Discussion:
Impact on musicians of new airline bans....
(too old to reply)
Doc
2006-08-13 11:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Or, "Banned Band Instruments"

Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?

How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
etc. normally transported?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm
William Black
2006-08-13 12:08:41 UTC
Permalink
"Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote in message
news:ucEDg.8217$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri
violins
> etc. normally transported?

It is normal for people with very delicate and expensive instruments to book
an extra seat for the instrument.

Less valuable instruments usually travel in the hold.

I've taken guitars in aircraft for some time, have never been able to carry
them in the main passenger cabin when on an international flight, and have
never had any problems, including after a ten hour flight to the Far East.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jenn
2006-08-13 17:45:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <ucEDg.8217$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote:

> Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
> etc. normally transported?
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm

Violins: in the overhead compartment (also woodwinds)
Celli: extra purchased seat
Brass: although often valuable (though not like Strads, etc.) they are
usually checked as baggage

--
REMOVE your capo to reply
Steven Bornfeld
2006-08-14 02:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Jenn wrote:
> In article <ucEDg.8217$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote:
>
>
>>Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>>
>>Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
>>often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
>>knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>>
>>How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
>>etc. normally transported?
>>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm
>
>
> Violins: in the overhead compartment (also woodwinds)
> Celli: extra purchased seat
> Brass: although often valuable (though not like Strads, etc.) they are
> usually checked as baggage
>


According to the BBC article, instruments are verboten in the
cabin--the interviewed cellist stated that she'd bought a seat up until
now for her instrument, but was now compelled to check it as luggage.

Steve
John F
2006-08-14 21:32:30 UTC
Permalink
How much harm can you do to a bent metal pipe?

(In reply to all those viola jokes I have been told by brass players).


John F



\

Jenn wrote:

> Brass: although often valuable (though not like Strads, etc.) they are
> usually checked as baggage
>
William Graham
2006-08-13 21:03:09 UTC
Permalink
"Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote in message
news:ucEDg.8217$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri
> violins
> etc. normally transported?
>
More and more often, they are transported on private busses......The
terrorists are winning.......
j***@hotmail.com
2006-08-13 21:54:33 UTC
Permalink
William Graham wrote:
> "Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote in message
> news:ucEDg.8217$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
> >
> > Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> > often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> > knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
> >
> > How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri
> > violins
> > etc. normally transported?
> >
> More and more often, they are transported on private busses......The
> terrorists are winning...

Fear not. I predict these additional travel annoyances will abate after
early November, and will probably not resurface until the next U.S.
presidential election season.
b***@yahoo.com
2006-08-13 23:59:13 UTC
Permalink
It hasn't had an impact on me because I decided a year ago to buy
insurance on my good guitar and check it as baggage when necessary. The
guitar is irreplacable, but at least the insurance company will buy me
a decent instrument if something happens.

Doc wrote:
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
> etc. normally transported?
>

Many orchestral players have life estates on their instruments. A
typical condition of use is that they must carry them in the airplane
cabin. Small instruments like violins can fit in the overhead storage.
Larger instruments such as celli need their own seats.

Under the new rules these performers cannot fly with their instruments
at all. Concert performers who must travel by air are now forced to
borrow an instrument at their destination.

I think it's a temporary situation, as mentioned earlier. The airlines
will revert back to the old rules after the November elections, imo.
It's just a few months of inconvenience. We deal with it the best we
can.

Ashby
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-14 01:34:35 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote in
news:***@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

> I think it's a temporary situation, as mentioned earlier. The airlines
> will revert back to the old rules after the November elections, imo.
> It's just a few months of inconvenience. We deal with it the best we
> can.
>
> Ashby
>
>

1) The British Gov't has set the rules for flights to and from the UK, not
the airlines.

2) The US Gov't. rules for US domestic flights are only banning liquids in
the cabin.

3) I sincerely doubt the US Elections will change the British policy if the
Security Forces in the UK still feel there's a risk.

Please stop crossposting.

Steve Hawkins
Doc
2006-08-14 02:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Top-posting probably pisses you off too.

> Please stop crossposting.

He says, x-posted to the same groups.

I like x-posting myself.

"Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:***@199.45.49.11...
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-14 14:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Doc wrote:
> Top-posting probably pisses you off too.
>
> > Please stop crossposting.
>
> He says, x-posted to the same groups.
>
> I like x-posting myself.
>

New to Usenet? Unless the followup is set for one group, replies get
crossposted. Not knowing which group the originating poster hangs out
in makes it difficult to decide which of the groups to manually edit
off the send line. This means all the groups get to see me educating
you. Probably a futile effort and yes, top posting makes long threads
a pain to read, but you know that.

Steve Hawkins
St. John Smythe
2006-08-14 17:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Steve Hawkins wrote to Doc:
> New to Usenet? Unless the followup is set for one group, replies get
> crossposted. Not knowing which group the originating poster hangs out
> in makes it difficult to decide which of the groups to manually edit
> off the send line. This means all the groups get to see me educating
> you. Probably a futile effort and yes, top posting makes long threads
> a pain to read, but you know that.

Having been on Usenet since the Great Renaming, I'll be quick to tell
you that in the hierarchy of egregiousness of offenses, I'd rank failure
to trim way above top-posting. You could even make the case that an
advantage of top-posting is that it disrupts cascades. Oh, I don't do
it myself, but I don't get upset over it, either.

It's 2006, and there's no need to include more than a minimum of context
anymore; there should never be a need to page down to see what a poster
has to say.

--
St. John
No one so thoroughly appreciates the value of constructive criticism as
the one who's giving it.
-Hal Chadwick
John F
2006-08-14 21:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Top posting is better for those who don't want to read the entire thread
with each post and is never a problem if the quote is confined to the
subject matter of the reply. Quoting an entire thread with each post
was of use in the days of tele-type interfaces, but these days it is
unnecessary and a sign of extreme laziness or inexperience.


John F





Steve Hawkins wrote:



> Probably a futile effort and yes, top posting makes long threads
> a pain to read, but you know that.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>
Ed Edelenbos
2006-08-14 21:50:43 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-14 22:28:02 UTC
Permalink
> Top posting is better for those who don't want to read the entire thread
> with each post and is never a problem if the quote is confined to the
> subject matter of the reply. Quoting an entire thread with each post
> was of use in the days of tele-type interfaces, but these days it is
> unnecessary and a sign of extreme laziness or inexperience.
>
> John F
>
> > Probably a futile effort and yes, top posting makes long threads
> > a pain to read, but you know that.
> >
> > The Lone Poster (name changed to make a point)
> >

So am I replyng to you or The Lone Poster here? Who's on first?

BTW, I said long threads, not long, untrimmed posts. I think it's
annoying to read through multiple posts, having to look both high and
low for the reply. I think it's just as lazy not to scroll to the
bottom and reply, but it's no big deal. My original complaint was
about crossposting, not top posting. Another poster started this
discussion.

Steve Hawkins
Doc
2006-08-15 04:30:19 UTC
Permalink
"Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net> apparently tried to post something in
message news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

but all that comes out is

> mmubmmmflrff mufmmfllmmmmfm
> ummmfffmmblfmmmm

I assume it's because your head is so far up your ass.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-15 05:15:45 UTC
Permalink
"Doc" <***@xhotmail.comx> wrote in
news:v5cEg.4188$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net> apparently tried to post
> something in message
> news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> but all that comes out is
>
>> mmubmmmflrff mufmmfllmmmmfm
>> ummmfffmmblfmmmm
>
> I assume it's because your head is so far up your ass.
>
>
>

If you have nothing to say, you should say nothing, otherwise you only look
like a fool. I think it's past your bedtime.

Adios,
Steve Hawkins
techfiddle
2006-08-14 15:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Doc wrote:
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
> etc. normally transported?



There is a very long thread about this on viola list (thread entries at
bottom):
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/viola/message/44778

I think you would have to either join the viola list (a Yahoo group) or
you could get the RSS: http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/viola/rss

The salient points include:

Here is the official word (I don't see anything about violin cases):
TSA: Threat Level Change for the Aviation Sector
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm


Someone just sent me this disturbing article from the BBC News:
Cabin baggage ban hits musicians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm


The airlines have no choice; they are directed by Government working on
the advice of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Office_Briefing_Room_A


The official word on restrictions:
AIRLINE SECURITY
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_612280\
.hcsp


There seems to be a rather encouraging page on the TSA website
regarding
instruments:
Transporting Musical Instruments
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1235.shtm
However, how it plays out for real remains to be seen, of course.

[ That page has no date on it. This brings to mind the possibility that
it is an old page which has not been updated with the new rules. ]
techfiddle
2006-08-15 16:13:37 UTC
Permalink
NY Times:

Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th











Doc wrote:
> Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
> etc. normally transported?
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm
Beach Runner
2006-08-15 23:46:45 UTC
Permalink
techfiddle wrote:
> NY Times:
>
> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>

Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
specific group
of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
An 80 year
old grandmother is just not a risk.

I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.

How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.

Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.

Bob
Mizz Marcia Ryder
2006-08-16 00:37:38 UTC
Permalink
"Beach Runner" wrote :
>
> techfiddle wrote:
>> NY Times:
>>
>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>
>
> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> specific group
> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> An 80 year
> old grandmother is just not a risk.

My orchestra just took a trip to DC in June on a regional 55-seater.
I suspect the only risk with these 20 some-odd people was that the
flight attendants were at risk the group would commandeer
the alcohol and peanut cart. ;-)

> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.

Amen.

> How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.

Actually I think the latest plot included some women with small
children (or babies) to distract or shield the alledged bombers.
Could be just a rumor floating about. I can't remember whether
I read it or heard it on the news.

> Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>
I agree with some pundit I heard recently that yes there are more
sophisticated (and expensive) detectors that can be used in airports.
The question is, just how much expense can be born to justify having
them in ALL airports and sending *everyone* through them? Send
Grandma through the usual random shakedown, just use the high tech
stuff for the 20-35 y/o males of Middle Eastern descent that *do not*
appear on a frequent flyer type ID system (eg businessmen that travel
a lot and have gotten extra background checks and IDs and vouched
by their employers.)
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 18:42:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:37:38 GMT, "Mizz Marcia Ryder"
<***@regrets.com> wrote:

>
>"Beach Runner" wrote :
>>
>> techfiddle wrote:
>>> NY Times:
>>>
>>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>>
>>
>> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>> specific group
>> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>> An 80 year
>> old grandmother is just not a risk.
>
>My orchestra just took a trip to DC in June on a regional 55-seater.
>I suspect the only risk with these 20 some-odd people was that the
>flight attendants were at risk the group would commandeer
>the alcohol and peanut cart. ;-)
>
>> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>
>Amen.

I saw a TSA guy interviewed on CNN this morning who was saying "You
wouldn't believe the stuff people try to bring on board planes... One
guy even tried to bring one of those old-fashioned hand-crank meat
grinders on..."

As if that was stupid.

It was probably a valuable antique of family heirloom or something.

I mean, what did they think he was going to do with it - hijack the
airplane by threatening to set it up in first class and start grinding
stewardesses into hamburger?

Is Yo-yo Ma going to blow up a plane with his cello?

Seriously - you really have to wonder about the general level of
intelligence of these people.

Even box-cutter knives. What's the problem? On 9/11 they were
effective because people were trained at that time to do what a
hijacker said, because the expectation was that the plane would be
re-routed somewhere and negotiations would happen, etc. At most, a
terrorist could kill a few people - but then he could do worse than
that with a box-cutter knife and any shopping mall in the country. But
after 9/11, no plane is going to be hijacked by people with little
teeny knives. The passengers would be all over them.
Beach Runner
2006-08-18 13:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:37:38 GMT, "Mizz Marcia Ryder"
> <***@regrets.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Beach Runner" wrote :
> >>
> >> techfiddle wrote:
> >>> NY Times:
> >>>
> >>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
> >>>
> >>
> >> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> >> specific group
> >> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> >> An 80 year
> >> old grandmother is just not a risk.
> >
> >My orchestra just took a trip to DC in June on a regional 55-seater.
> >I suspect the only risk with these 20 some-odd people was that the
> >flight attendants were at risk the group would commandeer
> >the alcohol and peanut cart. ;-)
> >
> >> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
> >
> >Amen.
>
> I saw a TSA guy interviewed on CNN this morning who was saying "You
> wouldn't believe the stuff people try to bring on board planes... One
> guy even tried to bring one of those old-fashioned hand-crank meat
> grinders on..."
>
>> Even box-cutter knives. What's the problem? On 9/11 they were
> effective because people were trained at that time to do what a
> hijacker said, because the expectation was that the plane would be
> re-routed somewhere and negotiations would happen, etc. At most, a
> terrorist could kill a few people - but then he could do worse than
> that with a box-cutter knife and any shopping mall in the country. But
> after 9/11, no plane is going to be hijacked by people with little
> teeny knives. The passengers would be all over them.

If the passengers just threw all their books, bags and junk at them,
threw
blankets and pillows, they could have easily defeated them. It was
unknown.

The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
any similar attack will ever work.

Of course, excuse my stray from my left wing liberal bent, when a
nation
supports terrorists that attack the US, the logical response is to make
the right example so nations know you don't do that. The US response
was far too little too late.

If they knew a country was supporting an attack against the US, you
give
them a few hours to hand them all over, or we take out that country.
It may
seem harsh, but the alternative is to amputate a limb a bit at the
time.
Far kinder and more effective to amputate the limb.

If a nation knew that supporting those that make war against the US
will
no longer exist, that will be the end of this. Pure and simple. You
provide
the carrot and the stick.

Either hand over Bin Landen and his friends today, or drop a bomb the
next day. Then other countries would refuse to shelter the vermin.

Limited actions have never and will never work.

