> about the chap over in 2a who has a headache and can't concentrate on
> his briefing notes for his important business meeting?
And that's an interesting point. Let's ignore the baby question for the
moment, and just focus on what is deemed universally "acceptable" noise made
by passengers, for example, a couple seated in 1a and 1b chatting in a
normal tone of voice.
The chap with the headache wants a special accomodation, i.e. he is, in
essence, saying, "I have a very bad headache and an important business
meeting to prepare for. Would you mind keeping it down a bit? Thanks, very
much."
In other words, he is asking for the right to impose on the couple. At that
point, they will evaluate the request and decide whether it's sufficiently
compelling to justify the intrusion on them. Is it? I don't know -- it's
up to them, since they're the ones being imposed upon.
>
> As a parent, I'm going to have to estimate how much irritation my kids
> are going to cause the other passengers. And sometimes I'm going to get
> that estimate wrong.
But when you do, I suspect you are not the type of parent who sits there
blithely, making no effort to calm your child. I've had three flights in
the last two day. On two of them, there were screaming infants within one
row of my seat and, in each instance, the parent did _nothing_ to quiet the
child, who cried, screamed and shrieked the entire flight. And, in each
instance, the parent didn't even acknowledge that others were being
disturbed. A simple, "I'm sorry, but he's cholicky and there's nothing I
can do," while not acceptable (from my point of view) as a justification, is
at least palliative in that it acknowledges that others are disturbed.
And that leads me to another observation. As I've noted repeatedly, many of
the replied from parent-posters in this thread have been abusive. I can't
help but believe that there is a correlation between parents who resort to
insult and abuse in their conversations with strangers on Usenet and parents
willing to impose any kind of nuisance created by their offspring on
strangers in aircraft.
>
>> 3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to
>> demand.
>
> Agreed, but once I'm on the plane with my kids, it's too late for the
> bloke in 2a with the laptop and the headache.
It is, but the bloke in 2a is a special case. What about all the passengers
without headaches who, nonetheless, will find loud, high-pitched, percussive
noises, i.e. the screams of an infant, annoying?
>
>> 4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and
>> meaningful manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and
>> meaningful manner), than those others will resent you unless you have
>> a reason that THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In
>> other words, if you're going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get
>> far more cooperation if you explain why you need it.
>
> As above, once I've boarded, I'm not in a position to ask a favour. I
> can only try to minimise the inconvenience.
Once you've boarded (and I use "you" in the general sense) you've demanded
the accomodation as an entitlement, rather than asked it as a favor, which
is why, Binyamin and Jenn notwithstanding, an airplane is not like a bus --
Greyhound aside, bus passengers are not held captive in the way that airline
passengers are.
>
>> 6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior"
>> is not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling
>> reason for me to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler
>> held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's
>> discretionary travel. And it's rude and selfish.
>>
>> 7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it
>> through the night, but there's no one to watch Junior," is, in my
>> opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to
>> have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of
>> the person next to me for 8 or more hours. It's a necessity, it's
>> unfortunate, and that person will have my moral support and
>> assistance throughout the flight.
>>
>> Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with
>> the imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.
>
> As you say, everyone's item 6 and 7 will potentially be different.
I'm not so certain of that. Different people will have different toleration
levels for the noise created by children (and, as I said, I think the
primary indicator of the degree of toleration is whether or not the person
is a parent). However, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that
everyone finds the noise of children shrieking irritating, I don't think
there will be that much divergence regarding which reasons people would
consider justifiable and which they would not.
> This
> is the other half of the problem: different value systems.
I agree with the statement, though probably in a context other than you've
intended. In the U.S., the "me generation" are having children and many of
them have a sense of entitlement that is truly frightening. They demand
that they bring their children _everywhere_, including theaters, restaurants
and other venues that most of us agree are inappropriate for those without
volitional self-control. They seek to sanitize movies and television,
regulate anything which they see as a potential risk to their children, in
short, they seek to child-proof the universe. They not only believe that
their children are the center of their universe (as they should believe),
but they demand that their children be the center of everyone else's
universe, as well.
I've not seen this in many other countries or cultures and, perhaps not
suprisingly, I've not encountered many child-created nuisances in
intracontinental travel in Europe or Asia (with the occassional notable
exception).
So, yes, I agree -- there is a difference in values which is a root cause of
this particular dispute.
>
> Whether, objectively, I think ten people being woken up on a redeye is
> less important than someone visiting their terminally ill mother, is a
> function of my values.
Honestly, though, do you really believe that most people wouldn't accomodate
someone travelling to visit their terminally ill mother? I think most
everyone would agree that someone in that situation merits, if not our
assistance, at least our toleration.
>
> Whether I view certain travel as discretionary or essential is also a
> function of my values.
Agreed.
>
> Once again, the issue isn't with the extreme conditions: I'd imagine
> that most people would agree with your 6 and 7
Binyamin, Banty and Jenn don't agree with 7.
>. It's where you draw the
> line between them. If I travel with my kids for what I perceive to be a
> compelling reason, but you don't, then we have a potential for conflict.
Exactly right, which is where rhetorical line-drawing, absent invective, can
be useful.
ThomasG
one available I was told was next to an infant. Since I brought earplugs
with me i said ok.
Turns out the seat row was in the middle of the aircraft next to the
emergency exit row with a bulkhead in front of me giving me more leg room.
The baby was given a little porta crib they hung on the bulkhead in front of
us and slept most of the trip.
It never cried once.
So it worked out for everyone.
Frank F. Matthews
they do happen -- and you would have had to duck a flying baby.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>When I flew Lufthansa from Munich to LA I wanted an aisle seat but the only
:>one available I was told was next to an infant. Since I brought earplugs
:>with me i said ok.
:>Turns out the seat row was in the middle of the aircraft next to the
:>emergency exit row with a bulkhead in front of me giving me more leg room.
:>The baby was given a little porta crib they hung on the bulkhead in front of
:>us and slept most of the trip.
:>It never cried once.
:>So it worked out for everyone.
Yes, but you also didn't start an argument with the child (and the parents)
about their right to be on the plane.
Babies will react to people around them, and if you act negatively they will
act that way as well.
:>> >> If you must take your infant, pay for the seat. If you don't, and
:>> >> there's
:>> >> no room, you, your son and everyone around you will be miserable.
:>> >> But better, still, is to not take an infant on a long haul.
--
Binyamin Dissen
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
:>Of course a serious emergency causing a drop -- unlikely I admit but
:>they do happen -- and you would have had to duck a flying baby.
If it is enough of an unexpected drop to cause a "flying baby", there will be
a lot more dangerous stuff flying around the cabin (and falling from the
overhead bins).
Frank F. Matthews
the baby's point of view.
Simon Elliott
> Since you may have missed it I was trying to point out the problem
> from the baby's point of view.
I've never seen these things. Is there no way of securing the baby in
the bassinet with some kind of harness?
temari
on short flights within the country. We had an FAA-approved car seat
that converted to a stroller. We chose flight times that were the same
as nap time or slightly later, then we kept the baby awake in the
terminal before the flight and did not feed her. Then when we boarded,
we gave her a bottle. Full belly, tired already and past nap time, and
the droning of the engines put her right to sleep, worked every time.
She never cried or fussed on any flight. Hope this helps some.
>
>
> To be honest, we've now 99% decided that we're going to pay for a seat
> for him. I'd imagine the flight would be unbearable if there were no
> spare seats and he had to sit on our laps for that long !!! :-)
Kim Dyer
>a lot more dangerous stuff flying around the cabin (and falling from the
>overhead bins).
And, of course, the more likely the flying baby is going to be injured by
flying umbrella from the overhead.
-- Kimbis
Banty
says...
>
>When our child was an infant, we always paid for a seat for her, even
>on short flights within the country. We had an FAA-approved car seat
>that converted to a stroller. We chose flight times that were the same
>as nap time or slightly later, then we kept the baby awake in the
>terminal before the flight and did not feed her. Then when we boarded,
>we gave her a bottle. Full belly, tired already and past nap time, and
>the droning of the engines put her right to sleep, worked every time.
>She never cried or fussed on any flight. Hope this helps some.
This is is exactly what I did (the timing whenever I could, depending on what
was available). Worked a charm, but there were two drawbacks. One, that I had
a sleepy, somewhat cranky infant or toddler in hand while waiting at the gate.
I'm sure I got a cold icy stare or two from folks who assumed that therefore I
was bringing a sleepy, cranky infant on the airline ;-)
Secondly, it does risk that that baby gets over-riled, and does *not* go to
sleep. In which case it can be really miserable.
But it always worked well for me to have by son hungry and sleepy, feed for
take-off, and have him drop off for the rest of the flight. Even through
pre-school age it worked.
Cheers,
Banty
Simon Elliott
Apologies for the lack of snippage in this post. Hopefully most of the
stuff I've left in is relevant.
> > I think each passenger will have a slightly different list, and
> > would order their list differently. This is one half of the problem:
> > different levels of tolerance.
>
> Quite so, but there are certain kinds of intrustions which, I think,
> are universally and generally abhorred. For example, I don't think
> anyone, even the most kind-hearted professional nurse, would accept
> having a drunk be sick on them. No one wants their hair pulled when
> the person in back grabs their seat (and their head) to pull himself
> up. No one wants to share half their seat with another passenger who
> can't fit into his own.
>
> These are all species of physical assault. I think it's fair to say
> that passengers have an expectation that they won't be physically
> assaulted when they fly, and that expecation is reasonable. No one
> would even think in terms of evaluating willingness to tolerate
> physical assault -- there is no amount of "drunk being sick on your
> shoes" that would be considered acceptable.
Yes, I think these would be pretty universal. Fortunately, none of
these have ever happened to me. My personal list of in-flight
irritation from other passengers is:
[1] People congregating in the aisle, talking and partying noisily
while I'm trying to get some sleep.
[2] Passengers smoking in the non smoking section. Fortunately a thing
of the past as many more flights seem to be non smoking these days.
> Concussion grenades are not acceptable on aircraft (most times, one
> hopes).
There are times when passengers have been very grateful for the odd
XM84 flashbang...
I don't know if these are strictly an American phenomena,
> but those over-sized, over-powered automobile woofers that are
> popular among some kinds of people and can shake a house to its
> foundations are not acceptable on aircraft. Beginner trumpet
> practice is not acceptable on aircraft. Deliberately running nails
> down chalkboards is not acceptable on aircraft. Playing a boombox is
> not acceptable on aircraft.
> It is univerally recognized that some types of loud and annoying
> noise is unacceptable on aircraft. There is no debate that creating
> loud, irritating noise is an unacceptable imposition. The debate
> goes only to the source of the noise.
