Confronting breeders on airplanes
Elizabeth
booked a flight over Thankgiving weekend? Never again, I tell you. My ears
still hurt from the screaming fleshloaf that was sitting directly behind me on
my flight this afternoon from BUF-ORD. Thank gawd it was *only* 1 1/2 hr
flight. Had it been my usual 8 hour Trans-Atlantic voyage I would have gone
insane, or ended up in jail, or maybe both.
Good kee-rist I don't even know where to begin, it was the flight from fucking
hell I tell ya. The stoller count pre-departure was not horrible. I counted
two. Prior to departure I see a moo changing baybee's diaper in the bathroom,
and all I could think of was thanks jeebus I don't have to schlep around a
fleshloaf and change it's shitty diaper, along with all the other stressors
involved with traveling.
While packing my stuff in the overhead compartment I notice the same moo, as
seen in the bathroom, coming down the aisle with her crying snotling. Oh fuck.
Moo and prechus sit directly behind me, good grief what the hell did I do to
deserve this. I quietly hope the thing will shut it's yap. Oh but of course
not. The crying then proceeds to wailing, and then to screaming at the top it's
freakin lungs. I turn around, not so politely, and said "Can't you do
*something* to make it stop!" Moo says simply, "He's just a tired little guy"
and gave me a weak smile. I gave her a death glare which did no good.
To no one in particular I said, "Who the hell needs birth control when all you
have to do is listen to that!"
So I was stuck. The plane was booked solid of course. There was no escape. I
just had to sit there and listen to the screamer.
For *entertainment* I got to watch yupmoo and her recently mobile crotch
dumpling walk up and down the aisle. At one point the anklebiter ran into the
FA during beverage service and grabbed his leg. Yupmoo assumed that FA would
find this cyute, instead FA politely suggested that yupmoo and fuck trophy
return to their seats until he was done with the beverage service.
Meanwhile, the screamer was still screaming. And I was getting more pissed off
and ready to kill someone.
Finally the plane landed, and I was preparing my escape. I jumped out of my
seat as soon as possible and grabbed my bag. The screaming got worse. I. Could.
Not. Take. It. Anymore. I shoved my way through the aisle, saying excuse me,
I'm sorry, but I can't listen to that brat anymore! Yes, that is what I said.
Loudly. I made my way near the front, away from the screamer and it's moo.
While waiting to deplane, a breeder nearby whined, "Well what does she expect?
It's Thanksgiving weekend, of course there are going to be crying baybees on
the plane." I turned around and stated, "What I expect is a peaceful flight no
matter the time of year. They should ban baybees from airplanes. Some people
don't have children, and don't like being around them. We shouldn't have to
suffer because of your selfishness."
Well, a breeder duhd nearby didn't like what I said and piped up, "You
obviously don't know what it's like being a mother, and I can't believe you
called that precious child a brat! How dare you! What kind of person are you?"
To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids. If that
bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
And that, was that.
Elizabeth
~ungrateful adoptee
"Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early
as you can, and don't have any kids yourself." - Philip Larkin
Mike
congratulations. You didn't miss one.
KFB ESQ
>bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
>
>And that, was that.<<
BRAVO!
Kevin
stePH
> If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the CF,
> congratulations. You didn't miss one.
I'll bet you can take Elizabeth's second-to-last paragraph as directly
addressed to you as well:
>> To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids.
>> If that bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
PTravel
"Elizabeth" <eliz...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
news:20041129005347...@mb-m18.aol.com...
<snip>
I share your pain. I'd suggest that you make a point of complaining to the
airline. You're not alone in your belief that babies should be banned from
flying. Though I doubt the airlines would ever do that, they might
designate "family sections" that would isolate the screamers and, better
still, they may eliminate the "lapchildren are free" policy.
Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already decided
that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else on the plane,
so they have a license to impose. If we can convince the airlines that more
of us will fly more often on their airline if they do something about child
nuisances, they may act in their own self-interest and do something about
the problem.
Veronique
> If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the CF,
> congratulations. You didn't miss one.
I agree with this psot.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Gregory Morrow
Abbie F. wrote:
> I'd advocate separate planes for sproggen. Schedules would coincide
> with regular flights so adult travelers could ride in comfort, while
> the companion airborne tube of slop careened across the country.
> Depriving them of transport would mean that they'd never leave the
> neighborhood. I love the serenity that descends on my 'hood during
> the howlidays, as the locals go visit grandma. :-) (Sorry to those
> of you who live near their grandmas, but that's the way the vanilla
> wafer crumbles.)
The simplest way of solving the problem would be to eliminate
children/infant fares, and another good tactic would be to require a paid
seat reservation for *every* brat flying...no more "babes in arms" nonsense.
I don't know why the airlines haven't caught on to this concept - they lose
$$$ on every children/infant fare sold anyways and they would gain a lot of
business from flyers who preferred a civilized flying environment...
--
Best
Greg
No kids for you or from you
>They should ban baybees from airplanes. Some people
>don't have children, and don't like being around them. We shouldn't have to
>suffer because of your selfishness."
>
>Well, a breeder duhd nearby didn't like what I said and piped up, "You
>obviously don't know what it's like being a mother, and I can't believe you
>called that precious child a brat! How dare you! What kind of person are
>you?"
>
>To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids. If that
>bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
>
>And that, was that.
Beautiful! Simply beautiful!
From: Nokids4you
Hey breeder, why don't you save your
breath for blowing up water wings!
Abbie F.
facilitated by an ineffectual moo, and being further annoyed by her
defensive sympathizers, many people would still keep a low profile.
I'm easily annoyed by things that shouldn't be, but way less gutsy!
:-)
Seated near a bundle of shriek, I just sighed loudly, said in a fed-up
tone, "Please shut uuuuuuup" and folded a blanket over my head to block
it out. My seat-neighbor looked offended, turned to ask solicitously
about the sprog and stopped talking to me. When we deplaned, the
breeder said to my neighbor, "Thanks for being so understanding. It's
so harrrrd..." generating more sympathetic lowing among the passengers.
Neighbor's husband must have been on my side, because he sweetly
retrieved my bag from the overhead compartment and smiled.
KFB ESQ
>with regular flights so adult travelers could ride in comfort, while
>the companion airborne tube of slop careened across the country.<<
"airborne tube of slop" What a great visualization that provides.
Kevin
Barbwyr
> If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the CF,
> congratulations. You didn't miss one.
Maybe, but she still gets my nomination for a Spinal award.
Barbwyr
Mike
>
> I'll bet you can take Elizabeth's second-to-last paragraph as directly
> addressed to you as well:
>
> >> To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids.
> >> If that bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
>
>
> stePH
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But I don't like being stereotyped, and
it's a pisser when people perpetuate stereotypes.
Janet
"Caine" <alecon...@btinet.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B09DCD6161...@news.individual.net...
> Mike wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>
> > If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the CF,
> > congratulations. You didn't miss one.
>
>
> screeching crotchcrickets and lock yourself in. Oh yeah, go fuck yourself.
>
Is Mike a proven troll or parent? If not, I'm not sure it's reasonable to
talk to him like that just because he disagreed with your own point of view.
I'm not taking sides in the issue of Elizabeth's handling of an airline
problem. I'm just saying I'd like this to be a group in which people can
express minority viewpoints without fear of being abused.
Janet
mroo philpott-smythe
news:20041129005347...@mb-m18.aol.com:
> Fucking jeebus kee-rist on a skateboard. What the hell was I thinking
> when I booked a flight over Thankgiving weekend? Never again, I tell
> you.
[HorridBreederEnMasseEctomy]
> Well, a breeder duhd nearby didn't like what I said and piped up, "You
> obviously don't know what it's like being a mother, and I can't
> believe you called that precious child a brat! How dare you! What kind
> of person are you?"
>
> To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids.
> If that bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
>
> And that, was that.
Good for you!
Breeders think the whole damn world revolves around their effluvia. It's
time people spoke up, dammit.
Glad you did!
sq
Joann Evans
[Buildup snipped]
> Finally the plane landed, and I was preparing my escape. I jumped out of my
> seat as soon as possible and grabbed my bag. The screaming got worse. I. Could.
