Standby on International Flights

"kangaroo16" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:59:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote in
:


"Alan S" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:12:29 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

Of course, it was a simpler and more trusting world in those
days. :-)

Maybe. However, "standby" was very much in evidence with AA
in the USA last year at ORD and LAX. There were monitor
screens at the boarding lounges showing who was top of the
standby list.

I remember thinking that it may be wise to buy shares in US
airlines at that time as every flight seemed to be 100% full
and just prior to final boarding they would announce that no
standby seats were available. Nor did I see any empty seats
on the plane.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

And those standby's are on tickets that allow changes. So they may be a
business man trying be get out on an earlier flight. .

Greetings, "Calif Bill"!

Thanks for the info update! If they are a business man, though,
I would assume that they have to go through the usual security
scan each time, whether they are successful or unsuccessful in
making the particular flight.

If this is true, roughly how long does it take to get through the
standard security scan these days?

If he makes the departure lounge, and misses the desired flight,
does he have to stay there waiting for the next flight?

Or can he leave it, retain his "security clearance" and return to
the airport concourse for a meal, bar access, or whatever without
losing his "clearance status"?

Or if he leaves the departure lounge, does he have to go through
the whole security clearance procedure again?

If so, this strikes me as pretty time consuming. As well as
challenging human needs. When I departed from LAX decades ago,
from memory the departure lounge didn't even include a toilet.

I could be wrong, of course, maybe I just didn't notice it. :-)
Anyway, I haven't noticed you on rec.travel.australia+nz since
I started following it.

If, by any chance, you haven't posted on the group earlier, allow
me to be among the first to welcome you to it! A very quiet
group, as groups go, and usually more questions than answers.

Not like the olden
days of Standby, where you got a cheap fare at the last minute

A bit sad, that. Never bothered with standby myself, but have
met some people who had got some good deals.

Actually, one of the best "lurks" have ever heard of was a
qualified pilot or co-pilot who successfully traveled around the
world at very minimal cost, although again this was a few decades
ago.

In Aussie lingo, a "lurk" isn't necessarily illegal, just a
clever way to accomplish a given objective.

Lots of corporate jets flying even then. Often just had
a pilot and possibly a co-pilot, but often no passengers.
He would approach pilots, ask where they were going, and ask if
any possibility of a ride. Apparently many were glad to
have him along for someone to talk to, if nothing else.

He managed to circumnavigate the globe, in a series of usually
pretty short hops, and took him over a year, from memory.

Still, a pretty clever way to travel at little cost.

Not only corporate jets, of course, also managed to hitch a ride
on long haul air cargo flights.

Anyway, interesting concept. I don't know if it would be
possible these days.

When I arrived in Australia in the sixties, it was pretty common
for 16 to 18 year old high school students, both male and female,
to safely hitchhike in Australia. Not safe these days, of
course. Even technically illegal.

Out of curiosity, do you consider current security precautions as
insufficient, optimal, or overdone? [You don't have to answer
this one, of course :-) ]

There is the occasional news item where passengers have had nail
clippers confiscated on the grounds that they could be used as a
deadly weapon, which seem a bit much to me.

If going to go that far, it is now technically possible for the
flight crew to fly the aircraft from the ground. Of course, this
might not be too acceptable to the passengers.

Any comments on any of the above?

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

If you leave the secure area, you have to clear security again. There are
food courts, bars, loos, etc. past security these days. Only posted here a
couple of times. Wife and I are planning a trip for 5 or 6 weeks duration
middle Feb. to end of March. Tahiti (Nora Bora), NZ and Northern Oz. Used
to travel on business to Sydney in the 1980's for a company that designed
disk controllers for the DEC Vax super mini computers and other DEC systems
in those days. Just gettting some info on the areas. Like how much to go
to Ayres Rock from Cairns area, etc. What are the must sees in NZ North and
South Island. Is two weeks enough or make it 3 weeks? Have to be back mid
april at latest as 1sr grandbaby is due Apr. 28.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:10:55 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you leave the secure area, you have to clear security again. There are
food courts, bars, loos, etc. past security these days. Only posted here a
couple of times. Wife and I are planning a trip for 5 or 6 weeks duration
middle Feb. to end of March. Tahiti (Nora Bora), NZ and Northern Oz. Used
to travel on business to Sydney in the 1980's for a company that designed
disk controllers for the DEC Vax super mini computers and other DEC systems
in those days. Just gettting some info on the areas. Like how much to go
to Ayres Rock from Cairns area, etc. What are the must sees in NZ North and
South Island. Is two weeks enough or make it 3 weeks? Have to be back mid
april at latest as 1sr grandbaby is due Apr. 28.


I'd suggest at least the three weeks. Also allow some time
for flights and stuffing around in airports; it's a long way
from Auckland to Cairns and from there to Uluru.

I've only seen North Island, and I missed some of it; but
the must-sees are definitely Rotorua and the thermal
districts; the wineries in any area (west of Auckland and in
Hawkes Bay were the ones I enjoyed most) and the art-deco
town of Napier.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

Alan S wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:10:55 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Like how much to go to Ayres Rock
from Cairns area, etc. What are the must sees in NZ North and South
Island. Is two weeks enough or make it 3 weeks? Have to be back mid
april at latest as 1sr grandbaby is due Apr. 28.


Alan is, as usual, correct.Go for 3 weeks, don't plan on seeing
"everything" and plan to go back. I am currently planning my own 6 day
excursion to Tasmania (as part of a longer trip already planned) and am
begining to think that I need 6 months. Remember Australia is almost the
same size as the US! a three week trip to the American West wouldn't
give you anything of New England or New York, let alone . . .


--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

On 11/16/07 11:10 PM, in article , "Calif
Bill" wrote:


"kangaroo16" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:59:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote in
:


"Alan S" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:12:29 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

Of course, it was a simpler and more trusting world in those
days. :-)

Maybe. However, "standby" was very much in evidence with AA
in the USA last year at ORD and LAX. There were monitor
screens at the boarding lounges showing who was top of the
standby list.