It's like this. A bully is on a bus. Finally someone stands up, and
the bully backs off. The next day he is at it again. Alternative,
the bully is beaten and beaten and beaten. He needs to beg for it
to be stopped. He's beaten some more. That bully will never do
it again, and other's will see the results.

The world is in far greater danger because of a failed "humanistic"
response.

How many more people would have been killed in Japan without
the bomb? How many more millions? Some times what seems
like the hardest response is the only appropriate response.

That said, also note that the hijackers in England were turned
in by good Muslim people.
David Mason
2006-08-18 13:25:00 UTC
Permalink
"Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> If they knew a country was supporting an attack against the US, you
> give
> them a few hours to hand them all over, or we take out that country.

[snip]


> Either hand over Bin Landen and his friends today, or drop a bomb the
> next day. Then other countries would refuse to shelter the vermin.

[snip]

> How many more people would have been killed in Japan without
> the bomb? How many more millions? Some times what seems
> like the hardest response is the only appropriate response.

<stunned silence>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-18 13:48:46 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2006 06:01:14 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:37:38 GMT, "Mizz Marcia Ryder"
>> <***@regrets.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Beach Runner" wrote :
>> >>
>> >> techfiddle wrote:
>> >>> NY Times:
>> >>>
>> >>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>> >> specific group
>> >> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>> >> An 80 year
>> >> old grandmother is just not a risk.
>> >
>> >My orchestra just took a trip to DC in June on a regional 55-seater.
>> >I suspect the only risk with these 20 some-odd people was that the
>> >flight attendants were at risk the group would commandeer
>> >the alcohol and peanut cart. ;-)
>> >
>> >> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>> >
>> >Amen.
>>
>> I saw a TSA guy interviewed on CNN this morning who was saying "You
>> wouldn't believe the stuff people try to bring on board planes... One
>> guy even tried to bring one of those old-fashioned hand-crank meat
>> grinders on..."
>>
>>> Even box-cutter knives. What's the problem? On 9/11 they were
>> effective because people were trained at that time to do what a
>> hijacker said, because the expectation was that the plane would be
>> re-routed somewhere and negotiations would happen, etc. At most, a
>> terrorist could kill a few people - but then he could do worse than
>> that with a box-cutter knife and any shopping mall in the country. But
>> after 9/11, no plane is going to be hijacked by people with little
>> teeny knives. The passengers would be all over them.
>
>If the passengers just threw all their books, bags and junk at them,
>threw
>blankets and pillows, they could have easily defeated them. It was
>unknown.
>
>The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
>wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
>any similar attack will ever work.
>
>Of course, excuse my stray from my left wing liberal bent, when a
>nation
>supports terrorists that attack the US, the logical response is to make
>the right example so nations know you don't do that. The US response
>was far too little too late.
>
>If they knew a country was supporting an attack against the US, you
>give
>them a few hours to hand them all over, or we take out that country.
>It may
>seem harsh, but the alternative is to amputate a limb a bit at the
>time.
>Far kinder and more effective to amputate the limb.
>
>If a nation knew that supporting those that make war against the US
>will
>no longer exist, that will be the end of this. Pure and simple. You
>provide
>the carrot and the stick.
>
>Either hand over Bin Landen and his friends today, or drop a bomb the
>next day. Then other countries would refuse to shelter the vermin.

Maybe other governments. But if we had nuked Afghanistan for not
handing over bin Laden, we would have created millions of bin Ladens
in his place. Ultimately, it would have been fatal for the US.

You sound like a medieval knight. You've developed armor and ride up
high on a horse where the enemy can't reach you and you have sharp
swords and maces. You feel invincible. If the enemy uses their
weapons on you, they will just bounce off.

And then you ride into the hornet's nest, and you quickly come to
realize that your metal armor is not going to save you.


>
>Limited actions have never and will never work.

They always work. It's the unlimited actions that usually fail,
because they over-reach and they are grounded in overconfidence. And
the enemy surprises you by coming up with a new approach that you had
not taken into account. And because you were brutal and ruthless with
the enemy, when you lose your invincibility, you have no credibility
to plead for civility from them.


>
>It's like this. A bully is on a bus. Finally someone stands up, and
>the bully backs off. The next day he is at it again. Alternative,
>the bully is beaten and beaten and beaten. He needs to beg for it
>to be stopped. He's beaten some more. That bully will never do
>it again, and other's will see the results.
>
>The world is in far greater danger because of a failed "humanistic"
>response.

Of course, there's no way to know that. I personally believe that a
more restrained approach has saved the world from all-out apocalyptic
war, in which only the 10% who survive will "win". Peaceful conflict
resolution is always preferable. If war becomes necessary, then so be
it. And I think it was necessary in Afghanistan. We need to kill al
Qaeda. But we need to kill *only* al Qaeda, otherwise we will make al
Qaeda stronger.


>
>How many more people would have been killed in Japan without
>the bomb? How many more millions? Some times what seems
>like the hardest response is the only appropriate response.
>
>That said, also note that the hijackers in England were turned
>in by good Muslim people.

And we would lose ALL those good Muslim people if we did as you
advocate. There are over a billion of them, and they would ALL be
against us. The US already has, for the most part, lost them. The
Pakistani who tipped of the Brits to the recent airplane plot would
probably not have tipped off the US because the Bush administration
has made most of the Muslim world hate us. Even those who would not
bomb us would now not lift a finger to help us.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-18 15:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
>
> And we would lose ALL those good Muslim people if we did as you
> advocate. There are over a billion of them, and they would ALL be
> against us. The US already has, for the most part, lost them. The
> Pakistani who tipped of the Brits to the recent airplane plot would
> probably not have tipped off the US because the Bush administration
> has made most of the Muslim world hate us.

Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
involved in the region.

Steve Hawkins
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-18 16:30:46 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2006 08:20:26 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>>
>> And we would lose ALL those good Muslim people if we did as you
>> advocate. There are over a billion of them, and they would ALL be
>> against us. The US already has, for the most part, lost them. The
>> Pakistani who tipped of the Brits to the recent airplane plot would
>> probably not have tipped off the US because the Bush administration
>> has made most of the Muslim world hate us.
>
>Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
>mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
>do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
>involved in the region.

You're right, I didn't mean to say that Bush is the original cause of
hating the US (and the West in general). After all, terrorist attacks
on the US were happening back when George W Bush was busy running
private companies into the ground.

But Bush has enlarged and deepened the hatred significantly by his
"crusade" - his war on Islam. Whether or not you or he perceive it as
a war on Islam, that's how a LOT of Muslims perceive it.

On 9/11/2001, most of the world was with us - even most of the Muslim
world. That is no longer true, and responsibility for that lies
squarely on Bush.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-18 21:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 08:20:26 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
> >
> >Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
> >mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
> >do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
> >involved in the region.
>
> You're right, I didn't mean to say that Bush is the original cause of
> hating the US (and the West in general). After all, terrorist attacks
> on the US were happening back when George W Bush was busy running
> private companies into the ground.
>
> But Bush has enlarged and deepened the hatred significantly by his
> "crusade" - his war on Islam. Whether or not you or he perceive it as
> a war on Islam, that's how a LOT of Muslims perceive it.
>
> On 9/11/2001, most of the world was with us - even most of the Muslim
> world. That is no longer true, and responsibility for that lies
> squarely on Bush.

IMHO the root cause can be traced back to the Crusades and probably
further back than that. Folks say we risk a religous war, I believe
there's never been a time when there hasn't been a war between the
extremists of each religion.

The world has long put up with terrorist acts. It's never been a
matter of if they'll strike again, it's always been when they'll strike
again. They don't wear uniforms, belong to a country's army and fight
on battlefields. They take their orders from a religous leader who
tells them to kill as many people as they can. It doesn't matter who
the victims are or what the believe. They kill their own as easy as
they kill us. They'll be very happy to kill you too. They take over
territory of soveriegn nations and defy the local Gov't. Other nations
use them as proxies to further their own agendas. Diplomacy has never
worked.

They will never stop and they will never go away, no matter how far you
retreat or pay them off . It's not about the usual things countries
war over. All that can be done is to make those who support them feel
the same pain the rest of the world is feeling.

You can blame all the worlds ills on Bush if you want, but It's a much
older and much larger conflict than Bush culd ever take credit for. It
won't stop when he leaves office and it wouldn't stop if all the
bracnhes of our Gov't. were hand selected by Howard Dean. 9/11 was
planned and prepped during the Clinton Admin. Where was the love then?

Steve Hawkins
Chris Rockcliffe
2006-08-19 02:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Steve Hawkins18/08/2006 22:10

> You can blame all the worlds ills on Bush if you want, but It's a much
> older and much larger conflict than Bush culd ever take credit for.

True - but even though he is just a front puppet President of the powerful
regime that controls him, he has overseen the 9/11 era and its aftermath;
including the continuing invasion and occupation of Iraq.

> 9/11 was planned and prepped during the Clinton Admin.

I think that is correct, since at least Clinton. But planned by who exactly
and with who involved - the right wing think-tanks behind the scenes, the
CIA, Israeli intelligence?

Why were a bunch of Israeli secret service personnel positioned on the New
Jersey side of the Hudson in advance of the 9/11 events to watch the planes
actually crash? How did they know? Was Mohammed Atta working for the CIA?
The CIA won't answer straight questions about anything. Just WTF was going
on there? There were too many strange occurrences and strange coincidences
that day - too many. Who masterminded 9/11? and why?

That's the question - or rather a few of the very very many unanswered
questions about 9/11. Let's talk about 9/11 and terrorist incidents in
Music NGs if you must - but at least let's get real about it. Some of us
here don't believe the official crap some of you others seem to believe
without question. We're starting from a totally different grid position.

The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as a
result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough to
melt steel) - but controlled explosions. Explosions witnessed in floor after
floor, by hundreds of people on the ground - NYC fire-fighters, NYC police,
NYC medics and other NYC civilians.

Why was molten metal found in the ground zero rubble?; why was it still
burning and smouldering weeks later with fire hoses turned on for weeks?;
was it the result of someone utilising and setting off specialist explosions
using special thermite reaction to bring down those structures and melt
steel - the chemical reactions still triggering weeks later as might be
expected in several hundred feet of rubble?; What reduced the steel
sections to pieces no bigger than a single story of the WTC 1 and 2
buildings?...

Who planted such devices and explosives - when and how? It must have taken
weeks or months to prepare those buildings to implode right to the ground in
a vertical collapse and in a very short time. They collapsed as the aircraft
fuel was almost all burned up...

Such photographed and recorded observations cannot be explained away with
official bullshit and no proper scientific back-up. Even some of the news
footage taken on that day has been sequestrated or not returned or
destroyed. These questions are fundamental and there are very many of them
- (300 to 350 of them at the last count) and have never been answered.

Who planted those explosives and how and when?; why was WTC 7 also
demolished later in the afternoon of that day?; it was largely undamaged by
the aircraft so why and what made it collapse?; was it the control center
for an demolition operation which was controlled from there and had to be
destroyed by a further explosion?.

No independent investigation by any experts in their field and examination
of the rubble at Ground Zero was ever allowed. NONE. The site was closed to
all but selected FEMA workers and very highly paid subcontracted employees.
The steel material was taken away in guarded trucks and put into ships and
taken off to Far East Asia to be melted down asap.

Why wasn't there any proper independent investigation into 9/11? What did
they have to hide by having a proper investigation. I think it seems clear
they did not want the truth to be known. But you cannot hide everything on
that scale.

What hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 is a massive
aircraft. Had such an aircraft hit the Pentagon it would have destroyed
about ten times as much of the building as was destroyed. Every air crash
expert in the world knows that. So what was it? And the videotape footage
(which would prove conclusively what it was) of the impact - removed 30
minutes from at least 10 cameras after the crash by the FBI - has never been
seen again.

9/11 was not what it was purported to be by the US Govt. Now you might
wonder why - not just a billion Muslims, but many people in the capitalist
non Muslim western world are wondering what exactly was/is going on.

And if you have a doubt that all is not right about the official version of
events, ask yourself who actually might be responsible for the deaths of
thousands of people that day. Lives sacrificed so that America could attack
the oil owning nations? First Iraq - now Iran on the cards...

In a survey in the 9/11 target - NYC, 80% of people did not believe the US
Govt's. version of events. Why is that do you think...? do they know
something you don't know? You bet your life they do. Everyone knows
someone with a different story in NYC. Until I get the whole truth - until
we all get the truth - I'm prepared to believe the worst is a very strong
possibility.

They aint fooling me and haven't for the last 4 years. What are they
hiding? The whole 9/11 thing sucks badly and not for the reasons we might
have all first thought. I'm angry that so many were murdered (thousands of
them not even US citizens) and angry that the USA powers truly believe they
they can get away with this heinous crime of immense proportions.

Too shocking to contemplate? - yes almost... If you think this was possibly
an inside job; or that the USA played a part in it; or just dismiss any
speculation stuff as pie-in-the-sky stuff, you better start asking why you
think that. Is Osama the real brains or was he created by the powers that
be to whip us all up into a frenzy of hatred?

Islamic extremism is real enough. Now we do have real Muslim extremist
terrorists - youngsters born in the UK - 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani
Muslims with heads filled full of hate and bullshit trying to raise the 9/11
bar in the horrors league even higher still (as if that were possible after
what we witnessed at 9/11). You wonder why many of us abroad don't trust you
any more... We aint seen the end of it by a long chalk.

The truth will out one day (too many people know about this shit) and the
American people will perhaps come to its senses and the grim realisation of
what their bastard leaders in power were/are really about. American power
mongers and so called world bankers have always meddled in world politics,
enacted economic strategies, started wars, revolutions, counter-revolutions,
aided terrorists aided wars - all in their own interests. They've been
doing it in a wider sense for 2 centuries - and now we can see what depths
they will stoop to - to realise their evil goals.

