Pay for infant seat or not?

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

:So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
:airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
short
:trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
ride.
:Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.

Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
his
mouth and thus never took Greyhound.

Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
airplance.



There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
(with
less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.

And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
Binyamin.



And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
decides to
stop.

I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
commercial,

I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
they fly.

Don't impose.

I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
not whether there are long-distance buses, I pay more taxes than you, or any
other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
transoceanic aircraft.


just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
baby
to save money.

I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft), and (2) it creates an
annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor ******* is
stuck sitting next to it.

It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.

No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
"lower classes."



--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

:So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
:airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
short
:trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
ride.
:Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.

Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
his
mouth and thus never took Greyhound.

Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
airplance.



There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
(with
less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.

And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
Binyamin.



And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
decides to
stop.

I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
commercial,

I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
they fly.

Don't impose.

I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
not whether there are long-distance buses, I pay more taxes than you, or any
other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
transoceanic aircraft.


just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
baby
to save money.

I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft), and (2) it creates an
annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor ******* is
stuck sitting next to it.

It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.

No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
"lower classes."



--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:59:10 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

:"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
. ..
: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
: wrote:

: :So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
: :airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
: short
: :trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
: ride.
: :Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.

: Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
: his
: mouth and thus never took Greyhound.

:Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
:rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
:Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
:Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
:airplance.

Agreed.

: There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
: (with
: less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.

:And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
:Binyamin.

Your assertions were "busses are for short trips" and "Airplanes are for long
trips".

It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were false.

: And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
: decides to
: stop.

: I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
: commercial,

:I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
:anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
:know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
:up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
:fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
:they fly.

You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.

:Don't impose.

Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules of life.

:I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
:else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
:not whether there are long-distance buses,

Your assertion was false.

Why not admit the mistake?

: I pay more taxes than you, or any
:other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
:a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
:transoceanic aircraft.

Perhaps. Subject to values.

There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.

The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones actions
are "rude".

: just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
: baby
: to save money.

:I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
:is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
:there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),

Make the case to the airlines.

Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
equivalent distances.

: and (2) it creates an
:annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor ******* is
:stuck sitting next to it.

To those like you.

Not to me or many others.

:It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
:i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
:such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.

You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".

:No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
:lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
:"lower classes."

Proven false.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:59:10 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

:"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
. ..
: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
: wrote:

: :So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
: :airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
: short
: :trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
: ride.
: :Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.

: Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
: his
: mouth and thus never took Greyhound.

:Fast on insults, low on facts (or reality). I wasn't born rich, I'm not
:rich now, and have taken Greyhound plenty of times. And you know what?
:Someone who brings an screaming infant as a lapchild onto a long-distance
:Greyhound bus is just as rude and inconsiderate as someone who does it on an
:airplance.

Agreed.

: There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
: (with
: less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.

:And there are aircraft for short hops, but so what? Form over substance,
:Binyamin.

Your assertions were "busses are for short trips" and "Airplanes are for long
trips".

It would be more honest of you to admit that your assertions were false.

: And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
: decides to
: stop.

: I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
: commercial,

:I have no idea what you mean by "look down on." I don't "look down on"
:anyone -- this has nothing to do with class, real or perceived, nor do you
:know anything about either my present social class nor the one that I grew
:up in. No one looks down on me because I cause a nuisance to them when I
:fly. I look down on others who cause a nuisance to myself and others when
:they fly.

You attitude comes thru, loud and clear.

:Don't impose.

Subject to what YOU consider an imposition, and subject to YOUR rules of life.

:I know that you have an extremely hard time understanding that concept, or
:else it is impossible for you to stay focused on the actual topic, which is
:not whether there are long-distance buses,

Your assertion was false.

Why not admit the mistake?

: I pay more taxes than you, or any
:other such trivial nonsense. The topic is: is it rude and selfish to bring
:a child which creates a protracted nuisance to other passengers on board a
:transoceanic aircraft.

Perhaps. Subject to values.

There are those that feel your presence on earth is rude.

The question is what attention one must give to those that feel ones actions
are "rude".

: just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
: baby
: to save money.

:I couldn't care less WHY someone brings a lapchild. I only care that (1) it
:is unsafe to the child and other passengers (babies become ballistic if
:there are sudden attitude shifts in the aircraft),

Make the case to the airlines.

Statistics show that it is safer to fly as a lap-child than to drive
equivalent distances.

: and (2) it creates an
:annoyance to other passengers and, particularly, to whatever poor ******* is
:stuck sitting next to it.

To those like you.

Not to me or many others.

:It has nothing to do with class or money. YOU have invented a strawman,
:i.e. "you don't like parents of lapchildren because they are poor." This is
:such an obvious and ludicrous defect in logic as to defy belief.