I remember thinking that it may be wise to buy shares in US
airlines at that time as every flight seemed to be 100% full
and just prior to final boarding they would announce that no
standby seats were available. Nor did I see any empty seats
on the plane.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

And those standby's are on tickets that allow changes. So they may be a
business man trying be get out on an earlier flight. .

Greetings, "Calif Bill"!

Thanks for the info update! If they are a business man, though,
I would assume that they have to go through the usual security
scan each time, whether they are successful or unsuccessful in
making the particular flight.

If this is true, roughly how long does it take to get through the
standard security scan these days?

If he makes the departure lounge, and misses the desired flight,
does he have to stay there waiting for the next flight?

Or can he leave it, retain his "security clearance" and return to
the airport concourse for a meal, bar access, or whatever without
losing his "clearance status"?

Or if he leaves the departure lounge, does he have to go through
the whole security clearance procedure again?

If so, this strikes me as pretty time consuming. As well as
challenging human needs. When I departed from LAX decades ago,
from memory the departure lounge didn't even include a toilet.

I could be wrong, of course, maybe I just didn't notice it. :-)
Anyway, I haven't noticed you on rec.travel.australia+nz since
I started following it.

If, by any chance, you haven't posted on the group earlier, allow
me to be among the first to welcome you to it! A very quiet
group, as groups go, and usually more questions than answers.

Not like the olden
days of Standby, where you got a cheap fare at the last minute

A bit sad, that. Never bothered with standby myself, but have
met some people who had got some good deals.

Actually, one of the best "lurks" have ever heard of was a
qualified pilot or co-pilot who successfully traveled around the
world at very minimal cost, although again this was a few decades
ago.

In Aussie lingo, a "lurk" isn't necessarily illegal, just a
clever way to accomplish a given objective.

Lots of corporate jets flying even then. Often just had
a pilot and possibly a co-pilot, but often no passengers.
He would approach pilots, ask where they were going, and ask if
any possibility of a ride. Apparently many were glad to
have him along for someone to talk to, if nothing else.

He managed to circumnavigate the globe, in a series of usually
pretty short hops, and took him over a year, from memory.

Still, a pretty clever way to travel at little cost.

Not only corporate jets, of course, also managed to hitch a ride
on long haul air cargo flights.

Anyway, interesting concept. I don't know if it would be
possible these days.

When I arrived in Australia in the sixties, it was pretty common
for 16 to 18 year old high school students, both male and female,
to safely hitchhike in Australia. Not safe these days, of
course. Even technically illegal.

Out of curiosity, do you consider current security precautions as
insufficient, optimal, or overdone? [You don't have to answer
this one, of course :-) ]

There is the occasional news item where passengers have had nail
clippers confiscated on the grounds that they could be used as a
deadly weapon, which seem a bit much to me.

If going to go that far, it is now technically possible for the
flight crew to fly the aircraft from the ground. Of course, this
might not be too acceptable to the passengers.

Any comments on any of the above?

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

If you leave the secure area, you have to clear security again. There are
food courts, bars, loos, etc. past security these days.

snip

Not in LAX Bradley Terminal. I was unable to get any food unless I left the
secure area. I was stunned. It was midnight and I had had nothing to eat
since I left YVR at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The only airport I had that
problem though. SFO was fine coming home.

--
Martha Irwin T2 Canada
1500mg., 4mg. Avandia

"Joseph Coulter" wrote in message
7.136...
Alan S wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:10:55 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Like how much to go to Ayres Rock
from Cairns area, etc. What are the must sees in NZ North and South
Island. Is two weeks enough or make it 3 weeks? Have to be back mid
april at latest as 1sr grandbaby is due Apr. 28.


Alan is, as usual, correct.Go for 3 weeks, don't plan on seeing
"everything" and plan to go back. I am currently planning my own 6 day
excursion to Tasmania (as part of a longer trip already planned) and am
begining to think that I need 6 months. Remember Australia is almost the
same size as the US! a three week trip to the American West wouldn't
give you anything of New England or New York, let alone . . .


--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell



I realize how big Oz is. Have flown from Perth to Sydney. Staying mostly
in the Great Barrier reef, queensland region, but thought maybe a flight
over to Ayres for a couple of days.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:29:37 -0600,
.. wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:17:35 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:24 -0600,
.. wrote in
:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:12:29 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:
[msge snipped]

At the time there was another good lurk for cheap travel going,
if didn't mind sea travel. By international law, cargo
freighters had to provide 10 or 12 passenger cabins, but
they were seldom filled up.

Cite of the law please and any subsequent alterations.

Cath

Actually, I would regard it as pretty common knowledge, but as
time permits I don't mind looking up the original law.

Strange considering the training I have undertaken both in New Zealand
and in the U.S.A. over a considerable number of years, I have never
heard of any international law regarding cargo freighters being
mandated to provide cabins for fare paying passengers.

I am going on information in a good book on cheap travel I read
decades ago.

From memory, the word used at the time was that freighters were
required to provide "accommodation" for 12 persons. If I used
the
word "cabin" I assumed that this wouldn't be in the cargo hold.
[especially on bulk cargo freighters carrying coal, wheat,
etc.... or especially oil tankers :-) ]

Didn't I mention that the original reason for this was to carry
space for the accommodation of a "supercargo"? If you didn't
understand, or don't understand the meaning of the word, it is
easy enough for you to look up.

Supercargo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Supercargo is a term in maritime law (adapted from the Spanish
sobrecargo, one over or in charge of a cargo) that refers to a
person employed on board a vessel by the owner of cargo carried
on the ship. The duties of a supercargo include managing the
cargo owner's trade, selling the merchandise at the ports to
which the vessel is sailing, and buying and receiving goods to be
carried on the return voyage.

He or she has control of the cargo unless limited by his contract
or other agreement. Because a supercargo sails from port to port
with the vessel to which he is attached, he differs from a
factor, who has a fixed place of residence at a port or other
trading place. [this, and more, at]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercargo

I'm sure I didn't mention any requirement for a
a ship to necessarily provide accommodation to fare
paying passengers. This was up to the Captain and
company policy.

