FBI: Flight Diverted After NYC Woman Lights Up

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:27:08 +0200 (CEST), Buster Hymen
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Kulp writes:

Just how were you affected? As I said, I have seen it just once in
over 40 years of flying.

Why allow one psychoactive drug if not others?


John -

Anthony doesn't fly. He spends all day playing with Microsoft Flight
Simulator and thinks he is a pilot and knows all about aviation. In truth,
he doesn't know **** from shinola about aviation or anything else.

More than a little readily apparent. Doesn't slow him down from
trying to impose his ridiculous views are others though, does it?


Anthony - they don't allow other psychoactive drugs because they know it
will keep you off their aircraft. Fjuktjard.


That's a distinct possibility as well, though you're being too kind in
your description of him. You might get sued for defamation of the
actual people belonging to that group.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp) said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:32:15 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


It relates to banning things on airplanes. I say ban drinking for
obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being that you can get cancer from someone drinking
next to you/ I'm in trouble on this evening's flight then.

You won't get cancer from someone smoking a few rows behind you either...

Not when it's banned on airplanes you won't.

Or when it wasn't. Cite us a case. You're big on demanding proof, now it's
your turn...

Let's get this straight. You want me to give you examples of people
that caught some disease from second hand smoke on aircraft that takes
decades to develop? Which, of course, is why you can't give any
examples that haven't?

Here, try this group, maybe they have some credibility with you on the
subject:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Then try taking a cigaretter and blowing the smoke into a dog's face
and see what his reaction is if you think it is harmless. Then, let
us know when you're lying in your hospital bed dying of lung cancer so
we can send you a card and ask to be included in your will. Never
mind what it does to small children and anyone else who hasn't
volunteered to inhale your crap.

On 25 Jun 2008 17:18:25 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On 25 Jun 2008 11:23:46 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:40:32 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Duh_OZ writes:

Long story short, she files a lawsuit claiming JetBlue should have
never served her the third drink??

It's not JetBlue's fault, but airlines shouldn't be serving any alcohol at
all.

Sure. Lose even more revenue. Brilliant solution.

What - alcoholic drinks are the only kind of drink they can sell? Where did you
get that idea?? They can sell soft drinks and juice drinks. At ball-park price
levels if they want.

At a lower price for drink sure. Which is why they would lose revenue
if they eliminated it, like I said.


I drink alcohol myself, but I never understood why and how it got so strongly
associated with airplane flights. Other than the
business-lounge-flying-in-the-sky idea. I can certainly travel without
imbibing. Anyone who can't has a bigger problem (and is the most likely to
*become* this kind of problem.) It's just not necessary.

Who said it was? I said they would lose more revenue if they stop and
they would.

How's that?

I'm not going to bother to explain this yet again to some idiot that
can't figure out an airline sells alcohol and other drinks to make
money on a flight.


Just because an occasional moron--very occasional in my
experience--causes a problem is no reason to deprive normal adults
from having them. If that rule was applied, you wouldn't be able to
drive would you?

Huh?

The alcohol just plain isn't necessary.

Neither are you.

On 25 Jun 2008 17:25:31 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On 25 Jun 2008 11:30:52 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , John Kulp says...

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:22:59 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:05:55 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Because they're not allowed to genius.

Then perhaps they should be prohibited from serving alcohol as well. I
know of some flight crew members who would welcome such a change.

So why don't you take a vote of all airline passengers and see if they
want that? You probably will find at least 5 out of millions that
will agree with your absurd views.

I'd go for it. And make the sale of alcohol anywhere within the airport
illegal as well.

So join his club of social outcasts then.


And I'd bet that I'm not just one of five.

You're right. There are more nuts than just you two out there.


And I do consume some alcohol occasionally...

Who cares?


The POINT being, he's not against alcoholic drinks, it's a matter if them not
being a great idea for certain places and certain situations. Including airline
flights.

The POINT is that's it not a major problem no matter how many times
you and others carp about it. You can't find enough incidents to
document a handful.

Most incidents don't make the news. People just grin and bear it.


And most happen so rarely it's only a problem to the occasional
nitwity that shows up here to blather about it.




Wow you're sure defensive about this alcohol thing.

No, I'm just against stupid people with hangups trying to impose their
hangups on others. Like this when there's no health issue involved
like with smoking.

"Impose their hangups on others"? How's that? Just because you like to do
something doesn't mean you get to do it everywhere. There's a lot of people
packed in close in an airplane, many of them bored, some with real problems as
to knowing when to stop; it's just not a great venue to add alcohol. It's
simply not necessary.

