T-shirt woman kicked off Southwest flight to sue

rk wrote:

Mezei as moderator is equivalent to having a terrorist nation (that has
brought down a commercial airliner) chair the UN Human Commission on Human
Rights. Not surprising there is so little traffic.

Mezei, you tell us about your fantastic moderation skills. Why don't you
self-moderate your own posts in the unmoderated groups to the standards
you
apply as "moderator?" Instead you use a double standard as you abuse the
unmoderated groups with your hate and prejudice.


Yep. Man - child Mezei is responsible for driving away MANY good
posters...he is the rta Uber - Troll of all time...

Can't believe he's still believing those nutty conspiracy theories about me.
Unlike Mezei I've never posted under a pseudonym for trolling or any other
purposes...

--
Best
Greg



--
rk
"Just make sure all crewmembers are jewish. Then you throw a penny into
the Soyuz capsule and all 12 will find a way to fit in there"
-- JF Mezei, February 8, 2003.



nobody wrote:

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
I never said I did and I never said I didn't think it wasn't a good
idea to recusitate the group. I do, however, think you're a poor
person to be put in charge of moderating a newsgroup on the subject at
hand given your rabid, and on many instances uninformed, views.

The role of a moderator is to filter out posts submitted which do not
follow established guidelines. If it's not related to aviation industry,
it is bounced. It it gets personnal, it is filtered out etc. It has
nothing to do with my knolwedge or lack thereof about aviation industry.


Except for obvious spam, I have not yet bounced anything. There are
problems with the moderating software which automatically bounce posts
coming from many news servers which don't feed perfectly formatted
messages, but there is not much more I can do about this. We don't pay
for the moderation service/software and the provider insists on
maintaining those strict rules.

Some spam has gotten through and it is then a question of following up
with the submitting news server so thay can track down their user who
forged the moderation headers.

As I said before, if you are not happy with the moderation of the
newsgroup, you can complain to all moderators. If you look at the
archives of the group, you will find all necessary information as well
as pointers to the group's charter and posting guidelines.

If you do not have any examples of poor moderation of the newsgroup,
stop making unwarranted accusations and stick to rec.travel.air to
discuss Ellen, Sheryl and all those other fetishes that Greg Morrow and
all his aliases have.


To me, when someone takes on a role in moderating a group, they have
an obligation to be informed about the subject at hand.

Moderation involves simply processing posts and preventing totally off
topic posts from getting thorugh, and in circumstances where there is a
flame war, cool things down.

I'm not blaming them for anything. They volunteered just like you
volunteered. It's a nice group, when it's functioning properly.

I also made it expliocit to the others that I would bow out if my
presence was a hindrance to the group's success. I have gotten no such
sugesstions by the other moderators. If you are avoiding posting simply
because I exist, then it is your problem. In fact, majority of posts
gets approved by the other moderators since they tend to get to the
approval requests before I can.

There was one recent event where one post was rejected by mistake by one
moderator and I re-injected it and approved it.


participation continues to decline. Most of the posting in the new
m.t.a.i. is among the co-moderators.

And if people like you stopped criticising the newsgroups without any
specific criticisms, perhaps we'd have more success growing
participation.

Again, my issue is not so much with the job you and anyone else is
doing with m.t.a.i.

So stop complaining about misc.transportyy-air-industry. If you have no
complaints about his the newsgroup is functioning, if you have no
complaints about the contents that do make it to mtai, then you have no
reason to posts messages as the one to which I am replying, and you have
no reason to abstain from participating in the group.

Plenty of people hate me because I do not support the USA's current
policies, and that includes one of the moderators, but it doesn't mean
that we can't do a professional job moderating an aviation newsgroup
that discusses business aspects. There has been no or extremely little
"politics" in that newsgroup.


My point is that your remarks about the U.S. and its policies are
uniformed and in many cases offensive.

I have made no such remarks in mtai.


a COWARD who's afraid to post under his own name in one newsgroup on
air travel,


I wish you the full wrath of nomen on you, including forged identities
forever archived in so many web sites with slander against you. If that
were to happen to you, you'd fully understand why I cannot post under my
own name in this newsgroup. Complain to Greg Morrow and friends if ytou
dislike many posteres not using their real names.

There have been plenty of people who had stopped using real names in
this newsgroup over the years. Most of which have left due to Nomen and
friends.

JF Mezei wrote:

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
I never said I did and I never said I didn't think it wasn't a good
idea to recusitate the group. I do, however, think you're a poor
person to be put in charge of moderating a newsgroup on the subject at
hand given your rabid, and on many instances uninformed, views.