I have no idea many shippers send a supercargo, as defined above,
with their loads. Still, if they do, and the ship only has bunk
space for officers and crew, it seems unlikely that the
supercargo would be required to sleep with the cargo or on deck,
or be given a crew bunk and displacing the crew member to
these less-than-desirable locations.

Would the extra accommodation be restricted to just those
acting as a supercargo for a shipper? Very doubtful. A ship
requires a lot of mechanical, electrical, and electronic
equipment.

A mechanical breakdown might make the ship unable to proceed
until the equipment was fixed. They not would only need
experienced mechanics or technicians, and probably spare parts as
well. Naval ships, especially big ones like carriers, not only
carry spares, but have quite elaborate machine shops with
skilled personnel. I doubt that privately owned cargo ships can
afford the extra expense to provide either.

Today if the broke down, they would probably choose to have
the mechanics and parts delivered by helicopter. In which case,
the mechanics or technical personnel brought in wouldn't want to
sleep in the hold or on deck either. So it makes sense to have
some extra accommodation, doesn't it?

We needn't stop here, of course. Ships may have to pick up
survivors from sunken small craft, aircraft, survivors on a
desert island, or whoever. They won't want to sleep in the cargo
hold or on deck either.

There are other possibilities, of course. The ships owners might
want to send one or more employees on a voyage to see if
the existing officers and crew are managing the ship well.
Perhaps the owner or owner might want to send family or
friends on a free voyage?

As an aside:
Families with difficult teenagers who read these lines may see
new possibilities. If they can get the kid aboard a "tramp"
steamer that has no regular schedule, it might take several
months to reach Australia.

Surface mail from Australia to the U.S., was usually carried by
the next freighter or passenger ship due to leave. If the person
sending a parcel didn't want to pay for air mail, they had better
hope that they could get it on a scheduled liner, then it might
get to its destination in a few weeks. Very few passenger liners
these days, though, so it usually went by freighter or tramp
steamer. Have seen this take several months.

Hint to Australian residents: Even airmail isn't the fastest way
to obtain an item from the U.S. It may have to clear Australian
customs, which means that they may have to go down to customs
personally to get it and pay any duty, if chargeable. Or hire
someone to do it for them. If they live outside of Sydney, say
in an inland area, they may have to have a courier pick it up
from customs and bring it out to them.

Fortunately, many years ago United Parcel Services provided a
service to Australia. Several years ago I wanted an computer
related item which simply wasn't available in Australia at the
time.

I had heard of their service, so gave them a toll free call. They
looked up the item and found that no duty was payable
on it. They told me that the would pick up the item from the
manufacturer, and assign it a tracking number. Then they would
put it on a cargo flight, arrange advanced customs clearance,
insurance if I wanted it, and deliver it to my front door. If
I could give them the shipping weight of the item, which I could,
they could give me a per kilo all up cost, which was surprisingly
moderate. At the time, if I wanted to know where my shipment was
could find out by calling the toll free number and just quoting
the tracking number. Later on, they but all this info on a
database, accessible online from a home computer. Type in the
tracking number, and anyone could find out exactly where his
shipment was. Very good system, for every time the article
changed hands the tracking number was recorded. Far better than
any Government mail service!

This info may not be useful to you, but it may be to others
curious enough to read this thread.

To get back to freighter accommodation, though, I suppose they
might even have to carry a government inspector of some sort.

Do you now see why ships were required to provide extra
accommodation?

I didn't say that they "had" to accept fare paying passengers,
just that they often would if they had spare bunks, which they
often did. Why not make a bit of extra money for the ship, the
company, etc? The same reason that international aircraft don't
like to fly without a full passenger load. Why waste the space
and the potential money?

To a freighter, the cost of carrying extra people is negligible.
Most will be happy if they have a bunk and share the crew meals.

As I did state, the freighter companies long ago decided to get
this a bit more organised and allow people who wanted to travel
by freighter to book in advance, rather than waiting to see if
some enterprising traveler would make last minute arrangements
with the Captain.

I just mentioned it in passing as a historical note. I didn't
state that it was still possible to catch such transport today.

I will take the word of the author and publisher of the original
book as to what they said about the possibility at the time.

Another interesting trip they suggested was going down the length
of the Amazon river from the headwaters to the delta. However,
this was by local river transport, and could involve spending
time in ports along the way. Again from memory, they warned
that it could take anything from 3 to 9 months. Still, would be
an interesting trip for many people. No, I don't know if it is
still possible.

They also mentioned that Americans often wanted to travel by
air, but have their own car available on arrival. At the time I
left, could look in the classified ads of any city of a
reasonable
size and find ads wanting a driver to drive their car from, say,
L.A to Chicago. They provided the car, paid for the fuel,
sometimes even a small amount to pay the driver for food and
accommodation. It was a cheap way to get from one large city to
another in the US.

Travel, as you may know, is a balance between money and time.
If a traveler doesn't care how long it takes to get from point
"A" to "B" he can often travel very cheaply. If his time is
limited, then he has to rely on expensive air travel.


I am sure in the units dealing with law, consumer rights, sea
travel/cruises et al, if it was 'international law', it would have
been covered as all international law/s in respect to international
travel by sea or air; as well as New Zealand law [consumer rights et
al] was covered. Ditto for appropriate U.S. Federal and State laws.

Perhaps you don't realize how laws tend to be much more complex
than they used to be. For instance, at one time any adult could
buy ethyl alcohol , C2H5OH, _Spiritus vini rectificatus_ (SVR)
at any pharmacy, without a prescription.

Around a century ago, passports and visas were generally not
required for travel. In the gold rush days of 150 years ago, I
doubt if prospectors needed any documentation whatsoever
to travel between the US and Australia.

In fact, FYI, most of the newer ships have been built without cabins
to accommodate paying passengers.

There are some that do offer often very comfortable accommodations for
less than it would cost for the same on a cruise ship. And of course,
many do have restrictions regarding no children under x yo or persons
over y yo; persons over z but under y must have a doctor's
certificate; must have insurance etc.

With today's turn-arounds being very short, the time available in a
port [of call/discharge] can be extremely limited.