> Not. Take. It. Anymore. I shoved my way through the aisle, saying excuse me,
> I'm sorry, but I can't listen to that brat anymore! Yes, that is what I said.
> Loudly. I made my way near the front, away from the screamer and it's moo.
> While waiting to deplane, a breeder nearby whined, "Well what does she expect?
> It's Thanksgiving weekend, of course there are going to be crying baybees on
> the plane." I turned around and stated, "What I expect is a peaceful flight no
> matter the time of year. They should ban baybees from airplanes. Some people
> don't have children, and don't like being around them. We shouldn't have to
> suffer because of your selfishness."
>
> Well, a breeder duhd nearby didn't like what I said and piped up, "You
> obviously don't know what it's like being a mother, and I can't believe you
> called that precious child a brat! How dare you! What kind of person are you?"
>
> To that I replied, "I'm the kind of person that doesn't worship kids. If that
> bothers you, then you can go get fucked."
>
> And that, was that.
>
> Elizabeth
> ~ungrateful adoptee
(drumroll) And the winner of the Spine Award of the Year, is....
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Mr. E
"Janet" <ian_...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:mQOqd.52974$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
This is not a group of moderate viewpoints. CFness is not one where there is
much middle ground. You either are, or you aren't. Period. If you want that,
go to the breeder/semi-CF NG (alt.childfree-bridgebuilding ot
alt.childfree-moderated, or some such shit) that got started a while back.
If it still exists, that is.When you water down a drink, you have a watery,
nasty drink, not a delicions, exotic water coctail.
-Mr. E
Veronique
> The simplest way of solving the problem would be to eliminate
> children/infant fares, and another good tactic would be to require a paid
> seat reservation for *every* brat flying...no more "babes in arms" nonsense.
>
> I don't know why the airlines haven't caught on to this concept - they lose
> $$$ on every children/infant fare sold anyways and they would gain a lot of
> business from flyers who preferred a civilized flying environment...
It seems to me that the point of reduced pricing for children is
because the child is not using the function to the extent an adult is
(restaurant meals, f'r example, or infant-in-lap seating) or to
encourage family participation ("family" packages on cruises,
amusement parks, etc.)
Given the dismal financial state of so many airlines, and given the
crowded conditions of most flights, it seems suicidal to offer reduces
children's fares to "encourage" families. Why bother, if the seats are
going to sell anyway? Unfortunately, because flights are pretty much
"take-it-or-leave-it" once you've bought your ticket, I wonder how
much complaining to any given airline matters. I also am curious,
since we've entered the bitching about plane travel season, how many
posting here have actually changed airlines...and whether it made any
difference. It seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face
if one has accumulated frequent flyer miles...and a crapshoot
otherwise, as none of the airlines limit babes in arms to my
knowledge.
It would be interesting to see how an "all adult" flight fared (pardon
the pun!), or even a flat-rate flight, something like Jet Blue.
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<mQOqd.52974$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
posted on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:06:42 GMT, Janet wrote:
>
>"Caine" <alecon...@btinet.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns95B09DCD6161...@news.individual.net...
>> Mike wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>>
>> > If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the CF,
>> > congratulations. You didn't miss one.
>>
>>
>> FFS, go find a breeder to worship. Make sure it's one with multiple
>> screeching crotchcrickets and lock yourself in. Oh yeah, go fuck yourself.
>>
>
>Is Mike a proven troll or parent? If not, I'm not sure it's reasonable to
>talk to him like that just because he disagreed with your own point of view.
>I'm not taking sides in the issue of Elizabeth's handling of an airline
>problem.
I would have to agree with her totally, actually.
Last night I was listening to a talkback program discussing
the issue of the inconvenience of receiving calls on phones
by people trying to sell products and services.
No caller approved of the practice, most thought it should
be banned entirely, yet most seemed to be "polite" to such
callers.
I have unlisted numbers on both landline and mobile, so not
generally bothered. On occasions when used to be bothered,
I saw no need to be particularly polite at all.
I've used various strategies with such callers:
1/ Asking them a lot of questions in return, trying to get
some number where can call them or their company back.
Polite, and designed to waste their time.
2/ Speak in a foreign language they wont know or make one up
as go along. Any sort of gibberish will do. Start out
calm, sound as if asking questions, let them struggle to
communicate or find someone else who can, end up shrieking
at them.
Gasping sounds and unplugged phone optional :-) The idea
here is to make them feel guilty for possibly causing
someone to have a stroke or coronary.
However, if want to chance this, probably a good idea to
plug the phone back in just in case emergency services call
back to check. After all, don't want to waste the time of
emergency services, just make phone spruikers miserable.
3/ Threaten legal action for harassment.
4/ Demand to speak to supervisors. This takes some time.
Talk with them at length, then demand to speak to their
supervisor.
5/ Threaten to take the issue to the t.i.o.
6/ If caller is female, I will ask her name, and whatever
she answers will pretend to recognize her voice and ask her
if she remembers the fun we had as when we dated. Would
complementing on her sexual talents, especially as being
willing to try anything, going in to extreme detail.
Eventually they get flustered, embarrassed and hang up.
There are, of course, several possible modifications to the
above, including being extremely rude and insulting from
the start.
I have little patience with people who will deliberately
"cold call" others whether on their own behalf or working
for a marketing organization.
After all, if one chooses to be a prostitute, one cannot
expect to avoid abuse when they solicit people.
7/ Actually, this is being very unfair to sex workers.
Have lived in Kings Cross, and once are known as a local no
one bothers you.
Really wish I could say the same for people who try to sell
me things. Obviously some people do buy things from
businesses who operate in this way, or charities who solicit
in this way, but for me it is the "kiss of death".
I hate the practice so much, that not only won't buy
anything over the phone, but if get a call from a local
business or charity will never have anything to do with them
again.
Only if we get tough can we hope to stop such annoyances and
invasions of privacy.
Being "nice" to people who harass us only encourages them!
You or anyone else have any ideas on this point?
> I'm just saying I'd like this to be a group in which people can
>express minority viewpoints without fear of being abused.
So would we all. Unfortunately Caine seems to have a
different idea. :-)
====================
IDN10064
METROPOLITAN FORECAST
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
New South Wales
Issued at 12:55pm on Tuesday the 30th of November 2004
For the remainder of Tuesday
Dry. Very hot tempered by seabreezes along the coast,
followed by a very warm night. High cloud at times. Light to
moderate west to northwest winds becoming fresh and gusty in
the afternoon.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN10064.txt
=========================
At 1 PM, 1300 hrs, 20 minutes ago temp at Sydney airport was
34.6 deg C, relative humidity 13.8, wind ENE at 34.6 KPH
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN65066.shtml
Not that hot yet, but may get worse. How is the fire
situation in your area? Should be OK where we are, but
always hard to predict, of course.
Regards,
"nilkids"
>
>Janet
>
>
>
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<Xns95B0BF90DA9E...@news.individual.net>
posted on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:49:54 -0600, Caine wrote:
>Janet wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>
>>
>> "Caine" <alecon...@btinet.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95B09DCD6161...@news.individual.net...
>>> Mike wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>>>
>>> > If you were trying to confirm every negative stereotype about the
>>> > CF, congratulations. You didn't miss one.
>>>
>>>
>>> FFS, go find a breeder to worship. Make sure it's one with multiple
>>> screeching crotchcrickets and lock yourself in. Oh yeah, go fuck
>>> yourself.
>
>> I'm not taking sides in the issue of Elizabeth's handling of an
>> airline problem. I'm just saying I'd like this to be a group in which
>> people can express minority viewpoints without fear of being abused.
>
>Go call yourself a waaaaaahbamulance, Janet. Don't you have anything better
>to do than complain about me? Nah, nevermind, it's obvious you don't.
And you have nothing better to do than to criticize others,
Caine?
I am an American, and I happen to agree with Janet.
However, even if I totally disagreed with any and all
points of view she had ever expressed, is currently
expressing, or ever would express, I would _still_ defend
her or anyone else against _your_ obvious extremist and
intolerant viewpoints.
Seriously, Caine, since coming to Australia from the US
decades ago have never met an American here who seemed as
politically extreme and intolerant as you are.
Just to keep everything straight, would you like to quote
your American Nazi Party card number?