>
> Certain kinds of noises made by children, for example, crying, are
> genetically designed to be annoying and intrusive -- that's how a
> child in distress gets the attention of its parent. Binyamin and
> Banty like to characterize my objection as being "to children" or "to
> any sound." Of course, it's not and it's disingenuous of them to say
> that it is. The particular noise at issue is that to which we are
> all genetically-programmed to find irritating.
But some far more than others. To take your example, I find boom boxes
quite annoying because low frequency noises propagate further and I
find listening to someone's bass line quite irritating. I might find it
more disturbing than a crying baby, depending on proximity and a lot of
other factors.
However, I've never had any problems with crying babies or unruly
toddlers. Not once. So I don't actually know how disturbing I'd find
them.
> Some people are willing to tolerate it from young children (though
> more on this later). Others are not. This issue needs to be seen
> for what it is, though. It is not a question of whether the noise
> made by a screaming infant is intrusive or annoying, but whether it
> is somehow privileged.
It depends on how loud and constant the screaming is, and how far one
is from the source, but let's look at the privilege thing for a moment.
>
> Those who claim privilege have yet, at least to my satisfaction,
> explained why they are entitled to this special exemption from
> courteous behavior. "How are parents supposed to travel?" doesn't
> explain it to me, because my answer is, "they're not, if it means
> taking an infant onto an aircraft." Would anyone accept, "How are
> boombox owners supposed to travel?" as justification for someone who
> blasts one throughout a flight?
This is an example where I'd draw the line in a different place from
you. I believe that parents should be able to travel with their
children. They should try to minimise the problems this will sometimes
cause. They should avoid taking a colicky baby on a redeye unless they
have a pretty compelling reason.
Now perhaps I'm not being totally impartial here. Firstly I'm a parent.
Secondly in my former life when I did business travel I wasn't ever
bothered by babies or toddlers.
But, trying to stand back from that, would I rather that one group of
people were imposed upon, or that another group of people didn't get to
travel at all? Subject to some terms and conditions, I'd opt for the
former.
> I believe that many parents become inured to the sound of a child
> crying or, perhaps, as a concomittant of parenthood, are able to tune
> out the sound of infants other than their own. That's fine for the
> parent, but not fine for those of us who either haven't developed
> that particular skill, or never had children.
You could be right here. But everyone has different thresholds, and I
believe that being a parent is just one of many factors.
> > Suppose a parent brings a four month old baby on a redeye. The baby
> > wakes from time to time and shrieks. Some passengers would be
> > completely unable to sleep, while others wouldn't even notice.
>
> Some people can sleep through a blasting boombox, but that doesn't
> suggest that a blasting boombox is appropriate in a venue where
> people are trying to sleep.
>
> > The
> > parent doesn't know in advance how much grief they are going to
> > cause.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think the parent knows full well. I read here that
> very young babies tend to sleep all the time and don't make much
> noise. I'll accept that as true, as I have no experience in this
> area. A parent with a very young baby can board, confident in the
> knowledge that his or her child won't disturb anyone because the
> child won't be screaming. There is difference between that, and the
> parent who boards knowing that their child will scream, but hoping
> for a planeload of people who won't find the screaming annoying.
For many parents, this isn't an either/or situation where they can
guarantee that their baby will either sleep well and disturb no-one, or
wail all night. Most of the time, parents have to make estimates. How
much noise will my baby make? How many people is that likely to disturb?
> Resorting to my favorite analogy, it's no different than if I boarded
> with a boombox hoping that everyone on the flight had a taste for hip
> hop.
Yes, if the parents know that there's a good chance that their baby
will shriek all night like a malfunctioning car alarm. But even then,
the boombox owner could always leave the boombox at home. The parent
_may_ have compelling reasons both to travel and to bring the baby.
> > Now this is an extreme condition, and most people would agree that
> > if you take a noisy baby on a redeye, quite a few people will be
> > inconvenienced.
>
> I would hope that most people would agree. There are at least two,
> and possibly three, participants in this thread who do not.
I may have missed something, but I don't recall anyone asserting that a
noisy baby on a night flight would leave most passengers snoozing
peacefully.
> > So perhaps the parent travels during the day. But what
> > about the chap over in 2a who has a headache and can't concentrate
> > on his briefing notes for his important business meeting?
>
> And that's an interesting point. Let's ignore the baby question for
> the moment, and just focus on what is deemed universally "acceptable"
> noise made by passengers, for example, a couple seated in 1a and 1b
> chatting in a normal tone of voice.
>
> The chap with the headache wants a special accomodation, i.e. he is,
> in essence, saying, "I have a very bad headache and an important
> business meeting to prepare for. Would you mind keeping it down a
> bit? Thanks, very much."
>
> In other words, he is asking for the right to impose on the couple.
> At that point, they will evaluate the request and decide whether it's
> sufficiently compelling to justify the intrusion on them. Is it? I
> don't know -- it's up to them, since they're the ones being imposed
> upon.
I'd assert that a well behaved toddler in good health with an on the
ball parent is within the normal range of acceptable noise. So is a
baby who perhaps wails a bit on takeoff, and perhaps a couple of times
during the flight, but most of the time is contented. This might still
be too much for the chap in 2a, and the couple in 1a and 1b might not
be: it depends what sort of noise he's sensitive to.
However, no parent can guarantee that their toddler will always behave
like a little angel, or that their baby won't decide that something in
the cabin environment doesn't suit them. The one time that this
happened to me, I was amazed at the accommodation and assistance I got
from both my fellow passengers and the cabin crew.
But in the same way, no adult can guarantee that they will never
impose. As an example, on an Emirates flight from the UAE to the UK,
someone had a serious medical problem. We ended up making a rather
sudden and unscheduled stop in Vienna. This cost us a delay of about 90
minutes. I was amazed at how unsympathetic some of the other passengers
were.
So ideally I'd want to try to accomodate the chap in 2a, in the same
way as I'd hope he'd want to accomodate me. But when I bring my kids
along I can't always do this.
>
> > As a parent, I'm going to have to estimate how much irritation my
> > kids are going to cause the other passengers. And sometimes I'm
> > going to get that estimate wrong.
>
> But when you do, I suspect you are not the type of parent who sits
> there blithely, making no effort to calm your child. I've had three
> flights in the last two day. On two of them, there were screaming
> infants within one row of my seat and, in each instance, the parent
> did nothing to quiet the child, who cried, screamed and shrieked the
> entire flight.
I think Miguel Cruz has returned your curse.
> And, in each instance, the parent didn't even
> acknowledge that others were being disturbed. A simple, "I'm sorry,
> but he's cholicky and there's nothing I can do," while not acceptable
> (from my point of view) as a justification, is at least palliative in
> that it acknowledges that others are disturbed.
Yes, I think that's important.
> And that leads me to another observation. As I've noted repeatedly,
> many of the replied from parent-posters in this thread have been
> abusive. I can't help but believe that there is a correlation
> between parents who resort to insult and abuse in their conversations
> with strangers on Usenet and parents willing to impose any kind of
> nuisance created by their offspring on strangers in aircraft.
As I've already noted, there's been some abuse on both sides in this
thread.
> >> 3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to
> >> demand.
> >
> > Agreed, but once I'm on the plane with my kids, it's too late for
> > the bloke in 2a with the laptop and the headache.
>
> It is, but the bloke in 2a is a special case. What about all the
> passengers without headaches who, nonetheless, will find loud,
> high-pitched, percussive noises, i.e. the screams of an infant,
> annoying?
If the parent knows that their baby is likely to scream continuosly,
then in my opinion they should consider that as a factor in their
travel plans. But that isn't the same as saying that they shouldn't
travel.
I introduced the guy in 2a because he's someone who may find what I'd
regard as an ordinary noise range difficult. But he's been sold a
business class ticket and the airline advertised the laptop power port,
and now he can't work. There may be others who would find what I'd
regard as an ordinary noise range difficult even when they don't have a
headache.
[snip]
> > As above, once I've boarded, I'm not in a position to ask a favour.
> > I can only try to minimise the inconvenience.
>
> Once you've boarded (and I use "you" in the general sense) you've
> demanded the accomodation as an entitlement, rather than asked it as
> a favor, which is why, Binyamin and Jenn notwithstanding, an airplane
> is not like a bus -- Greyhound aside, bus passengers are not held
> captive in the way that airline passengers are.
Yes, I've demanded the accomodation as an entitlement. If indeed any
accomodation becomes necessary. That's unfortunate, but the only other
choice is not to travel. I hope that if I were on the other side of the
fence I'd see things the same way.
> frightening. They demand that they bring their children everywhere,
> including theaters, restaurants and other venues that most of us
> agree are inappropriate for those without volitional self-control.
> They seek to sanitize movies and television, regulate anything which
> they see as a potential risk to their children, in short, they seek
> to child-proof the universe. They not only believe that their
> children are the center of their universe (as they should believe),
> but they demand that their children be the center of everyone else's
> universe, as well.
This is a huge topic which I can't hope to do justice to here. I like
the Mediterranean cultures' approach, which is very child friendly but
expects children to adapt to the adult world as well as vice versa.
> I've not seen this in many other countries or cultures and, perhaps
> not suprisingly, I've not encountered many child-created nuisances in
> intracontinental travel in Europe or Asia (with the occassional
> notable exception).
Perhaps this explains why I haven't experienced any problems with
babies or toddlers. There may be other factors: in the UK families
often take cheap package holidays, travelling on charter airlines. This
keeps the kids off the scheduled flights.
In fact I've just booked one: we're all travelling to Lanzarote with
First Choice Airways. Isn't that a name to conjure with? I'm going to
be stuck at LGW again while the plane sits in a puddle of Skydrol,
aren't I?
> > Whether, objectively, I think ten people being woken up on a redeye
> > is less important than someone visiting their terminally ill
> > mother, is a function of my values.
>
> Honestly, though, do you really believe that most people wouldn't
> accomodate someone travelling to visit their terminally ill mother?
> I think most everyone would agree that someone in that situation
> merits, if not our assistance, at least our toleration.
I believe that most people would agree that this is a totally
compelling reason.
> > Once again, the issue isn't with the extreme conditions: I'd imagine
> > that most people would agree with your 6 and 7
>
> Binyamin, Banty and Jenn don't agree with 7.
I don't know where they would draw the line between 6 and 7.
For myself I'd draw it quite close to 6 for daytime travel with well
behaved toddlers and reasonably placid babies, and quite close to 7 for
a screaming baby on a long haul night flight.
One issue I have with "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be
parted from Junior" is that this type of travel isn't undertaken with
the interests of Junior in mind. This is something which we haven't
covered up until now. I think it's quite important.