I cannot believe we in the UK were involved with this evil shit, but we as a
nation were and still are - very much so.

YMMV. I just get mad thinking about all those shattered lives.

CR
Bob Alman
2006-08-19 03:01:43 UTC
Permalink
In rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic Chris Rockcliffe <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as a
> result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough to
> melt steel)

I get tired of reading this pseudo science, Chris.
It's just like so many analyses that miss
important facts, like the fact that Aluminum burns
at over 4,100 K (6920?F), which is two-thirds the
temperature at the surface of the Sun. Aluminum
comprises a significant portion of the solid fuel
used in the space shuttle boosters. I read some
of that stuff, and to a layperson, it could be
compelling. What shoots the whole conspiracy
theory is when bullshit is presented as fact.
Another good one was when they complained that the
exposure was off when the explosion occurred at the
Pentagon. C'mon, ever hear of auto-exposure? The
fireball will change the exposure.

Another good one was the claim that black smoke
indicates a cool fire. It has ZERO to do with
it. There could be a 10,000 degree fire at the
source, and smoky fires surrounding the fire.

I think there are some holes in the facts, but
that report you refer to is loaded with nonsense.

--
Bob Alman
Chris Rockcliffe
2006-08-19 03:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Bob Alman19/08/2006 4:01

> In rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic Chris Rockcliffe
> <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as a
>> result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough to
>> melt steel)
>
> I think there are some holes in the facts

Some holes in the facts Bob? LOL sheesh... There are holes in the facts
you could sail a metaphorical fucking aircraft carrier through...

Your Government is LYING with a ton of bullshit about 9/11. They have now
been forced to back-track on so many aspects of this and change their story
so many times that they are shitting themselves about the entire can of
worms opening up. And it will. On that there is no doubt. I want to know
the truth about 9/11. There are over 300 unanswered question that I've
read so far.

If the buildings were demolished by controlled explosion - and hundreds
witnessed those explosions close by - then who demolished them and why? Who
set the explosives up and when and why and who detonated them at precisely
the right time and how?

What hit the Pentagon? It clearly was not a huge Boeing 757 so what was it?
Why do they continually to try and make idiots of the world's aviation
experts and crash investigators. They are not stupid and they are not
swallowing the Bush bullshit. But the FBI refuse to release the video tapes
of the impact at the Pentagon? Why not take a look at some more of the many
many unanswered questions?

I've never believed the official story since day 1. It stinks - the whole
fucking shebang stinks of a massive and badly attempted plot and cover-up.
I watch and read with interest as the private investigations continue and
more of the facts and damning evidence leaks out and whistle blowers com
forward.

YMMV - and yes these are my opinions shared by many others. I've read a
fuck of a lot on this over the last 4-5 years. I've read the 9/11 Commission
Report. I've read the detailed criticism and counter criticism.

BTW - Why do you feel the need to change the header yet again by adding
another question mark? That's worthy of your own dorkometer surely?

CR
Don L n FTW
2006-08-19 04:03:16 UTC
Permalink
>> <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as
>>> a
>>> result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough
>>> to
>>> melt steel)
>>
> Your Government is LYING with a ton of bullshit about 9/11.>
>



If the buildings were demolished by controlled explosion - and hundreds
> witnessed those explosions close by - then who demolished them and why?
> Who
> set the explosives up and when and why and who detonated them at precisely
> the right time and how?
>
> What hit the Pentagon? It clearly was not a huge Boeing 757 so what was
> it?

> I've never believed the official story since day 1. It stinks - the whole
> fucking shebang stinks of a massive and badly attempted plot and cover-up.
>
> YMMV - and yes these are my opinions shared by many others.
>
> CR
>

Now I understand why the government in the UK took firearms from the
citizens..............
Don L.
Chris Rockcliffe
2006-08-19 04:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Don L n FTW19/08/2006 5:03

>>> <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as a
>>>> result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough to
>>>> melt steel)
>>>>
>> Your Government is LYING with a ton of bullshit about 9/11.>

> If the buildings were demolished by controlled explosion - and hundreds
> witnessed those explosions close by - then who demolished them and why? Who
> set the explosives up and when and why and who detonated them at precisely the
> right time and how?
>
>> What hit the Pentagon? It clearly was not a huge Boeing 757 so what was it?
>>
>> I've never believed the official story since day 1. It stinks - the whole
>> fucking shebang stinks of a massive and badly attempted plot and cover-up.
>>
>> YMMV - and yes these are my opinions shared by many others.
>> CR
>
> Now I understand why the government in the UK took firearms from the
> citizens.............. Don L.

And your point about the points raised was? Zilch.

Ad hominem stuff... But I guess you should hang onto your firearms - you
may need them to fight a totalitarian regime in the not too distant. You
certainly don't have a democracy.

CR
William Graham
2006-08-19 04:12:34 UTC
Permalink
"Chris Rockcliffe" <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C10C373D.8BA09%***@scripto99.demon.co.uk...
> Steve Hawkins18/08/2006 22:10
>
>> You can blame all the worlds ills on Bush if you want, but It's a much
>> older and much larger conflict than Bush culd ever take credit for.
>
> True - but even though he is just a front puppet President of the powerful
> regime that controls him, he has overseen the 9/11 era and its aftermath;
> including the continuing invasion and occupation of Iraq.
>
>> 9/11 was planned and prepped during the Clinton Admin.
>
> I think that is correct, since at least Clinton. But planned by who
> exactly
> and with who involved - the right wing think-tanks behind the scenes, the
> CIA, Israeli intelligence?
>
> Why were a bunch of Israeli secret service personnel positioned on the New
> Jersey side of the Hudson in advance of the 9/11 events to watch the
> planes
> actually crash? How did they know? Was Mohammed Atta working for the CIA?
> The CIA won't answer straight questions about anything. Just WTF was going
> on there? There were too many strange occurrences and strange coincidences
> that day - too many. Who masterminded 9/11? and why?
>
> That's the question - or rather a few of the very very many unanswered
> questions about 9/11. Let's talk about 9/11 and terrorist incidents in
> Music NGs if you must - but at least let's get real about it. Some of us
> here don't believe the official crap some of you others seem to believe
> without question. We're starting from a totally different grid position.
>
> The towers WTC 1 and 2 and later on in the day - WTC 7 ALL came down as a
> result - not of burning aircraft fuel (Kerosene does not burn hot enough
> to
> melt steel) - but controlled explosions. Explosions witnessed in floor
> after
> floor, by hundreds of people on the ground - NYC fire-fighters, NYC
> police,
> NYC medics and other NYC civilians.
>
> Why was molten metal found in the ground zero rubble?; why was it still
> burning and smouldering weeks later with fire hoses turned on for weeks?;
> was it the result of someone utilising and setting off specialist
> explosions
> using special thermite reaction to bring down those structures and melt
> steel - the chemical reactions still triggering weeks later as might be
> expected in several hundred feet of rubble?; What reduced the steel
> sections to pieces no bigger than a single story of the WTC 1 and 2
> buildings?...
>
> Who planted such devices and explosives - when and how? It must have taken
> weeks or months to prepare those buildings to implode right to the ground
> in
> a vertical collapse and in a very short time. They collapsed as the
> aircraft
> fuel was almost all burned up...
>
> Such photographed and recorded observations cannot be explained away with
> official bullshit and no proper scientific back-up. Even some of the news
> footage taken on that day has been sequestrated or not returned or
> destroyed. These questions are fundamental and there are very many of
> them
> - (300 to 350 of them at the last count) and have never been answered.
>
> Who planted those explosives and how and when?; why was WTC 7 also
> demolished later in the afternoon of that day?; it was largely undamaged
> by
> the aircraft so why and what made it collapse?; was it the control center
> for an demolition operation which was controlled from there and had to be
> destroyed by a further explosion?.
>
> No independent investigation by any experts in their field and examination
> of the rubble at Ground Zero was ever allowed. NONE. The site was closed
> to
> all but selected FEMA workers and very highly paid subcontracted
> employees.
> The steel material was taken away in guarded trucks and put into ships and
> taken off to Far East Asia to be melted down asap.
>
> Why wasn't there any proper independent investigation into 9/11? What did
> they have to hide by having a proper investigation. I think it seems
> clear
> they did not want the truth to be known. But you cannot hide everything
> on
> that scale.
>
> What hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 is a massive
> aircraft. Had such an aircraft hit the Pentagon it would have destroyed
> about ten times as much of the building as was destroyed. Every air crash
> expert in the world knows that. So what was it? And the videotape footage
> (which would prove conclusively what it was) of the impact - removed 30
> minutes from at least 10 cameras after the crash by the FBI - has never
> been
> seen again.
>
> 9/11 was not what it was purported to be by the US Govt. Now you might
> wonder why - not just a billion Muslims, but many people in the capitalist
> non Muslim western world are wondering what exactly was/is going on.
>
> And if you have a doubt that all is not right about the official version
> of
> events, ask yourself who actually might be responsible for the deaths of
> thousands of people that day. Lives sacrificed so that America could
> attack
> the oil owning nations? First Iraq - now Iran on the cards...
>
> In a survey in the 9/11 target - NYC, 80% of people did not believe the US
> Govt's. version of events. Why is that do you think...? do they know
> something you don't know? You bet your life they do. Everyone knows
> someone with a different story in NYC. Until I get the whole truth -
> until
> we all get the truth - I'm prepared to believe the worst is a very strong
> possibility.
>
> They aint fooling me and haven't for the last 4 years. What are they
> hiding? The whole 9/11 thing sucks badly and not for the reasons we might
> have all first thought. I'm angry that so many were murdered (thousands of
> them not even US citizens) and angry that the USA powers truly believe
> they
> they can get away with this heinous crime of immense proportions.
>
> Too shocking to contemplate? - yes almost... If you think this was
> possibly
> an inside job; or that the USA played a part in it; or just dismiss any
> speculation stuff as pie-in-the-sky stuff, you better start asking why you
> think that. Is Osama the real brains or was he created by the powers that
> be to whip us all up into a frenzy of hatred?
>
> Islamic extremism is real enough. Now we do have real Muslim extremist
> terrorists - youngsters born in the UK - 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani
> Muslims with heads filled full of hate and bullshit trying to raise the
> 9/11
> bar in the horrors league even higher still (as if that were possible
> after
> what we witnessed at 9/11). You wonder why many of us abroad don't trust
> you
> any more... We aint seen the end of it by a long chalk.
>
> The truth will out one day (too many people know about this shit) and the
> American people will perhaps come to its senses and the grim realisation
> of
> what their bastard leaders in power were/are really about. American power
> mongers and so called world bankers have always meddled in world politics,
> enacted economic strategies, started wars, revolutions,
> counter-revolutions,
> aided terrorists aided wars - all in their own interests. They've been
> doing it in a wider sense for 2 centuries - and now we can see what depths
> they will stoop to - to realise their evil goals.
>
> I cannot believe we in the UK were involved with this evil shit, but we as
> a
> nation were and still are - very much so.
>
> YMMV. I just get mad thinking about all those shattered lives.
>
> CR
>
>
What a bunch of unmitigated BS! I bet you believe in flying saucers and
Bigfoot, too.........
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-19 03:51:46 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2006 14:10:24 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2006 08:20:26 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
>> >
>> >Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
>> >mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
>> >do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
>> >involved in the region.
>>
>> You're right, I didn't mean to say that Bush is the original cause of
>> hating the US (and the West in general). After all, terrorist attacks
>> on the US were happening back when George W Bush was busy running
>> private companies into the ground.
>>
>> But Bush has enlarged and deepened the hatred significantly by his
>> "crusade" - his war on Islam. Whether or not you or he perceive it as
>> a war on Islam, that's how a LOT of Muslims perceive it.
>>
>> On 9/11/2001, most of the world was with us - even most of the Muslim
>> world. That is no longer true, and responsibility for that lies
>> squarely on Bush.
>
>IMHO the root cause can be traced back to the Crusades and probably
>further back than that. Folks say we risk a religous war, I believe
>there's never been a time when there hasn't been a war between the
>extremists of each religion.
>
>The world has long put up with terrorist acts. It's never been a
>matter of if they'll strike again, it's always been when they'll strike
>again. They don't wear uniforms, belong to a country's army and fight
>on battlefields. They take their orders from a religous leader who
>tells them to kill as many people as they can. It doesn't matter who
>the victims are or what the believe. They kill their own as easy as
>they kill us. They'll be very happy to kill you too. They take over
>territory of soveriegn nations and defy the local Gov't. Other nations
>use them as proxies to further their own agendas. Diplomacy has never
>worked.
>
>They will never stop and they will never go away, no matter how far you
>retreat or pay them off . It's not about the usual things countries
>war over. All that can be done is to make those who support them feel
>the same pain the rest of the world is feeling.
>
>You can blame all the worlds ills on Bush if you want, but It's a much
>older and much larger conflict than Bush culd ever take credit for. It
>won't stop when he leaves office and it wouldn't stop if all the
>bracnhes of our Gov't. were hand selected by Howard Dean. 9/11 was
>planned and prepped during the Clinton Admin. Where was the love then?
>
>Steve Hawkins


Everything you said is true. Both Christianity and Islam are
expansionist religions, aggressively seeking territory and converts.
And there have always been and may always be clashes between them.

But there have been better times and worse times, and these are worse
times. I don't know that I would trace the current situation back to
the crusades - I think I would just go back to the creation of Israel
in the mid to late 40's. And then the behavior of the US oil
interests since then haven't helped. The CIA's involvement in Iran
set the stage for the Iranian revolution, and the US's friendliness
towards the Shah, including Carter's humanitarian gesture of allowing
the Shah into the US for medical treatment provided and excuse to whip
up anti-US fervor. And Reagan's incursion into Lebanon ended badly
and didn't help.