Of course, you might belong to some "front" organization, so
perhaps I should just ask how many "clubs" and
"organizations" that you belong to at the moment?
Regards,
"nilkids"
>
>Caine
ghoul
mine to
Citizen Ted
wrote:
>Fucking jeebus kee-rist on a skateboard. What the hell was I thinking when I
>booked a flight over Thankgiving weekend?
I have no idea. The very idea of air travel during the Holidays is so
far from my radar that I cannot get a read on it, even with the
klystron oscillator at full blast.
While I appreciate your Spine in reacting to these numbskulls, I'm
afraid it will do absolutely no good. The airlines love these people,
and they will select them over you (and me). There is no other
explanation for the lap babies and the airlines' endless reservoir of
patience with this bullshit.
Think about how miserable your journey was. Now think about how the
corporate carrier comes down on the situation. That's right - they
side with the breeders. There is only one solution for people who want
a pleasant journey on a commercial aircraft: CF Air.
IMHO, CF Air is an idea whose time has come, and I cannot think of a
more valuable business model for that industry. I would gladly invest
my entire savings into such a venture. It could start slow with daily
flights from NY to LA. Even with elevated ticket prices, CF Air would
fly packed, every day, every flight. Every business traveler would
select it, and many business travelers would pay the difference out of
their own pocket if the company wouldn't foot the bill.
From NY/LA, CF Air would find a hub city. Within two years, CF Air
(Tiffany's) would leave Southwest (WalMart) and Continental (Sears)
in the dust. And YES, it's legal to exclude brats from commercial
flights. Brats are excluded from staying at the Chicken Ranch and from
drinking at Vinnie's Tavern. They would also be excluded from CF Air.
After all, smoking was banned, right?
And besides, fuck 'em. It's MY airline. Don't like it? Then go fly
Chuck E Cheese Air.
- TR
- looking for some VC and some disgruntled United executives.
J.D. Spangler
ack.20....@spamgourmet.com says...
>
>
>"PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
>news:3111bsF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already
>> decided that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else
>> on the plane, so they have a license to impose. If we can convince
>> the airlines that more of us will fly more often on their airline if
>> they do something about child nuisances, they may act in their own
>> self-interest and do something about the problem.
>
>
>How would we do that? Every airline has this problem, so what is the
>alternative, other than refusing to fly?
In my case, tranquilizers. Klonopin, for preference. One of those, and I
can snooze through just about anything on a plane. Crying babies,
gremlins on the wings, you name it.
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
http://www.ayrsayle.net
"Ideally someone's religion should have about as much importance
to me as what they had for breakfast. As long as they're not
regurgitating it on me I really shouldn't have to give a damn."
nil...@invalid.com.au
posted on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:37:07 GMT, Citizen Ted wrote:
>On 29 Nov 2004 05:53:47 GMT, eliz...@aol.commonsense (Elizabeth)
>wrote:
>
>>Fucking jeebus kee-rist on a skateboard. What the hell was I thinking when I
>>booked a flight over Thankgiving weekend?
>
>I have no idea. The very idea of air travel during the Holidays is so
>far from my radar that I cannot get a read on it, even with the
>klystron oscillator at full blast.
>
>While I appreciate your Spine in reacting to these numbskulls, I'm
>afraid it will do absolutely no good. The airlines love these people,
>and they will select them over you (and me). There is no other
>explanation for the lap babies and the airlines' endless reservoir of
>patience with this bullshit.
>
>Think about how miserable your journey was. Now think about how the
>corporate carrier comes down on the situation. That's right - they
>side with the breeders. There is only one solution for people who want
>a pleasant journey on a commercial aircraft: CF Air.
>
Well, I don't remember just how the rules apply to to
domestic travel, but for international travel you will find
that most airlines belong to the IATA, or "International Air
Transport Association", which is a cozy little monopoly on
setting regulations, fares,and so on.
>IMHO, CF Air is an idea whose time has come, and I cannot think of a
>more valuable business model for that industry. I would gladly invest
>my entire savings into such a venture.
I would check into it first if I were you.
> It could start slow with daily
>flights from NY to LA. Even with elevated ticket prices, CF Air would
>fly packed, every day, every flight. Every business traveler would
>select it, and many business travelers would pay the difference out of
>their own pocket if the company wouldn't foot the bill.
>
>From NY/LA, CF Air would find a hub city. Within two years, CF Air
>(Tiffany's) would leave Southwest (WalMart) and Continental (Sears)
>in the dust. And YES, it's legal to exclude brats from commercial
>flights. Brats are excluded from staying at the Chicken Ranch and from
>drinking at Vinnie's Tavern. They would also be excluded from CF Air.
>After all, smoking was banned, right?
After how many years?
>
>And besides, fuck 'em. It's MY airline. Don't like it? Then go fly
>Chuck E Cheese Air.
>
>- TR
>- looking for some VC and some disgruntled United executives.
I could be wrong. Let us know if it all works out. :-)
.... But if it doesn't, don't claim that you were not
warned.
Regards,
"nilkids"
>
>
>
>
>
nil...@invalid.com.au
Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:40:52 -0500, J.D. Spangler wrote:
>In article <Xns95B0C1D80...@130.133.1.4>,
>ack.20....@spamgourmet.com says...
>>
>>
>>"PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
>>news:3111bsF...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>> Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already
>>> decided that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else
>>> on the plane, so they have a license to impose. If we can convince
>>> the airlines that more of us will fly more often on their airline if
>>> they do something about child nuisances, they may act in their own
>>> self-interest and do something about the problem.
>>
>>
>>How would we do that? Every airline has this problem, so what is the
>>alternative, other than refusing to fly?
>
>In my case, tranquilizers. Klonopin, for preference. One of those, and I
>can snooze through just about anything on a plane. Crying babies,
>gremlins on the wings, you name it.
Never tried it. In the olden days, though, sodium
quinalbarbitone (Seconal) was pretty effecient. :-)
Of course, this is going back to the days of steam powered
aircraft such as 727s, where the passengers often had to
help stoke the boilers. :-)
Regards,
"nilkids"
kali95
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:3111bsF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> > Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already
> > decided that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else
> > on the plane, so they have a license to impose. If we can convince
> > the airlines that more of us will fly more often on their airline if
> > they do something about child nuisances, they may act in their own
> > self-interest and do something about the problem.
>
> How would we do that? Every airline has this problem, so what is the
> alternative, other than refusing to fly?
CF Air! We should start our own brat-free airline.
*k
Mike
> Neighbor's husband must have been on my side, because he sweetly
> retrieved my bag from the overhead compartment and smiled.
>
As a guy who's polite to women, I'd say don't read too much into a guy
being helpful and smiling. I open doors for women, hold elevators,
pull down luggage, offer to carry heavy things and smile politely, but
I do it whether or not I think a woman is likable. It's just manners
and doing my small part to keep the world civilized.
MerkinDream
<sqa...@ihatandglovesdiom.com> wrote:
>MFS <ack.20....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
>news:Xns95B0C1D80...@130.133.1.4:
>Massive letter and email campaign, I guess.
>
>I'm happy to report that the last time I was on a LONG LONG flight, some
>fucking breeder couple were sitting across the aisle from me and a very
>well-behaved child and its parent were sitting behind me. At some point,
>infuriated by the breeders' lack of attention to their free-range spawn,
>I asked them why their children couldn't be like the sprog in the next
>seat. Breeders just go nuts at that kind of statement.
Oooh- that is a great tactic. Will have to keep it in mind.
Merk
Elizabeth
>
>
Why thank you. I'm honored. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I owe
it to this group. I have zero tolerance for breeders and their hellspawn.
<blushing>
Elizabeth
~ungrateful adoptee
"Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early
as you can, and don't have any kids yourself." - Philip Larkin
Elizabeth
>
>sq
Exactly. I refuse to suffer screamers in silence. If I do nothing, then I'm
part of the problem.
stePH
It only works when there's a well-behaved kid in sight.
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Abbie F.
much into a guy
being helpful and smiling. I open doors for women, hold elevators,
pull down luggage, offer to carry heavy things and smile politely, but
I do it whether or not I think a woman is likable. It's just manners
and doing my small part to keep the world civilized.