I seem to recall in an earler post you used the example of a screaming
baby taken to an opera. In this case, the interests of the child and
the interest of the audience converge. The rest of the audience will
find their reason for attending completely destroyed, and if the baby
is screaming, the baby isn't enjoying the performance either. If the
parent wanted to expose the baby to the music, a good quality recording
at home would be just as effective. Clearly the parent wanted to go to
the opera, and to hang with the rest of the audience _and the child_.
Now, some travel undertaken by parents is either directly with the
interests of the child paramount (for example visiting relatives) or at
least taken into account (for example a holiday where many of the
activities will be interesting and developmental for the child.) In my
opinion, in my value system, this carries a lot of weight.
> > . It's where you draw the
> > line between them. If I travel with my kids for what I perceive to
> > be a compelling reason, but you don't, then we have a potential for
> > conflict.
>
> Exactly right, which is where rhetorical line-drawing, absent
> invective, can be useful.
Yes. This has been a useful series of discussions for me, especially as
I sometimes travel with my kids.
Rosalie B.
>
>"Simon Elliott" <Simon at ctsn.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:41528ac8$0$94916$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
>> On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
>>> else. This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in
>>> your seat, drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
I object to drunks in general, and also to people who smell either
with BO or with excessive perfume. (What I REALLY object to however
is someone who is ill - and by that I mean coughing and sneezing.)
But the assumption that only drunks might vomit on someone else's
shoes isn't necessarily valid - I mean if only drunks vomited (and I
think most of the time the airlines try to keep the drunks off the
aircraft or keep them from getting drunk), then why do they still have
those airsick bags in the seat pockets? Is it not possible that
someone might not get the bag out in time?
I've only sat next to a drunk once that I can remember and that was on
a bus trip. She didn't actually get sick, but I think it was a near
thing, and if she had, she wouldn't have had an airsick bag to do it
in.
>>> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear, children
I think in the case of evangelist, one should possibly be able to tell
the person to shut up. If you are so spineless that you can't do
that, then carry ear plugs and wear them. (Or put on those headsets
that the airline sells - you don't have to actually attach them to
anything.)
>>> don't have the right to kick the back of your seat, and parents don't
>>> have the right to force a hapless seatmate to endure a squirming,
>>> sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
>> I think each passenger will have a slightly different list, and would
>> order their list differently. This is one half of the problem:
>> different levels of tolerance.
>
>Quite so, but there are certain kinds of intrustions which, I think, are
>universally and generally abhorred. For example, I don't think anyone, even
>the most kind-hearted professional nurse, would accept having a drunk be
>sick on them. No one wants their hair pulled when the person in back grabs
>their seat (and their head) to pull himself up. No one wants to share half
While I try really hard to avoid grabbing the back of someone's seat
in order to get up, I can't always avoid it. Especially if it is
reclined. Since I usually have a window seat, I just don't have the
strength to lever myself at an angle into the air (avoiding hitting my
head) and at the same time travel sideways across the people in the
adjoining seats. I have to hold onto something. I assume that my
seat companions, even if closely related to me, would object to my
sitting in their lap or grabbing them around the neck while getting
out to the aisle. It isn't me you should be mad at though - it is the
person who designed the seats so as to shoehorn as many people as
possible into them.
>their seat with another passenger who can't fit into his own.
>
>These are all species of physical assault. I think it's fair to say that
>passengers have an expectation that they won't be physically assaulted when
>they fly, and that expecation is reasonable. No one would even think in
>terms of evaluating willingness to tolerate physical assault -- there is no
>amount of "drunk being sick on your shoes" that would be considered
>acceptable.
grandma Rosalie
abacus
"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7t0cl0137mvt40037...@4ax.com...
>><snip>
>>
> While I try really hard to avoid grabbing the back of someone's seat
> in order to get up, I can't always avoid it. Especially if it is
> reclined. Since I usually have a window seat, I just don't have the
> strength to lever myself at an angle into the air (avoiding hitting my
> head) and at the same time travel sideways across the people in the
> adjoining seats. I have to hold onto something. I assume that my
> seat companions, even if closely related to me, would object to my
> sitting in their lap or grabbing them around the neck while getting
> out to the aisle. It isn't me you should be mad at though - it is the
> person who designed the seats so as to shoehorn as many people as
> possible into them.
>
>
I was determined not to enter this stupid debate. But...
Why the f*ck do you "usually have a window seat" if you have difficulty
getting in and out of such a seat???
abacus.
Rosalie B.
temari
terminal, to take her mind off being hungry or tired. And if she
happened to get fussy, we would discuss our plan loud enough for
those around us to hear, how we were keeping her awake so she would
sleep on the plane instead. It seemed to me that people appreciated
that, we never got any rude remarks or looks... if they didn't like
the fussy baby in the terminal, at least they could get up and move.
Reef Fish
I only read SOME of your arguments with everyone who posted on this
subject. :-) So, I thought I should take a look at PTRAVEL's
Seven Commandments.
BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
whining some more about it.
I think that more or less sets the background, stage, and tone of y
our arguments with the other posters in this thread.
PTRAVEL, what you want is a private plane for yourself, but you can't
afford it. You must be the most miserable air traveller on earth
because EVERYONE abuses you when you fly.
Did I get that right? :-)
> With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.
Your arguments and statement sound elliptical to me. :p)
>
> 1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid.
Nope. There are many laws. regulations, and restrictions on when,
how, and where one can fly. Laws do not depend on what "they
<passengers> think is valid".
Ball 1.
> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
> drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
Are you saying it's okay to vomit on your lap? Law and Commandment
should be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear,
It's okay for them to use sign language and obscene gestures to your face?
> children don't have the right to kick the back of your seat,
What about adults? Mean looking adults twice your size?
> and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
> seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
Wait a minute there, evangilist PTRAVEL!
The discussion was about children and infants, but I don't recall
the conditions "squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking" stated by
anyone except YOU.
No wonder you were going around "in circles", PTRAVEL. You keep adding
on extraneous conditions to make should be just a simple statement:
I don't like ill-behaved children
Then I would have simply agreed with you, as I actually like what
W.C. Fields said about children, "I like them, only when they are
properly cooked," and Mr. Fields wan't complaining about airline
food either.
The rest of your "commandments" are just redundant expressions of the
same ideas already stated in Commandment 2.
> Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
> imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.
Does your statement imply you would put up with the imposition of
"your own screaming, squirming lapchild", but not "someone else's"?
I hope the above helped clarifying your position on this thread.
-- Bob.
PTRAVEL
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2rdea5F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> I only read SOME of your arguments with everyone who posted on this
> subject. :-) So, I thought I should take a look at PTRAVEL's
> Seven Commandments.
>
> BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
> flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
> wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
> DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
> whining some more about it.
Your pejorative little summary isn't remotely close to what happened. Don't
let facts get in your way, though.
>
> I think that more or less sets the background, stage, and tone of y
> our arguments with the other posters in this thread.
I agree -- your lack of interest in the truth definitely sets the tone for
you post.
>
>
> PTRAVEL, what you want is a private plane for yourself, but you can't
> afford it. You must be the most miserable air traveller on earth
> because EVERYONE abuses you when you fly.
>
> Did I get that right? :-)
Not even remotely close. But, as I said, facts don't seem to be of much
interest to you.
>
>
>
>> With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.
>
> Your arguments and statement sound elliptical to me. :p)
>
>>
>> 1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid.
>
> Nope. There are many laws. regulations, and restrictions on when,
> how, and where one can fly. Laws do not depend on what "they
> <passengers> think is valid".
>
> Ball 1.
>
>
>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
>> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
>
> Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
trying to occupy half of your seat?
>
>
>> drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
>
> Are you saying it's okay to vomit on your lap? Law and Commandment
> should be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
And that is just plain stupid. No, it doesn't mean it's okay to vomit on
your lap. The last person I heard try this specific argument was 5 years
old.
>
>
>> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear,
>
> It's okay for them to use sign language and obscene gestures to your face?
Ah, another kindergarten argument! "But mommy, I'm not _actually_ touching
him."
>
>
>> children don't have the right to kick the back of your seat,
>
> What about adults? Mean looking adults twice your size?
There is a name for the sophistic technique (if calling it "technique" is
accurate) of being over-literal, though it escapes for the moment. It is,
however, a species of sophistry, the meaning of which you might want to
check.
>
>
>> and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
>> seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
>
> Wait a minute there, evangilist PTRAVEL!
>
> The discussion was about children and infants, but I don't recall
> the conditions "squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking" stated by
> anyone except YOU.
This discussion was about an original poster who proposed to fly with what
_he_ described as a noisy rambunctious toddler as a lapchild on an 8-hour
transoceanic flight.
I realize that actually finding out what is being discussed in a thread
takes a lot of work and isn't nearly as much fun as jumping in and being
abusive and insulting, but that's what most reasonable, intelligent people
do before posting here.
>
>
> No wonder you were going around "in circles", PTRAVEL. You keep adding
> on extraneous conditions to make should be just a simple statement:
>
> I don't like ill-behaved children
That's one thing I don't like. It's not the subject of the thread, however.
>
> Then I would have simply agreed with you, as I actually like what
> W.C. Fields said about children, "I like them, only when they are
> properly cooked," and Mr. Fields wan't complaining about airline
> food either.
>
>
> The rest of your "commandments" are just redundant expressions of the
> same ideas already stated in Commandment 2.
Well, you know what? I'm not really concerned with your critique of my
argument. See above.
>
>
>> Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
>> imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.
>
> Does your statement imply you would put up with the imposition of
> "your own screaming, squirming lapchild", but not "someone else's"?
Only to someone as literal-minded as you.
>
> I hope the above helped clarifying your position on this thread.
No, though it truly makes me wonder about you. You and I have disagreed in
the past but, for the most part, your posts to rta and other forums are
well-reasoned and well-written. This one was pointless and childish.
>
> -- Bob.
Banty
>
>
>"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
>>> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
>>
>> Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
>
>Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
>trying to occupy half of your seat?
Ya mean skinny little ill-behaved children never impinge on your seat? ;-)
I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than a little
tongue-in-cheek.
Banty
PTravel
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cj9ds...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <2RV5d.3598$nj....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL says...
> >
> >
> >"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> >>
> >>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
else.
> >>> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
> >>
> >> Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
> >
> >Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
> >trying to occupy half of your seat?
>
> Ya mean skinny little ill-behaved children never impinge on your seat?
;-)
Not yet, though I have seen parents try to usurp other peoples' seats so
that they can use their car seats. On one flight, an FA offered a woman a
choice: remove the car seat or be taken off the aircraft in handcuffs. The
woman had simply set up shop in the seat next to her and, when the person
who was assigned to the seat showed up, she told him, "sit somewhere else,
I'm not moving."