As to "all subsequent alterations" that is a bit of an unusual
request.

You were the one who brought it up to begin with i.e. you stated
a] 'by international law' ships were required to have cabins;
b] the number of cabins each ship was required to have;
c] the fact they 'were seldom filled up'.

- like you had some 'actual knowledge; of what you were talking
about.

It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)


So based on what you wrote, and thinking you did have some valid
'knowledge', I just asked for a cite. Surely i f you had
some prior knowledge, it would be very easy for you to find the
relevant info would it not?

Not necessarily. I feel it safe to say that every U.S. state has
a law against first degree murder without looking up the laws of
each of the 50 states.

Do you know the boiling point of water in degrees C or F? Ever
determine it for yourself in a chemistry course under the
standard conditions? Or do you just take the word of others for
the information? If I tell someone that pure water boils at
100 C or 212 F, I expect them to believe me. Not only is that is
what the scientific references say, I've experimentally verified
it when took chemistry as an undergraduate.

If ask to give a melting point for ordinary salt, [sodium
chloride, NaCl] I wouldn't remember it offhand, would have to
look it up, but I assume my reference books are correct.
O.K, I claim that the m.p. is 804 degrees C. Believe me?

Most of us accept that cigarette smoking is a contributing factor
to lung cancer. Can we prove that cigarettes cause cancer? Not
really.

Can weather forecasters predict the weather? Um, roughly, within
limits. Can they prove what the weather in Sydney will be two
weeks from now? Nope, they can't even predict that far ahead if
it will rain or not, let alone how much will fall if it does.

there any actual evidence, let alone proof? Not really.

Can the existence of God be proven or disproven? Nope. A matter
of faith, not science. If you are interested in what science can
or cannot prove, I suggest you do some research into the
philosophy of science.


Afterall you have proven how much you like to look up things and post
the info and/or urls....

Things like the boiling point of water I don't bother to look up.
If I were to give the melting point of salt from memory I might
be inaccurate, so prefer to check it rather than possibly mislead
people.


How much are you offering me per hour to do your
extensive legal research for you? :-)
Are you offering an retainer in advance? If so, how much?
Not that I am a qualified "barrister", "solicitor" or even a
qualified "accountant".

Or qualified at anything else by the sound of it.

You are in error, but that isn't my problem. Am not going to
provide documentation on the net.



However, if you make an adequate offer, I, or someone else on the
group, might refer you to someone else who is suitably qualified.
If you have money to waste, am sure that you can find many
Aussies in the U.S. who would be pleased to offer you a
"quitclaim" deed on their theoretical share of the Sydney Harbour
Bridge. :-)

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

You were unable to cite or confirm the 'source' of your claim!

Cath
I now have, to my satisfaction.
Perhaps not to yours. Sorry about that....

I really would like to help advance your knowledge,
but it often seems a thankless task.....

Perhaps other readers find our discussions amusing? They
generally amuse me.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:29:37 -0600,
.. wrote in
:
[...]
Didn't I mention that the original reason for this was to carry
space for the accommodation of a "supercargo"?

No, you didn't!

If you didn't understand, or don't understand the meaning of the word,
it is easy enough for you to look up.

She *couldn't* "not understand the meaning of the word", because you
didn't *use* the word.

As she *quoted*, *this* is what you wrote:

At the time there was another good lurk for cheap travel going,
if didn't mind sea travel. By international law, cargo
freighters had to provide 10 or 12 passenger cabins, but
they were seldom filled up. So the "lurk" was keep an eye on the
local shipping news, then turn up at the dock an hour or
less before the ship was due to leave. A quick talk with
a ships officer, and could negotiate a fare for a pretty
good discount.

So you did *not* mention "supercargo", but you *did* say "passenger",
"cabin", "fare" and "discount". So what you *wrote* was purely passenger/
commercial oriented, hence Cath' questions. Instead of back-pedalling,
you should just realize/acknowledge that.

[endless side-stepping deleted]

It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)

It would be easier if you actually wrote what you apparently meant and
read/remember what you wrote. And for the record, Cath' "interpretation"
was the correct one.

[more of the same deleted]

On 19 Nov 2007 19:08:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:29:37 -0600,
.. wrote in
:
[...]
Didn't I mention that the original reason for this was to carry
space for the accommodation of a "supercargo"?

No, you didn't!

If you didn't understand, or don't understand the meaning of the word,
it is easy enough for you to look up.

She *couldn't* "not understand the meaning of the word", because you
didn't *use* the word.

Guten Morgen, Frank,

Having taken the time to dig out my copy of the post, I see that
you are correct.

As she *quoted*, *this* is what you wrote:

At the time there was another good lurk for cheap travel going,
if didn't mind sea travel. By international law, cargo
freighters had to provide 10 or 12 passenger cabins, but
they were seldom filled up. So the "lurk" was keep an eye on the
local shipping news, then turn up at the dock an hour or
less before the ship was due to leave. A quick talk with
a ships officer, and could negotiate a fare for a pretty
good discount.

In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

There are some good reasons for this. Many, if not most, regular
posters use a good newsgroup reader such as Forte Agent. Posts
are easy to read, as earlier messages are nested, and in a
contrasting color. Blue, in this case. Message I.D. numbers


I've seen them nested up to at least 7 levels, so the original
post on the thread would be indicated by . Top
posting is usually strongly discouraged.

The main advantage is that on replying to such a thread the
reader can see at a glance not only the original post, but all
previous posts, without bothering to switch between screens
to display them. The abbreviated header gives the user I.D
and Message number in a third colour.

Most groups are much more active than this one, and 75 to
100 [or more] posts per day are not unusual. It is very useful
to have all the posts on the thread on the same screen.

There is also other good reasons for this: Many people may
post 10 or 15 replies to related threads on the same group,
even more on other groups. Unless one has a photographic
memory, they cannot be expected to remember exactly what they
wrote on a group post, especially a few days previously.

One can also see at a glance what questions the previous posters
reply failed to respond to.

Some posters just quote bits from another persons post, which
can be misleading as the quote can be taken out of context.