Aw, Mike, you burst my bubble! :-) Still, I commend you on
maintaining a gentlemanly demeanor when there's such pressure to let
women hold their own doors, etc. I appreciate people who do such
things for me and if it's a double door, I like to open the next one as
a return kindness. I operate on the principle of, "Do unto others as
they do unto me." :-) Letting a baby wail with disregard for others
is an unnecessary rudeness which I think merits a punitive response. A
portable bullhorn would produce equal annoyance but disturb innocent
passengers. So we're left with words, our only means of practical
defense against clueless morons.
Abbie F.
provides.
Don't picture it if you're about to eat. The only problem with the
idea is that it would unfairly penalize the poor flight crew and
attendants. It would be hard to find employees - maybe past "Fear
Factor" contestants would be the only ones to apply.
Abbie F.
stereotyped, and
it's a pisser when people perpetuate stereotypes.
I think the creation and maintenance of stereotypes is the observer's
choice. Some people will always think a certain way, regardless. As a
petite female involved in traditionally male work and hobbies, nothing
I do can overcome that initial misconception. People will tell my
husband about two-stroke engines when he could care less, until finally
they notice I'm the one listening attentively.
The resentment and disregard of the childfree are longstanding,
perpetuated by a lack of outspokenness in the face of unfair treatment.
Think of the other groups that have only recently been acknowledged as
worthy of notice. They weren't heard until they demanded that their
rights be considered and are still trying to achieve complete parity.
Their tactics ranged from polite to confrontational, and the more
aggressive ones got things changed. If they relax and become
complacent, their newly-acquired recognition will fade away again.
You have the option of representing another facet of CF-dom as you
wish, and that's the beauty of it - that we're all free to be
ourselves.
Abbie F.
be heard!
Definitely. I get inordinately happy when someone else expresses
CF-friendly views in public. Whee! Spread the word! You never know
who might come out of their shell once they find out they're not alone.
Hell Toupee
>
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:3111bsF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> > Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already
> > decided that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else
> > on the plane, so they have a license to impose. If we can convince
> > the airlines that more of us will fly more often on their airline if
> > they do something about child nuisances, they may act in their own
> > self-interest and do something about the problem.
>
> How would we do that? Every airline has this problem, so what is the
> alternative, other than refusing to fly?
Well, what about letting travel agents, airlines, and charter companies
know that scheduling child-free flights would be worth their while? They
could charge a somewhat higher fare and I'm sure they'd still sell out.
Let the bargain-hunters ride the economy flights with the kids. If they
can book nude charters, I'd think someone should be willing to try
child-free flights. To avoid the cries of discrimination, they could
promote them as 'quiet flights' - thus explaining why no kids are
allowed.
HellT
stePH
> ... But I don't like being stereotyped, and
> it's a pisser when people perpetuate stereotypes.
Some black people are thieves and drug addicts, some Mexicans are lazy,
some Irish are alcoholics, some Scots are miserly, some English are
sexually repressed, and some childfree people are publically vocal about
their dislike of ill-behaved children and their incompetent handlers.
Welcome to life.
(and actually that last doesn't bother me at all. Breeders of
ill-behaved sprogs need to be called on it, early and often.)
Abbie F.
discrimination, they could promote them as 'quiet flights' - thus
explaining why no kids are
allowed.
"But Hoglina isn't LOUD!!!! I swear she won't make a sound so you have
to let us on. YOU CALLING MY BAYBEE LOUD??" (Waddles off to find the
"Terminal Owner")
PTravel
"Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> It seems to me that the point of reduced pricing for children is
> because the child is not using the function to the extent an adult is
> (restaurant meals, f'r example, or infant-in-lap seating) or to
> encourage family participation ("family" packages on cruises,
> amusement parks, etc.)
>
> Given the dismal financial state of so many airlines, and given the
> crowded conditions of most flights, it seems suicidal to offer reduces
> children's fares to "encourage" families. Why bother, if the seats are
> going to sell anyway?
> Unfortunately, because flights are pretty much
> "take-it-or-leave-it" once you've bought your ticket, I wonder how
> much complaining to any given airline matters.
Airlines' margins on bargain fares are so low that they can be earning as
little as a few hundred dollars per flight (NOT per person) if it goes out
full with only, discounted restricted fares aboard. Airlines make their
money from premium travelers, i.e. people buying full- or near-full fare,
unrestricted, fully refundable tickets (these are almost exclusively
business travelers) or people flying in paid first class.
Business travelers have cut, dramatically, the amount of flying they do -- a
combination of the discomfort caused by post-9/11 procedures and a
contracted economy. If airlines want to get business travelers back, they
need to make it attractive to fly. So far, they've done this only by
lowering airfares. As someone who travels on business quite frequently, I'd
happily pay a higher fare for a more comfortable, less stressful experience.
_I'd_ pay a premium to fly on an airline that either banned young children,
or relegated them to a "famblee section" somewhere in the back of the plane.
I'm convinced that the first airline to introduce this kind of policy will
become the "business travelers' airline of choice."
So, complaining to the airline makes sense. Eventually, some marketing
executive will say, "Hey, I bet people would choose us if we could guarantee
there'd be no screaming babies on the flight!"
> I also am curious,
> since we've entered the bitching about plane travel season, how many
> posting here have actually changed airlines...and whether it made any
> difference.
I changed from TWA to Continental when the former went bankrupt -- no choice
there, though I found CO to provide, generally, better service. Recently,
I've been unhappy with CO's performance, specifically in the area of
upgrades for elite FFs (I rarely, if ever, get them out of SFO, and CO has
also made it far more expensive to upgrade a coach international fare using
miles). I started using United for west coast travel (when Alaska Airlines
completely pissed me off by cancelling a flight and refusing to do anything
to assist me and Liana get to our connection for an international flight
last year). I've been pretty impressed with UA -- noticeable attitude
difference on the part of the ground and flight crew, better maintained
planes, I've been getting upgrades fairly regularly, and when I don't I get
"E+" seating, which is economy seating with better seat pitch that's
reserved for UA elite flyers. I'm more or less certain that I'll be
abandoning CO altogether next year, and flying only on UA. So, yes, for me
it's made a difference.
> It seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face
> if one has accumulated frequent flyer miles...and a crapshoot
> otherwise, as none of the airlines limit babes in arms to my
> knowledge.
None of them do, but there are some that are more baby-friendly than others.
BA, for example, caters to famblees with flying nuisances. UA and CO, on
the other hand, don't even do that "families with small children" preboard
announcement, anymore -- elites and F-tickets board before the famblees, who
must board in their zone like everyone else.
>
> It would be interesting to see how an "all adult" flight fared (pardon
> the pun!), or even a flat-rate flight, something like Jet Blue.
>
> V.
> --
> Veronique Chez Sheep
PTravel
"MFS" <ack.20....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B0C1D80...@130.133.1.4...
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:3111bsF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> > Confronting the parents does no good -- obviously, they've already
> > decided that their "need" to fly outweighs the needs of everyone else
> > on the plane, so they have a license to impose. If we can convince
> > the airlines that more of us will fly more often on their airline if
> > they do something about child nuisances, they may act in their own
> > self-interest and do something about the problem.
>
>
> How would we do that? Every airline has this problem, so what is the
> alternative, other than refusing to fly?
By complaining to management. Believe me, the airlines know that most
passengers don't like flying child nuisances. However, they'll take action
only if when the "noise level" of complaints gets sufficiently high. As an
example, COS ("customers of size"), is the latest issue-du-jour for frequent
flyers. On the Flyer Talk website (something like 16,000 active members),
one person posted about a bad experience flying from Paris (CDG) to Houston
(IAD) on Continental. A COS was boarded and assigned a middle seat -- the
COS was so large that she, literally, occupied the two adjacent seats and
there was no where for the FT poster to sit, except straddling her leg and
the arm rest of his window seat. CO's FAs handled the situation very, very
badly. The FT poster wrote a couple of complaint letters and, amazingly,
the FT thread about his experience was noted and actually studied by the CO
powers-that-be. As a result, they're re-evaluating their policy vis-a-vis
CsOS and it's almost a certainty that no one will have to endure what the FT
poster had.