But things really started to go south during Bush I - when the US sent
troops into the region in quantity for the first time. That was a big
mistake and led directly to 9/11. Clinton kept those troops there -
he should have brought them all back home. So he bears some blame as
well. But it took George W Bush and his cowboy shoot-em-up philosophy
that prides itself on its arrogance and ignorance to really screw
things up.

Bottom line is this: IT'S THEIR COUNTRY, IT'S THEIR REGION. Our
troops do not belong there, and as long as they are there, there will
be escalating terrorist attacks against us. Bush and the neocons have
no intention of leaving - the whole point of invading Iraq was to
create a *permanent* US military presence in the Middle East. It's
all there in the PNAC documents. They think it's a good thing for the
US to project power into the region and try to dominate the Middle
East.

I have to question the wisdom of someone looking at the region, at how
screwed up it has been forever, especially since the creation of
Israel, and saying "We oughta send troops there and get involved!"
It's just sheer stupidity.
William Graham
2006-08-18 23:53:46 UTC
Permalink
"Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>

Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
> mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
> do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
> involved in the region.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>
Not only that, but how little must people think of the, "Muslim people" if
they think that all of them hate all Americans for the rest of time because
of G Bush, who is just another one of an endless chain of presidents
stretching from 1776 to ?. Just because the liberals hate Bush, that doesn't
mean that the rest of the world is that stupid.....I happen to know some
very enlightened Muslims who know that the beginning and end of all American
policies isn't G. Bush........
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-19 03:57:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:53:46 -0700, "William Graham"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:***@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>Look, you don't like Bush, fine, but to lay 100 plus years worth of
>> mid-east discontent all on his shulders is ridiculous. I suggest you
>> do some research, starting back when the European powers were heavily
>> involved in the region.
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>>
>Not only that, but how little must people think of the, "Muslim people" if
>they think that all of them hate all Americans for the rest of time because
>of G Bush,

But nobody thinks that - that's just another of your weird fantasies -
like your irrational fear of flying.

> who is just another one of an endless chain of presidents
>stretching from 1776 to ?. Just because the liberals hate Bush, that doesn't
>mean that the rest of the world is that stupid.

If you have been paying attention, you'd know the rest of the world
*does* hate Bush. Even *within* the US, he has one of the lowest
approval ratings ever.

>....I happen to know some
>very enlightened Muslims who know that the beginning and end of all American
>policies isn't G. Bush........


Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab nation, just as bin Laden said he would.
He even called it a "crusade". This does not play well in Arab
nations. Bush is playing right into the hands of the radical Muslims.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-18 15:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:
>
> The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
> wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
> any similar attack will ever work.

hmmmm....as I recall the plane went straight into the ground, killing
all aboard. Terrorists 1, Passengers 0.

As I understand it, the recent plot was to destroy the planes enroute,
over the Atlantic. If they had been able to board, I doubt the
passengers woulb have been able to stop them. They wouldn't have known
they were in danger until they showed up at St. Pete's gate.

The shoe bomber was stopped because he was trying to light his shoe in
the main cabin, not something you see a lot of. If he had gone into
the bathroom, he probably would have succeeded, if the device
functioned.

Also, keep in mind that if an airliner is taken in air and deviates
from it's flight plan or goes silent, the Military will intercept. If
they can't communicate with it and/or it won't obey their orders, they
will destroy it to protect those on the ground. Terrorists 2,
Passengers 0.

Steve Hawkins
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-18 16:33:46 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2006 08:04:06 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>> The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
>> wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
>> any similar attack will ever work.
>
>hmmmm....as I recall the plane went straight into the ground, killing
>all aboard. Terrorists 1, Passengers 0.
>
>As I understand it, the recent plot was to destroy the planes enroute,
>over the Atlantic. If they had been able to board, I doubt the
>passengers woulb have been able to stop them. They wouldn't have known
>they were in danger until they showed up at St. Pete's gate.
>
>The shoe bomber was stopped because he was trying to light his shoe in
>the main cabin, not something you see a lot of. If he had gone into
>the bathroom, he probably would have succeeded, if the device
>functioned.
>
>Also, keep in mind that if an airliner is taken in air and deviates
>from it's flight plan or goes silent, the Military will intercept. If
>they can't communicate with it and/or it won't obey their orders, they
>will destroy it to protect those on the ground. Terrorists 2,
>Passengers 0.


It is true that terrorists could blow up or otherwise destroy a plane
in flight. But it's not likely that they will ever again be able to
take control of a passenger airliner. Unless perhaps they manage to
infiltrate the airlines and have one of theirs as the pilot.
Beach Runner
2006-08-18 17:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Steve Hawkins wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> >
> > The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
> > wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
> > any similar attack will ever work.
>
> hmmmm....as I recall the plane went straight into the ground, killing
> all aboard. Terrorists 1, Passengers 0.
>
> As I understand it, the recent plot was to destroy the planes enroute,
> over the Atlantic. If they had been able to board, I doubt the
> passengers woulb have been able to stop them. They wouldn't have known
> they were in danger until they showed up at St. Pete's gate.
>
> The shoe bomber was stopped because he was trying to light his shoe in
> the main cabin, not something you see a lot of. If he had gone into
> the bathroom, he probably would have succeeded, if the device
> functioned.
>
> Also, keep in mind that if an airliner is taken in air and deviates
> from it's flight plan or goes silent, the Military will intercept. If
> they can't communicate with it and/or it won't obey their orders, they
> will destroy it to protect those on the ground. Terrorists 2,
> Passengers 0.
>
> Steve Hawkins

The point is that they will never be able to use an aircraft as a
guided
missile.
Steve Hawkins
2006-08-18 19:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:
> Steve Hawkins wrote:
> > Beach Runner wrote:
> > >
> > > The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
> > > wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
> > > any similar attack will ever work.
> >
> > hmmmm....as I recall the plane went straight into the ground, killing
> > all aboard. Terrorists 1, Passengers 0.
> >
> > As I understand it, the recent plot was to destroy the planes enroute,
> > over the Atlantic. If they had been able to board, I doubt the
> > passengers woulb have been able to stop them. They wouldn't have known
> > they were in danger until they showed up at St. Pete's gate.
> >
> > The shoe bomber was stopped because he was trying to light his shoe in
> > the main cabin, not something you see a lot of. If he had gone into
> > the bathroom, he probably would have succeeded, if the device
> > functioned.
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that if an airliner is taken in air and deviates
> > from it's flight plan or goes silent, the Military will intercept. If
> > they can't communicate with it and/or it won't obey their orders, they
> > will destroy it to protect those on the ground. Terrorists 2,
> > Passengers 0.
> >
> > Steve Hawkins
>
> The point is that they will never be able to use an aircraft as a
> guided
> missile.

Sorry, not proven. Ever heard of cargo and charter planes?

Steve Hawkins
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-18 21:30:53 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2006 12:02:25 -0700, "Steve Hawkins" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>Beach Runner wrote:
>> Steve Hawkins wrote:
>> > Beach Runner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The one time the passengers became aware of the problem, that plane
>> > > wasn't going anywhere. Now that everyone is aware, there's no way
>> > > any similar attack will ever work.
>> >
>> > hmmmm....as I recall the plane went straight into the ground, killing
>> > all aboard. Terrorists 1, Passengers 0.
>> >
>> > As I understand it, the recent plot was to destroy the planes enroute,
>> > over the Atlantic. If they had been able to board, I doubt the
>> > passengers woulb have been able to stop them. They wouldn't have known
>> > they were in danger until they showed up at St. Pete's gate.
>> >
>> > The shoe bomber was stopped because he was trying to light his shoe in
>> > the main cabin, not something you see a lot of. If he had gone into
>> > the bathroom, he probably would have succeeded, if the device
>> > functioned.
>> >
>> > Also, keep in mind that if an airliner is taken in air and deviates
>> > from it's flight plan or goes silent, the Military will intercept. If
>> > they can't communicate with it and/or it won't obey their orders, they
>> > will destroy it to protect those on the ground. Terrorists 2,
>> > Passengers 0.
>> >
>> > Steve Hawkins
>>
>> The point is that they will never be able to use an aircraft as a
>> guided
>> missile.
>
>Sorry, not proven. Ever heard of cargo and charter planes?


That's true. But forcing musicians to stow their Stradivarii in the
baggag compartment and not bring a bottle of water on board is not
going to change that.
don hindenach
2006-08-18 23:25:30 UTC
Permalink
please consider this article:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/>

--
-don hindenach-
donh at audiosys dot com
NASA
2006-08-16 01:41:14 UTC
Permalink
I fly a lot. More than most airline pilots each year I suppose.

Reality was learning from an airline employee the reason the airlines
used to stop and take elderly and airline employees in uniform to
secondary was to lessen the inconvenience to the general traveling
population. I was stunned when I watched Ray Charles taken into
secondary before going down the ramp (when they used to 'randomly'
select passengers).

I was stunned when I watched a Continental employee take Bruce
Springstein, his teen age son and a large black travel companion to the
front of the line in NJ after a long flight from the middle east and
hopes of making the connection to the West Coast. I was pissed when the
TSA guard put him through secondary search and further delay the line.
Then, their Captain and a number of other guards came over to shake his
hand... Idiots.

I am stunned when the TSA guard at DFW doesn't require me to take off my
sandal's when going through the detector, pissed when the guard at at
JFK says I can leave them on when I protest but then, I would have to go
through secondary.

Angry to watch the teen be told he can't bring his guitar in the soft
case onto the plane in Sao Paulo but pray the mariachi band who did
bring on their instruments in Mexico City isn't allowed going to play
while I can hand carry a Fender on 3 different flights from San Diego to
Israel.

Everyone who flies is a victim. Anyone on the ground under the planes
are potential victims because the terrorists have shown how incompetent
out Homeland Security really is.

Just 2 cents



Beach Runner wrote:
> techfiddle wrote:
>> NY Times:
>>
>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>
>
> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> specific group
> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> An 80 year
> old grandmother is just not a risk.
>
> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>
> How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>
> Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>
> Bob
>
William Graham
2006-08-16 02:10:10 UTC
Permalink
"NASA" <***@satsec.net> wrote in message
news:***@satsec.net...
>I fly a lot. More than most airline pilots each year I suppose.
>
> Reality was learning from an airline employee the reason the airlines used
> to stop and take elderly and airline employees in uniform to secondary was
> to lessen the inconvenience to the general traveling population. I was
> stunned when I watched Ray Charles taken into secondary before going down
> the ramp (when they used to 'randomly' select passengers).
>
> I was stunned when I watched a Continental employee take Bruce
> Springstein, his teen age son and a large black travel companion to the
> front of the line in NJ after a long flight from the middle east and hopes
> of making the connection to the West Coast. I was pissed when the TSA
> guard put him through secondary search and further delay the line. Then,
> their Captain and a number of other guards came over to shake his hand...
> Idiots.
>
> I am stunned when the TSA guard at DFW doesn't require me to take off my
> sandal's when going through the detector, pissed when the guard at at JFK
> says I can leave them on when I protest but then, I would have to go
> through secondary.
>
> Angry to watch the teen be told he can't bring his guitar in the soft case
> onto the plane in Sao Paulo but pray the mariachi band who did bring on
> their instruments in Mexico City isn't allowed going to play while I can
> hand carry a Fender on 3 different flights from San Diego to Israel.
>
> Everyone who flies is a victim. Anyone on the ground under the planes are
> potential victims because the terrorists have shown how incompetent out
> Homeland Security really is.
>
> Just 2 cents

Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. - I
am sorry that people like you and your employers have to suffer because of
the stupidity of the government, but then, I am 70, and have watched the
government and its policies grow more and more stupid as the years flew by,
so I am not surprised at the gross stupidity they have shown since 9/11/01.
Through cleaver ground work, the British just uncovered a plot to mix
explosives en route, and the governments answer to this is to prevent little
old ladies from carrying toothpaste in their carry-ons.....I wonder just
what it is about, "cleaver ground work" that they don't understand? I have
known for a long time that a photographer could fill a camera lens with
nitro, or some other clear liquid explosive, and utterly demolish a plane in
flight, but they haven't even bothered to inspect lenses when taken as
carry-on items. They are, beyond a doubt, the stupidest bunch if idiots that
I have ever seen or imagined, and this is why I wouldn't fly anywhere today.
I pity someone like you, who has to fly for a living.....If I were you, I
would insist on inspecting my own passengers, totally separate from the
inspections done by the NTSB, on the grounds that they are far too
incompetent to be charged with such an important responsibility.
Karl Perry
2006-08-16 02:59:29 UTC
Permalink
"William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "NASA" <***@satsec.net> wrote in message
> news:***@satsec.net...

<snip - please, people: snip the non-relevant portions of posts to which you
are replying!>

> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. -
> I

Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion foolish.

I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have never had
a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last Thursday
...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is about 15
minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same as it was prior
to 9/11.

I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has been
stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.