Worse yet, some posters actually selectively edit the previous
posters reply, which can be highly misleading.




As

So you did *not* mention "supercargo", but you *did* say "passenger",
"cabin", "fare" and "discount".

As she clipped a lot of my post, I couldn't see this at a glance.
post, I thought I had mentioned the main reason for accommodation
for 12 passengers was to provide for one or more persons acting
in a supercargo role.

Had she not clipped my post I could have immediately seen that I
had not. As she did clip the post would have had to leave the
present pane and dig out my original post, which is annoying.
Even then, in a long post I would have to continually refer
back to it as I wrote the post to her.

So what you *wrote* was purely passenger/
commercial oriented, hence Cath' questions.

Sorry, Frank, here we disagree. I disagree that it
was "purely" passenger/commercial oriented. It was intended
as a purely historical note that it was once a method of
obtaining low cost passage before ship owners realised
that they would make more money by organising it.

There are other possible reasons, of course. When it was
unorganized, where an intending passenger turned up at the
dock, asked the Captain if he was willing to take a passenger,
negotiated a fare, and paid him, what did the Captain do with
the money paid for the fare? Did he notify the company or the
owners that he had accepted a traveler at a certain fare, then
forward the fare to the owners? Did he even tell them that
he was carrying a passenger? Did he use the money to buy
extra provisions for the ship, or did he simply pocket it for his
personal use?

You surely aren't naive enough to assume that all people are
scrupulously honest, do you? If you are naive enough to do
so, you obviously have a lot to learn about the human race.

Australia has a fair number of illegal immigrants, as does the
U.S.A. Suppose a farmer in the U.S.A. needs someone to
hoe weeds in his field? If he hires an American, he is going to
have to pay him at least the minimum wage. An illegal
Mexican, or other, illegal migrant replies to his ad and offers
to do the work for half the minimum wage. Who do you think
the farmer is going to hire? If you keep up with the news, you
will find reports on such scams.

Some are very unsavory. How many women from poorer countries are
lured into other countries by the operators of brothels? They
are lured into the trade by promising them that the employer will
obtain them a visa to work as, perhaps, a cocktail waitress, and
will also pay their fare. Unfortunately, they often end up
working as prostitutes.

Alternatively, how about child exploitation in many countries?
Someone approaches a poor family, offers to take one or more
of their kids, promising that they will get an education and a
good job. Instead the kids, as young as 8 or 9 end up working
in a brick factory at a starvation wage, if that.

Doubt this, Frank? Google the string

exploitation of women

You will get over 2,000,000 returns.

Try the string

child exploitation

~ 1,980,000

Instead of back-pedalling,
you should just realize/acknowledge that.

That is your interpretation, your value judgment on
my post. My original intention was just to
mention a method of cheap travel that was once
possible.

The original theme of the thread was Standby on
International Flights, remember? It was once possible
to just turn up and see if someone with a reservation failed to
show up, then get a reduced fare. All I did was to
mention that it was once possible to do the same with ships.

Had Cath replicated my original post instead of snipping I would
know exactly what I said in the original post. To me,
unnecessary snipping is impolite and undesirable on the
net. Why should I have to bother to interrupt my reply to
search for my full post when she could have just as easily left
it as it was? Incidentally, why should I backpedal?

[endless side-stepping deleted]

Again, your opinion. I considered my reply as an
explanation, not an effort to "side-step". Why delete
anything rather then make accusations or value judgments?
Why snip anything? Let other readers make up their own
minds as to whether I am "side-stepping" or not?

Again, to me, most snipping is totally unnecessary. As have
said before, we are not communicating by Morse code or
40 baud teletype. There is plenty of bandwidth.

If you look at my full header, you will see the lines

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I save bandwidth by using pure text only. Not HTML,
no coloured or dancing letters, no photos, no music.

I seldom even bother to turn on my speakers. I have
blocks set up to kill pop-up ads and other trivia. Recently
was referred to a Vegemite link. When I clicked on it,
all I saw was a line of dancing coloured figures. Had I
had the sound on would have heard the old advertising
song that starts "We are happy little Vegemite's, as happy
as can be..."

I'm familiar with the song. One can hardly spend decades
here without hearing it many times. I don't mind the
referral, as the poster probably didn't realise this.

As it was, as soon as I saw the meaningless, annoying and
distracting dancing figures, I stayed there about 3 seconds.
Had I had the sound on, would have heard the opening words
of the song and I might have spent a couple of more seconds.

My idea of a good website is pure text, no color, no animation,
no ads, no coloured text. I surf the web for information, not
entertainment. As am on dial-up, not broadband, all those extras
just take more time to download.

To me, an ideal website, or personal web page, is one that is
plaintext only. It can provide links to photos, music, ads, etc.

Seriously, have seen personal websites that started out with a
series of large pictures, with no captions, just numbers.
Annoying "music" in background. So I would have to waste time
waiting for any actual information to appear, which I generally
don't.

If I were to bother with a personal website, which I don't,
although it wouldn't cost me any extra, it would consist entirely
of text and links.

I read a lot, and most of my books are fact, not fiction. I
don't mind illustrations if they are necessary. If it is a
travel book, I don't mind good photos, as long as there
is adequate text.

In another post, I mentioned the Merck Manual. 2,844 pages
of text with a few tables. No illustrations. Nor does is the
text cluttered up with unnecessary definitions of medical
terms. If I don't understand a word, that is what medical
dictionaries, and the net, is for. I can't recall when I had
to consult either for the meaning of a word or a definition
of a common medical abbreviation.


It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)

It would be easier if you actually wrote what you apparently meant and
read/remember what you wrote. And for the record, Cath' "interpretation"
was the correct one.

For her and you, perhaps.

[more of the same deleted]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor
my posts?

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.
Others might learn something new as well. Why deprive
them of information?

If you are a Christian, have you read the entire KJV
at least once? Or at least the RSV? Or do you prefer to read a
highly abridged version?

You don't have to answer this question, of course. Your
religion, if any, is a matter of indifference to me, actually.