If enough people complain, articulately and publicly, then the airlines
might do something. I'm betting that the first famblee entitlement to bite
the dust will be lap children. They're a danger to themselves and others
anyway (picture a 30-lb bowling ball bouncing around the cabin in heavy
turbulence), but in these days of tight seat pitch, there is no way that
they don't inconvenience and discomfort everyone around them. Airlines
don't want to sell seats at a deep discount, so I expect to see the lapchild
policy replaced by a rule requiring all passengers, including children and
infants, to have their own seat, and the super-deep discounts for children
eliminated. That, alone, will strongly discourage the entitlement set from
travelling by air.
>
> MFS
PTravel
Hoglina only "frets quietly*".
* "frets quietly" means "screams at the top of her lungs" in parent-speak.
>
PTravel
"Hell Toupee" <my...@notmine.com> wrote in message
news:41AC936F...@notmine.com...
>. To avoid the cries of discrimination, they could
> promote them as 'quiet flights' - thus explaining why no kids are
> allowed.
To be clear, age is not a protected class with respect to discrimination,
except for people over 40 in the area of employment. In other words, it is
not against the law for an airline (or restaurant or movie theater or shop)
to say, "No children allowed!"
>
> HellT
PTravel
"Pete" <fuck...@fuck.bush> wrote in message
news:fuckbush-3CD623...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <fee2dc5e.04112...@posting.google.com>,
> dragging...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But I don't like being stereotyped, and
> > it's a pisser when people perpetuate stereotypes.
>
> breeder.
>
> Go suck a shotgun, you asshole...Pete
Pete, is there any chance that you could revive the Spinals? Seriously, I
think we all did better at standing up to pah-runts when the awards were
around.
Ptravel
Proud recipient of a Spinal Award.
> --
> Robots that make smelly farts?
> That doesn't make any sense!
PTravel
"stePH" <acet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:313if0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> and some childfree people are publically vocal about
> their dislike of ill-behaved children and their incompetent handlers.
Steph, I agree with your point, but I don't think you should characterize
being publically vocal about dislike of shrieklings and their facilitators
as a negative trait. It's not only the CF that are speaking up about this.
There are an awful lot of non-CF and BNP folks who are decrying the coddled,
uncontrolled, spoiled, entitlement-demanding style of parenting which seems
to have dominated since the 80s.
Gregory Morrow
PTravel wrote:
> "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > It seems to me that the point of reduced pricing for children is
> > because the child is not using the function to the extent an adult is
> > (restaurant meals, f'r example, or infant-in-lap seating) or to
> > encourage family participation ("family" packages on cruises,
> > amusement parks, etc.)
> >
> > Given the dismal financial state of so many airlines, and given the
> > crowded conditions of most flights, it seems suicidal to offer reduces
> > children's fares to "encourage" families. Why bother, if the seats are
> > going to sell anyway?
>
> > Unfortunately, because flights are pretty much
> > "take-it-or-leave-it" once you've bought your ticket, I wonder how
> > much complaining to any given airline matters.
>
> Airlines' margins on bargain fares are so low that they can be earning as
> little as a few hundred dollars per flight (NOT per person) if it goes out
> full with only, discounted restricted fares aboard.
Or they may even be making *no* money which is a big problem with some of
the airlines....
Airlines make their
> money from premium travelers, i.e. people buying full- or near-full fare,
> unrestricted, fully refundable tickets (these are almost exclusively
> business travelers) or people flying in paid first class.
>
> Business travelers have cut, dramatically, the amount of flying they do --
a
> combination of the discomfort caused by post-9/11 procedures and a
> contracted economy. If airlines want to get business travelers back, they
> need to make it attractive to fly. So far, they've done this only by
> lowering airfares. As someone who travels on business quite frequently,
I'd
> happily pay a higher fare for a more comfortable, less stressful
experience.
> _I'd_ pay a premium to fly on an airline that either banned young
children,
> or relegated them to a "famblee section" somewhere in the back of the
plane.
> I'm convinced that the first airline to introduce this kind of policy will
> become the "business travelers' airline of choice."
I've always wondered if there were any child problems on those narrow body
(A320 ISTR) all - business class flights that Lufthansa operates from
Germany to several points in the US...I'd bet those flights are about as
close to "child - free" as you'll get...those businessman are not going to
put with any chyuld nonsense.
UA has a new premium transcon business/first class product, e.g. front
cabins with sleeper seats, premium grub, and other amenities. It's a set
price, something like two thousand bux (don't know if this is OW or RT...).
It's expected to be a big moneymaker...check it out.
> > It seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face
> > if one has accumulated frequent flyer miles...and a crapshoot
> > otherwise, as none of the airlines limit babes in arms to my
> > knowledge.
>
> None of them do, but there are some that are more baby-friendly than
others.
> BA, for example, caters to famblees with flying nuisances.
I'm surprised at this, I thought BA had concentrated on it's premium classes
and scaled back the cattle car seats and services in the rear...
UA and CO, on
> the other hand, don't even do that "families with small children" preboard
> announcement, anymore -- elites and F-tickets board before the famblees,
who
> must board in their zone like everyone else.
As one of my UA flight attendants once said to some slobbish mother who
handed him a dirty diaper to "dispose" of, "We don't DO diapers, ma'am..."
;-)
I remember that TWA Europe - US flight from hell you took a few years back
and wrote about. IIRC it originated in Riyadh or some other hellhole and
was STUFFED with Middle Eastern famblees and their multitudinous offspring.
It's probably the single most ghastly trip report I've ever read (and I'm
including Bill Mattock's trip reports, too)...
--
Best
Greg
stePH
> "stePH" <acet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:313if0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>> and some childfree people are publically vocal about
>>their dislike of ill-behaved children and their incompetent handlers.
>
>
> Steph, I agree with your point, but I don't think you should characterize
> being publically vocal about dislike of shrieklings and their facilitators
> as a negative trait.
Re-read my closing, parenthetetical note:
stePH
> Pete, is there any chance that you could revive the Spinals? Seriously, I
> think we all did better at standing up to pah-runts when the awards were
> around.
>
> Ptravel
> Proud recipient of a Spinal Award.
I didn't know they were defunct. And good for you.
Mike
> Mike wrote: As a guy who's polite to women, I'd say don't read too
> much into a guy
> being helpful and smiling. I open doors for women, hold elevators,
> pull down luggage, offer to carry heavy things and smile politely, but
> I do it whether or not I think a woman is likable. It's just manners
> and doing my small part to keep the world civilized.
>
> Aw, Mike, you burst my bubble! :-)
For what it's worth, I tend to like most women (credit that to growing
up in a houseful of sisters where I was the only boy, I guess). But
manners aren't really manners if you only apply them to people you
deem worthy, right?
PTravel
"Gregory Morrow" <gregorymorrowLU...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:_b2rd.10651$Ua....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> I've always wondered if there were any child problems on those narrow body
> (A320 ISTR) all - business class flights that Lufthansa operates from
> Germany to several points in the US...I'd bet those flights are about as
> close to "child - free" as you'll get...those businessman are not going to
> put with any chyuld nonsense.
I've never flown those particular flights, but I have flown Lufthansa in
business class trans-Atlantic. As with most European carriers, children
just don't seem to be the problem they are on US airlines. I've made this
observation a number of times: the entitlement-demanding, child-worshipping
cult of the pah-runt seems to be, primarily, a U.S. phenomena.
<snip>
>
> UA has a new premium transcon business/first class product, e.g. front
> cabins with sleeper seats, premium grub, and other amenities. It's a set
> price, something like two thousand bux (don't know if this is OW or
RT...).
> It's expected to be a big moneymaker...check it out.
Wow! My usual full-fare Y transcon ticket is in the $1300-1700 range,
depending on when I'm travelling. If I can have something like that premium
cabin you've described for a couple of hundred dollars more, I'd grab it in
a minute!
<snip>
> > None of them do, but there are some that are more baby-friendly than
> others.
> > BA, for example, caters to famblees with flying nuisances.
>
>
> I'm surprised at this, I thought BA had concentrated on it's premium
classes
> and scaled back the cattle car seats and services in the rear...