The role of a moderator is to filter out posts submitted which do not
follow established guidelines. If it's not related to aviation industry,
it is bounced. It it gets personnal, it is filtered out etc. It has
nothing to do with my knolwedge or lack thereof about aviation industry.


Except for obvious spam, I have not yet bounced anything. There are
problems with the moderating software which automatically bounce posts
coming from many news servers which don't feed perfectly formatted
messages, but there is not much more I can do about this. We don't pay
for the moderation service/software and the provider insists on
maintaining those strict rules.

Some spam has gotten through and it is then a question of following up
with the submitting news server so thay can track down their user who
forged the moderation headers.

As I said before, if you are not happy with the moderation of the
newsgroup, you can complain to all moderators. If you look at the
archives of the group, you will find all necessary information as well
as pointers to the group's charter and posting guidelines.

If you do not have any examples of poor moderation of the newsgroup,
stop making unwarranted accusations and stick to rec.travel.air to
discuss Ellen, Sheryl and all those other fetishes that Greg Morrow and
all his aliases have.


Lol...you have a lover's crush on me, Mezei...???


To me, when someone takes on a role in moderating a group, they have
an obligation to be informed about the subject at hand.

Moderation involves simply processing posts and preventing totally off
topic posts from getting thorugh, and in circumstances where there is a
flame war, cool things down.

I'm not blaming them for anything. They volunteered just like you
volunteered. It's a nice group, when it's functioning properly.

I also made it expliocit to the others that I would bow out if my
presence was a hindrance to the group's success. I have gotten no such
sugesstions by the other moderators. If you are avoiding posting simply
because I exist, then it is your problem. In fact, majority of posts
gets approved by the other moderators since they tend to get to the
approval requests before I can.

There was one recent event where one post was rejected by mistake by one
moderator and I re-injected it and approved it.


participation continues to decline. Most of the posting in the new
m.t.a.i. is among the co-moderators.

And if people like you stopped criticising the newsgroups without any
specific criticisms, perhaps we'd have more success growing participation.

Again, my issue is not so much with the job you and anyone else is
doing with m.t.a.i.

So stop complaining about misc.transportyy-air-industry. If you have no
complaints about his the newsgroup is functioning, if you have no
complaints about the contents that do make it to mtai, then you have no
reason to posts messages as the one to which I am replying, and you have
no reason to abstain from participating in the group.

Plenty of people hate me because I do not support the USA's current
policies, and that includes one of the moderators, but it doesn't mean
that we can't do a professional job moderating an aviation newsgroup
that discusses business aspects. There has been no or extremely little
"politics" in that newsgroup.


No, they hate you because you are fairly clueless and stupid. Your
anti - Yank obsession is just an outgrowth of the sorts of masturbatory
fantasies that you love to engage in...


My point is that your remarks about the U.S. and
its policies are uniformed and in many cases offensive.

I have made no such remarks in mtai.


a COWARD who's afraid to post under his own name in one newsgroup on
air travel,


I wish you the full wrath of nomen on you, including forged identities
forever archived in so many web sites with slander against you. If that
were to happen to you, you'd fully understand why I cannot post under my
own name in this newsgroup. Complain to Greg Morrow and friends if ytou
dislike many posteres not using their real names.


********...


There have been plenty of people who had stopped using real names in
this newsgroup over the years. Most of which have left due to Nomen and friends.


Lol...I've never seen a bigger load of rubbish in my life...

YOU are the primary reason why so many left rec.travel.air. Had
nothing to do with me, your friend Nomen, or those other mysterious
daemons and spirits that follow you around all the time...

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:51:50 -0400 in rec.travel.air, Cyrus
Afzali wrote:

Is that REALLY any worse than your rampant USA bashing? And this from
a COWARD who's afraid to post under his own name in one newsgroup on
air travel, yet considers himself worthy of co-moderating another.
It's just tremendously embarrassing.

JF has a right to express his own opinions whether you agree with
them or not, and quite frankly, my country and the incompetent,
bumbling crew of thieves and right wingnuts in the white house
that purport to "lead" it DESERVE bashing.

Apparently JF is doing a decent job as moderator, and it's only
flamers like you with some kind of rightwing grudge against him
that give a **** about his political views. Another reason to
simply plop you in the killfile. PLONK.

John R. Levine wrote:
Their dress code is clearly stated in their "Contract of Carriage" on
their web site. T-shirt woman should quit while she's ahead.