And some that are just plain boring like you. What it means is that I
and others can do whatever we like that is legal. And do.
Irrespective of whether some nutjob like you likes it or not. That's
what it means genius.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Yet they get on, despite the laws.

Because airlines violate the law.


Wrong again, ******.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:32:15 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


It relates to banning things on airplanes. I say ban drinking for
obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being that you can get cancer from someone drinking
next to you/ I'm in trouble on this evening's flight then.

You won't get cancer from someone smoking a few rows behind you
either...

Not when it's banned on airplanes you won't.

Or when it wasn't. Cite us a case. You're big on demanding proof, now
it's
your turn...

Let's get this straight. You want me to give you examples of people
that caught some disease from second hand smoke on aircraft that takes
decades to develop? Which, of course, is why you can't give any
examples that haven't?

Here, try this group, maybe they have some credibility with you on the
subject:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422


Do they really have credibility? And do you really know what you're talking
about?

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

The alcohol just plain isn't necessary.

Neither are you.

Just the type of answer expected from an alcoholic.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:28:17 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:32:15 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


It relates to banning things on airplanes. I say ban drinking for
obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being that you can get cancer from someone drinking
next to you/ I'm in trouble on this evening's flight then.

You won't get cancer from someone smoking a few rows behind you
either...

Not when it's banned on airplanes you won't.

Or when it wasn't. Cite us a case. You're big on demanding proof, now
it's
your turn...

Let's get this straight. You want me to give you examples of people
that caught some disease from second hand smoke on aircraft that takes
decades to develop? Which, of course, is why you can't give any
examples that haven't?

Here, try this group, maybe they have some credibility with you on the
subject:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422


Do they really have credibility? And do you really know what you're talking
about?

Yes and yes.


http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Oh, of course, some sensationalist rag like this definitely has more
credibility than the American Lung Association. Put up the National
Enquirer to to support your crackpot views.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:28:17 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:32:15 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


It relates to banning things on airplanes. I say ban drinking for
obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being that you can get cancer from someone
drinking
next to you/ I'm in trouble on this evening's flight then.

You won't get cancer from someone smoking a few rows behind you
either...

Not when it's banned on airplanes you won't.

Or when it wasn't. Cite us a case. You're big on demanding proof, now
it's
your turn...

Let's get this straight. You want me to give you examples of people
that caught some disease from second hand smoke on aircraft that takes
decades to develop? Which, of course, is why you can't give any
examples that haven't?

Here, try this group, maybe they have some credibility with you on the
subject:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422


Do they really have credibility? And do you really know what you're
talking
about?

Yes and yes.


http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Oh, of course, some sensationalist rag like this definitely has more
credibility than the American Lung Association. Put up the National
Enquirer to to support your crackpot views.

Your American Lung Association, the Heart Association, American Cancer
Society, as well as others, quote the 1993 EPA study, which was overturned
by a federal court in 1998. Your so called "rags" are quoting reliable
sources. You just didn't read them. It's not the end of the world if
you're mistaken on something.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1897,00.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.lpconline.com/secondhand_smoke.html
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I'm done.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:29:36 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:28:17 -0500, "Jim Davis"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John Kulp)
said:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:32:15 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


It relates to banning things on airplanes. I say ban drinking for
obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being that you can get cancer from someone
drinking
next to you/ I'm in trouble on this evening's flight then.

You won't get cancer from someone smoking a few rows behind you
either...

Not when it's banned on airplanes you won't.

Or when it wasn't. Cite us a case. You're big on demanding proof, now
it's
your turn...

Let's get this straight. You want me to give you examples of people
that caught some disease from second hand smoke on aircraft that takes
decades to develop? Which, of course, is why you can't give any
examples that haven't?

Here, try this group, maybe they have some credibility with you on the
subject:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422


Do they really have credibility? And do you really know what you're
talking
about?

Yes and yes.


http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Oh, of course, some sensationalist rag like this definitely has more
credibility than the American Lung Association. Put up the National
Enquirer to to support your crackpot views.

Your American Lung Association, the Heart Association, American Cancer
Society, as well as others, quote the 1993 EPA study, which was overturned
by a federal court in 1998. Your so called "rags" are quoting reliable
sources. You just didn't read them. It's not the end of the world if
you're mistaken on something.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1897,00.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.lpconline.com/secondhand_smoke.html
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I'm done.

Good. Go out, light up a cigarette, blow the smoke into a bag and
inhale it and see how good you feel moron.