Karl
William Graham
2006-08-16 03:36:08 UTC
Permalink
"Karl Perry" <***@SPAMcablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:***@cablespeedwa.com...
>
> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>>
>> "NASA" <***@satsec.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@satsec.net...
>
> <snip - please, people: snip the non-relevant portions of posts to which
> you are replying!>
>
>> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
>> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. -
>> I
>
> Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
> travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion foolish.
>
> I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have never
> had a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last
> Thursday ...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is
> about 15 minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same as
> it was prior to 9/11.
>
> I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has been
> stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
> government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.
>
> Karl
That's easy for you to say....You are still alive.....:^) With a little bad
luck, your remains would be scattered over a couple of dozen acres of turf,
and you wouldn't be able to post here or anywhere else. I, on the other
hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means that
I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents. Oh, sure, I might
just have been lucky too, but at least I can say that I didn't depend on
pure luck.....I went through life being at least a little bit cognizant of
the things going on around me, and only taking chances when I was fully
aware of the risk-reward curves involved.
The idiots at the airports aren't the only reason why I don't do much
air traveling.....Being universally hated by most of the world has also done
its little bit in molding my decision too. Why go and spend my hard earned
money where people treat me like s***? I can be treated that way right here
at home for nothing. But I have had no trouble finding people who actually
like having me spend my money with them, and are always glad to see me come
in through their front door. All in all, I am quite comfortable with my
choices in retirement.
William Graham
2006-08-16 03:50:59 UTC
Permalink
> "Karl Perry" <***@SPAMcablespeed.com> wrote in message


Ps....Violins and other wooden instruments are treated quite differently
from horns. Horns are all brass and set off a myriad of alarms in the
idiot's detection equipment....Even the NTSB regulations I read (an hour or
so ago in another post) say that horns must be put on checked baggage, and
can't be carried on board. Any incompetent could tell in about two minutes
that a trumpet isn't a bomb, and has no chance of being turned into one. He
could hand it to me and ask me to play a scale for him and know immediately
that it didn't contain anything other than airport air. - No. - The fact of
the matter is, I just don't need it, and won't subject myself to it. After
all, it's the only way I have to protest.....Keeping my money safely tucked
away in my own pocket. If we all did that, they would change their rules
overnight.......
James
2006-08-16 05:16:02 UTC
Permalink
"William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-8SdnbatW-***@comcast.com...

> Keeping my money safely tucked
> away in my own pocket. If we all did that, they would change their rules
> overnight.......

While you're right that the gubbmint isn't renowned for brilliant insight, I
can see why the immediate and comprehensive crackdown on liquid(ish) items
after the recent almost incident. The fact is they didn't and still don't
know that they got all of the involved plotters, nor the scope of the plot.
They got that group of 20-plus but what about elsewhere?

Since they knew the general methodology of the planned attack, I would have
to agree it was prudent to ban substances such as might be involved until
they get their bearings and have time to assess things. I believe they're
already relaxed certain restrictions. And they can't very well say - elderly
white ladies can bring a bottle of liquid on board, swarthy men with an
accent, move over here for a pat-down.
St. John Smythe
2006-08-16 09:28:26 UTC
Permalink
James wrote:
> And they can't very well say - elderly
> white ladies can bring a bottle of liquid on board, swarthy men with an
> accent, move over here for a pat-down.

Oh, they perfectly well could, but they won't, because the political
correctness movement has neutered our good judgment.

When you have excellent but limited resources for screening passengers,
which makes more sense: doing intelligent profiling, or picking half the
passengers at random for more scrutiny?

--
St. John
Mandrell: "You know what I think?"
Doctor: "Ah, ah that's a catch question. With a brain your size you
don't think, right?"
-Dr. Who
David Kilpatrick
2006-08-16 11:43:03 UTC
Permalink
James wrote:
> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-8SdnbatW-***@comcast.com...
>
>
>>Keeping my money safely tucked
>>away in my own pocket. If we all did that, they would change their rules
>>overnight.......
>
>
> While you're right that the gubbmint isn't renowned for brilliant insight, I
> can see why the immediate and comprehensive crackdown on liquid(ish) items
> after the recent almost incident. The fact is they didn't and still don't
> know that they got all of the involved plotters, nor the scope of the plot.
> They got that group of 20-plus but what about elsewhere?
>
> Since they knew the general methodology of the planned attack, I would have
> to agree it was prudent to ban substances such as might be involved until
> they get their bearings and have time to assess things. I believe they're
> already relaxed certain restrictions. And they can't very well say - elderly
> white ladies can bring a bottle of liquid on board, swarthy men with an
> accent, move over here for a pat-down.
>
>
>

Glasgow Airport heaves a sigh of relief, anyway. The schemies with their
'mineral water' carried on (containing neat vodka to avoid paying
in-flight booze prices) can at least be prevent from getting violently
drunk on 'water' on their way to Malaga.

David
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:09:49 UTC
Permalink
"James" <***@xyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSxEg.9504$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-8SdnbatW-***@comcast.com...
>
>> Keeping my money safely tucked
>> away in my own pocket. If we all did that, they would change their rules
>> overnight.......
>
> While you're right that the gubbmint isn't renowned for brilliant insight,
> I
> can see why the immediate and comprehensive crackdown on liquid(ish) items
> after the recent almost incident. The fact is they didn't and still don't
> know that they got all of the involved plotters, nor the scope of the
> plot.
> They got that group of 20-plus but what about elsewhere?
>
> Since they knew the general methodology of the planned attack, I would
> have
> to agree it was prudent to ban substances such as might be involved until
> they get their bearings and have time to assess things. I believe they're
> already relaxed certain restrictions. And they can't very well say -
> elderly
> white ladies can bring a bottle of liquid on board, swarthy men with an
> accent, move over here for a pat-down.
>
>
>
No. But they can hire people with common sense, and then expect them to use
it. But they do the same thing with judges....They hire experts with 20+
years of experience in legal work, and then usurp their opinions with a
piece of paper that says, "Convicted of crime X = punishment Y. - No
exceptions....."
Beach Runner
2006-08-16 11:16:24 UTC
Permalink
William Graham wrote:
>!>
> >
> >> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
> >> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. -
> >> I
> >
> > Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
> > travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion foolish.
> >
> > I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have never
> > had a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last
> > Thursday ...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is
> > about 15 minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same as
> > it was prior to 9/11.
> >
> > I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has been
> > stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
> > government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.
> >
> > Karl
> That's easy for you to say....You are still alive.....:^) With a little bad
> luck, your remains would be scattered over a couple of dozen acres of turf,
> and you wouldn't be able to post here or anywhere else. I, on the other
> hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means that
> I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents. Oh, sure, I might
> just have been lucky too, but at least I can say that I didn't depend on
> pure luck.....I went through life being at least a little bit cognizant of
> the things going on around me, and only taking chances when I was fully
> aware of the risk-reward curves involved.
>

Put things into perspective. By far, the most dangerous part of an
international flight is,,,,,, driving to the airport. There you face
cars driven
by idiots. Now that is really dangerous.

The US, which has faced two acts of terrorist is 25th on the life
expectancy
rate. Israel, which faces terrorism on a daily basis, stands at 7th
place, with
terrorism related deaths no where near the top.

The terrorists have won, when the make people terrified. It's like the
Elephant
jumping on the table in fear for the mouse.

Are terrorists real? Of course, but come on. Let's focus the
investigation
or realistic targets.
m***@skyway.usask.ca
2006-08-16 07:54:55 UTC
Permalink
In a previous article, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>William Graham wrote:
>>!>
>> >
>> >> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
>> >> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. -
>> >> I
>> >
>> > Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
>> > travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion foolish.
>> >
There *are* other ways to travel: bus, train, car ...
To bring the topic back to bagpipes - I wouldn't take them
out of the country because they have ivory mounts.
If I wanted to take them with me on a domestic flight I
would get an iron clad guarantee that I could take them
as carry on - and if that ICG was abrogated - I would
cancel my reservation and try to get a refund. It's only
money ... whereas a musical instrument is a musical instrument.
Chris
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:26:32 UTC
Permalink
"Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> William Graham wrote:
>>!>
>> >
>> >> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly
>> >> after
>> >> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and
>> >> worse. -
>> >> I
>> >
>> > Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
>> > travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion
>> > foolish.
>> >
>> > I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have
>> > never
>> > had a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last
>> > Thursday ...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is
>> > about 15 minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same
>> > as
>> > it was prior to 9/11.
>> >
>> > I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has
>> > been
>> > stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
>> > government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.
>> >
>> > Karl
>> That's easy for you to say....You are still alive.....:^) With a little
>> bad
>> luck, your remains would be scattered over a couple of dozen acres of
>> turf,
>> and you wouldn't be able to post here or anywhere else. I, on the other
>> hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means
>> that
>> I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents. Oh, sure, I
>> might
>> just have been lucky too, but at least I can say that I didn't depend on
>> pure luck.....I went through life being at least a little bit cognizant
>> of
>> the things going on around me, and only taking chances when I was fully
>> aware of the risk-reward curves involved.
>>
>
> Put things into perspective. By far, the most dangerous part of an
> international flight is,,,,,, driving to the airport. There you face
> cars driven
> by idiots. Now that is really dangerous.
>
> The US, which has faced two acts of terrorist is 25th on the life
> expectancy
> rate. Israel, which faces terrorism on a daily basis, stands at 7th
> place, with
> terrorism related deaths no where near the top.
>
> The terrorists have won, when the make people terrified. It's like the
> Elephant
> jumping on the table in fear for the mouse.

I agree with this...The terrorists have won. but that's not my fault.....I
keep writing letters and telling the government what to do. I can't help it
if they are idiots. They and their dumb policies are the reason the
terrorists have won, so now, all I can do is hide and make sure my guns are
in good working order......

>
> Are terrorists real? Of course, but come on. Let's focus the
> investigation
> or realistic targets.
>

Be glad to....but you are preaching to the choir....Tell your government
what to do and how to do it. I am getting too old and tired.
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 13:19:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:36:08 -0700, "William Graham"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Karl Perry" <***@SPAMcablespeed.com> wrote in message
>news:***@cablespeedwa.com...
>>
>> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "NASA" <***@satsec.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@satsec.net...
>>
>> <snip - please, people: snip the non-relevant portions of posts to which
>> you are replying!>
>>
>>> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
>>> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and worse. -
>>> I
>>
>> Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
>> travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion foolish.
>>
>> I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have never
>> had a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last
>> Thursday ...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is
>> about 15 minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same as
>> it was prior to 9/11.
>>
>> I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has been
>> stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
>> government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.
>>
>> Karl
>That's easy for you to say....You are still alive.....:^)

Thus proving his point.


> With a little bad
>luck, your remains would be scattered over a couple of dozen acres of turf,
>and you wouldn't be able to post here or anywhere else.

That's *always* been true, and always will, terrorists or not. In
fact, since there have been no terrorist hijackings since 9/11, but
there have been quite a few crashes, terrorism ranks very low on the
list of things that might hurt you.


> I, on the other
>hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means that
>I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents.

And you are purposely limiting your life and not doing things that you
might like to do, just because of some irrational fears. Karl is
right - you are giving in to the nonsense and you are NOT being wise.

> Oh, sure, I might
>just have been lucky too, but at least I can say that I didn't depend on
>pure luck.....I went through life being at least a little bit cognizant of
>the things going on around me, and only taking chances when I was fully
>aware of the risk-reward curves involved.

You sound like a timid mouse. Stay on your farm in Kansas and don't
even go into town, you might meet a foreigner.


> The idiots at the airports aren't the only reason why I don't do much
>air traveling.....Being universally hated by most of the world has also done
>its little bit in molding my decision too. Why go and spend my hard earned
>money where people treat me like s***?

See? You have limited your life so much out of your irrational fears
that you don't even know what the world is like. People don't hate
*Americans* in most of the world. Americans are welcomed and treated
warmly. It's the *government* and US foreign policy that they don't
like. But they know the difference between the government and the
people.

And they know that the liberal, enlightened people who tend to travel
are not the kind of Americans that elected the current regime. The
ones who sit in fear, refusing to go anywhere because they might come
across foreigners, are the ones they don't like.

Come to think of it, maybe you *should* stay home.

> I can be treated that way right here
>at home for nothing. But I have had no trouble finding people who actually
>like having me spend my money with them, and are always glad to see me come
>in through their front door.

At the John Birch Society Museum and the Timothy McVeigh Memorial?

> All in all, I am quite comfortable with my
>choices in retirement.

Yeah, me too, I guess. Stay wherever it is you are. DOn't leave the
house.
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:54:05 UTC
Permalink
"Wilbur Slice" <***@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:36:08 -0700, "William Graham"
> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Karl Perry" <***@SPAMcablespeed.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@cablespeedwa.com...
>>>
>>> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "NASA" <***@satsec.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@satsec.net...
>>>
>>> <snip - please, people: snip the non-relevant portions of posts to which
>>> you are replying!>
>>>
>>>> Yes. I gave up the idea of traveling during my retirement shortly after
>>>> 9/11. - I was wise, because I have seen things getting worse and
>>>> worse. -
>>>> I
>>>
>>> Sorry, and I am not trolling, but you are NOT being wise in giving up
>>> travel, you are giving in to the nonsense, which is in my opinion
>>> foolish.
>>>
>>> I've been flying at least monthly, on average, since 9/11 and have never
>>> had a problem taking my violin on board (haven't traveled since last
>>> Thursday ...) or with security. My average wait in security lines is
>>> about 15 minutes at SeaTac, my home airport - which is about the same as
>>> it was prior to 9/11.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that the government response to terror activity has
>>> been
>>> stupid in the extreme, but to give up travel because of your stupid
>>> government is simply masochism. To repeat: it is not an act of wisdom.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>That's easy for you to say....You are still alive.....:^)
>
> Thus proving his point.
>
>
>> With a little bad
>>luck, your remains would be scattered over a couple of dozen acres of
>>turf,
>>and you wouldn't be able to post here or anywhere else.
>
> That's *always* been true, and always will, terrorists or not. In
> fact, since there have been no terrorist hijackings since 9/11, but
> there have been quite a few crashes, terrorism ranks very low on the
> list of things that might hurt you.
>
>
>> I, on the other
>>hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means
>>that
>>I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents.
>
> And you are purposely limiting your life and not doing things that you
> might like to do, just because of some irrational fears.

Irrational? - Irrational is in the eye of the beholder. I can see the
stupidity of the policies of the people who are charged with our safety, and
it leads me to say, "thanks, but no thanks." This may be irrational to you,
but it makes perfect sense to me.


Karl is
> right - you are giving in to the nonsense and you are NOT being wise.