>
> I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than a little
> tongue-in-cheek.
You know, I was thinking about that on the way in to work this morning. I
think I may have, completely and totally, misread Bob's post.
I guess we all should use more smilies.
>
> Banty
>
jenn
>
> While I try really hard to avoid grabbing the back of someone's seat
> in order to get up, I can't always avoid it. Especially if it is
> reclined. Since I usually have a window seat, I just don't have the
> strength to lever myself at an angle into the air (avoiding hitting my
> head) and at the same time travel sideways across the people in the
> adjoining seats. I have to hold onto something. I assume that my
> seat companions, even if closely related to me, would object to my
> sitting in their lap or grabbing them around the neck while getting
> out to the aisle. It isn't me you should be mad at though - it is the
> person who designed the seats so as to shoehorn as many people as
> possible into them.
the way to do this is to flip over and brace on the back of your own
seat and those in your row -- facing towards your and the row seats --
rather than grabbing and boinging the seat back in front [this also
saves you from grabbing and pulling the person's hair who is front of you]
the small space between seats does mean that it is difficult to move out
without bracing and sometimes grabbing other seats -- but this technique
does prevent the violent catapult effect of using the seat in front for
leverage
Banty
>
>
>"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:cj9ds...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <2RV5d.3598$nj....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> >>
>> >>> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
>else.
>> >>> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
>> >>
>> >> Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
>> >
>> >Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
>> >trying to occupy half of your seat?
>>
>> Ya mean skinny little ill-behaved children never impinge on your seat?
>;-)
>
>Not yet, though I have seen parents try to usurp other peoples' seats so
>that they can use their car seats. On one flight, an FA offered a woman a
>choice: remove the car seat or be taken off the aircraft in handcuffs. The
>woman had simply set up shop in the seat next to her and, when the person
>who was assigned to the seat showed up, she told him, "sit somewhere else,
>I'm not moving."
Then she goes in the same bucket as the lady who wanted me to put my paid-ticket
baby in my lap so that she could sit next to her husband.
>
>>
>> I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than a little
>> tongue-in-cheek.
>
>You know, I was thinking about that on the way in to work this morning. I
>think I may have, completely and totally, misread Bob's post.
>
>I guess we all should use more smilies.
Yeah. But smilies are can't-win. There are certain folks who are offended by
the smilies, as they consider their reading sophistication to be patronized by
them. Oh well.
Banty
PTravel
She does, indeed. As Forrest Gump might have said, selfish is as selfish
does.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than a little
> >> tongue-in-cheek.
> >
> >You know, I was thinking about that on the way in to work this morning.
I
> >think I may have, completely and totally, misread Bob's post.
> >
> >I guess we all should use more smilies.
>
> Yeah. But smilies are can't-win. There are certain folks who are
offended by
> the smilies, as they consider their reading sophistication to be
patronized by
> them. Oh well.
Are they really people offended by smilies? It's a weird world!
>
> Banty
>
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2rdea5F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > I only read SOME of your arguments with everyone who posted on this
> > subject. :-) So, I thought I should take a look at PTRAVEL's
> > Seven Commandments.
> >
> > BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> > whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
> > flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
> > wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
> > DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
> > whining some more about it.
>
That's FUNNY! You must have picked that line up from another ng. :-)
Anyone interested in the facts can easily find it in the archives
of this ng. :-)
> > PTRAVEL, what you want is a private plane for yourself, but you can't
> > afford it. You must be the most miserable air traveller on earth
> > because EVERYONE abuses you when you fly.
> >
> > Did I get that right? :-)
>
> Not even remotely close. But, as I said, facts don't seem to be of much
> interest to you.
But those were the facts I learned from YOU, first hand. If you
weren't so abused (according to you), why were you always whining and
complaining?
> >> With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.
> >
> > Your arguments and statement sound elliptical to me. :p)
You missed the "circles" vs "elliptical" play on words.
> >
> >>
> >> 1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid.
> >
> > Nope. There are many laws. regulations, and restrictions on when,
> > how, and where one can fly. Laws do not depend on what "they
> > <passengers> think is valid".
> >
> > Ball 1.
> >
> >
> >> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
> >> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
> >
> > Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
>
> Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
> trying to occupy half of your seat?
Don't you remember? I almost always fly first class (FREE upgrades).
In coach class, a non-heavy person with long legs are more likely to
spill into the adjacent seat than your "heavy people".
> >> drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
> >
> > Are you saying it's okay to vomit on your lap? Law and Commandment
> > should be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
>
> And that is just plain stupid. No, it doesn't mean it's okay to vomit on
> your lap. The last person I heard try this specific argument was 5 years
> old.
You're not only a miserable whiner, you are HUMO(U)R challenged too!
> >> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear,
> >
> > It's okay for them to use sign language and obscene gestures to your face?
>
> Ah, another kindergarten argument! "But mommy, I'm not _actually_ touching
> him."
See my preceding remark.
> >> children don't have the right to kick the back of your seat,
> >
> > What about adults? Mean looking adults twice your size?
>
> There is a name for the sophistic technique (if calling it "technique" is
> accurate) of being over-literal, though it escapes for the moment. It is,
> however, a species of sophistry, the meaning of which you might want to
> check.
"Pedantic"? That's what you are. An overly-literal pedant, oblivious
to humor and light-hearted banter. I thought it was transparent that
I was playing the role of devil's advocate by being a pedantic like you.
> >> and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
> >> seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.
> >
> > Wait a minute there, evangilist PTRAVEL!
> >
> > The discussion was about children and infants, but I don't recall
> > the conditions "squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking" stated by
> > anyone except YOU.
>
> This discussion was about an original poster who proposed to fly with what
> _he_ described as a noisy rambunctious toddler as a lapchild on an 8-hour
> transoceanic flight.
>
> I realize that actually finding out what is being discussed in a thread
> takes a lot of work and isn't nearly as much fun as jumping in and being
> abusive and insulting, but that's what most reasonable, intelligent people
> do before posting here.
You're DEAD wrong, PTRAVEL. The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
Paul Williams. Below was his ENTIRE post:
PW> OK. No abuse please - I think we had enough of that in the other
PW> thread.
PW>
PW> Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
PW> US flights in November ?
PW>
PW> Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
PW> hether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
PW> plenty of spare seats on the flight.
Then out came PTRAVEL swinging at everyone, because you were still
your abusive self in the OTHER thread, wherever it was.
> > No wonder you were going around "in circles", PTRAVEL. You keep adding
> > on extraneous conditions to make should be just a simple statement:
> >
> > I don't like ill-behaved children
>
> That's one thing I don't like. It's not the subject of the thread, however.
But that was your entire POINT, unnecessarily and ill-expressed into
dozens of posts.
>
> >
> > Then I would have simply agreed with you, as I actually like what
> > W.C. Fields said about children, "I like them, only when they are
> > properly cooked," and Mr. Fields wan't complaining about airline
> > food either.
> >
> >
> > The rest of your "commandments" are just redundant expressions of the
> > same ideas already stated in Commandment 2.
>
> Well, you know what? I'm not really concerned with your critique of my
> argument. See above.
Perhaps OTHER posters whom you abused are concerned, and they are
laughing and spewing coffee onto their monitors and keyboards over
one humorless pedant PTRAVEL.
> > I hope the above helped clarifying your position on this thread.
>
> No, though it truly makes me wonder about you. You and I have disagreed in
> the past but, for the most part, your posts to rta and other forums are
> well-reasoned and well-written. This one was pointless and childish.
Thank you for your compliment, PTRAVEL.
If you read "this one" again, with my explanatory footnotes for YOU,
you'll see it's hardly pointless. The POINT was made with subtle
humor that was perhaps difficult for someone whose veins were all
popped out fighting with everyone in this thread over the ONE point
he could have easily expressed as:
> > I don't like ill-behaved children
-- Bob.
PTravel
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:<2RV5d.3598$nj....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<2rdea5F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > >
> > > I only read SOME of your arguments with everyone who posted on this
> > > subject. :-) So, I thought I should take a look at PTRAVEL's
> > > Seven Commandments.
> > >
> > > BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> > > whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
> > > flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
> > > wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
> > > DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
> > > whining some more about it.
> >
> > Don't let facts get in your way, though.
>
>
> That's FUNNY! You must have picked that line up from another ng. :-)
> Anyone interested in the facts can easily find it in the archives
> of this ng. :-)
Indeed, they can and they'll see that you're wrong. Care to make a little
money wager?
>
>
>
> > > PTRAVEL, what you want is a private plane for yourself, but you can't
> > > afford it. You must be the most miserable air traveller on earth
> > > because EVERYONE abuses you when you fly.
> > >
> > > Did I get that right? :-)
> >
> > Not even remotely close. But, as I said, facts don't seem to be of much
> > interest to you.
>
> But those were the facts I learned from YOU, first hand.
Nope. I'll even make it easy for you:
> If you
> weren't so abused (according to you), why were you always whining and
> complaining?
Because I was (1) told to leave a flight, (2) rudely, (3) because of CO's
error.
As I said, don't let the facts get in your way.
>
>
>
> > >> With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles,
here.
> > >
> > > Your arguments and statement sound elliptical to me. :p)
>
> You missed the "circles" vs "elliptical" play on words.
You're right. Thanks for the use of the smilies.
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid.
> > >
> > > Nope. There are many laws. regulations, and restrictions on when,
> > > how, and where one can fly. Laws do not depend on what "they
> > > <passengers> think is valid".
> > >
> > > Ball 1.
> > >
> > >
> > >> 2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone
else.
> > >> This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your
seat,
> > >
> > > Nor does thin people, light people, ugly or beautiful people, ...
> >
> > Of course not, but how often do you find anyone other than heavy people
> > trying to occupy half of your seat?
>
> Don't you remember? I almost always fly first class (FREE upgrades).
> In coach class, a non-heavy person with long legs are more likely to
> spill into the adjacent seat than your "heavy people".
Frankly, I've never had either long-legged people or heavy people spill over
into my space. What has that to do with anything, however?
>
>
> > >> drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes,
> > >
> > > Are you saying it's okay to vomit on your lap? Law and Commandment
> > > should be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
> >
> > And that is just plain stupid. No, it doesn't mean it's okay to vomit
on
> > your lap. The last person I heard try this specific argument was 5
years
> > old.
>
> You're not only a miserable whiner, you are HUMO(U)R challenged too!
Humor-challenged, perhaps. I might have read your post differently had you
not started it with an insult and a lie.
>
>
> > >> evangelists don't have the right to proselytize in your ear,
> > >
> > > It's okay for them to use sign language and obscene gestures to your
face?
