FBI: Flight Diverted After NYC Woman Lights Up

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
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.

Please be sure to forward that brilliant bit of research to the EPA.

In article , John Kulp says...

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.

LOL.

You're not exactly coming off like a person who would recognized problematic
behavior if you saw it.

You *can't* do whatever you like. You can't even get up and walk around on an
airplane whenever you like. Walking is legal, you know. You're missing the
*point* - it's not legality. And frankly, I think you not only would
acknowledge a problem you saw, I wonder if you *are* one with a problem. You're
having being civil here on a little ol' newsgroup.

Banty

"Larry in AZ" wrote in message
.. .
Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jim Davis"
said:

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

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

Please be sure to forward that brilliant bit of research to the EPA.

Or to Algore. It's about as well-conceived as his "global warming is
caused
by humans" claims.

Good God Larry. Yer gonna start another flame war. Actually, I always
thought global warming was caused by the Sun.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , John Kulp says...

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.

LOL.

You're not exactly coming off like a person who would recognized
problematic
behavior if you saw it.

You *can't* do whatever you like. You can't even get up and walk around
on an
airplane whenever you like. Walking is legal, you know. You're missing
the
*point* - it's not legality. And frankly, I think you not only would
acknowledge a problem you saw, I wonder if you *are* one with a problem.
You're
having being civil here on a little ol' newsgroup.

Banty

C'mon Banty, you've been around here on & off for a long time. These people
come & go. They have no conception of the word "discussion".

In article , Jim Davis says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , John Kulp says...

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.

LOL.

You're not exactly coming off like a person who would recognized
problematic
behavior if you saw it.

You *can't* do whatever you like. You can't even get up and walk around
on an
airplane whenever you like. Walking is legal, you know. You're missing
the
*point* - it's not legality. And frankly, I think you not only would
acknowledge a problem you saw, I wonder if you *are* one with a problem.
You're
having being civil here on a little ol' newsgroup.

Banty

C'mon Banty, you've been around here on & off for a long time. These people
come & go. They have no conception of the word "discussion".


Oh I know. That's why I decided to kick him around a bit. A guy who is acting
pretty lit up, or at the least, pretty insulting, telling us he hasn't noticed
bad behavior on airplanes - uh huh sure.

Banty

Jim Davis writes:

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.

Federal courts cannot "overturn" studies.

John Kulp writes:

The legal ones moron. Just like alcohol. You see, lawmakers decide
that issue not idiots.

What's the difference?

John Kulp writes:

You've already demonstrated that you don't even know the law ...

The prohibitions are in several places in the Federal Air Regulations.

John Kulp writes:

See legality. You might actually learn something though I doubt it.

Cigarettes are legal. Why aren't they sold on airplanes?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jim Davis writes:

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.

Federal courts cannot "overturn" studies.

Maybe I used the wrong word, but a federal judge deemed the research
invalid.