No. I am right. I wouldn't go on a mountain drive with a suicidal religious
nut who may decide to go and meet his maker at any time, and wouldn't balk
at taking me with him. Would you? - And, if that's the only way you can get
to see the mountains, would you berate someone for deciding to stay at home?
We all have to make choices in our lives. If travel by air is that
important to you, then that's your choice, and I would not tell you to do
otherwise. But apparently, you aren't willing to give me that same
choice....For some reason, you feel that travel by air has to be that
important to me also, and I should take the same chances that you take to
get the reward that you want, but I have little use for. - Come on, fella!
Give me the respect that I deserve. I am 71. I have a BS in Mathematics, and
have been an engineer all of my life. - I know what I want, and what I am
willing to give for it.


>
>> Oh, sure, I might
>>just have been lucky too, but at least I can say that I didn't depend on
>>pure luck.....I went through life being at least a little bit cognizant of
>>the things going on around me, and only taking chances when I was fully
>>aware of the risk-reward curves involved.
>
> You sound like a timid mouse. Stay on your farm in Kansas and don't
> even go into town, you might meet a foreigner.

Yes, I need to go to Paris, and be insulted by some French cab driver.......

>
>
>> The idiots at the airports aren't the only reason why I don't do much
>>air traveling.....Being universally hated by most of the world has also
>>done
>>its little bit in molding my decision too. Why go and spend my hard earned
>>money where people treat me like s***?
>
> See? You have limited your life so much out of your irrational fears
> that you don't even know what the world is like. People don't hate
> *Americans* in most of the world. Americans are welcomed and treated
> warmly. It's the *government* and US foreign policy that they don't
> like. But they know the difference between the government and the
> people.

And I am supposed to take your word for this because?

>
> And they know that the liberal, enlightened people who tend to travel
> are not the kind of Americans that elected the current regime.

And your statistics that prove only Democrats are the ones who travel are?

The
> ones who sit in fear, refusing to go anywhere because they might come
> across foreigners, are the ones they don't like.

How can that be? - If we stay at home, then they never meet us.......The
hole you are digging gets deeper and deeper......


>
> Come to think of it, maybe you *should* stay home.

Well, thanks for that, anyway........

>
>> I can be treated that way right here
>>at home for nothing. But I have had no trouble finding people who actually
>>like having me spend my money with them, and are always glad to see me
>>come
>>in through their front door.
>
> At the John Birch Society Museum and the Timothy McVeigh Memorial?


You've been reading my mail........


>
>> All in all, I am quite comfortable with my
>>choices in retirement.
>
> Yeah, me too, I guess. Stay wherever it is you are. DOn't leave the
> house.
>
>
If I do, I'll be sure and ask for your permission.....
St. John Smythe
2006-08-16 13:53:20 UTC
Permalink
William Graham wrote:
> I, on the other
> hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means that
> I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents.

If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about
flying, and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.

--
St. John
Yinkel, n.:
A person who combs his hair over his bald spot, hoping no one
will notice.
-Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
William Graham
2006-08-16 20:00:09 UTC
Permalink
"St. John Smythe" <***@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:ebv80g$7bi$***@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> I, on the other hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my
>> life. that means that I don't like putting my life in the hands of
>> incompetents.
>
> If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
> flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about flying,
> and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.
>
You may have hit the nail on the head here....Many of my favorite
personalities have died in their own planes/helicopters....for some reason,
as soon as these people get their hands on a little money, they run out and
buy their own airplanes and fly them into the ground. Buddy Holley, John
Denver, Ricky Nelson....the list goes on and on. As I say, you pays your
money, and you takes your choice.....I can find lots to do here in the US. -
but don't let me slow you down.....Have a nice trip!
Pete Greenwood
2006-08-16 20:20:20 UTC
Permalink
"William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...

<snip>

>Many of my favorite personalities have died in their own
>planes/helicopters....for some reason, as soon as these people get their
>hands on a little money, they run out and buy their own airplanes and fly
>them into the ground. Buddy Holley, John Denver, Ricky Nelson....the list
>goes on and on.

<snip>

[x-posted groups trimmed]

Of the three names you mention, only John Denver died piloting his own
aircraft.
St. John Smythe
2006-08-16 20:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Pete Greenwood wrote:

> Of the three names you mention, only John Denver died piloting his own
> aircraft.

...and none of them was on scheduled airline flight.

--
St. John
court, n.:
A place where they dispense with justice.
-Arthur Train
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 21:08:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:00:09 -0700, "William Graham"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"St. John Smythe" <***@n4vu.com> wrote in message
>news:ebv80g$7bi$***@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
>> William Graham wrote:
>>> I, on the other hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my
>>> life. that means that I don't like putting my life in the hands of
>>> incompetents.
>>
>> If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
>> flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about flying,
>> and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.
>>
>You may have hit the nail on the head here....Many of my favorite
>personalities have died in their own planes/helicopters....for some reason,
>as soon as these people get their hands on a little money, they run out and
>buy their own airplanes and fly them into the ground. Buddy Holley, John
>Denver, Ricky Nelson....the list goes on and on.

What? Buddy Holly and Ricky Nelson weren't piloting their airplanes,
they were chartered planes with professional pilots taking them
between gigs. John Denver *was* piloting his own plane.

> As I say, you pays your
>money, and you takes your choice.....I can find lots to do here in the US. -
>but don't let me slow you down.....Have a nice trip!
>
Carl Witthoft
2006-08-16 21:11:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <ebv80g$7bi$***@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
"St. John Smythe" <***@n4vu.com> wrote:

> William Graham wrote:
> > I, on the other
> > hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means
> > that
> > I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents.
>
> If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
> flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about
> flying, and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.

Actually my quite rational fear is that those mutton-heads masquerading
as security at the airports will take away personal belongings (such as
car keys, USB flash drives, spare strings, and I guess toothpaste as
well).

I see absolutely no reason to put myself into a high-risk situation
unless it's critically necessary. And I'm referring to the airport
screening, not the flight itself.
William Graham
2006-08-16 21:26:05 UTC
Permalink
"Carl Witthoft" <***@witthoft.com> wrote in message
news:carl-***@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <ebv80g$7bi$***@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
> "St. John Smythe" <***@n4vu.com> wrote:
>
>> William Graham wrote:
>> > I, on the other
>> > hand, am one who has played the percentages most of my life. that means
>> > that
>> > I don't like putting my life in the hands of incompetents.
>>
>> If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
>> flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about
>> flying, and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.
>
> Actually my quite rational fear is that those mutton-heads masquerading
> as security at the airports will take away personal belongings (such as
> car keys, USB flash drives, spare strings, and I guess toothpaste as
> well).
>
> I see absolutely no reason to put myself into a high-risk situation
> unless it's critically necessary. And I'm referring to the airport
> screening, not the flight itself.

Yes. On another list, the trumpet player had to put his good horn on his
checked luggage, and they destroyed it. He sued the airline, and lost. - I
wouldn't trust anything really valuable to their checked baggage system, so
if I can't put it in my carry-on, then I'm not going. The new rules exclude
brass instruments from carry on luggage. I am lucky. I don't have to fly
anywhere, so I choose not to. If I were a pro, and had to travel by air,
then I don't know what I would do. I guess you could ship your horns
separately to local people you knew who were already there, such as
orchestra leaders, and the like. But it would be a pain. And, since it is so
easy to inspect a horn and see that it isn't a bomb, it is really so
unnecessary. People deserve what they get, if they don't protest. At the
very least, I protest.
John F
2006-08-18 17:31:52 UTC
Permalink
The airlines have long favoured the comparison between deaths per miles
traveled, in which they come off rather well compared to motor vehicles.
If the comparison is made in deaths per journey, air travel comes in
somewhere between cars and motor-cycles - not so great, but then the
average person does not fly very often.


John F





St. John Smythe wrote:


>
> If you're as rational as you claim to be, you'll give up driving, not
> flying. It sounds as though down deep you're really anxious about
> flying, and have now found a convenient excuse to avoid it.
>
William Graham
2006-08-16 04:15:28 UTC
Permalink
"Karl Perry" <***@SPAMcablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:***@cablespeedwa.com...
>
> "William Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message

Here is the link that shows that they singled out brass instruments for
different treatment.....
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1235.shtm
William Graham
2006-08-16 04:34:18 UTC
Permalink
This is the acknowledgement I received from the TSA after complaining that
trumpets can't be brought on board in your "carry-on" luggage......

I will forward any answer I get to the list......

----- Original Message -----
From: <***@tsa.dot.gov>
To: <***@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: Customer Service Feedback


Thank you for your inquiry. The following information has been submitted.

__________________________________________

User Name:
William E. Graham

User Email:
***@comcast.net
__________________________________________

To:
tsa.ocr-***@dhs.gov

Category:
Complaints

Sub Category:
Civil Rights

Message:
Why are "brass instruments" treated differently than violins and other
instruments? - My cornet is smaller than a violin, and any idiot could see
in about one minute that it isn't a bomb. All they would have to do is ask
me to play a scale for them and they would know immediately that it
contained nothing but airport air. - It's stupid decisions like this that
are the reason why my wife and I haven't traveled anywhere by air during our
retirement. It's the only way we can protest....By keeping our money in our
pockets.........

__________________________________________
Date and Time of message: 8/16/2006 12:24:29 AM
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 18:44:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:18 -0700, "William Graham"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>This is the acknowledgement I received from the TSA after complaining that
>trumpets can't be brought on board in your "carry-on" luggage......


You haven't traveled anywhere since your retirement because they won't
let you carry a trumpet on board?

Really?


>
>I will forward any answer I get to the list......
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <***@tsa.dot.gov>
>To: <***@comcast.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:24 PM
>Subject: Customer Service Feedback
>
>
>Thank you for your inquiry. The following information has been submitted.
>
>__________________________________________
>
>User Name:
>William E. Graham
>
>User Email:
>***@comcast.net
>__________________________________________
>
>To:
>tsa.ocr-***@dhs.gov
>
>Category:
>Complaints
>
>Sub Category:
>Civil Rights
>
>Message:
>Why are "brass instruments" treated differently than violins and other
>instruments? - My cornet is smaller than a violin, and any idiot could see
>in about one minute that it isn't a bomb. All they would have to do is ask
>me to play a scale for them and they would know immediately that it
>contained nothing but airport air. - It's stupid decisions like this that
>are the reason why my wife and I haven't traveled anywhere by air during our
>retirement. It's the only way we can protest....By keeping our money in our
>pockets.........
>
>__________________________________________
>Date and Time of message: 8/16/2006 12:24:29 AM
>
>
William Graham
2006-08-16 20:02:50 UTC
Permalink
"Wilbur Slice" <***@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:18 -0700, "William Graham"
> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>This is the acknowledgement I received from the TSA after complaining that
>>trumpets can't be brought on board in your "carry-on" luggage......
>
>
> You haven't traveled anywhere since your retirement because they won't
> let you carry a trumpet on board?
>
> Really?

Now, where did I say that?

I haven't flown anywhere because the Air Transportation Safety Board
policies are very stupid, and I don't want to put my life in the hands of
stupid people. - Is that statement plain enough for you?
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 21:10:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:02:50 -0700, "William Graham"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Wilbur Slice" <***@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:18 -0700, "William Graham"
>> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>This is the acknowledgement I received from the TSA after complaining that
>>>trumpets can't be brought on board in your "carry-on" luggage......
>>
>>
>> You haven't traveled anywhere since your retirement because they won't
>> let you carry a trumpet on board?
>>
>> Really?
>
>Now, where did I say that?

Here's what you said you wrote to the TSA:


Why are "brass instruments" treated differently than violins and other
instruments? - My cornet is smaller than a violin, and any idiot could
see in about one minute that it isn't a bomb. All they would have to
do is ask me to play a scale for them and they would know immediately
that it contained nothing but airport air. - It's stupid decisions
like this that are the reason why my wife and I haven't traveled
anywhere by air during our retirement.


>
>I haven't flown anywhere because the Air Transportation Safety Board
>policies are very stupid, and I don't want to put my life in the hands of
>stupid people. - Is that statement plain enough for you?

Yes, it is. You have an irrational fear of flying based on people who
not only are not going to be flying your planes, but they will not
even be *on* the plane you're flying on.
William Graham
2006-08-16 21:14:05 UTC
Permalink
"Wilbur Slice" <***@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:02:50 -0700, "William Graham"
> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wilbur Slice" <***@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:18 -0700, "William Graham"
>>> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is the acknowledgement I received from the TSA after complaining
>>>>that
>>>>trumpets can't be brought on board in your "carry-on" luggage......
>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't traveled anywhere since your retirement because they won't
>>> let you carry a trumpet on board?
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>>Now, where did I say that?
>
> Here's what you said you wrote to the TSA:
>
>
> Why are "brass instruments" treated differently than violins and other
> instruments? - My cornet is smaller than a violin, and any idiot could
> see in about one minute that it isn't a bomb. All they would have to
> do is ask me to play a scale for them and they would know immediately
> that it contained nothing but airport air. - It's stupid decisions
> like this that are the reason why my wife and I haven't traveled
> anywhere by air during our retirement.
>
>
>>
>>I haven't flown anywhere because the Air Transportation Safety Board
>>policies are very stupid, and I don't want to put my life in the hands of
>>stupid people. - Is that statement plain enough for you?
>
> Yes, it is. You have an irrational fear of flying based on people who
> not only are not going to be flying your planes, but they will not
> even be *on* the plane you're flying on.
>
Fine. You can read it the way you want to read it. I suggest you carry on
this argument with your little sister.....In any case, this conversation
ends here.
Mike Brown
2006-08-16 07:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:

> techfiddle wrote:
>
>>NY Times:
>>
>>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>
>
>
> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> specific group
> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> An 80 year
> old grandmother is just not a risk.
>
> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>
> How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>
> Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>
> Bob
>

I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).