Regards,
Kangaroo16

.. wrote:
kangaroo16 wrote:

(All snipped)

You were unable to cite or confirm the 'source' of your claim!

Cath

Why are you surprised?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:38:20 -0600,
.. wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:09:14 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:08:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:29:37 -0600,
.. wrote in
:
[...]
Didn't I mention that the original reason for this was to carry
space for the accommodation of a "supercargo"?

No, you didn't!

If you didn't understand, or don't understand the meaning of the word,
it is easy enough for you to look up.

She *couldn't* "not understand the meaning of the word", because you
didn't *use* the word.

Guten Morgen, Frank,

Having taken the time to dig out my copy of the post, I see that
you are correct.

As she *quoted*, *this* is what you wrote:

At the time there was another good lurk for cheap travel going,
if didn't mind sea travel. By international law, cargo
freighters had to provide 10 or 12 passenger cabins, but
they were seldom filled up. So the "lurk" was keep an eye on the
local shipping news, then turn up at the dock an hour or
less before the ship was due to leave. A quick talk with
a ships officer, and could negotiate a fare for a pretty
good discount.

In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

????????? How long did you say you have been around Usenet?
Not long?

Around 10 or 11 years, at least. But why should I try to prove
it to anyone, least of all to you?

It is accepted practice.

Perhaps in the groups you frequent. I don't claim that you are a
liar. Out of curiosity, what motivates you to accuse me of being
a liar?

If you are incapable of believing me, why bother to reply to
them, or expect me to waste my time replying to you?

I assure you that I have no masochistic tendencies. :-)

As the old Yank saying goes: "Just trying to help you out.
Which way did you come in?

More seriously, Cath, do you really think you are successfully
adapting to the USA. Lots of people there [and here in Oz] value
free speech, and are not all that fond of being accused of lying,
even on the relative freedom of a Usenet group.

Friendly hint: It is best not to call people liars, or even imply
it, unless you have proof.

Following Australian tradition, would like to make a friendly
little wager over how long I've been on Usenet?

Admittedly a bit of what we call a "sucker bet" both here and in
the U.S. as I know I can prove it. For a price, of course. What
odds are you willing to offer?

Have you learned to play the card game of poker yet? If I was in
a game with you and you held four kings, would you want to bet
against, say, four aces? Or a royal flush?

Ever hear the "Gamblers Song" by Kenny Rodgers? "You have to
know when to hold them, know when to fold them..."

Just as it's accepted practice *not* to feed the trolls which you also
do!

Actually, there is no such thing as "accepted practice" on the
net. Perhaps in the groups you have been part of. I have around
47,000 available to me at the moment. You may have more or less,
I have no way of knowing.

But do you really expect me or anyone else to believe that you
have posted on enough of them to be able to claim that you could
possibly assess their "accepted practices".

In passing, would you define yourself as an "egoist" or an
"egotist"? [Hint: If you don't know the difference, you can
always consult your dictionaries, if you have any, or you can
always check net definitions. If you cannot understand them,
perhaps you can find a friend to help you. You must have some of
them, most people do.

[More clutter snipped.]

Jumping into insulting value judgements? You might have a great
future as a censor. A pity that there is so little demand for
them these days, at least here in Oz.

Perhaps you were born a century or so too late? I don't happen
to believe in the concept of reincarnation, but considering your
case I almost wish I did.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, your hypothetical past
lives would be interesting to say the least.

There is also other good reasons for this: Many people may
post 10 or 15 replies to related threads on the same group,
even more on other groups. Unless one has a photographic
memory, they cannot be expected to remember exactly what they
wrote on a group post, especially a few days previously.

What utter B.S!!

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish to believe.
Your apparent compulsion to force your beliefs on others is the
more interesting aspect from a psychological or psychosocial
point of view.


You use Free Agent - so you automatically have a record.

Incorrect, yet again. Sigh. I thought you could read full
headers.

I first tried "Free Agent" many years ago. At the time, the
company offered "Free Agent", "Agent", and "Forte Agent". After
trying "free agent" for a couple of days, purchased "Forte
Agent", which have used ever since. Lots of nice features. If I
want to display the full header on any post, only need to depress
the "h" key on the keyboard.

Perhaps you should get a copy? You can get the latest version
for a mere $US 25. You can even get a free months trial on it
first, if you wish.

It even comes in several languages, See:
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php


Do you not save your own postings and those that people reply to you?

Of course! I have archives going back several years. However,
this doesn't mean I am willing to consult even recent posts to
compensate for rude and impolite people who edit posts.

Then there was the old deja which has now been taken over by you know
who.. As you have been around Usenet for a long time, you know how
to access them. You do don't you?

Know about it, never used it as could see no reason to do so.

One can also see at a glance what questions the previous posters
reply failed to respond to.

Will stick with Forte Agent, thanks.

???
There's no onus on anyone to reply if they so wish.
Does it annoy you if someone does not respond to you?

Nope, not in the slightest. Why should it? If posting on a
group of, say, 1000 regular contributers, I have no idea how
many of them read my posts, let alone reply to them.

I wouldn't even try to guess how many readers there are on any
particular group. Stats are available on how many people post to
any given group, but a lot of shy people follow groups without
daring to post on them.

Still, I have sometimes been surprised at how many do reply.

As to those who are reluctant to post on any group that they
follow, perhaps they fear that their posts may appear naive or
even stupid.

These people shouldn't be put off by such fears. After all, if
both of us could have one of our interchanges posted on all
available groups it might give them confidence.:-)

Not that we always will disagree, of course, as it would be easy
for me to say something that we would both be sure to agree with.

[Pause for a moments thought....] How about I say that we are
both glad that we are not married to each other.

Wouldn't you agree that is a cheerful thought? No matter how
dissipointing our lives, things could always be worse. :-)

People who dislike us both probably wish we were married, then we
would be too busy to post on newsgroups.

There are also a lot of people and groups who would like to see a
reduction in world population.

If our posts were widely distributed, they could be used to
discourage people from having children. After all, it is always
possible that they could have a daughter like you or a son like
me. :-)

That thought should discourage many of them, don't you agree?