> >
> > Ah, another kindergarten argument! "But mommy, I'm not _actually_
touching
> > him."
>
> See my preceding remark.
And see mine.
>
>
>
> > >> children don't have the right to kick the back of your seat,
> > >
> > > What about adults? Mean looking adults twice your size?
> >
> > There is a name for the sophistic technique (if calling it "technique"
is
> > accurate) of being over-literal, though it escapes for the moment. It
is,
> > however, a species of sophistry, the meaning of which you might want to
> > check.
>
> "Pedantic"?
No, not "pedantic."
> That's what you are. An overly-literal pedant, oblivious
> to humor and light-hearted banter.
As I said, I might have been more inclined to notice the humor were it not
for the fact that you started with an insult and a lie.
> I thought it was transparent that
> I was playing the role of devil's advocate by being a pedantic like you.
Translucent, perhaps. Not transparent.
Nope, that's not what started the thread. This was:
"Am I right in saying that a passenger registered/paid for as an infant
does not get a plane seat and is expected to sit on the parents lap?
Seems a bit awkward to me - a boisterous 1 year old jumping up and
down for 8 hours !!! Or do the airlines provide extra facilities for
these cases ?
Alternatively, is it acceptable to pay for your infant as a child seat
(I know it costs more!) to get the extra room ?
What would you do?"
Here was my reply:
"Stay home, rather than subject other passengers to the boisterous, jumping
up and down infant."
Of course, I see that you, literal as ever, have capitalized the word
"THIS," in "The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
Paul Williams." Though you are quite right -- that was Williams' first post
to THIS thread, your observation is simply meaningless since THE thread was
started by his post which I quoted above.
>
> Then out came PTRAVEL swinging at everyone, because you were still
> your abusive self in the OTHER thread, wherever it was.
Yet another lie -- you cannot provide a reference to ANY thread I've
particpated in in which I became abusive. Abuse is strictly the province of
"I'll take my kid wherever I want" crowd.
>
>
>
> > > No wonder you were going around "in circles", PTRAVEL. You keep
adding
> > > on extraneous conditions to make should be just a simple statement:
> > >
> > > I don't like ill-behaved children
> >
> > That's one thing I don't like. It's not the subject of the thread,
however.
>
> But that was your entire POINT, unnecessarily and ill-expressed into
> dozens of posts.
No, it was not even close to my point.
> >
> > >
> > > Then I would have simply agreed with you, as I actually like what
> > > W.C. Fields said about children, "I like them, only when they are
> > > properly cooked," and Mr. Fields wan't complaining about airline
> > > food either.
> > >
> > >
> > > The rest of your "commandments" are just redundant expressions of the
> > > same ideas already stated in Commandment 2.
> >
> > Well, you know what? I'm not really concerned with your critique of my
> > argument. See above.
>
> Perhaps OTHER posters whom you abused are concerned, and they are
> laughing and spewing coffee onto their monitors and keyboards over
> one humorless pedant PTRAVEL.
Whatever.
>
>
> > > I hope the above helped clarifying your position on this thread.
> >
> > No, though it truly makes me wonder about you. You and I have disagreed
in
> > the past but, for the most part, your posts to rta and other forums are
> > well-reasoned and well-written. This one was pointless and childish.
>
> Thank you for your compliment, PTRAVEL.
>
> If you read "this one" again, with my explanatory footnotes for YOU,
> you'll see it's hardly pointless. The POINT was made with subtle
> humor that was perhaps difficult for someone whose veins were all
> popped out fighting with everyone in this thread over the ONE point
> he could have easily expressed as:
>
> > > I don't like ill-behaved children
That wasn't my point at all. And I still see no point to your post.
>
> -- Bob.
john
Fish) wrote:
In this message and your last message you have done a terrific job of
succinctly answering PTRAVEL.
Thank you.
Reef Fish
PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
Pay for infant seat or not?
and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
You present post is only tediously LONG and it only amplified my
satire about how ridiculously you've acted and how humorless you
have been.
I've already made MY POINT, recognized and acknowledged by Banty
and John.
Banty> I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than
Banty> a little tongue-in-cheek.
and even you (PTRAVEL) saw the light, briefly
PTRAVEL> You know, I was thinking about that on the way in to work
PTRAVEL> this morning. I think I may have, completely and totally,
PTRAVEL> misread Bob's post.
but then you came out swinging pointlessly again. <sigh>
My response will be as brief as I can make it, in response to your
false recollections, errors, and false accusations.
Regarding my preface about your WHINING incident, you dragged out your
side of the story (that's your original narrative, before holes were
found based on your OWN narrative!):
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bkfca1%2416u6c%241%40ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=5
and the self-serving side of YOUR excuses to my follow-up:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bkuoo3%2469uhe%241%40ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de
But you deliberately left out MY posts and MY follow-up to the above,
the KEY reference and the only reference you needed:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
in which I debunked all your excuses and self-contradicting posts:
PRRAVEK> You, however, have grown insulting and tedious. Conversation over.
RF> Excellent. You and I both had our say -- I wouldn't have given
RF> my initial comments, as softly as I did, had you not asked me
RF> directly for them.
RF>
RF> Readers can decide for themselves who was "rude", "insulting",
EF> and "tedious" based on what had already been said, and rehashed.
End of explanation about my preface remark you challenged.
> As I said, don't let the facts get in your way.
The FACTS were in the post you DIDN'T show:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
Now readerss can see the actual case history of your unwarranted
WHINING as I summarized.
> > You're not only a miserable whiner, you are HUMO(U)R challenged too!
>
> Humor-challenged, perhaps. I might have read your post differently had you
> not started it with an insult and a lie.
An insult perhaps -- but you deserved it. A lie? Now the readers
can read (if they care) MY post http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
which you carefully concealed that explained YOUR lies and faulty
recollections.
> As I said, I might have been more inclined to notice the humor were it not
> for the fact that you started with an insult and a lie.
You repeat yourself often, and unnecessarily.
> > > > Wait a minute there, evangilist PTRAVEL!
> > > >
> > > > The discussion was about children and infants, but I don't recall
> > > > the conditions "squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking" stated by
> > > > anyone except YOU.
> > >
> > > This discussion was about an original poster who proposed to fly with
> > > what _he_ described as a noisy rambunctious toddler as a lapchild
> > > on an 8-hour transoceanic flight.
> >
> > You're DEAD wrong, PTRAVEL. The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
> > Paul Williams. Below was his ENTIRE post:
> >
> > PW> OK. No abuse please - I think we had enough of that in the other
> > PW> thread.
> > PW>
> > PW> Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and internal
> > PW> US flights in November ?
> > PW>
> > PW> Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
> > PW> hether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
> > PW> plenty of spare seats on the flight.
>
>
> Nope, that's not what started the thread. This was:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2055368666d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3839a34f.0409060038.3ad52fc7%40posting.google.com
So, you've given evidence that you were WRONG, as I had said.
Look at the subject of THIS thread and then look at the subject of
the thread you referenced:
*> Subject: Taking a 1 year old baby - infant or pay for seat as child ?
There were 162 articles in the OTHER thread (you mis-referenced) and
there were 75 posts ub THIS thread when I started.
So, you were even more tedious than I thought. And you can't even
keep straight one thread from another.
> Of course, I see that you, literal as ever, have capitalized the word
> "THIS," in "The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
> Paul Williams." Though you are quite right -- that was Williams' first post
> to THIS thread, your observation is simply meaningless since THE thread was
> started by his post which I quoted above.
Even after you recognized your own error, you're STILL mouthing away.
> > > > The rest of your "commandments" are just redundant expressions of the
> > > > same ideas already stated in Commandment 2.
> > >
> > > Well, you know what? I'm not really concerned with your critique of my
> > > argument. See above.
> >
> > Perhaps OTHER posters whom you abused are concerned, and they are
> > laughing and spewing coffee onto their monitors and keyboards over
> > one humorless pedant PTRAVEL.
>
> Whatever.
PTRAVEL, if you have something to say, say it accurately, if not
briefly. If you made errors, admit it, or just slip away quietly
when someone point them out.
You're just wasting everyone's bandwidth by your incessant
"argument" for argument sake, without shedding any new light, as
you've done in the post to which this is my follow-up.
You're tediously boring now.
-- Bob.
PTRAVEL
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
> by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
>
> Pay for infant seat or not?
>
> and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
Again, missing the forest for the trees. I don't care what's at the head
of this specific thread. This all started when the OP asked about taking
his rambunctious and noisey toddler on a transoceanic flight as a lap child.
>
> You present post is only tediously LONG and it only amplified my
> satire about how ridiculously you've acted and how humorless you
> have been.
>
>
> I've already made MY POINT, recognized and acknowledged by Banty
> and John.
Banty pointed out that your post was tongue-and-cheek. And, as I've said,
if you hadn't started with an insult and a lie, I might have been more
inclined to look for the humor. As for "John" I don't know who he is, nor
do I care.
>
> Banty> I think these item responses from 'Reef Fish' were more than
> Banty> a little tongue-in-cheek.
>
> and even you (PTRAVEL) saw the light, briefly
>
> PTRAVEL> You know, I was thinking about that on the way in to work
> PTRAVEL> this morning. I think I may have, completely and totally,
> PTRAVEL> misread Bob's post.
>
> but then you came out swinging pointlessly again. <sigh>
See above. Lie. Insult. Not funny.
> My response will be as brief as I can make it, in response to your
> false recollections, errors, and false accusations.
>
>
>
> Regarding my preface about your WHINING incident, you dragged out your
> side of the story (that's your original narrative, before holes were
> found based on your OWN narrative!):
You never poked holes in anything. You weren't there. I was. You made
assumptions based on nothing but your own opinions. They were wrong then
and they remain wrong.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bkfca1%2416u6c%241%40ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=5
>
> and the self-serving side of YOUR excuses to my follow-up:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bkuoo3%2469uhe%241%40ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de
>
As I said, I was there, you were not. I reported what happened. You made
up things that didn't.
> But you deliberately left out MY posts and MY follow-up to the above,
> the KEY reference and the only reference you needed:
Because your posts then, as now, were simply your own opinions based on my
recitation. You made stuff up. Period.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
>
> in which I debunked all your excuses and self-contradicting posts:
>
> PRRAVEK> You, however, have grown insulting and tedious. Conversation
> over.
>
> RF> Excellent. You and I both had our say -- I wouldn't have given
> RF> my initial comments, as softly as I did, had you not asked me
> RF> directly for them.
> RF>
> RF> Readers can decide for themselves who was "rude", "insulting",
> EF> and "tedious" based on what had already been said, and rehashed.