However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups could
be terrorists.

Could be.

Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
children and women.

Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.

MJRB
Beach Runner
2006-08-16 11:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Mike Brown wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
> > techfiddle wrote:
> >
> >>NY Times:
> >>
> >>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
> >>
> >
> >
> > Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> > specific group
> > of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> > An 80 year
> > old grandmother is just not a risk.
> >
> > I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
> >
> > How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> > are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
> >
> > Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>
> However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups could
> be terrorists.
>
> Could be.
>
> Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
> children and women.
>
> Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.
>
> MJRB

Deal with percentages and resources. We don't want to re-live the
Vietnam
war, but this is not remotely related. The US was in a foreign nation
during
a civil war, fighting for a corrupt dictatorship. You can't compare
that to a
group of insane extremists.

You have let them win by cowering in fear.
Mike Brown
2006-08-16 11:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:

> Mike Brown wrote:
>
>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>techfiddle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>NY Times:
>>>>
>>>>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>>>specific group
>>>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>>>An 80 year
>>>old grandmother is just not a risk.
>>>
>>>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>>>
>>>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
>>>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>>>
>>>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>
>>I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>>
>>However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups could
>>be terrorists.
>>
>>Could be.
>>
>>Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
>>children and women.
>>
>>Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.
>>
>>MJRB
>
>
> Deal with percentages and resources. We don't want to re-live the
> Vietnam war, but this is not remotely related. The US was in a foreign nation
> during a civil war, fighting for a corrupt dictatorship. You can't compare
> that to a group of insane extremists.

Really. Explain the difference between the Vietnamese civilians
resisting military agression, and the assorted Eastern civilians
resisting military agression, both using the guerilla tactics that are
normal in any theatre of war now, and the US is still a foreign nation
interfering in the affairs of other countries now.

There is really very little difference between this type of action, and
the action of the resistance in the occupied countries in WWII, the
people are reacting to the behaviour of an foreign armed aggressor.

Covert action is their method.

I'm not discussing the moral aspect of any of this, or defending their
actions, just examining the cold everyday reality that is facing all of us.

>
> You have let them win by cowering in fear.

Not fear, just a healthy sense of self preservation.
>

MJRB

P.S.

Damn, involved in politics again, swore I wasn't going to do this.
Beach Runner
2006-08-16 13:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Mike Brown wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
> > Mike Brown wrote:
> >
> >>Beach Runner wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>techfiddle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>NY Times:
> >>>>
> >>>>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> >>>specific group
> >>>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> >>>An 80 year
> >>>old grandmother is just not a risk.
> >>>
> >>>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
> >>>
> >>>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> >>>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
> >>>
> >>>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
> >>>
> >>>Bob
> >>>
> >>
> >>I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
> >>
> >>However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups could
> >>be terrorists.
> >>
> >>Could be.
> >>
> >>Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
> >>children and women.
> >>
> >>Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.
> >>
> >>MJRB
> >
> >
> > Deal with percentages and resources. We don't want to re-live the
> > Vietnam war, but this is not remotely related. The US was in a foreign nation
> > during a civil war, fighting for a corrupt dictatorship. You can't compare
> > that to a group of insane extremists.
>
> Really. Explain the difference between the Vietnamese civilians
> resisting military agression, and the assorted Eastern civilians
> resisting military agression, both using the guerilla tactics that are
> normal in any theatre of war now, and the US is still a foreign nation
> interfering in the affairs of other countries now.
>
> There is really very little difference between this type of action, and
> the action of the resistance in the occupied countries in WWII, the
> people are reacting to the behaviour of an foreign armed aggressor.
>
> Covert action is their method.
>
> I'm not discussing the moral aspect of any of this, or defending their
> actions, just examining the cold everyday reality that is facing all of us.
>
> >
> > You have let them win by cowering in fear.
>
> Not fear, just a healthy sense of self preservation.
> >
>
> MJRB
>
> P.S.
>
> Damn, involved in politics again, swore I wasn't going to do this.

Mike,

Your reaction is a result of hype.

By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
even close is
traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.

The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.

Hype and reality don't correspond.

There are a very focused group that are a real danger. Maybe this will
change one day,
but that is how it is now. El Al focuses on behavior, which makes a
lot more sense.

Now lets talk about other real dangers.

Eating steak and other similar foods will lead to heart disease.

Drinking soda with phosphoric acid will lead to osteoporosis. It is
real chance you
will break a hip and this will lead to your death.

Going to the hospital, you could catch an antibiotic resistant
bacteria.

Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
span in the world.
The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 13:53:31 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>Mike,
>
>Your reaction is a result of hype.
>
>By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
>even close is
>traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
>
>The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
>
>Hype and reality don't correspond.

<snip>

>
>Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
>span in the world.
>The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.

That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
elevators.
Beach Runner
2006-08-16 14:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Mike,
> >
> >Your reaction is a result of hype.
> >
> >By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
> >even close is
> >traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
> >
> >The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
> >
> >Hype and reality don't correspond.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
> >span in the world.
> >The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
>
> That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
> elevators.

Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
buildings.
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 18:14:36 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Aug 2006 07:15:05 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>> On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Mike,
>> >
>> >Your reaction is a result of hype.
>> >
>> >By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
>> >even close is
>> >traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
>> >
>> >The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
>> >
>> >Hype and reality don't correspond.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> >Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
>> >span in the world.
>> >The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
>>
>> That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
>> elevators.
>
>Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
>remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
>buildings.


Uhhh... the point was: if the buildings are 1 or 2 stories, there
won't be elevators in them.

Oh, nevermind, it was just a joke. And if you have to explain a joke,
it loses whatever humor it might have had...

Besides, how many buildings are so tall they need a mile-high elevator
anyway?
Beach Runner
2006-08-17 11:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 07:15:05 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Wilbur Slice wrote:
> >> On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Mike,
> >> >
> >> >Your reaction is a result of hype.
> >> >
> >> >By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
> >> >even close is
> >> >traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
> >> >
> >> >The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
> >> >
> >> >Hype and reality don't correspond.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
> >> >span in the world.
> >> >The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
> >>
> >> That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
> >> elevators.
> >
> >Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
> >remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
> >buildings.
>
>
> Uhhh... the point was: if the buildings are 1 or 2 stories, there
> won't be elevators in them.
>
> Oh, nevermind, it was just a joke. And if you have to explain a joke,
> it loses whatever humor it might have had...
>
> Besides, how many buildings are so tall they need a mile-high elevator
> anyway?

If you go to Brooklyn or other area, may 2 or three stories buildings
have
old elevators in them. Many have not had their required maintenance.
But they were dangerous when they were put in.

The point is, people are terrified of a very low risk behavior, plan
flying,
Have no problem with driving cars, a very real risk, and give hardly a
thought
to getting on an elevator.

The main point is this shows the threat is blown all out of proportion.
When
the US gives in to them, the Terrorists have taken away our security
and freedom,
while they are laughing at our stupidity.

It also shows them they can put our economy and life style in crisis.
Mike Brown
2006-08-17 12:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:

> Wilbur Slice wrote:
>
>>On 16 Aug 2006 07:15:05 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>Your reaction is a result of hype.
>>>>>
>>>>>By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
>>>>>even close is
>>>>>traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>>The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hype and reality don't correspond.
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
>>>>>span in the world.
>>>>>The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
>>>>
>>>>That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
>>>>elevators.
>>>
>>>Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
>>>remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
>>>buildings.
>>
>>
>>Uhhh... the point was: if the buildings are 1 or 2 stories, there
>>won't be elevators in them.
>>
>>Oh, nevermind, it was just a joke. And if you have to explain a joke,
>>it loses whatever humor it might have had...
>>
>>Besides, how many buildings are so tall they need a mile-high elevator
>>anyway?
>
>
> If you go to Brooklyn or other area, may 2 or three stories buildings
> have
> old elevators in them. Many have not had their required maintenance.
> But they were dangerous when they were put in.
>
> The point is, people are terrified of a very low risk behavior, plan
> flying,
> Have no problem with driving cars, a very real risk, and give hardly a
> thought
> to getting on an elevator.
>
> The main point is this shows the threat is blown all out of proportion.
> When
> the US gives in to them, the Terrorists have taken away our security
> and freedom,
> while they are laughing at our stupidity.
>
> It also shows them they can put our economy and life style in crisis.
>


Oh for the "good old days" when we could walk everywhere, had to walk
everywhere or ride a bicycle, no lifts (elevators to you) so stairs were
popular if you had more than one level in your home (not many did).

In the village where I grew up there were only two cars, the deliveries
were by horse and cart, and us rich kids had bicycles (second hand of
course).

Bloody airoplanes.

Bah humbug.

MJRB
The World Wide Wade
2006-08-17 20:57:40 UTC
Permalink
In article
<***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
> > elevators.
>
> Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
> remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
> buildings.

Can you point me to a source for this claim?
Beach Runner
2006-08-16 14:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Mike,
> >
> >Your reaction is a result of hype.
> >
> >By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with nothing
> >even close is
> >traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
> >
> >The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
> >
> >Hype and reality don't correspond.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
> >span in the world.
> >The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
>
> That's because we have a lot more tall buildings. Thus, more
> elevators.

Read again. The most dangerous form of transportation PER MILE
remains elevators. It has nothing to do with the number of tall
buildings.
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:17:56 UTC
Permalink
"Mike Brown" <***@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:44e306c5$***@news.chariot.net.au...
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Mike Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>techfiddle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NY Times:
>>>>>
>>>>>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>>>>specific group
>>>>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>>>>An 80 year
>>>>old grandmother is just not a risk.
>>>>
>>>>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>>>>
>>>>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
>>>>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>>>>
>>>>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>>>>
>>>>Bob
>>>>
>>>
>>>I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>>>
>>>However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups could
>>>be terrorists.
>>>
>>>Could be.
>>>
>>>Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
>>>children and women.
>>>
>>>Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.
>>>
>>>MJRB
>>
>>
>> Deal with percentages and resources. We don't want to re-live the
>> Vietnam war, but this is not remotely related. The US was in a foreign
>> nation
>> during a civil war, fighting for a corrupt dictatorship. You can't
>> compare
>> that to a group of insane extremists.
>
> Really. Explain the difference between the Vietnamese civilians resisting
> military agression, and the assorted Eastern civilians resisting military
> agression, both using the guerilla tactics that are normal in any theatre
> of war now, and the US is still a foreign nation interfering in the
> affairs of other countries now.
>
> There is really very little difference between this type of action, and
> the action of the resistance in the occupied countries in WWII, the people
> are reacting to the behaviour of an foreign armed aggressor.
>
> Covert action is their method.
>
> I'm not discussing the moral aspect of any of this, or defending their
> actions, just examining the cold everyday reality that is facing all of
> us.
>
>>
>> You have let them win by cowering in fear.
>
> Not fear, just a healthy sense of self preservation.
>>
There is a big difference. Between adults who are nationally minded, and
insane children who have been taught that the only way into heaven and 72
virgins is to carry out a suicide mission. The insurgents after WW-II
changed their minds when they saw the good being done by the occupation
forces, but these religious nuts will never change their "minds", and there
is an endless supply of new brain washed children waiting in line for their
turn at dying for Allah.....
a***@contractorcom.com
2006-08-16 20:40:01 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Aug 2006 16:46:45 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>techfiddle wrote:
>> NY Times:
>>
>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>
>
>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>specific group
>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>An 80 year
>old grandmother is just not a risk.
>
>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>
>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>
>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>
>Bob

I'm not at all sure about the line about terrorists being female. If
you had said that the people driving the terrorist bombings were
mostly male than I would agree, but the majority of suicide bombers in
the Middle East have been teenage girls.

They get coerced into it. I remember an interview with one (who
failed, thankfully) and the interviewer asked her what she expected
after she had blown herself up, thinking she would say that she would
expect a life of glory in heaven afterwards.

She said that she expected to be scraped off the streets and put into
a bin-bag and forgotten about. The fervour of the men in her family
and the total lack of respect or influence she suffered was enough for
her to think there was no point in putting up with it any longer.

Consequently (at the age of 17) she was prepared to blow herself up
and put an end to it. There have been many like her - not terrorists,
not wanted, either.

Pete
Wilbur Slice
2006-08-16 21:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:40:01 GMT, ***@contractorcom.com wrote:

>On 15 Aug 2006 16:46:45 -0700, "Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>techfiddle wrote:
>>> NY Times:
>>>
>>> Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?th&emc=th
>>>
>>
>>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>>specific group
>>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
>>An 80 year
>>old grandmother is just not a risk.
>>
>>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>>
>>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
>>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>>
>>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>>
>>Bob
>
>I'm not at all sure about the line about terrorists being female. If
>you had said that the people driving the terrorist bombings were
>mostly male than I would agree, but the majority of suicide bombers in
>the Middle East have been teenage girls.

Not the majority. A *few* have been female, but it's still pretty
rare and newsworthy when it happens.
Michael Horsch
2006-08-18 16:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Beach Runner wrote:
>
> Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
> specific group
> of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a risk.
> An 80 year
> old grandmother is just not a risk.
>
> I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>
> How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
> are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.

Anyone can be the target of extortion or threats. Even just
charm, friendliness. If you leave a group out for any reason
they are more likely to be targetted by the bad guys. A "mule"
doesn't necessarily have any radical violent ideologies.

Mike
--
Mind your Ps and Qs, and you can reach me by email.
bill
2006-08-16 12:05:08 UTC
Permalink
this ban - if it sticks - could prove to be a real boon for clothing
designers. the only instrument i would consider traveling with is a
recorder or my charango ... might bring my pipes as well ...

... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
boarding?