However, this is not intended to encourage pregnant women on this
group to rush out for an abortion. The chances that their kid
will grow up to be like either of us is actually pretty
remote.:-)

Hark! Did I just hear a collective sigh of relief from pregnant
women worldwide? :-)


Some posters just quote bits from another persons post, which
can be misleading as the quote can be taken out of context.
Worse yet, some posters actually selectively edit the previous
posters reply, which can be highly misleading.

Are you similarly annoyed when this is done?

Of course! Why do you think I complain about people
"editing" my posts when replying to me. As I've said before, I
don't like any attempts at censorship, or the inconvienence of
switching from one view to another. Scrolling up to check on
what has been said before on a thread is much more convienent.

As

So you did *not* mention "supercargo", but you *did* say "passenger",
"cabin", "fare" and "discount".

As she clipped a lot of my post, I couldn't see this at a glance.
post, I thought I had mentioned the main reason for accommodation
for 12 passengers was to provide for one or more persons acting
in a supercargo role.

????????

As it turned out, I hadn't. But if the original post hadn't been
edited, could have checked this at a glance.

You did save a copy of your posting on the thread didn't you that you
could very very very very easily gone back to, or have a copy in your
out box, or used you know what site...

Agent does this automatically, but I would still have to bother
to switch viewing panes. Yes, I could put them up on a split
screen view, but I prefer to work on a full screen display.

Therefore, why should I be expected to put up with people who
insist on snipping my posts.

I could, of course, easily restore my full original post at the
head of every reply, but if I did so some would probably accuse
be of "wasting bandwidth", whatever that is supposed to imply.

As I mentioned in an earlier post on one of these groups, if this
is considered important, all I.S.P.'s could ban everything but
pure text ASCII or ANSI, and absolutely ban HTTP, colour, music,
advertisements that most people ban anyway, and other such
nonsense.

I guarantee that this would liberate exabytes, zettabytes, or
even yottabytes of of space on the web. Those users who couldn't
stand this could abandon the use of the net altogether until they
improved their basic reading skills.

Some of them might even read the occassional book. For those who
have seldom read one, they consist of paper pages with printed
words on them.

But what about advertising on the net? No problem. Advertisers
now spend huge amounts of money to try to thrust their messages
down our throats. For far less money, they could provide all
internet users with free and unlimited net access.

Of course, they would probably insist on some advertising. Fine,
no problem, as long as it is all pure text, no annoying colors,
images, music, etc. Of course, advertising should be
restricted to something tasteful, yet readable, should anyone
possibly want to read it.

Say 4 point gothic? [Note to readers: One point = 1/72 inch]
but a reader can always magnify it if wants to read the ad.

Of course, could allow a more standard size, say 12 point. If
you aren't familiar with point sizes in type, Cath, typewriters
used to be sized in pica or elite. Pica is roughly 12 point, and
prints around 10 characters per inch.

More technically, a point is 1/72 of an inch.

Of course, the advertisers might insist on using a larger type.
This would be OK, but not in black. Perhaps a very light grey on
a white background. :-)

Still readable, if the reader has good eyesight and is determined
enough. :-)

Advertising in this way would also require much less bandwidth.

See, I too am concerned with saving bandwidth, and have just
offered a suitable plan to greatly reduce current wastage!

Had she not clipped my post I could have immediately seen that I
had not. As she did clip the post would have had to leave the
present pane and dig out my original post, which is annoying.
Even then, in a long post I would have to continually refer
back to it as I wrote the post to her.

So what you *wrote* was purely passenger/
commercial oriented, hence Cath' questions.

Sorry, Frank, here we disagree. I disagree that it
was "purely" passenger/commercial oriented.

SNIPPED a load of totally irrelevant writing.

More censorship. I don't consider it irrelevant or I wouldn't
have bothered to type it.

Instead of back-pedalling,
you should just realize/acknowledge that.

That is your interpretation, your value judgment on
my post. My original intention was just to
mention a method of cheap travel that was once
possible.

Once possible. Look isn't it about time you got up to date with
travel 'today'?

Why? Plenty of info on how to get here available from
advertisements and travel agents. Am more interested in
providing useful info for travellers in general.


This is not a 'I remember when/back in the good old days when I lived
in the US/etc etc etc' newsgroup.

This is an open, unmoderated, usenet group, and I will give
whatever information I choose to give.

You mentioned something specific so I was just asking about the
specifics of what you wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.

The original theme of the thread was Standby on
International Flights, remember? It was once possible
to just turn up and see if someone with a reservation failed to
show up, then get a reduced fare. All I did was to
mention that it was once possible to do the same with ships.

Had Cath replicated my original post instead of snipping I would
know exactly what I said in the original post.

Oh utter B.S.

Don't confuse people with abbreviations, Cath. With your
proported typing skills you can surely manage to type the word
"bull****" with very little additional effort.

Of course, a skilled typist would have automatically inserted a
comma in the phrase between Oh and B.S. It would be easier for
our readers if you had typed Oh, utter bull****!


Face it roo, your posting contained a load of waffle and irrelevant
crap. Come to think of it, 99% of your postings do!

Then why waste your time reading them, let alone complaining
about them? Perhaps you should buy a copy of Agent. It has
a useful killfile program.


To me, unnecessary snipping is impolite and undesirable on the
net.

For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
many years, you don't get it do you. Snipping is accepted practice.
And in your case, definitely to snip the clutter.

I "get" your irrational criticism of posts. If you like, I might
take pity on you and recommend a group which uses nested posts
with few, if any, "snips".

BTW where have you been for the past approximately 10 years since this
newsgroup's formation? Strange how you have only recently found it!

My ISP offers around 47,000 newsgroups. I have yet to explore a
fraction of them. Just ran across this one. I could go back and
try to find one of the posts that caught my interest. Possibly
one of yours, with all the snipping? It is always a bit
interesting to see why someone might feel it necessary to snip
posts, especially on one that has so little traffic.
Why should I have to bother to interrupt my reply to
search for my full post when she could have just as easily left
it as it was? Incidentally, why should I backpedal?

Why not? Side-step then??