And exactly what is the "dress code" clearly stated?

Page 10 of WN's conditions of carriage, conveniently available on
their web site, has a laundry list of reasons they can refuse to
transport you, starting with

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive,
offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent,

That part if obviously NOT the dress code. :-)

or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;

The burden of PROOF will be on the airline! From the description
of the incident, it did not appear to be lwed or sbscene.

It was probably offensive to some Republicans and humorless fans
of Bush top members of his gang, but the T-shirt is nothing more
than political humor, IMHO.

Besides, for those who still remember the Fokker and Meserschidmt
fighter plane jokes of WWII, her shirt might be referring to that
Fokker. Who knows?

-- Bob.

They'd probably argue that her shirt was patently offensive. Who knows
what a court would say.

R's,
John

Reef Fish wrote:


Besides, for those who still remember the Fokker and Meserschidmt
fighter plane jokes of WWII, her shirt might be referring to that
Fokker. Who knows?

Let's not forget that famous red Fokker triplane from WW1

rk wrote:

Mezei as moderator is equivalent to having a terrorist nation (that has
brought down a commercial airliner) chair the UN Human Commission on Human
Rights. Not surprising there is so little traffic.

Look you stupid troll, it is your master which you adimire so greatly,
the great Mary Shafer who is responsible for my being a moderator. Had
she done her job properly, she would have handed off "her" group to new
moderators instead of allowing the group to fail. As soon as the NAN
team announced the demise of the group with one last chance to retsrat
it. the group was given a clean slate without any of the baggage of the
old inactive moderators.

Big irony that by dropping the ball on the mtai group, mary shafer ended
up allowing me, the one she so very much wanted to discredit (and got
you to do her dirty work) to become a moderator.

Unhappy with the situation ? Tough luck.

Volunteer to be a moderator and then vote to have me kicked out.

"krw" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

That's not true either. There are limits to everything. You have the
freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, but if you express yourself
in a manner that's not peaceful, you can be arrested and such arrests
are totally legal.

Sure. The point is that *congress* cannot make a law limiting speech, but
it
can make laws restricting actions. Sometimes the need for one overrides
the
other. SCotUS constantly paints this edge.

OTOH, the first amendment, in itself, doesn't preclude the states from
making
such laws. It *certainly* doesn't apply to individuals. Very little of
the
constitution restricts individuals (13th amendment noted).


Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).

In article 1128807249.6d8a3f87742d856d81fde6a4d2d5d07f@teran ews,
JRDelirio \(Jose Diaz\) wrote:

Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).

That will be harder to do if her shirt actually had the word "****" on
it, since to any reasonable person, that will certainly be regarded as
grounds to refuse service to her.

The detail I have not seen spelled out, is whether her shirt actually
said "****", because if it only said "F*ck" or "Fock", she has a case.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:54:01 GMT, (james)
wrote:

In article 1128807249.6d8a3f87742d856d81fde6a4d2d5d07f@teran ews,
JRDelirio \(Jose Diaz\) wrote:

Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).

That will be harder to do if her shirt actually had the word "****" on
it, since to any reasonable person, that will certainly be regarded as
grounds to refuse service to her.

The detail I have not seen spelled out, is whether her shirt actually
said "****", because if it only said "F*ck" or "Fock", she has a case.

The misunderstanding here was caused by the first reports from CNN and
MSNBC who reported the shirt said "Meet The Fockers", like the movie
title.

Those early reports were incorrect; in fact the shirt said "Meet The
****ers".

In article ,
Northern Storm wrote:

Those early reports were incorrect; in fact the shirt said "Meet The
****ers".

Then the case needs nothing to do with the political content, and the
woman has nothing to argue. If you wear a t-shirt that says "****",
you're asking to be harrassed; in fact, you're making just about the
most punk-assed statement possible, *insisting* that you be harassed.

In the 1980s, a popular local band Loco Gringos had "**** You We're From
Texas" shirts. Lots of people had one, they were quite common. But if
you wore one of those, you were pretty much guaranteed to be asked by
authorities to cover it up, turn it inside out, or leave. Now, it may
be something a person would like to argue, but, you're not going to get
a ruling that says it's okay to wear a t-shirt that says "****".

The fact that the woman's shirt had pictures of the Bush administration
or whatever, is a red herring. It's not okay according to the airline
to wear a shirt that says "****" in their terminal or on their planes
-- and most reasonable people in society would take their side of the
argument; even liberals like me.