BA will remove a premium flyer (either FF or full-fare) from a bulkhead seat
to accomodate a fly-once-a-year-on-a-deep-discount-fare famblee. I refuse
to fly an airline that will change my carefully-selected premium seat for
this reason. BA also puts money into toys and other crap to entertain the
kids. I'd rather fly an airline that offers a better selection of booze. ;)
>
>
> UA and CO, on
> > the other hand, don't even do that "families with small children"
preboard
> > announcement, anymore -- elites and F-tickets board before the famblees,
> who
> > must board in their zone like everyone else.
>
>
> As one of my UA flight attendants once said to some slobbish mother who
> handed him a dirty diaper to "dispose" of, "We don't DO diapers, ma'am..."
> ;-)
Ah, the more I hear about UA the more I like them!
>
>
> I remember that TWA Europe - US flight from hell you took a few years back
> and wrote about. IIRC it originated in Riyadh or some other hellhole and
> was STUFFED with Middle Eastern famblees and their multitudinous
offspring.
Cairo. I was on one of those once -- CDG to JFK. The flight the previous
day had been cancelled, so there was twice the number of passengers
connecting through from Cairo. It was 8 hours of pure unadulterated (pun
intended) hell. Little bastards were, literally, trying to climb on my
carryon while we were waiting to board. In-flight, the noise was
incredible. At one point, Liana and I felt something at our feet. It was a
bay-bee, crawling its way to the front of the aircraft by going under the
seats!
When we got to to JFK, we changed planes for a flight to LAX. When I
boarded, the FA (who knew I was an Elite 1, or whatever their highest elite
staus was) said, "Welcome aboard. How are you tonight?" I told him, in
great detail, about the trans-Atlantic leg we just completed. He looked
disturbed, spoke to the purser, and then returned and said, "Sir, I'm very
sorry that you experienced that. TWA would like to invite you and your wife
to enjoy this flight in our first class cabin."
I swear I was ready to kiss him!
> It's probably the single most ghastly trip report I've ever read (and I'm
> including Bill Mattock's trip reports, too)...
I was googling around, trying to find it, but I couldn't. Can you repost
it?
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
>
Jason G
>A COS was boarded and assigned a middle seat -- the
>COS was so large that she, literally, occupied the two adjacent seats and
>there was no where for the FT poster to sit, except straddling her leg and
>the arm rest of his window seat.
If, however, the FAs had so much as insinuated that the fat passenger was in any
way unusual, and perhaps should pay for space occupied or make other
arrangements, they would have had a bellowing crowd of fat people screaming
bloody murder and picketing on teevee inside of twelve hours. Talk about a
no-win situation for the airline.
I had the most distinct displeasure of being squashed against the bulkhead by a
giganto fat guy on a fully booked 70-minute commuter flight, and I though I was
going to go insane. And I am not claustrophobic at all. I cannot imagine a
transatlantic flight like that. I think I would have gotten off the plane as
soon as such a person was seated next to me.
--
Jason G
"This isn't a matter of being tolerant,
it's a matter of being sane." --REP, a.s.c.
Jason G
>
>>>(and actually that last doesn't bother me at all. Breeders of
>>>ill-behaved sprogs need to be called on it, early and often.)
But it doesn't have to be done in a way that makes one look just as
ill-mannered, crude, and lacking in social grace as the offending child.
Lorz
> In article <313prjF...@uni-berlin.de>, stePH says...
> >
> >>>(and actually that last doesn't bother me at all. Breeders of
> >>>ill-behaved sprogs need to be called on it, early and often.)
>
> But it doesn't have to be done in a way that makes one look just as
> ill-mannered, crude, and lacking in social grace as the offending child.
I agree with this passat.
Abbie F.
some slobbish mother who handed him a dirty diaper to "dispose" of, "We
don't DO diapers, ma'am..."
;-)
Passing fecal matter around should constitute a health code violation.
The impropriety of such a request should be obvious - at least to those
who don't consider poopy-smeared walls a form of abstract art.
Please don't tell me she waved that ball of muck in front of another
passenger's face while trying to reach the flight attendant! Most
people haven't had their nasal cilia seared senseless by that
vomitrocious aroma, and would find it very repulsive.
Terry Lomax
>
> > ... But I don't like being stereotyped, and
> > it's a pisser when people perpetuate stereotypes.
>
> Some black people are thieves and drug addicts, some Mexicans are lazy,
Whites are more likely than blacks to steal or to be addicted to
drugs, and Mexicans definitely work harder than white non-Hispanic
Americans. Similarly, breeders are much more likely to have public
outbursts of rude behavior, despite society's sterotype that we're the
rude ones.
Jason G
>>
>> But it doesn't have to be done in a way that makes one look just as
>> ill-mannered, crude, and lacking in social grace as the offending child.
>
>I agree with this passat.
I'm glad we are in Accord.
tom c
> I do can overcome that initial misconception. People will tell my
> husband about two-stroke engines when he could care less, until finally
> they notice I'm the one listening attentively.
Have you seen any of the two stroke engine work in ultralight and small kit
planes?
There's a guy out here who has a Rotax 582 on the front of his Kitfox. He
fly's it off a 700' strip in his front yard. The thing climbs like a bat out
of hell.
Tom C
tom c
"Jason G" <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVE-x-THIS-x-PART.com> wrote in message
news:coilg...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <41ACC2C6...@pacifier.com>, Lorz says...
>>>
>>> But it doesn't have to be done in a way that makes one look just as
>>> ill-mannered, crude, and lacking in social grace as the offending child.
>>
>>I agree with this passat.
>
> I'm glad we are in Accord.
>
>
> --
Tom C
Whatever
news:<1v3oq01shdn08lab3...@4ax.com>...
> While I appreciate your Spine in reacting to these numbskulls, I'm
> afraid it will do absolutely no good. The airlines love these people,
> and they will select them over you (and me). There is no other
> explanation for the lap babies and the airlines' endless reservoir of
> patience with this bullshit.
Yup, airlines will select them over you every time. Here's why - $.
Did you notice that when the Elizabeth creature made a spectacle of
herself on
the plane, there were - how many? - 3 or 4 people - BY HER OWN ACCOUNT
- who
made it very clear to her just what an asshole she is. And these are
just the
people who were near her, and of those, just the ones who chose to
speak up.
These are the people whose dollar the airlines are chasing and, guess
what? They outnumber you.
> Even with elevated ticket prices, CF Air would
> fly packed, every day, every flight.
No it wouldn't. Do you really think this idea hasn't been kicked
around for
years and years and years? Can you really not think of the one
glaring
reason why it could not possibly work? Do you really not know why no
airline will ever offer the child-free flights that seem like such a
no-brainer to you? Okay then, I'll tell you - because it would be a
public
relations nightmare. The clientele you are so sure you'll be getting
- they
are a slim sliver of the world, a slim sliver even of the flying
public. No airline is going to turn away the business of families to
get your business - it would be economic suicide. They will not risk
even the appearance of being "family unfriendly." There would be
boycotts. Their ads would not be accepted by most media.
> And besides, fuck 'em. It's MY airline. Don't like it? Then go fly
> Chuck E Cheese Air.
Until you get CF Air off the ground, it's THEIR airline. Don't like
it? Pull on your hiking boots (remember to fill 'em with shards of
broken glass first!) and hoof it.
Lorz
> It never hurts to be civic
Let's not escalade into another pun thread.
Lorz
> Until you get CF Air off the ground, it's THEIR airline. Don't like
> it? Pull on your hiking boots (remember to fill 'em with shards of
> broken glass first!) and hoof it.
This isn't entirely OT, because I'll be flying tomorrow (and hoping for a
baby-free flight).
I'm going home tomorrow to visit my mombie and grandma. Earlier today, I
drove by a dead skunk on the road and was instantly transported back to the
salad days of sproghood. It wasn't uncommon to get a skunk inadvertently
trapped in our backyard. I got to thinking about other scents that take me
back, and I came up with oil refinery, salty breezes, and the smell of
incense burning, as well as skunk.
What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
Mary
some
>>>fucking breeder couple were sitting across the aisle from me and a
very
>>>well-behaved child and its parent were sitting behind me. At some
point,
>>>infuriated by the breeders' lack of attention to their free-range
spawn,
>>>I asked them why their children couldn't be like the sprog in the
next
>>>seat. Breeders just go nuts at that kind of statement.