- bill

Doc wrote:
> Or, "Banned Band Instruments"
>
> Have any of you felt the impact of this? So now you're forced to hand your
> often very expensive (and often highly sentimentally valued) axe over to
> knuckledraggin, luggage losin', notorious for thievin' baggage handlers?
>
> How are extremely valuable instruments - like Stradivarius, Guarneri violins
> etc. normally transported?
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4784225.stm
David Mason
2006-08-16 12:29:20 UTC
Permalink
"bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> this ban - if it sticks - could prove to be a real boon for clothing
> designers. the only instrument i would consider traveling with is a
> recorder or my charango ... might bring my pipes as well ...
>
> ... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
> into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
> out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
> stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
> boarding?

Spinal Tap.......



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
bill
2006-08-16 18:39:03 UTC
Permalink
i know of the film but haven't seen it.

someone mentioned earlier about how unreasonable it was that little old
ladies and mothers with children are given the same scrutiny as
youngish males of middleastern origin ... all it takes is one,
middle-aged, suicidal white guy in a brooksbrother's suit, striped tie
and wing-tip shoes who thinks he can provide for his family and avoid
financial ruin by selling his soul to al qaeda. we live, alas, in
interesting times.

- bill

David Mason wrote:
> "bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
> news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > this ban - if it sticks - could prove to be a real boon for clothing
> > designers. the only instrument i would consider traveling with is a
> > recorder or my charango ... might bring my pipes as well ...
> >
> > ... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
> > into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
> > out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
> > stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
> > boarding?
>
> Spinal Tap.......
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
St. John Smythe
2006-08-16 18:42:46 UTC
Permalink
bill wrote:
> someone mentioned earlier about how unreasonable it was that little old
> ladies and mothers with children are given the same scrutiny as
> youngish males of middleastern origin ... all it takes is one,
> middle-aged, suicidal white guy in a brooksbrother's suit...

You're making the other guy's point. The fellow in the Brooks Brothers
suit is neither a little old lady nor a mother with children.

--
St. John
The questions remain the same. The answers are eternally variable.
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:37:38 UTC
Permalink
"bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:***@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>i know of the film but haven't seen it.
>
> someone mentioned earlier about how unreasonable it was that little old
> ladies and mothers with children are given the same scrutiny as
> youngish males of middleastern origin ... all it takes is one,
> middle-aged, suicidal white guy in a brooksbrother's suit, striped tie
> and wing-tip shoes who thinks he can provide for his family and avoid
> financial ruin by selling his soul to al qaeda. we live, alas, in
> interesting times.
>
> - bill

But he still wouldn't be a little old lady with her grandchild.......Common
sense is all we ask.....just a little common sense. If you only have time to
do a thorough search on 50% of the passengers on any particular flight, then
skip the little old ladies with their grandchildren and concentrate on the
healthy men between the ages of 17 and 57........
David Mason
2006-08-17 10:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Essential viewing for all guitarists, one of the funniest films ever made.

Dave

"bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:***@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>i know of the film but haven't seen it.
>
> David Mason wrote:
>> "bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
>> news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > ... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
>> > into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
>> > out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
>> > stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
>> > boarding?
>>
>> Spinal Tap.......



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
William Graham
2006-08-16 19:33:21 UTC
Permalink
"bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> this ban - if it sticks - could prove to be a real boon for clothing
> designers. the only instrument i would consider traveling with is a
> recorder or my charango ... might bring my pipes as well ...
>
> ... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
> into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
> out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
> stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
> boarding?
>
> - bill

Hiding anything metal doesn't work. However, it might be possible to make a
perfectly great sounding horn out of hard wood, or plastic, or ceramic, or
some other exotic material, or some combination of same.....
bill
2006-08-16 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
i take your point but i wouldn't want to hide my charango ... pipes ..
or recorder - what i would like to to do is make its physical presence
so much a part of me that they would have to seriously consider asking
me to take off my trousers off before i'd be considered "safe" to board
the plane.

they - security people - did a job on my 80 year old mother recently
and i can't quite see how they or anyone else could possibly consider
her or anyone else of her age and ilk to be anything like a security
risk. if my mother or yours is suspect ... who or what is safe? ...
what can be considered as "safe" under these conditions ... what must
we do?

there's an element of "the crucible" about this whole proceedure - a
time for paranoids. i appreciate that labeling security staff at
airports as paranoids might belittle a serious situation but there's a
huge difference between what is "possible" and what is "probable."

is it possible that someone carrying a musical instrument on board an
airplane is a security risk? yes, i suppose it's possible ... but is
it probable - does the instrument somehow make the person more of a
risk than someone carrying a loose-leaf book binder or fingernail
clippers or a ball point pen?

more to the point ... what's going to happen when "snakes on a plane"
starts playing at our local cinemas? if - like beefeaters of old -
nursing mothers are now asked for security reasons to take a swig of
their baby's formula before boarding a plane, just to prove that
they're not going to ignite it en route, what primordial fears will be
invoked in the minds of security minded people with "snakes?"

avoiding anyone in uniform - especially those with ironed creases on
their shirt sleeves - bill


William Graham wrote:
> "bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
> news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > this ban - if it sticks - could prove to be a real boon for clothing
> > designers. the only instrument i would consider traveling with is a
> > recorder or my charango ... might bring my pipes as well ...
> >
> > ... how about a jodpur shaped pair of trousers with the instrument sewn
> > into one of the padded pouches or a highly impressive codpiece jutting
> > out as you lean awkwardly against the ticket counter at check-in or
> > stride manfully towards the addled looking flight attendents at
> > boarding?
> >
> > - bill
>
> Hiding anything metal doesn't work. However, it might be possible to make a
> perfectly great sounding horn out of hard wood, or plastic, or ceramic, or
> some other exotic material, or some combination of same.....
William Graham
2006-08-16 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
"bill" <***@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>i take your point but i wouldn't want to hide my charango ... pipes ..
> or recorder - what i would like to to do is make its physical presence
> so much a part of me that they would have to seriously consider asking
> me to take off my trousers off before i'd be considered "safe" to board
> the plane.
>
> they - security people - did a job on my 80 year old mother recently
> and i can't quite see how they or anyone else could possibly consider
> her or anyone else of her age and ilk to be anything like a security
> risk. if my mother or yours is suspect ... who or what is safe? ...
> what can be considered as "safe" under these conditions ... what must
> we do?
>
> there's an element of "the crucible" about this whole proceedure - a
> time for paranoids. i appreciate that labeling security staff at
> airports as paranoids might belittle a serious situation but there's a
> huge difference between what is "possible" and what is "probable."
>
> is it possible that someone carrying a musical instrument on board an
> airplane is a security risk? yes, i suppose it's possible ... but is
> it probable - does the instrument somehow make the person more of a
> risk than someone carrying a loose-leaf book binder or fingernail
> clippers or a ball point pen?
>
> more to the point ... what's going to happen when "snakes on a plane"
> starts playing at our local cinemas? if - like beefeaters of old -
> nursing mothers are now asked for security reasons to take a swig of
> their baby's formula before boarding a plane, just to prove that
> they're not going to ignite it en route, what primordial fears will be
> invoked in the minds of security minded people with "snakes?"
>
> avoiding anyone in uniform - especially those with ironed creases on
> their shirt sleeves - bill

Yes. If there was time and ability to check everyone thoroughly, then there
would be no problem. But there is not, so the checkers must be selective. So
they select a mother carrying a baby instead of a young man of middle
eastern origin. this is stupid. If you were going to give up your life to
destroy a planeload of innocents for Allah, why wouldn't you take a sip of a
poisonous explosive if asked by a baggage inspector? Surely this slight
discomfort would be minor compared to giving up your life a half hour
later.......It's the stupidity that I hate, and refuse to be complicit in.
It's the baggage inspector that should be sipping the infant formulae, and
not the young woman carrying it.
How about this: - I practice swallowing a bag of nitro glycerin, and
regurgitating it an hour later.....Harry Houdini style. So then I do so, and
regurgitate it later in the airplane rest room, and set it off, breaking the
plane in half at the rest room point. (wherever that is) How are the airport
police going to stop that? Wouldn't it be better to find out well in advance
that I am an atheist and not a Muslim, and am expected to perform on stage
in another town the following day, and just let me get on the plane with my
horn and leave me alone? The British police just uncovered a plot to blow up
a dozen or so planes over the Atlantic. They didn't do this by inspecting
everyone's stomachs. They did it through cleaver ground work by undercover
agents working in the Muslim community. What a refreshing idea! The
Americans, when they heard about it, didn't put their own undercover agents
in their own Muslim communities. What they did was to disallow anything
liquid coming on any of their airplanes, because the plotters were going to
use that particular method of bombing the planes.....Now isn't that stupid?
Nomen Nescio
2006-08-17 03:01:28 UTC
Permalink
"Beach Runner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

>
> Mike Brown wrote:
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>> > Mike Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >>Beach Runner wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>techfiddle wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>NY Times:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Tighter Security Is Jeopardizing Orchestra Tours
>> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15tour.html?
th&emc=th
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Let's deal with reality. Everyone is the victim because of very
>> >>>specific group
>> >>>of terrorists. Let's face it, a professional orchestra is not a
>> >>>risk. An 80 year
>> >>>old grandmother is just not a risk.
>> >>>
>> >>>I'm very liberal minded, but we have to use some common sense.
>> >>>
>> >>>How many of the wanted terrorists are female? None. How many
>> >>>are grandmothers? None. How big a threat is an orchestra? None.
>> >>>
>> >>>Time to put some common sense or the terrorists have won big time.
>> >>>
>> >>>Bob
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not
>> >>impossible).
>> >>
>> >>However, I believe that any passengers, either alone or in groups
>> >>could be terrorists.
>> >>
>> >>Could be.
>> >>
>> >>Talk to some of the Vietnam vets who had grenades thrown by small
>> >>children and women.
>> >>
>> >>Age and gender is no guarantee of inocence.
>> >>
>> >>MJRB
>> >
>> >
>> > Deal with percentages and resources. We don't want to re-live the
>> > Vietnam war, but this is not remotely related. The US was in a
>> > foreign nation during a civil war, fighting for a corrupt
>> > dictatorship. You can't compare that to a group of insane
>> > extremists.
>>
>> Really. Explain the difference between the Vietnamese civilians
>> resisting military agression, and the assorted Eastern civilians
>> resisting military agression, both using the guerilla tactics that
>> are normal in any theatre of war now, and the US is still a foreign
>> nation interfering in the affairs of other countries now.
>>
>> There is really very little difference between this type of action,
>> and the action of the resistance in the occupied countries in WWII,
>> the people are reacting to the behaviour of an foreign armed
>> aggressor.
>>
>> Covert action is their method.
>>
>> I'm not discussing the moral aspect of any of this, or defending
>> their actions, just examining the cold everyday reality that is
>> facing all of us.
>>
>> >
>> > You have let them win by cowering in fear.
>>
>> Not fear, just a healthy sense of self preservation.
>> >
>>
>> MJRB
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> Damn, involved in politics again, swore I wasn't going to do this.
>
> Mike,
>
> Your reaction is a result of hype.
>
> By far, the most dangerous form of transportation per mile,with
> nothing even close is
> traveling by elevator. Now that's dangerous.
>
> The safest form of transportation per mile? Roller coasters.
>
> Hype and reality don't correspond.
>
> There are a very focused group that are a real danger. Maybe this will
> change one day,
> but that is how it is now. El Al focuses on behavior, which makes a
> lot more sense.
>
> Now lets talk about other real dangers.
>
> Eating steak and other similar foods will lead to heart disease.
>
> Drinking soda with phosphoric acid will lead to osteoporosis. It is
> real chance you
> will break a hip and this will lead to your death.
>
> Going to the hospital, you could catch an antibiotic resistant
> bacteria.
>
> Once again, compare the US to Israel. Israel has the 7th longest life
> span in the world.
> The United States 25th. That should put things into perspective.
>
>





You could always pray to be forgiven.




Benny

--
"I have spoken to The Lord, and he has a message for all of us."
William Graham
2006-08-18 05:03:47 UTC
Permalink
"Nomen Nescio" <***@dizum.com> wrote in message >>> >>

I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).

Yes.....the Al Qeda Symphony Orchestra, Conducted by Osama Bin Laden, could
be a real threat......
Mike Brown
2006-08-18 07:39:55 UTC
Permalink
William Graham wrote:
> "Nomen Nescio" <***@dizum.com> wrote in message >>> >>
>
> I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>
> Yes.....the Al Qeda Symphony Orchestra, Conducted by Osama Bin Laden, could
> be a real threat......
>
>

Don't think of :the orchestra", the players are just ordinary people
like the rest of us, and any one of them could have any political view
you care to think of.

As I said unlikely, but not impossible.

MJRB
Chris Rockcliffe
2006-08-18 11:15:53 UTC
Permalink
William Graham18/08/2006 6:03

>
> "Nomen Nescio" <***@dizum.com> wrote in message >>> >>
>
> I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>
> Yes.....the Al Qeda Symphony Orchestra, Conducted by Osama Bin Laden, could
> be a real threat......

yeah I remember them... played Carnegie Hall - but totally bombed.

CR
David Mason
2006-08-18 12:31:43 UTC
Permalink
"Chris Rockcliffe" <***@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C10B5FF9.8B9AA%***@scripto99.demon.co.uk...
> William Graham18/08/2006 6:03
>
>>
>> "Nomen Nescio" <***@dizum.com> wrote in message >>> >>
>>
>> I agree that the orchestra is unlikely to be a risk (but not impossible).
>>
>> Yes.....the Al Qeda Symphony Orchestra, Conducted by Osama Bin Laden,
>> could
>> be a real threat......
>
> yeah I remember them... played Carnegie Hall - but totally bombed.
>

Yeah, I remember too - they did a cover of stairway to heaven, but it went
down like a lead Zepellin



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Loading...