>
> End of explanation about my preface remark you challenged.
In other words, you can't point to anything that I've said that's abusive.
>
>> As I said, don't let the facts get in your way.
>
> The FACTS were in the post you DIDN'T show:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
Every assumption that you made in the post above was wrong, as I said to you
then. You want to rehash them, we'll take them point by point. You made
assumptions and treated them as fact.
>
> Now readerss can see the actual case history of your unwarranted
> WHINING as I summarized.
Indeed, readers can.
>
>
>
>
>> > You're not only a miserable whiner, you are HUMO(U)R challenged too!
>>
>> Humor-challenged, perhaps. I might have read your post differently had
>> you
>> not started it with an insult and a lie.
>
> An insult perhaps -- but you deserved it. A lie?
Yep, a lie, and you're lying still.
> Now the readers
> can read (if they care) MY post http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
> which you carefully concealed that explained YOUR lies and faulty
> recollections.
"My faulty recollections." I was _there_. You were _not_there_. You made
up assumptions. And your assumptions were and are wrong. That you continue
to hold to your false, baseless assumptions makes you a conscious and
deliberate liar..
>
>
>> As I said, I might have been more inclined to notice the humor were it
>> not
>> for the fact that you started with an insult and a lie.
>
> You repeat yourself often, and unnecessarily.
Stop lying and I'll stop saying you're lying.
>
>
>
>> > > > Wait a minute there, evangilist PTRAVEL!
>> > > >
>> > > > The discussion was about children and infants, but I don't recall
>> > > > the conditions "squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking" stated by
>> > > > anyone except YOU.
>> > >
>> > > This discussion was about an original poster who proposed to fly with
>> > > what _he_ described as a noisy rambunctious toddler as a lapchild
>> > > on an 8-hour transoceanic flight.
>> >
>> > You're DEAD wrong, PTRAVEL. The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
>> > Paul Williams. Below was his ENTIRE post:
>> >
>> > PW> OK. No abuse please - I think we had enough of that in the other
>> > PW> thread.
>> > PW>
>> > PW> Question : How full generally are transatlantic flights and
>> > internal
>> > PW> US flights in November ?
>> > PW>
>> > PW> Reason is my little boy will be one year old and I haven't decided
>> > PW> hether its worth paying for a seat for him or whether there'll be
>> > PW> plenty of spare seats on the flight.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not what started the thread. This was:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2055368666d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3839a34f.0409060038.3ad52fc7%40posting.google.com
>
> So, you've given evidence that you were WRONG, as I had said.
Nope. Again, you're simply literal-minded. What _started_ both threads was
the OP's post about bringing obnoxious brats on board as lapchildren.
>
> Look at the subject of THIS thread and then look at the subject of
> the thread you referenced:
>
> *> Subject: Taking a 1 year old baby - infant or pay for seat as child ?
That's this thread. Now look at the other one.
>
> There were 162 articles in the OTHER thread (you mis-referenced) and
> there were 75 posts ub THIS thread when I started.
>
> So, you were even more tedious than I thought. And you can't even
> keep straight one thread from another.
Forest. Trees. Pointless.
>
>
>
>> Of course, I see that you, literal as ever, have capitalized the word
>> "THIS," in "The FIRST post of THIS thread was by
>> Paul Williams." Though you are quite right -- that was Williams' first
>> post
>> to THIS thread, your observation is simply meaningless since THE thread
>> was
>> started by his post which I quoted above.
>
> Even after you recognized your own error, you're STILL mouthing away.
I'm getting tired and, frankly, I'm getting angry so I'm not going any
further with this.
You've ably demonstrated that you know how to follow a thread tree, without
even remotely comprehending the subject of the discussion. It's unfortunate
that you cannot relate the subject of one thread to the subject of another,
and that someone has to explain to you the difference between a subject line
of a header and a topic of conversation in a thread.
I'll tolerate just about anything in a discussion except dishonesty. Banty
and I disagree, but Banty isn't untruthful. Jenn gets insulting, but Jenn
doesn't lie. You, however, are dishonest and, evidently, deliberately so.
You can have the last word.
Alan Street
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
€ "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
€ news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
€
€ PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
€ by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
€
€ Pay for infant seat or not?
€
€ and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
€
€ You present post is only tediously LONG and it only amplified my
€ satire about how ridiculously you've acted and how humorless you
€ have been.
€
€
Coming from you, that really *is* funny.
€ I've already made MY POINT, recognized and acknowledged by Banty
€ and John.
€
I think that says much more about Banty and John than it does about you.
<snip long Usenet masterbation exercise>
€
€ PTRAVEL, if you have something to say, say it accurately, if not
€ briefly. If you made errors, admit it, or just slip away quietly
€ when someone point them out.
€
€ You're just wasting everyone's bandwidth by your incessant
€ "argument" for argument sake, without shedding any new light, as
€ you've done in the post to which this is my follow-up.
€
€ You're tediously boring now.
€
As spoken by the master of the genre.
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
> > by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
> >
> > Pay for infant seat or not?
> >
> > and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
>
> Again, missing the forest for the trees. I don't care what's at the head
> of this specific thread.
But I was correct about what was the first post of this thread, and
you were wrong; but YOU were the one who took me to task on your error.
Regarding the reference PTRAVEL should have included but DIDN'T,
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
>
> Every assumption that you made in the post above was wrong, as I said to you
> then. You want to rehash them, we'll take them point by point.
And I proved you wrong then! You obviously did not read the points
in that reference as to HOW you were wrong!
First point:
PTRAVEL: "I always follow the instructions of the crew ...".
> > PTR> The FA takes both boarding passes, comes back in a few
> > PTR> minutes and says, rather curtly, "You've cancelled your
> > PTR> flight. You'll have to leave the plane." I toldl her
> > PTR> that I hadn't cancelled my flight (remember, at this point
> > PTR> I had no idea that the desk agent had screwed up), and I
> > PTR> wasn't leaving the plane unless the Captain told me to.
> > PTR> The FA left, and I pulled
> >
RF> The FA was a member of the crew, wasn't she?
>
PTR> Yes, she was.
RF> I was just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, in your own
RF> narrative!
So where was my lie? It was your SELF-contradiction!
Point 2:
RF> At THAT point, all the FA and the Captain knew was that somebody
RF> cancelled your flight. Even you didn't know who did it.
>
PTR> On the contrary, all I knew was that the flight _hadn't_ been cancelled.
PTR> I had checked in just an hour before, and was provided with a boarding
PTR> pass by Continental's system.
RF> But you DIDN'T know at that point that your boarding pass to the flight
RF> had INDEED been cancelled! Both the FA and the Captain had more CURRENT
RF> information than you had, at the time.
PTR> You are making a lot of assumptions, most of which are wrong,
PTR> about what happened.
You made the same false accusation in the post I referenced. I already
answered it THERE:
RF> What wrong assumption did I make?
RF>
RF>1. It was only AFTER the Captain had told you to leave your seat (which
RF> had been assigned to another passenger) that YOU called your travel
RF> agent on the cell phone to learn that your boarding pass to the
RF> seat 1F (which you THOUGHT you were entitled) had indeed been
RF> cancelled.
RF>
RF>2. The Captain and crew DID find out exactly what happened and restored
RF> your seat to First Class, in 2E.
Your initial narrative indicated (1) above:
PTR> I toldl her that I hadn't
PTR> cancelled my flight (remember, at this point I had no idea that the desk
PTR> agent had screwed up),
PTR> and I wasn't leaving the plane unless the Captain told me to.
PTR> The FA left, and I pulled out my cellphone and called my TA
and your TA told you that it HAD been cancelled -- that you were wrong,
but she straightened it out.
> > Now readerss can see the actual case history of your unwarranted
> > WHINING as I summarized.
>
> Indeed, readers can.
Then why didn't you just SHUT UP, instead of rehashing YOUR false
accusations and lies that had already been addressed in the post
*I* referenced (the one you deliberatly left out)?
> Stop lying and I'll stop saying you're lying.
I never lied in the first place, and you've never stopped your
whining and false accusations!
Case closed! I thought it had already been closed until PTRVEL
exumed it and made a fool of himself all over again.
-- Bob.
PTravel
correct the lies, because they're blatant:
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0409...@posting.google.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:<dP86d.20795$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > > "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > >
> > > PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
> > > by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
> > >
> > > Pay for infant seat or not?
> > >
> > > and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
> >
> > Again, missing the forest for the trees. I don't care what's at the
head
> > of this specific thread.
>
> But I was correct about what was the first post of this thread, and
> you were wrong; but YOU were the one who took me to task on your error.
I didn't take you task over that, but over your literalism.
>
>
>
> Regarding the reference PTRAVEL should have included but DIDN'T,
>
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
> >
> > Every assumption that you made in the post above was wrong, as I said to
you
> > then. You want to rehash them, we'll take them point by point.
>
> And I proved you wrong then! You obviously did not read the points
> in that reference as to HOW you were wrong!
You didn't -- see below:
>
>
> First point:
>
> PTRAVEL: "I always follow the instructions of the crew ...".
>
> > > PTR> The FA takes both boarding passes, comes back in a few
> > > PTR> minutes and says, rather curtly, "You've cancelled your
> > > PTR> flight. You'll have to leave the plane." I toldl her
> > > PTR> that I hadn't cancelled my flight (remember, at this point
> > > PTR> I had no idea that the desk agent had screwed up), and I
> > > PTR> wasn't leaving the plane unless the Captain told me to.
> > > PTR> The FA left, and I pulled
> > >
> RF> The FA was a member of the crew, wasn't she?
> >
> PTR> Yes, she was.
>
> RF> I was just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, in your own
> RF> narrative!
Ah, your literalism raises its head again. Okay, I always follow the
instructions of the crew, except as described above. That certainly makes a
difference, doesn't. That certainly proves, let's see -- what had you said?
Oh, yes:
> > BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> > whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
> > flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
> > wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
> > DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
> > whining some more about it.
>
Right . . . going on . . .
> RF>
> RF>2. The Captain and crew DID find out exactly what happened and
restored
> RF> your seat to First Class, in 2E.
Absolutely and completely wrong. See below.
>
> Your initial narrative indicated (1) above:
>
> PTR> I toldl her that I hadn't
> PTR> cancelled my flight (remember, at this point I had no idea that the
desk
> PTR> agent had screwed up),
>
> PTR> and I wasn't leaving the plane unless the Captain told me to.
> PTR> The FA left, and I pulled out my cellphone and called my TA
>
> and your TA told you that it HAD been cancelled -- that you were wrong,
> but she straightened it out.
Absolutely and completely wrong.