>
>> Oooh- that is a great tactic. Will have to keep it in mind.
>
>It only works when there's a well-behaved kid in sight.
I came *this* close to using it on an adult on a flight not too long
ago. A woman boarded the plane with her two small kids (girls,
probably 5 and 6) and sat across from me. I was trembling in fear of
what they might get up to during the 3.5 hour flight. However, they
were nicely behaved kids, they sat and colored and read with their
mother (assuming it was their mother). The problem was the woman next
to me, who was probably mid-50s and who was chugging wine like there
was no tomorrow. She spilled wine, she fidgeted, she kicked me in the
shins about every 15 minutes.
It was hell. I almost asked Mommie across the aisle if she'd take Ms.
Wino and give me a child.
Mary
Jason G
So you're saying that's an excursion we shouldn't make? *saab*
Lorz
> Lorz wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>
> > What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
>
> The ocean (same as your salty breezes, methinks), orange blossoms, pine
> trees. In the summer, hot tar. The tar in the streets was redone every
> summer. Oh, and suntan lotion. The scent was pervasive.
Yes! Hot tar!
Circe
>
> What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
Tobacco and vanilla wafers.
Circe
khan
Caine wrote:
> Lorz wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>
>
>>What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
>
>
> The ocean (same as your salty breezes, methinks), orange blossoms, pine
> trees. In the summer, hot tar. The tar in the streets was redone every
> summer. Oh, and suntan lotion. The scent was pervasive.
>
> Caine
Coastal Maine: sun on pines and salt spray
(and clam flats at low tide)
khan
Lorz wrote:
In the small town where I grew up, mushrooms were a big business. They
trucked in stable cleanings. When the humidity and heat and wind were
just right, the lovely smell of rotting manure would hover.
nil...@invalid.com.au
"Nup", as we would say in Oz, "Lexus" try to "Holden" on to
reality. It is beyond "Prius", after all!. "Saab" to say
there are probably at least "93" reasons to avoid puns.
"Camry" we not try to be more serious, and not get involved
in a "Crossfire" of arguments.
Perhaps Janet, Rorqhual, or other Oz residents with more
interest in cars could make some additions. Will "Astra"
them to do so now. :-)
Note: Model names for the same vehicle are often different
in the US and Australia.
Regards,
"nilkids"
Jason G
In article <3e3qq0pcftkhpprpq...@4ax.com>, nil...@invalid.com.au
says...
J.D. Spangler
<snip>
> Let the bargain-hunters ride the economy flights with the kids. If they
> can book nude charters, I'd think someone should be willing to try
> child-free flights.
Wouldn't a nude flight be cf by default?
*ponders*
Hmmm...
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
http://www.ayrsayle.net/
Lorz
> Wouldn't a nude flight be cf by default?
No. Not judging by the fleshloaf sitting across the aisle from me once wearing nothing but
a diaper.
No kids for you or from you
>Wouldn't a nude flight be cf by default?
>
>*ponders*
>
>Hmmm...
No. BFer's would be there feeling free to hang both boobs out.
*not a sight for sore eyes*
From: Nokids4you
Hey breeder, why don't you save your
breath for blowing up water wings!
Auntie Em
>back, and I came up with oil refinery, salty breezes, and the smell of
>incense burning, as well as skunk.
Sounds an awful lot like Houston to me.
Since we moved around a lot when I was little, the only real
consistent thing would be my mothers cooking smells. Certain things
that she prepared (mostly spaghetti).
Em
Be careful what you wish for....
Auntie Em
<jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVE-x-THIS-x-PART.com> wrote:
>Hey, what happened? Suddenly all the oxygen was sucked out of this thread.
>
>
Looks like they were simply looking for an Escape.
Em
Be careful what you wish for....
mroo philpott-smythe
> Hey, what happened? Suddenly all the oxygen was sucked out of this
> thread.
> In article <3e3qq0pcftkhpprpq...@4ax.com>,
> nil...@invalid.com.au says...
[nilfart]
Nilbrains pooted on it.
sq, "In a mood"
Abbie F.
to people you
deem worthy, right?
My definition of "worthy" includes nearly everyone. Those excluded
deserve to be. If someone's offensively and intentionally letting a
b@by create havoc, they deserve very little of my time and it's
generous even to waste breath on a reply. They should consider my
comments instructional, and be grateful, and learn. :-)
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<1101842196....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Yes, that is a reasonable and practical point when dealing
with literal shit.
Parents no doubt do develop a tolerance to it. If any of us
were to get a job in a sewage treatment plant, or even in a
factory with other highly offensive odors, most would adapt
fairly quickly and not even notice them.
The same applies to other stimuli which most people find
offensive. If person "X" cannot tolerate the sight of
"blood and guts", or cannot face death, they probably
shouldn't take part in any emergency units such as police,
fire, ambulance. Let alone nursing or medicine where it
gets even rougher!
Everyone is different. If some female wants to become
pregnant they have to face a lot of facts. They might not
survive the pregnancy. The child may not be remotely
normal. Their loved one may leave them whether the kid is
normal or not. [A lot of happy marriages break up when
kids come along....]
Even if the sprog is "normal" guess who it gets handed to
when it shits itself? If a female wants to be a mother,
she had better enjoy the smell of shit.
Then there is the worry of keeping the kid alive for at
least the next 18 years, and a lifetime of worry after that.
Not to mention the heartache involved if the kid turns out
to be abnormal, a criminal, a murderer, etc.
Not to mention the personal and spiritual responsibility if
the kid becomes a criminal or murderer. Hitler, Stalin and
others were responsible for tens or hundreds of millions of
deaths.
Are not the parents responsible in one way or another?
AFIK, neither Hitler nor Stalin or other mass murderers were
the products of a "virgin birth".
West Australia has recently passed some legislation
requiring parents to be responsible for the actions of their
offspring. IMHO, rather mild penalties. Why shouldn't all
parents be fully responsible for the actions of their damned
children until age 21 at least?
Is it an adequate "excuse" to say that one hoped they would
have turned out "better"?
Hell, if I raised killer snakes or dogs and released them on
the community could I claim that I had hoped they wouldn't
inconvenience or harm anyone?
If person "X" chooses to experiment with weapons of mass
destruction in his garage should he be allowed to? Yet it
is no trouble to prove that some children are also WMDs.
How many did Hitler and Stalin kill, for a start? On a much
more modest level, what percentage of criminals are under
the age of 25?
Ethically and morally, should parents be able to escape the
consequences of their chosen actions?
IMHO, no! If they chose to breed dangerous animals they
should bear full responsibility for the actions of those
animals. After all, they don't _ have_ to have children.
It is a matter of free choice in most countries.
However, I do think we ought to encourage free discussion on
such issues.
As a Bible believing Protestant Christian, I am free to post
on a group such as alt.atheism.
Although Christians greatly outnumber atheists, they are
apparently not afraid of me, don't insult me, don't try to
drive me off. They are willing to cheerfully argue with me.
People with children greatly outnumber the childfree, too,
yet I as a childfree person am not worried about what others
think.
If I were the only worshiper in the world of albino
jackrabbits and everyone else disagreed with me, why should
I give a shit about their opinion?
However, as it happens, I am a pretty conventional
Bible-Believing Protestant Christian.
I can post on alt.atheism and I wouldn't get the same
hysterical response that I have received from this group.
So which group is the most hysterically intolerant?
Just what are Caine and her group so afraid of? Why are
they so damned intolerant?
Sure, it is interesting. Sort of like blundering onto a
group of "flat earthers" would be interesting. Or a
hypothetical group worshiping albino jackrabbits.
Just what are some of the people on this group afraid of?
Comments, anyone?
Regards,
"nilkids"
Jeri Jo Thomas
runner with this important missive...
Q:Hey, what happened? Suddenly all the oxygen was sucked out of this thread.
Q:
Q:
Aw, Jason, he is trying, right?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Important MWS documents ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The MWS FAQ: http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeri Jo Thomas
missive...
Q:What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
Q:
Brewing beer. First a Carling, I think brewery, then a Stroh brewery.
Otherwise my hometown wasn't big on being really smelly.