Why either? If you don't like my posts, don't bother to read
them, or just killfile me. Why bother to answer them? You
should know by now that I really don't care about your opinions.

[endless side-stepping deleted]
And something I agree with Frank!

Glad to hear that you have someone on your side.:-)


Again, your opinion. I considered my reply as an
explanation, not an effort to "side-step". Why delete
anything rather then make accusations or value judgments?
Why snip anything? Let other readers make up their own
minds as to whether I am "side-stepping" or not?

Yawn...

Why not give up and sleep then? Some people require more of it
than others.
\
Again, to me, most snipping is totally unnecessary. As have
said before, we are not communicating by Morse code or
40 baud teletype. There is plenty of bandwidth.

See there you go again - clutter.

Fact & rebuttal of the inane arguement re "waste of bandwidth"

And more irrelevant clutter snipped.

For you to estimate something as "irrelevant clutter" you have to
read it first, don't you? Or do you just censor at random.

Don't you have anything more constructive to do than censor, or
bother to reply to, my posts? Doesn't matter to me, I have
plenty of time to reply to them.

You should see one of my longer replies. :-)

This is not a .comp newsgroup in case you've forgotten!

Forgotten what? How do you define a ".comp newsgroup" anyway?

It is a unmoderated usenet group, and any computer user is free
to contribute to it.

Perhaps you should also learn to cut out the
'when I was growing up'
'when I was living in the U.S.A.'
'I've lived in Australia for many decades'
U.S. this/that and the next thing
'many moon ago etc'

Why? I can type rapidly enough to print out my thoughts. I
don't feel like going back and editing them.



And if you want me to for good measure, I can always bring up the
Charter/FAQ of this newsgroup. Shall we go there now?

Doesn't matter. Most newsgroups have charters. Most unmoderated
groups don't bother to abide by them, and most users don't even
read them.

Only obsessive/compulsive moderated groups worry about charters,
and some of those publish them every month.

And more useless clutter snipped.

Again, your opinion.

Who do you think cares about how you use the net, what you think of
websites, or what books you read! This is not a chat room!

Dunno. Never visited a chat room.

It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)

WTF..

What is your reason for using abbreviations? Why not be honest
enough to write out your thoughts? In this case, though, I think
that most of the group understands what you are trying to convey.

The words aren't difficult to spell, though....

No-=one has been attempting to 'interpretate' anything.

Should use my spell checker more, shouldn't I

It would be easier if you actually wrote what you apparently meant and
read/remember what you wrote. And for the record, Cath' "interpretation"
was the correct one.

For her and you, perhaps.

[more of the same deleted]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor
my posts?


No-one is attempting to censor your posts.
If anything, at least for me, I delete the tripe/clutter/junk et al
that you post.
Others are doing likewise.
Doesn't that tell you something roo?

Not especially. Depends on my assessment of their motive for
doing it.

My reply originally to you was dealing with a specific part of a
posting you made. Nothing more, nothing less.

If bothering to reply, why not deal with the other points raised
rather than trying to argue over minor points?

Why in hell would I want to include a whole load of irrelevant garbage
to get to the point [of my posting]?

Your post have points? ...No, that is a bit unkind. However, I
still cannot see why you picked on this particular point. AFIK,
ships still are required to have accomodation for 12 people, not
necessarily tourists.

I even went to the trouble of explaining all that to you. If you
were an infant and pointed to a kitty and said "Pwetty ducky" I
would probably tell you it was a "kitty".

Then again, I might not bother, since you seem to be resistant to
learning new things. Did you ever consider a career as a theatre
critic?

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.
Others might learn something new as well. Why deprive
them of information?

Snipping does not deprive anyone of information most of all irrelevant
crap and I mean crap. Take that how you like!

In the spirit in which it was offered, of course! ...But why
should I worry about your opinions?

As I mentioned in a recent post on one of the groups, I realised
as a young child that there was no possibility of pleasing all
other humans that I came in contact with. Everyone is a seperate
and distinct individual after all.

Yes, I have met people who tried to impress everyone they met,
even those with mutually contradictory views. In university, I
once got into a spirited arguement with an athiest. We happened
to have a mutual acquaintence, call him "Joe". He mentioned that
Joe totally agreed with him.

This was interesting to me, has had talked with "Joe" the day
before and he had totally agreed with me. As all three of us
were studying psychology at the time, my reply was that perhaps
there was something inherently wrong with "Joe" if he felt the
need to agree with everyone.

So, naturally, we ran a little test. We got together with Joe,
and then restarted our religious discussion. Naturally, we both
made a point of often seeking his opinion.

Naturally, there was no possible way he could agree with one of
us without disagreeing with the other. Following this little
lesson, he started to develop opinions of his own, having learned
that it wasn't feasible to try to mislead others by lying to
them. :-)

All it does it clean a posting up.

What is the origin of this compulsion? Most people don't bother.

Out of curiosity, do you scrub your windows five times a day in
case a fly has deposited a fly speck on it?

[snipped the crap on religion which has nothing to do with this
newsgroup].

Cath

Ohh, did I touch a nerve here? :-) Do your neighbors know your
views on religion?

Does life and health have anything to do with this newsgroup?
Does safety have anything to do with this newsgroup?

Tell you what: Why don't you apply for position as moderator,
then you can make a little short list of allowable subjects and
refuse all posts that don't conform to your standards.

....But I will bet that most posts wont get by you.

As an possibly educational exercise, try reviewing any 50
consecutive posts, then see if you can construct a list which all
50 will pass.

When you finish, please tell us which range of posts you looked
at and your complete list.

Do you think it is acceptable that I mention such things as the
coming election here, for example, or don't you think that a
change in government could possibly affect travel.

Admittedly, it probably is of more interest to the immigration
group, but it could affect travel as well. How about the price
of jet fuel, which is tied to the price of oil? How about
exchange rate changes? How about the fact that only Amexco
and Cooks travel checks are accepted to a degree, but
others aren't. How about warnings not to pick up small
octipoids, cone shells, and not swimming in river estuaries in
the N.T.? Or don't you care if tourists live or die?

Regards,
Kangaroo16