My TA told me the flight had been cancelled -- by CO. Looking at the
record, we discovered that the CO agent in the Presidents Club had cancelled
the wrong flight in error. I was not wrong, it was not my, or my TA's
mistake -- it was, completely, CO's foul-up, something which you've never
understood or acknowledged.
>
>
> > > Now readerss can see the actual case history of your unwarranted
> > > WHINING as I summarized.
Yes, indeed they can. Let's go back to your description and parse out your
lies:
"BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
whined about how you were mistreated by CO,"
Well, that's quite true -- I did complain about how I was mistreated by CO.
"when you TA cancelled your
flight,"
My TA didn't cancel my flight. The CO rep at the Presidents Club cancelled
my flight -- the same rep who had just issued me a boarding pass for it.
From the original post:
"Well, unknown to me at the time, the desk agent, by mistake, cancelled the
Wednesday flight that I had just checked in for."
"originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window),"
The seat that I had reserved several weeks before, and which appeared on my
boarding pass.
"and you
wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do)"
Wrong again. After the gate confirmed that it was CO's foul up, she told me
to take a seat in coach, despite the fact that I was flying on a full-fare F
ticket. I wanted a F seat, and a window (I'm a nervous flyer, which is why
I always book window seats).
From the original post:
"I disembarked with my carryons, and was met by a gate agent in the jetway.
She told me that F was full, and I'll have to fly in coach. I told her that
I have a valid F ticket and boarding pass, for which I've paid $1,200 (for
the one-way portion). I advised her that if I wind up in coach, or miss my
flight, I'll sue CO."
"and you
DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
whining some more about it."
Still more lies.
From the original post:
"She came back about 10 minutes later (during which time I was left standing
in the sweltering jetway), much chagrined, and explained that the agent at
the Presidents Club had mistakenly cancelled the wrong flight (I already
knew that, thanks to my TA), and that I can take seat 2E. I told her that I
need a window seat, never fly in an aisle seat (this is true -- I have a
flight phobia that is ameliorated by looking out the window), and had made
sure that I'd have one by calling my TA to reserve it the moment I knew I'd
be flying."
"I was returning ATL to SNA (via Houston, of course). My return ticket
(full-fare, unrestricted, F)"
> >
> > Indeed, readers can.
>
> Then why didn't you just SHUT UP, instead of rehashing YOUR false
> accusations and lies that had already been addressed in the post
> *I* referenced (the one you deliberatly left out)?
Because you keep lying about me and the original post. Stop lying and I'll
stop responding.
>
>
>
> > Stop lying and I'll stop saying you're lying.
>
> I never lied in the first place,
Oh, really? See above. The actual quotes with the Google references which
prove that this:
> > BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> > whined about how you were mistreated by CO, when you TA cancelled your
> > flight, originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window), and you
> > wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do) and you
> > DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
> > whining some more about it.
is a lie.
> and you've never stopped your
> whining and false accusations!
You're the one who lied, and I've proved it. The only thing in the
paragraph you wrote above which is true is that I was mistreated by CO.
Everything else was a lie and, more to the point, known to you to be a lie.
The post is there, for everyone to see -- you even quoted from it. And you
lied about it.
>
> Case closed! I thought it had already been closed until PTRVEL
> exumed it and made a fool of himself all over again.
Indeed, case closed.
>
> -- Bob.
Binyamin Dissen
:>Oh, hell. If you just stuck to insults, I'd let it go.
Snicker.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
PTravel
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:9qtjl0ph0fdprfhkf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:30:14 -0700 "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote:
>
> :>Oh, hell. If you just stuck to insults, I'd let it go.
>
> Snicker.
Yeah, I know -- I succumbed to temptation.
Reef Fish
> ? news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> ?
> ? PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
> ? by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
> ?
> ? Pay for infant seat or not?
> ?
> ? and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
> ?
> ? You present post is only tediously LONG and it only amplified my
> ? satire about how ridiculously you've acted and how humorless you
> ? have been.
<snip Clueless poster Alan Street's Usenet masterbation exercise>
Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
Stay in your sandbox there. PTRAVEL is going the same here, without
your help.
-- Bob.
Alan Street
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
€
€
€ Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
The only person in rec.scuba who thinks me a fool is you. On the other
hand, I notice that you've managed to gain the same pompous,
self-aggrandizing reputation you have in rec.scuba in at least two
other newsgroups. It's a sad and foolish buffoon who doesn't realize
that the world is laughing AT him, not WITH him.
€ Stay in your sandbox there. PTRAVEL is going the same here, without
€ your help.
€
Keep telling yourself that, Feesh. Keep telling yourself that.
Eventually you'll convince yourself, if no one else. Sad really. That's
what Black used to do all the time, and I see you following in his
footsteps.
Alan
abacus
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
and it's masturbation, not masterbation. (unless it involves a senior
teacher i guess).
abacus.
Reef Fish
PT> I'll tolerate just about anything in a discussion except
dishonesty.
PT> Banty and I disagree, but Banty isn't untruthful. Jenn gets
insulting, PT> but Jenn doesn't lie. You, however, are dishonest
and, evidently,
PT> deliberately so.
PT>
PT> You can have the last word.
The last 275 LINES or so (in this post) were YOURS. LIAR.
I'll tell you what your NEW lie was.
> > Regarding the reference PTRAVEL should have included but DIDN'T,
> >
> > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A6B623469
> >
> >
> > First point:
> >
> > PTRAVEL: "I always follow the instructions of the crew ...".
> >
> RF> The FA was a member of the crew, wasn't she?
> > >
> > PTR> Yes, she was.
> >
> > RF> I was just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, in your own
> > RF> narrative!
>
> Ah, your literalism raises its head again. Okay, I always follow the
> instructions of the crew, except as described above.
You "always", EXCEPT as you described above?
> > So where was my lie? It was your SELF-contradiction!
> > Point 2:
> >
> > RF> What wrong assumption did I make?
> > RF>
> > RF>1. It was only AFTER the Captain had told you to leave your seat
> (which
> > RF> had been assigned to another passenger) that YOU called your travel
> > RF> agent on the cell phone to learn that your boarding pass to the
> > RF> seat 1F (which you THOUGHT you were entitled) had indeed been
> > RF> cancelled.
>
> Right . . . going on . . .
So where was the LIE?
>
> > RF>
> > RF>2. The Captain and crew DID find out exactly what happened and
> restored
> > RF> your seat to First Class, in 2E.
>
> Absolutely and completely wrong. See below.
Okay, Let's see who's lying!
************* A T T E N T I O N ***************************
This was in ONE of my posts in that incident:
RF> After he ascertained that it was the President's Club's agent
RF> that made the mistake, your First Class seat was restored back
RF> to you, wasn't it?
PTravel, you're a petty, whiny, lying little weasel!
> "BTW, I remember you from a thread in which you whined and whined and
> whined about how you were mistreated by CO,"
>
> Well, that's quite true -- I did complain about how I was mistreated by CO.
Then where's the LIE?
RF> "originally assigned to you in Seat 1F window),"
RF> "and you
RF> wanted that SEAT back (no other First Class seat would do)"
>
PT> Wrong again.
See below!
You were given the First Class seat 2E! This was what you said
in your original post:
PT> "She came back about 10 minutes later ...
PT> that I can take seat 2E. "
RF> "and you
RF> DID get it back, but you were STILL whining, and bitching and
RF> whining some more about it."
This was what you said in the original post:
PT> She asked me to wait, went on the plane,
PT> came back and said, "You can have 1F."
< snipw of other false accusations by PTravel >
> > Then why didn't you just SHUT UP, instead of rehashing YOUR false
> > accusations and lies that had already been addressed in the post
> > *I* referenced (the one you deliberatly left out)?
> You're the one who lied, and I've proved it. The only thing in the
> paragraph you wrote above which is true is that I was mistreated by CO.
What about Points 1 and 2 I covered in the previous post,
and your seats 2E and 1F which I cited your own words?
> > Case closed! I thought it had already been closed until PTRVEL
> > exumed it and made a fool of himself all over again.
>
> Indeed, case closed.
I doubt it. You'll come back lie some more. What happened to
what you said in the PREVIOUS post?
PT> You can have the last word.
This IS my last word. For all future lies from you, the response
WILL BE < see preceding posts and archives. All PTravel LIES
snipped>.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<280920041128481246%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com>...
> >> In article <8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com>, Reef Fish
> >> <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ? "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> >> ? news:<2rrehrF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >> ?
> >> ? PTRAVEL, the first thing you should learn is how to identify a THREAD
> >> ? by its subject, and that this subject of this thread is
> >> ?
> >> ? Pay for infant seat or not?
> >> ?
> >> ? and your post is currently #42 in a thread of 75 posts.
> > <snip Clueless poster Alan Street's Usenet masterbation exercise>
I merely inserted "Clueless poster Alan Stree's" in Alan's post:
Alan> <snip long Usenet masterbation exercise>
> > Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
> > Stay in your sandbox there. PTRAVEL is going the same here, without
> > your help.
> >
> > -- Bob.
>
>
> and it's masturbation, not masterbation. (unless it involves a senior
> teacher i guess).
>
> abacus.
Glad to see there are TWO masturbation posters in this ng, one
who can't spell (Alan Street), and one who can (abacus).
Now that you've found a masturbator of your kind, you can go
masturbate each other -- but PLEASE do so in
alt.morons.masturbation.alan&abacus
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> ?
> ? Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
>
> The only person in rec.scuba who thinks me a fool is you.
Of course Alan thinks knows what everyone thinks in rec.scuba.
> On the other
> hand, I notice that you've managed to gain the same pompous,
> self-aggrandizing reputation you have in rec.scuba in at least two
> other newsgroups.
Like my latest posts about PTravel in this ng that brought out
the officious and clueless Alan Street?
Besides, you couldn't even count the newsgroups in which I have
encountered the likes of yourself, and the smarter ones
eventually went away or learned to keep their mouth shut when
they should.
I've been around newsgroups over 16 years now.
> It's a sad and foolish buffoon who doesn't realize
> that the world is laughing AT him, not WITH him.
Now Alan Street knows what everyone thinks "in the world"!
First, the newsgroup "rec.scuba', then "the world".
Alan, you suffer from a severe case of illusion of grandeur,
coupled with your ignorance about newsgroups.
> ? Stay in your sandbox there. PTRAVEL is going the same here, without
> ? your help.
> ?
>
> Keep telling yourself that,
I was telling YOU, Alan Street.
I have already had my "last word" with PTRAVEL (aka PTravel)
debunking every bit of what he posted saying I was "a liar",
debunked with HIS OWN NARRATIVES from old posts.