You referred to $300 as a "couple of dollars".

:No, Binyamin. I don't care whether someone is rich or poor -- it's
:lapchildren that are unacceptable, not your imaginary construct of the
:"lower classes."

Proven false.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

"Simon Elliott" Simon at ctsn.co.uk wrote in message
.. .
On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.

Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?

First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.

With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.

1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.

2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.

3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.

4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.

5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.

6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.

7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.

Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.





--
Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk

"Simon Elliott" Simon at ctsn.co.uk wrote in message
.. .
On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.

Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?

First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.

With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.

1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.

2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.

3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.

4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.

5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.

6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.

7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.

Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.





--
Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk

"Simon Elliott" Simon at ctsn.co.uk wrote in message
.. .
On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.

Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?

First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.

With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.

1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.

2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.

3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.

4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.

5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.

6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.

7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.

Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.





--
Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk

In article , PTRAVEL says...


"Simon Elliott" Simon at ctsn.co.uk wrote in message
. ..
On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.

Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?

First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.

With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.

1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.

2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.

3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.

4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.

5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.

6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.

7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.

Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.


What's amazing, is that you don't understand why others find this amazing.

The Rules according to Paul Tauger. What He doesn't like; what He thinks is
important enough to deal with what He doesn't like.

Banty

In article , PTRAVEL says...


"Simon Elliott" Simon at ctsn.co.uk wrote in message
. ..
On 22/09/2004, PTRAVEL wrote:
Then they shouldn't engage in discretionary travel.

Who gets to define what's discretionary and what isn't?

First, I'd like to acknowledge an earlier post that you made, in which you
indicated that you had always been civil in responding to my arguments. You
have, and I appreciate it, thank you.

With that said, I have to note that we seem to be going in circles, here.

1. Anybody gets to fly anytime for any reason they think is valid. It's no
one's business why, and there's no "reason police" interviewing all
passengers as to the reason they're on board.

2. On board an aircraft, no one has the right to impose on anyone else.
This means that heavy people don't have the right to sit in your seat,
drunks don't have the right to vomit on your shoes, evangelists don't have
the right to proselytize in your ear, children don't have the right to kick
the back of your seat, and parents don't have the right to force a hapless
seatmate to endure a squirming, sticky-fingered, shrieking laptoddler.

3. An imposition is like a favor -- it's polite to ask, rude to demand.

4. If you're not going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), you don't have to explain anything to anyone.

5. If you ARE going to impose on others (in a substantive and meaningful
manner), than those others will resent you unless you have a reason that
THEY find compelling for creating the imposition. In other words, if you're
going to ask a big enough favor, you'll get far more cooperation if you
explain why you need it.

6. "We wanted to see Europe and can't bear to be parted from Junior" is
not, in my opinion and solely to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me
to have to put up with a loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the
person next to me for 8 or more hours. That's discretionary travel. And
it's rude and selfish.

7. "My poor mum is in the hospital and probably won't make it through the
night, but there's no one to watch Junior," _is_, in my opinion and solely
to me, a sufficiently compelling reason for me to have to put up with a
loud, rambunctious toddler held in the lap of the person next to me for 8 or
more hours. It's a necessity, it's unfortunate, and that person will have
my moral support and assistance throughout the flight.

Discretionary travel isn't a compelling reason for me to put up with the
imposition of someone else's screaming, squirming lapchild.


What's amazing, is that you don't understand why others find this amazing.

The Rules according to Paul Tauger. What He doesn't like; what He thinks is
important enough to deal with what He doesn't like.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Binyamin Dissen
says...

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:33 -0700 "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

:So says you and Binyamin. I say it's not -- I say a bus is a bus and an
:airplane is an airplane and there's huge difference: busses are for
short
:trips, and you can't get off at the next stop if you don't like the
ride.
:Airplanes are for long trips, and no one gets off until the pilot lands.

Perhaps the perspective from someone who was born with a silver spoon in
his
mouth and thus never took Greyhound.

There are busses that go for long trips, and there are actually people
(with
less expendable funds than you, obviously) that ride them for long trips.

And you do not get off the bus until the next stop, when the driver
decides to
stop.

I am sure that there are people that look down on you for flying
commercial,
just like you look down on people who take a bus or choose to carry a lap
baby
to save money.



Right.

And whence came this idea that One Has A Right To Avoid Anything One Does
Like,

And whence came the idea that this has anything to do with what I think?


and that therefore a situation with any such exposure is an 'imposition'?
Therefore hearing babies for Paul Tauger,

Not "hearing babies." Come on, Banty -- you don't really think there's no
difference between "hearing babies" and continuous high-volume crying?


or seeing men holding hands for
certain other people, etc. etc., is OK on a cross-town bus, but not where
one
cannot leave at whim and will?

Banty