Keith Barber
news:20041130203428...@mb-m18.aol.com:
>>From: ayrs...@hotmail.com (J.D. Spangler)
>
>>Wouldn't a nude flight be cf by default?
>>
>>*ponders*
>>
>>Hmmm...
>
>
>
> No. BFer's would be there feeling free to hang both boobs out.
>
> *not a sight for sore eyes*
>
I sure it would give me sore eyes.
--
Keith Barber
ane...@comcast.net
I am the housing fairy
nil...@invalid.com.au
posted on Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:26:09 -0000, mroo
philpott-smythe wrote:
Hey, I never realized chemical reduction power of my posts
before! Most of us with a scientific background understand
chemical oxidation/reduction reactions.
Even those who just try to successfully can fruit realize
the importance of avoiding oxidization [spoilage] reactions
by adding anti-oxidants, or "reducing agents" such as
Vitamin "BC" [ascorbic acid]
Does either Jason or Moo want to try to define the chemical
process of oxidation as an always desirable phenomenon?
What happens to unprotected iron or steel, children? Surely
you know?
>sq, "In a mood"
Yeah, so what, most of us who have followed this group know
of your "moods".
Fortunately, though, we don't have to tolerate them if we
don't wish to.
If you ever decide to rejoin the human race and treat me as
a fellow human, am willing to try to get along with you or
even try to like you.
However, if you are determined to keep sniping at me, we
will probably always be enemies.
I will _not_ kiss the ass of Caine, nor "your ass" either!
Nor will I consider your physical and emotional problems any
excuse to unfairly criticize any other humans, or try to
insult them by offering blow jobs on street corners, or
deliberately pretending to mistake their sex and/or gender.
If you want to treat me this way, then we will obviously be
permanent enemies. Your choice, Mroo! To refer you and
newcomers to an earlier post:
=======================
From: nil...@invalid.com.au
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
Subject: Re: Re: nilkids, an answer at last.
Message-ID: <5lirm01l0brd13ub9...@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:45:42 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.54.163.36
In
Message-ID:<54318ec2.04101...@posting.google.com>
posted on 13 Oct 2004 13:11:01 -0700, Noelle wrote:
[snip]
Well, without giving too many clues away, am white, male,
omnivore, apolitical, childfree, not tattooed, and a Bible
believing Christian, of no particular denomination. Was an
atheist for years, then an agnostic, eventually returned to
Christianity.
When first joined the group, one of the first to attack me
was geo...@netgate.net (Geoff Miller). Not on a matter of
opinion, but a proven scientific and medical fact. He
didn't have to challenge me, but he chose to. He tried to
prove I was lying. His mistake.
Caine arrogantly told me to "move on". Her mistake.
-------------
To quote Dr. Martin Luther, on a much greater issue,
" "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir,
Amen."
----------------
I try not to complain about anyone's point of view, but I do
retain my right to disagree with it.
Are you advising me that some on this group cannot possibly
tolerate disagreement on any issue?
If so, my country of America has deteriorated far more than
I have suspected.
Regards,
"nilkids"
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<fee2dc5e.04112...@posting.google.com>
posted on 29 Nov 2004 23:30:23 -0800, Mike wrote:
>"Abbie F." <abbief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1101750501.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>> Neighbor's husband must have been on my side, because he sweetly
>> retrieved my bag from the overhead compartment and smiled.
>>
>As a guy who's polite to women, I'd say don't read too much into a guy
>being helpful and smiling. I open doors for women, hold elevators,
>pull down luggage, offer to carry heavy things and smile politely, but
>I do it whether or not I think a woman is likable. It's just manners
>and doing my small part to keep the world civilized.
As would I, but perhaps we are part of a dying generation.
Times have changed. Some people, female and male, prefer to
be aggressive and will turn on anyone trying to be remotely
polite.
No matter how pleasant the custom, some people will chose to
abuse it. As have said before, kids in the USA were once
free to celebrate "Independence Day" with fireworks... until
the selfish assholes spoiled it with their misuse of
fireworks.
So person male person "X" opens a door for female person "Y"
in a wheelchair, and others criticize him for doing it.
OK, fine, the next time he sees someone fall out of as
wheelchair and crawl to retrieve it, will he help? Probably
not. Why should he put up with criticism?
Why play games with people? If they order you off a group,
they obviously hate you, and why treat them as anyone other
than an enemy if they refuse to apologize for their
unacceptable behaviour?
Regards,
"nilkids"
tom c
"Auntie Em" <Aunt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0naqq094oscmnis5f...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Nov 2004 16:58:23 -0800, Jason G
> <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVE-x-THIS-x-PART.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey, what happened? Suddenly all the oxygen was sucked out of this
>>thread.
>>
>>
> Looks like they were simply looking for an Escape.
>
> Em
tom c
"Lorz" <lo...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:41AD056F...@pacifier.com...
> What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
Mold, cow manure, cut grass, lawn mower engine smoke.
Tom C
Citizen Ted
wrote:
>> Even with elevated ticket prices, CF Air would
>> fly packed, every day, every flight.
>
>No it wouldn't. Do you really think this idea hasn't been kicked
>around for
>years and years and years?
<snip unsubstantiated drivel>
You know things are bad when even the trolls are getting weak and
redundant.
- TR
Citizen Ted
<jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVE-x-THIS-x-PART.com> wrote:
>In article <41AD0361...@pacifier.com>, Lorz says...
>>
>>tom c wrote:
>>
>>> "Jason G" <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVE-x-THIS-x-PART.com> wrote in message
>>> news:coilg...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> > In article <41ACC2C6...@pacifier.com>, Lorz says...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But it doesn't have to be done in a way that makes one look just as
>>> >>> ill-mannered, crude, and lacking in social grace as the offending child.
>>> >>
>>> >>I agree with this passat.
>>> >
>>> > I'm glad we are in Accord.
>>>
>>> It never hurts to be civic
>>
>>Let's not escalade into another pun thread.
>
>So you're saying that's an excursion we shouldn't make? *saab*
Encore! It's a Regal Charger of a thread!
- TR
Citizen Ted
>What smells remind you of your sproghood hometown?
A spilled 55-gallon drum of toulene.
- TR
- Jersey Boy
tom c
"LW" <lakesh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:iehqq05iujg6msbac...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:09:56 -0800, "tom c"
> <flye...@spambytesdirecway.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Hey, what happened? Suddenly all the oxygen was sucked out of this
>>>>thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Looks like they were simply looking for an Escape.
>>>
>>> Em
>>To Malibu?
>>
>
We need an interplanetary Explorer.
Veronique
>
> > Until you get CF Air off the ground, it's THEIR airline. Don't like
> > it? Pull on your hiking boots (remember to fill 'em with shards of
> > broken glass first!) and hoof it.
>
> This isn't entirely OT, because I'll be flying tomorrow (and hoping for a
> baby-free flight).
>
> I'm going home tomorrow to visit my mombie and grandma. Earlier today, I
> drove by a dead skunk on the road and was instantly transported back to the
> salad days of sproghood. It wasn't uncommon to get a skunk inadvertently
> back, and I came up with oil refinery, salty breezes, and the smell of
> incense burning, as well as skunk.
>
Violets and leaf mould from oak trees. And corn.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
mroo philpott-smythe
news:4efqq0listfhvhces...@4ax.com:
> In
> Message-ID:<fee2dc5e.04112...@posting.google.com>
> posted on 29 Nov 2004 23:30:23 -0800, Mike wrote:
>
>>"Abbie F." <abbief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<1101750501.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>>> Neighbor's husband must have been on my side, because he sweetly
>>> retrieved my bag from the overhead compartment and smiled.
>>>
>>As a guy who's polite to women, I'd say don't read too much into a
guy
>>being helpful and smiling. I open doors for women, hold elevators,
>>pull down luggage, offer to carry heavy things and smile politely,
but
>>I do it whether or not I think a woman is likable. It's just manners
>>and doing my small part to keep the world civilized.
>
> As would I, but perhaps we are part of a dying generation.
> Times have changed. Some people, female and male, prefer to
> be aggressive and will turn on anyone trying to be remotely
> polite.
Of course, your whining would win more converts if you had the first
clue what "polite" means.
Google it. Please. Gawd knows you've googled everything else.
Sheesh, what a lackwit.
sq