> Alan
Stick around, Alan. And look at AT LEAST dozens of active
posters/folks in rec.scuba who had been around much longer than
you, and notice why none of them act like clueless newbies and
morons like yourself. SOME of them did YEARS ago, and have
learned their lesson which you don't seem to have learned.
-- Bob.
Alan Street
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
€ Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
€ news:<280920042000570567%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com>...
€ > In article <8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com>, Reef Fish
€ > <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
€ >
€ >
€ > ?
€ > ?
€ > ? Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
€ >
€ > The only person in rec.scuba who thinks me a fool is you.
€
€ Of course Alan thinks knows what everyone thinks in rec.scuba.
€
€
€ > On the other
€ > hand, I notice that you've managed to gain the same pompous,
€ > self-aggrandizing reputation you have in rec.scuba in at least two
€ > other newsgroups.
€
€ Like my latest posts about PTravel in this ng that brought out
€ the officious and clueless Alan Street?
€
€ Besides, you couldn't even count the newsgroups in which I have
€ encountered the likes of yourself, and the smarter ones
€ eventually went away or learned to keep their mouth shut when
€ they should.
€
As opposed to the clever ones who help you make a fool of yourself.
€ I've been around newsgroups over 16 years now.
€
€
Slow learner?
€ > It's a sad and foolish buffoon who doesn't realize
€ > that the world is laughing AT him, not WITH him.
€
€ Now Alan Street knows what everyone thinks "in the world"!
€ First, the newsgroup "rec.scuba', then "the world".
€
€ Alan, you suffer from a severe case of illusion of grandeur,
€ coupled with your ignorance about newsgroups.
€
Naw. I just like to hold up mirrors in front of pompous, out to pasture
statisticians.
€
€
€ > ? Stay in your sandbox there. PTRAVEL is going the same here, without
€ > ? your help.
€ > ?
€ >
€ > Keep telling yourself that,
€
€ I was telling YOU, Alan Street.
€
€ I have already had my "last word" with PTRAVEL (aka PTravel)
€ debunking every bit of what he posted saying I was "a liar",
€ debunked with HIS OWN NARRATIVES from old posts.
€
€ > Alan
€
€ Stick around, Alan. And look at AT LEAST dozens of active
€ posters/folks in rec.scuba who had been around much longer than
€ you, and notice why none of them act like clueless newbies and
€ morons like yourself. SOME of them did YEARS ago, and have
€ learned their lesson which you don't seem to have learned.
€
Only in your mind, Feesh. Only in your mind.
Reef Fish
> ? news:<280920042000570567%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com>...
> ? > In article <8fb7380b.04092...@posting.google.com>, Reef Fish
> ? > <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> ? >
> ? >
> ? > ?
> ? > The only person in rec.scuba who thinks me a fool is you.
> ?
> ? Of course Alan thinks knows what everyone thinks in rec.scuba.
> ?
> ?
> ? > On the other
> ? > hand, I notice that you've managed to gain the same pompous,
> ? > self-aggrandizing reputation you have in rec.scuba in at least two
> ? > other newsgroups.
> ? Like my latest posts about PTravel in this ng that brought out
> ? the officious and clueless Alan Street?
> ?
> ? Besides, you couldn't even count the newsgroups in which I have
> ? encountered the likes of yourself, and the smarter ones
> ? eventually went away or learned to keep their mouth shut when
> ? they should.
> ?
>
> As opposed to the clever ones who help you make a fool of yourself.
Never met one in 16 years, and you certainly not one.
>
> ? I've been around newsgroups over 16 years now.
>
> Slow learner?
See above. If I have so many people flaming me in rec.scuba, your
primary playground, why would you have to come HERE to add your
fuel to a case you know nothing about?
Because YOU (Alan Street) are a slow learner, and there is nobody
flaming me in rec.scuba now, so much so that you have to show the
foot in your mouth HERE.
> ? > It's a sad and foolish buffoon who doesn't realize
> ? > that the world is laughing AT him, not WITH him.
> ?
> ? Now Alan Street knows what everyone thinks "in the world"!
> ? First, the newsgroup "rec.scuba', then "the world".
> ?
> ? Alan, you suffer from a severe case of illusion of grandeur,
> ? coupled with your ignorance about newsgroups.
> ?
>
> Naw. I just like to hold up mirrors in front of pompous, out to pasture
morons likek Alan Street! You need to learn how to hold your mirrors.
> ? I have already had my "last word" with PTRAVEL (aka PTravel)
> ? debunking every bit of what he posted saying I was "a liar",
> ? debunked with HIS OWN NARRATIVES from old posts.
> ?
> ? > Alan
> ?
> ? Stick around, Alan. And look at AT LEAST dozens of active
> ? posters/folks in rec.scuba who had been around much longer than
> ? you, and notice why none of them act like clueless newbies and
> ? morons like yourself. SOME of them did YEARS ago, and have
> ? learned their lesson which you don't seem to have learned.
Go back to the GUNS and POLITICS threads in rec.scuba -- they take
up 90% of the discussion you and others take part there.
I only discuss SCUBA there. Only the clueless ones like yourself
even tried to attack me without any ammunition in rec.scuba, as
PTravel did here (rec.travel.air), without his ammunition.
Learn your lesson from rec.scuba IDIOTS like CPR86, Ron Lee, and a
few others who tried for YEARS to be a pest and failed. All they
left are a long trail of self-indictment, in the same manner Alan
Street is only beginning to establish one for himself.
-- Bob.
PTRAVEL
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0409...@posting.google.com...
> news:<2ruag7F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>
> PT> I'll tolerate just about anything in a discussion except
> dishonesty.
> PT> Banty and I disagree, but Banty isn't untruthful. Jenn gets
> insulting, PT> but Jenn doesn't lie. You, however, are dishonest
> and, evidently,
> PT> deliberately so.
> PT>
> PT> You can have the last word.
>
> The last 275 LINES or so (in this post) were YOURS. LIAR.
No, Bob -- you lied. I proved it. Now go away.
Alan Street
(Top posted to preserve all the nuances and twisted grammar of Bob's
dementia, without forcing those who aren't interested - which I assume
is almost everyone by now - to scroll past 100+ lines of drivel).
Feesh, I'll let you have the last word. You've already done enough
damage to your reputation without me tormenting you any longer.
(Besides, like the cat playing with the now dead mouse, the game has
gotten kind of boring for me :-)
€ > ? >
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> LOL no kidding -- there are an assortment of pathologies that create
> this extreme lack of empathy and high degree of self centeredness in
> adults --
You mean, like the kind of person who would subject a couple dozen
people to eight squirmy shriek filled hours because they could afford
their European vacation, but not a seat for junior? Yeah, that is
pathological and an extreme lack of empathy.
Socks
Reef Fish
> (Top posted to preserve all the nuances and twisted grammar of Bob's
> dementia, without forcing those who aren't interested - which I assume
> is almost everyone by now - to scroll past 100+ lines of drivel).
Well done! You added absolutely NOTHING to your last post, and
my reply to it sufficed to have been the last word.
>
> Feesh, I'll let you have the last word.
Wise move, when you have been thoroughly debunked. Hope you keep
your word better than PTravel when he last used that "let you
have the last word" phrase.
> (Besides, like the cat playing with the now dead mouse, the game has
> gotten kind of boring for me :-)
Ah, it's very boring to be a dead mouse isn't it? ;>) I hope you've
learned your lesson to remain a dead mouse, like those dead mice
in the history of rec.scuba.
-- Bob.
> ? > ? > ? Alan, you regularly made a fool of yourself in rec.scuba already.
> ? > ? >
> ? > ? > The only person in rec.scuba who thinks me a fool is you.
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Of course Alan thinks knows what everyone thinks in rec.scuba.
> ? > ?
> ? > ?
> ? > ? > On the other
> ? > ? > hand, I notice that you've managed to gain the same pompous,
> ? > ? > self-aggrandizing reputation you have in rec.scuba in at least two
> ? > ? > other newsgroups.
> ?
> ?
> ? > ? Like my latest posts about PTravel in this ng that brought out
> ? > ? the officious and clueless Alan Street?
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Besides, you couldn't even count the newsgroups in which I have
> ? > ? encountered the likes of yourself, and the smarter ones
> ? > ? eventually went away or learned to keep their mouth shut when
> ? > ? they should.
> ? > ?
> ? >
> ? > As opposed to the clever ones who help you make a fool of yourself.
> ?
> ? Never met one in 16 years, and you certainly not one.
> ? >
> ? > ? I've been around newsgroups over 16 years now.
> ? >
> ? > Slow learner?
> ?
> ? See above. If I have so many people flaming me in rec.scuba, your
> ? primary playground, why would you have to come HERE to add your
> ? fuel to a case you know nothing about?
> ?
> ? Because YOU (Alan Street) are a slow learner, and there is nobody
> ? flaming me in rec.scuba now, so much so that you have to show the
> ? foot in your mouth HERE.
> ?
> ? > ? > It's a sad and foolish buffoon who doesn't realize
> ? > ? > that the world is laughing AT him, not WITH him.
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Now Alan Street knows what everyone thinks "in the world"!
> ? > ? First, the newsgroup "rec.scuba', then "the world".
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Alan, you suffer from a severe case of illusion of grandeur,
> ? > ? coupled with your ignorance about newsgroups.
> ? > ?
> ? >
> ? > Naw. I just like to hold up mirrors in front of pompous, out to pasture
> ?
> ? morons likek Alan Street! You need to learn how to hold your mirrors.
> ?
> ?
> ? > ? I have already had my "last word" with PTRAVEL (aka PTravel)
> ? > ? debunking every bit of what he posted saying I was "a liar",
> ? > ? debunked with HIS OWN NARRATIVES from old posts.
> ? > ?
> ? > ? > Alan
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Stick around, Alan. And look at AT LEAST dozens of active
> ? > ? posters/folks in rec.scuba who had been around much longer than
> ? > ? you, and notice why none of them act like clueless newbies and
> ? > ? morons like yourself. SOME of them did YEARS ago, and have
> ? > ? learned their lesson which you don't seem to have learned.
> ?
> ? Go back to the GUNS and POLITICS threads in rec.scuba -- they take
> ? up 90% of the discussion you and others take part there.
> ?
> ? I only discuss SCUBA there. Only the clueless ones like yourself
> ? even tried to attack me without any ammunition in rec.scuba, as
> ? PTravel did here (rec.travel.air), without his ammunition.
> ?
> ? Learn your lesson from rec.scuba IDIOTS like CPR86, Ron Lee, and a
> ? few others who tried for YEARS to be a pest and failed. All they
> ? left are a long trail of self-indictment, in the same manner Alan
> ? Street is only beginning to establish one for himself.
> ?
> ? -- Bob.